Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2019, 04:41:28 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: On Bitcoin and externality costs  (Read 388 times)
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 770


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
May 09, 2019, 07:00:17 AM
 #1

Says who?
I say  Cool

right, and you make up your own facts

("miners broke the SHA-2 algorithm" which is demonstrably nonsense)
This is an act of trolling,  Cheesy
@Wind_Fury started it by asking for ethos instead of logus and now you are accomplishing his job by directly questioning my right to say anything about bitcoin. Very interesting.


If you say so. You have that right. I believe you would feel at home with like-minded people in the Bitcoin Cash community.

Quote

If you are mentioning my criticism about ASICs, it is indisputable. PoW is a cryptographic problem, it hates efficiency, any cryptographic scheme does. bitcoin basically was designed for owners of commodity devices with almost average efficiency who join and leave the network freely and voluntarily and pay fairly for blocks they mine:
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin whitepaer
Nodes can leave   and   rejoin   the   network   at   will,   accepting   the   proof-of-work   chain   as   proof   of   what happened while they were gone.  They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them.  Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.


But reality is different from "in theory". It didn't happen in the way Satoshi designed the network, did it? Specialization always happens, and it has happened. Just because Satoshi said something doesn't mean it's supposed to turn out that way.

Quote

I think a better practice would be making your own argument about what I said above-thread:
What is hard, the real challenge of bitcoin is improving it in consensus level such that it can accomplish its original mission as a p2p electronic cash system in a scalable fashion without compromising security and decentralization measures. Bitcoin Core developers have escalated this hurdle to an upper level by discouraging (even fighting against) hard forks. Unlike them, I don't see any reason to be such dogmatic about chain splits and hard forks, actually I see a handful of good reasons to have an overhaul every one decade or so.

As a pro you might have noticed that I'm directly questioning Buterin's claim about the existence of a trilemma and suggesting that refuting this claim is the most important job of any serious bitcoin developer and the main agenda for any development project.

What do you think?


It's your right to question, and I agree that developers should try to solve that problem, but not in Bitcoin. It's too risky to be messing with the consensus layer just because there's a minority in the community that believe it's a good idea.

Plus wouldn't it be perfect for Bitcoin Cash to solve it? It will be a breakthrough, and it might even surpass Bitcoin in marketcap.

But currently, the reality is there are externality costs. The costs can be passed around, but there shall always be costs.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
1558888888
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558888888

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558888888
Reply with quote  #2

1558888888
Report to moderator
1558888888
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558888888

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558888888
Reply with quote  #2

1558888888
Report to moderator
PLAY OVER 3000 GAMES
LIGHTNING FAST WITHDRAWALS
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
HeRetiK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1049


the forkings will continue until morale improves


View Profile
May 09, 2019, 09:31:53 AM
 #2

Looks like you guys have been having fun, what externality costs are you referring to precisely?

The cost of PoW, the security / decentralization / scalability trade-off, the construction of ASICs...?

ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1768

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
May 09, 2019, 05:14:31 PM
 #3

What are we even talking about? Are talking about,
1. Should Bitcoin use ASIC-resistant algorithm?
2. Make one-cpu-one-vote possible just like Satoshi mentioned in white paper?
3. Should we being moderate/progressive (accept some of Satoshi's ideas very difficult be realized) or stay conservative (strictly follow Satoshi Vision) ?
4. Add all fancy/complex features on on-chain/base layer or on off-chain/layer-n?
5. Some/All of them?

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 770


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
May 10, 2019, 07:11:28 AM
 #4

Looks like you guys have been having fun, what externality costs are you referring to precisely?

The cost of PoW, the security / decentralization / scalability trade-off, the construction of ASICs...?


The costs on the people who run full nodes if the block size was increased. Fees would go down, but nodes would require higher bandwidth, and better hardware to process more information, or else "weaker" nodes will fall behind.



▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 1435



View Profile
May 12, 2019, 03:23:52 AM
 #5

failed economic theory of the core fanboys

fail1.
staying at a block of ~3000tx to cover what they believe would give pools a comparative income via tx fee vs reward = fee of ~$20, which fools think is acceptable fee

fail2.
if a user intends to be a full node its presumed they will do more than lets say 50 transactions over 5 years.
just 50 transactions is $1000. yet the fools find it acceptable to make users pay $1000 to make transactions but then pretend people cant afford $1000 for a computer.

fail3.
putting aside the 'cost'... thinking pools need a hand in sorting out thier own economics, and thinking pools need that help now. and thinking pools need to stifle blocksize to guarantee income.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
pooya87
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1654



View Profile
May 12, 2019, 04:20:45 AM
Merited by bones261 (2), ETFbitcoin (1)
 #6

abstract talk in this board is meaningless, move it to reddit if you just want to talk drama. otherwise you have to post actual data with verifiable test cases to support what you are saying. the data should look like this:
- first categorization of hardware based on what people use to run a node. example 5% raspberry Pi, 15% PC with Corei7 CPU, 20% PC with Corei5, 10% with Pentium 2!, 20% VPS with different specs, ...
- then 4 sets of tests:
-- most common cases meaning from 2500 to 3000 tx with certain scripts that are used every day (99% of the blockchain)
-- same but with higher number
-- edge and rare cases with the same number of tx but with complicated scripts that require more time to verify
-- same with higher number.

then you can conclude how many "weak nodes" we have and whether they fall behind or not and if it matters.

