The Blocksize War is still ongoing.

[Uhwuchukwu53]

 I retain Bitcoin for my big quantities and prefer to place a little faith in a reputable third party.

That could be the best choice retaining BTC and isolate third party of no trust is the best . The best is when you control your own asset it gives you more rest and confidence than under the custody of another party.

[DooMAD]

never was a chainsplit?! oh no, you have caught the ignorant blind disease of the stupid bridage again.
sorry to tell you this but there was a chain split.
its not like BCH is a complete separate altcoin that had its own unique block 0 genesis

If I waste 1-2 hours of my life I can easily create a new shitcoin using the same Genesis block with the same blockchain and same everything else except a small change like having 10 MB blocks and a different difficulty adjustment policy (to make it easily mineable with CPU/GPU). Then I can start building new blocks on top of it, pay a CEX to list my coin calling it Bitcoin Pooya and start trading it there.

Do you call that a chainsplit too?

Let me guess, he's still rewriting history for how BCH came into existence?  Even though it's been robustly refuted?

Announced fork was announced.  Took place when announced to take place.  Did what it said on the tin.  Yet franky1 blames everyone but the people who announced it.

Definitely dropped on his head a few too many times as an infant.  

[franky1]

never was a chainsplit?! oh no, you have caught the ignorant blind disease of the stupid bridage again.
sorry to tell you this but there was a chain split.
its not like BCH is a complete separate altcoin that had its own unique block 0 genesis

If I waste 1-2 hours of my life I can easily create a new shitcoin using the same Genesis block with the same blockchain and same everything else except a small change like having 10 MB blocks and a different difficulty adjustment policy (to make it easily mineable with CPU/GPU). Then I can start building new blocks on top of it, pay a CEX to list my coin calling it Bitcoin Pooya and start trading it there.

Do you call that a chainsplit too?

Let me guess, he's still rewriting history for how BCH came into existence?  Even though it's been robustly refuted?

Announced fork was announced.  Took place when announced to take place.  Did what it said on the tin.  Yet franky1 blames everyone but the people who announced it.

Definitely dropped on his head a few too many times as an infant.  

funny comedy.. his source(VIABTC(aka nya participant) actually debunks what he says
via were part of the segwit nya side not the BCH side.. via named old block versions that persist after segwit activates BCH

emphasis
the NYA crew are the segwit supporting crew and it was the segwit supporting crew that said if there was to be a split they would call the not segwit supporting fork bitcoin cash
the split happened by old node users not changing code thus ended up on a split thus got CALLED bitcoin cash by segwit teams
it was not due to some ABC brand being developed by those wanting to create an altcoin. the ABC brand was segwit but under false pretenses to get segwit activated under a broken promise but in actual effect had mandatory rejection of old blocks(forking the network), along with the other silly mis-promises of segwit people, all done to push segwit activation by any means
 

when segwit started its mandate(due to nya) of rejecting old block versions.. in a mandate from economic nodes and mining pools (not user assisted, just economic/minerpool(NYA)). and in august those not retaining segwit blocks but retaining old versionbit blocks.. stagnated at first and adopting themselves as bitcoin cash(after august 1st) from the names the segwit crew of NYA decided to call the old versionbit block retaining chain, which the segwit supporting side caused to split(falsely/unnaturally getting 100% by rejecting old blocks and banning old nodes retaining old versionbit blocks)

https://viabtc.medium.com/statement-on-bitcoin-user-activated-hard-fork-6e7aebb67e67
by supporting the NYA option it caused segwit to activate with the faked promise of 2x base.. but where it actually required segwit1.0 to activate first with the fake promise of a 2x at later date..
the mandatory activation of segwit was their goal, by rejecting old blocks. causing any old nodes that retain old block versionbits to be forked/split away

if you look at who the NYA are (DCG) and what side they funded. you would see it was all a bait and switch to get segwit activated. and its admitted even by doomads sources that the old blocks segwit ignores and old nodes segwit bans they would call bitcoin cash

yep even garzic and g.andresen were funded(bloq) by DCG who also funding segwit(blockstream) team

doomad really fails to use blockdata and funding and real info and tries to make subtle assumptions, based on little snippets(out of context), and then uses himself as source of his misunderstanding to be then his backup source of his narrative(echo chamber/confirmation bias of his own narrative to himself)..
but if you look at it all in full context, his story falls apart
..
i keep laughing at doomad.. he tries so hard to avoid the truth by not doing any research and then not understanding the links he then grabs actually goes against what he says, as he doesnt take things in full context nor looks at the surrounding impacts things had on each other to provide a full picture of actual events