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 770


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
May 13, 2019, 11:26:44 AM
 #7


failed economic theory of the core fanboys


While the big blockers believe they can go around the laws of physics. Cool

There's not a way they can go around it. Costs exist, and the cost will move somewhere else if you relieve the users from some of the costs. It's physical reality.


abstract talk in this board is meaningless, move it to reddit if you just want to talk drama. otherwise you have to post actual data with verifiable test cases to support what you are saying. the data should look like this:
- first categorization of hardware based on what people use to run a node. example 5% raspberry Pi, 15% PC with Corei7 CPU, 20% PC with Corei5, 10% with Pentium 2!, 20% VPS with different specs, ...
- then 4 sets of tests:
-- most common cases meaning from 2500 to 3000 tx with certain scripts that are used every day (99% of the blockchain)
-- same but with higher number
-- edge and rare cases with the same number of tx but with complicated scripts that require more time to verify
-- same with higher number.

then you can conclude how many "weak nodes" we have and whether they fall behind or not and if it matters.


Abstract, yes, but would you agree that costs move somewhere else because of externalities if the block size was increased in Bitcoin?


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
pooya87
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1654



View Profile
May 14, 2019, 04:11:28 AM
Merited by Wind_FURY (1)
 #8

~
Abstract, yes, but would you agree that costs move somewhere else because of externalities if the block size was increased in Bitcoin?

yes, if that is your only question here. obviously if block size increases the cost of running a node increases with it, even if it doesn't increase and remains fixed the  cost still increases as the size of the blockchain and the UTXO set increases.

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 770


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
May 14, 2019, 07:45:14 AM
 #9

~
Abstract, yes, but would you agree that costs move somewhere else because of externalities if the block size was increased in Bitcoin?

yes, if that is your only question here. obviously if block size increases the cost of running a node increases with it, even if it doesn't increase and remains fixed the  cost still increases as the size of the blockchain and the UTXO set increases.


Good. Plus another externality on a block size increase is on the miners, especially the small miners. Because block propagation would take slightly longer, some miners would take that slight delay, wasting its time hashing on the wrong block. That's another added cost.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
bob123
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1016



View Profile WWW
May 14, 2019, 08:15:23 AM
 #10

failed economic theory of the core fanboys
While the big blockers believe they can go around the laws of physics. Cool

obviously if block size increases the cost of running a node increases with it, even if it doesn't increase and remains fixed the  cost still increases as the size of the blockchain and the UTXO set increases.

Good. Plus another externality on a block size increase is on the miners, especially the small miners.


Oh.. are we talking about block size increase again?  Roll Eyes
Isn't that water under the bridge ?


I guess i have to use the classic meme again..




P.s. For the people who support big blocks: You are the guy saying 'double faster'..

ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1768

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
May 14, 2019, 03:32:23 PM
 #11

Good. Plus another externality on a block size increase is on the miners, especially the small miners. Because block propagation would take slightly longer, some miners would take that slight delay, wasting its time hashing on the wrong block. That's another added cost.

I doubt it , to propagate block, Bitcoin Core (and few other client) use Compact Block which significantly reduce block size by include TXID rather than transaction itself. If by chance node haven't received transaction on compact block, the node simply request it from another node.
Verification time of a blocks also very fast (less than a second on modern PC).

Besides, most miners don't run full nodes or use decentralized P2P Pool, but connected to centralized pool, so they don't need to worry about block propagation time.

squatter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 779


STOP SNITCHIN'


View Profile
May 15, 2019, 09:48:29 PM
 #12

For the people who support big blocks: You are the guy saying 'double faster'..

I don't think it's just small blockers vs. big blockers anymore. There's a third group who were (or may still be) small blockers but do advocate for future block size increases. We can't immediately write this group off as reckless like the Bitcoin Cash crowd. The question becomes, are we going to modestly increase the block weight as technology improves -- and when? -- or is this actually a complete impasse?

Oh.. are we talking about block size increase again?  Roll Eyes
Isn't that water under the bridge ?