he wants to pretend he knows things.. but has changed his narrative many times whereby initially he had said that:
a. BCH changed code early and forked themselves independently (his narrative was incorrect, code, block data prove it)
b. and yes doomad actually said in early days that segwit activated via UASF(another thing he got wrong then changed tune)
c. that he can replace words with idol invented buzzwords to hide his sillyness but not admit to the mistake,
but then:
d. every 6-12 months he keeps forgetting he got the whole thing wrong and got debunked so circles back to silly old notions he had wrong in the first place, acting like he never got debunked. quoting himself as source when using his own ignorance of real sources full context still prove him wrong back then and now
.. heck there were even times doomad got things soo messed up, he then came up with notions of agreeing with what i said but pretending it was his idea and then insinuate i was saying his old wrong versions.. because soon later he would then disagree and go back to his old notions again..

he cant even get his own story straight..
to pooya:
so just look at the block history of the version bits of both chains
look at the june july august of bitcoin.
and
look at when bch first began in august, and look at which code triggered the split.. use the block data, code and use the full context of the sides involved. of who buzzworded what first, who split first and who then demanded the other side change the magic to not cause endlessly peer banning and block rejecting

you will notice those thrust/ended up becoming BCH didnt instigate/desire a fork., they just tried to object to segwit. but got thrown off

i have never used bch and dont care for it. but getting the history correct is a detail that stops idiots being idiots just to hide the tricks played by sponsored devs of a certain fraternity, that wanted more network control by throwing opposition to the fraternities roadmap sponsored plans off the network.

yes bch changed after the august split.. but look at who orchestrated the split

[Dunamisx]

We cannot say that bitcoin cash is the same as bitcoin, there are many thing that have the pairing of the name bitcoin as their coinage and yet they are not regarded as same with bitcoin, the moment there came the split  then we recognized bitcoin cash as not part of the bitcoin network, they are now centralized as regarded by many, if you're holding your bitcoin, then its all yours once you're with the private keys and its under a non custodial means, other dramas happening outside the network should take less concern with you. 

[apogio]

I retain Bitcoin for my big quantities and prefer to place a little faith in a reputable third party.

What for?
I use Wallet of Satoshi for some small payments (say max $50). Is this what you mean?
I don't think that using a reputable custodial solution for LN is bad per se, but we must always be aware that since we don't control the sats, they can be lost. So we must use them wisely with small amounts.

[Medusah]

What for?

Easier and less expensive. 

I use Wallet of Satoshi for some small payments (say max $50). Is this what you mean?

Yes, Wallet of Satoshi is a good example.  I have not used it, but I know it is a lightning custodial wallet.  I was more interested in BlueWallet before it closed its custodial service.  Now I prefer low fee altcoins for small transactions. 

[southerngentuk]

The central question is how to  efficiently process transactions while maintaining  decentralization and security. The notion of "scaling" as gradual, measured growth is a valuable point.  Imagine small, incremental improvements that enhance the network's capacity without jeopardizing its core principles.  Large, sudden leaps could introduce instability.

The concern about transaction costs associated with storing historical data is valid.  Imagine a scenario where the cost of storing decades of transactions becomes prohibitive for some users.  Finding a balance between affordability and data integrity is crucial. The argument that a one-time hard drive purchase is a reasonable expense for long-term storage is interesting.  However, the cost of entry for new users and the potential strain on resource-limited individuals shouldn't be dismissed.

[ChiBitCTy]

During the Blocksize Wars, two distinct factions emerged, represented by equally distinct chains.

Wrong. There was never a chainsplit or even a community split. Majority have so far always been on the singular chain which is called Bitcoin.

Everything else including bcash are copies of Bitcoin and there are lots of them (BCH, BSV, BTG, BTS, ...) in fact during 2017 there were at least 20 different copies created just like bcash.

At first glance, it seems that the first faction, Bitcoin, has chosen the long-term path—one where the base layer cannot scale and must ossify to remain secure and decentralized.

Wrong. Bitcoin (which is not a "faction") increased the on-chain capacity back in 2017 with the soft-fork known as SegWit.

Meanwhile, the second faction, Bitcoin Cash,

Again bcash is not a "faction" it is one out of a dozen copies created from Bitcoin which has nothing to do with it. It's just a centralized shitcoin with a mutable chain that has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

has opted for a shorter route—a path where the base layer can scale and adapt more easily, allowing immediate use by all users

Wrong.
You scale your altcoin based on demand and this altcoin has no demand as it is clear from its empty blocks. So it did not scale anything, it just has bigger block size cap that is left unreached.

Currently, on-chain transactions with Bitcoin are still feasible for moderate amounts, but they are prohibitive for smaller sums.

Similar to 2017, Bitcoin is under a spam attack that has created a congestion and triggered the mechanism that automatically battles spam attacks which is the fee market.