I don't think many people are taking the BCH or BSV approaches seriously, but I wouldn't quite say that. Judging by the recent aggravation I've been seeing around rising fees, I'm sure we'll be hearing more and more about this debate again as the months wear on.

pooya87
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1654



View Profile
May 16, 2019, 03:16:47 AM
 #13

I don't think many people are taking the BCH or BSV approaches seriously, but I wouldn't quite say that.

we shouldn't even be talking about these coins because what they did was an advertising technique so that they can say our token can handle x times more transactions than bitcoin hence it is better and also because their block sizes are around 200 kB in reality not that big MB size they have as their cap, so it doesn't even count.

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 770


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
May 21, 2019, 07:32:39 AM
 #14

For the people who support big blocks: You are the guy saying 'double faster'..

I don't think it's just small blockers vs. big blockers anymore. There's a third group who were (or may still be) small blockers but do advocate for future block size increases. We can't immediately write this group off as reckless like the Bitcoin Cash crowd. The question becomes, are we going to modestly increase the block weight as technology improves -- and when? -- or is this actually a complete impasse?

Oh.. are we talking about block size increase again?  Roll Eyes
Isn't that water under the bridge ?

I don't think many people are taking the BCH or BSV approaches seriously, but I wouldn't quite say that. Judging by the recent aggravation I've been seeing around rising fees, I'm sure we'll be hearing more and more about this debate again as the months wear on.


You wait until Bitcoin Cash ABC and SV's next halvings. How would their networks subsidize miners if their developers designed them for 0 - low fees?

They will have no other path to go, except to copy Bitcoin's model in my opinion.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
HeRetiK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1049


the forkings will continue until morale improves


View Profile
May 21, 2019, 11:45:53 AM
 #15

You wait until Bitcoin Cash ABC and SV's next halvings. How would their networks subsidize miners if their developers designed them for 0 - low fees?

They will have no other path to go, except to copy Bitcoin's model in my opinion.

With BCH currently mining at merely 5% of Bitcoin's hashrate [1] they already have a problem with subsidizing miners and keeping the network safe as is, no halving needed. It's definitely going to be interesting to see what happens after BCH's and BSV's first halving regardless.

[1] https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 770


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
May 23, 2019, 10:42:52 AM
 #16

You wait until Bitcoin Cash ABC and SV's next halvings. How would their networks subsidize miners if their developers designed them for 0 - low fees?

They will have no other path to go, except to copy Bitcoin's model in my opinion.

With BCH currently mining at merely 5% of Bitcoin's hashrate [1] they already have a problem with subsidizing miners and keeping the network safe as is, no halving needed. It's definitely going to be interesting to see what happens after BCH's and BSV's first halving regardless.

[1] https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate


Or their network proposes another hard fork to make blocks smaller again, and adopt a fee market, then increase transaction throughput only as necessary.

Bitcoin's model. Cool


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
mda
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 23, 2019, 12:40:20 PM
Last edit: May 23, 2019, 01:00:52 PM by mda
 #17

Or their network proposes another hard fork to make blocks smaller again, and adopt a fee market, then increase transaction throughput only as necessary.
Then shards it hundred times and says goodbye to Blockstream's and Core's cripplecoin.
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 770


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
May 24, 2019, 06:30:18 AM
 #18

Or their network proposes another hard fork to make blocks smaller again, and adopt a fee market, then increase transaction throughput only as necessary.
Then shards it hundred times and says goodbye to Blockstream's and Core's cripplecoin.


But that doesn't fix their problem. Block rewards from fees would be still small for miners after their halvings, and would either turn off their miners, or start pointing their miners back to Bitcoin.

There's also no guarantee for sharding, what coin made it work?


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1768

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
May 24, 2019, 05:24:51 PM
 #19

Or their network proposes another hard fork to make blocks smaller again, and adopt a fee market, then increase transaction throughput only as necessary.
Then shards it hundred times and says goodbye to Blockstream's and Core's cripplecoin.

0 correlation, sharding is aimed to fix high cost to run full nodes and allow better on-chain scaling with some trade-off.
It'd be relevant if we're talking about cost to run full nodes or on-chain scaling.

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 770


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
May 25, 2019, 09:00:00 AM
 #20

Or their network proposes another hard fork to make blocks smaller again, and adopt a fee market, then increase transaction throughput only as necessary.
Then shards it hundred times and says goodbye to Blockstream's and Core's cripplecoin.

0 correlation, sharding is aimed to fix high cost to run full nodes and allow better on-chain scaling with some trade-off.
It'd be relevant if we're talking about cost to run full nodes or on-chain scaling.

Plus that proposed "solution" is vaporware. Where is the Github repository? Or the testnet? Some people want to say something, just to say something. Cool


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!