Bitcoin Cash scales, and I have my private keys; I don’t need to trust anyone.

You do have to trust the centralized authority that controls this centralized altcoin and can for example perform a 51% attack anytime they want to reverse transactions.

Maybe I should be asking this in the technical discussion board, and was actually thinking of starting a topic just the other day but since it's being discussed here..one thing I've always been confused about is the testnets.  I've been told that a testnet is just like an actual chain in "real-time" being utilized, but then others have told me it's not.  If a testnet was truly the same thing, then these kind of coversations/debates would be over right?  Since you could then just easily test and prove what works/what doesn't.. but, I'm certainly not an expert..

[Medusah]

I've been told that a testnet is just like an actual chain in "real-time" being utilized, but then others have told me it's not.

Testnet is just a network where coins have no monetary value and its purpose is to test things before deploying them to the mainnet.  It is "actual" as in "real time", but I don't see the relevance of forks or chains here.  What's the catch?

[ChiBitCTy]

I've been told that a testnet is just like an actual chain in "real-time" being utilized, but then others have told me it's not.

Testnet is just a network where coins have no monetary value and its purpose is to test things before deploying them to the mainnet.  It is "actual" as in "real time", but I don't see the relevance of forks or chains here.  What's the catch?

I understand that aspect of it, & I actually have some bitcoin testnet coins that I’m aware have no real value.

Have you read the title of the thread? The discussion is around block size, and I know Pooya is an expert so was speaking to the threads main discussion/topic at hand.

[Pingu of Sealand]

The central question is how to  efficiently process transactions while maintaining  decentralization and security. The notion of "scaling" as gradual, measured growth is a valuable point.  Imagine small, incremental improvements that enhance the network's capacity without jeopardizing its core principles.  Large, sudden leaps could introduce instability.

The concern about transaction costs associated with storing historical data is valid.  Imagine a scenario where the cost of storing decades of transactions becomes prohibitive for some users.  Finding a balance between affordability and data integrity is crucial. The argument that a one-time hard drive purchase is a reasonable expense for long-term storage is interesting.  However, the cost of entry for new users and the potential strain on resource-limited individuals shouldn't be dismissed.

By far the best answer, it can therefore be assumed that it will simply be necessary to adopt measures
 over time that at the moment we refuse to accept, such as increasing the size of the blocks e.g.

[hatshepsut93]

Bitcoin Cash scales, and I have my private keys; I don’t need to trust anyone. However, the mining incentive and fees are near to negligible, making the network vulnerable to attacks.

No it doesn't, there no such thing as scaling on blockchain. The world, or even just small country, or even just a single city with a few million people needs a capacity for many millions of transactions per day. It's impossible to effectively process and store such amounts of data on a home computer, you need a specialized server equipment for that. So any solution that tells to just increase blocksize will inevitably turn into a network of one or a few large servers controlled by an entity that could be blocked or physically raided by law enforcement.

[franky1]

Bitcoin Cash scales, and I have my private keys; I don’t need to trust anyone. However, the mining incentive and fees are near to negligible, making the network vulnerable to attacks.

No it doesn't, there no such thing as scaling on blockchain. The world, or even just small country, or even just a single city with a few million people needs a capacity for many millions of transactions per day. It's impossible to effectively process and store such amounts of data on a home computer, you need a specialized server equipment for that. So any solution that tells to just increase blocksize will inevitably turn into a network of one or a few large servers controlled by an entity that could be blocked or physically raided by law enforcement.

you been duped into the concept that scaling=leaping
(facepalm)
let me guess you now want to say how you think hard drives are expensive and will kill decentralisation to spend $50 to store terrabytes of data for multiple years of blockdata.. then you will say what you have said in some other topics of how bitcoin needs expensive transactions that are more expensive than one hard drive

Too high for what? If someone is willing to pay for it, then it's not too high. Bitcoin fees are essentially an auction for the space in the next block, so it's like saying that when someone buys a painting for millions of dollars, the price is too high because average people couldn't buy it. Even if we imagine that Lightning Network wouldn't exist, Bitcoin transactions are still going to be used by people, so the fee is never too high.

If we want Bitcoin to be secured by a similar amount of work in the future, it means the fees will have to compensate for the halvenings. And Bitcoin capacity is so limited that even with only store of value use the fees will skyrocket if it gets a little more adoption. We see it during bull markets how fees become $10-20 per tx just because so many people want to send their coins to an exchange.

Bitcoin doesn't have "hours long confirmations", it has fee market and sometimes the fees get high, meaning that transactions with lower fees won't confirm until the fees drop down. I wouldn't argue that it hurts Bitcoin viability as a payment method for everyone, but it is possible to use it as such as of now.

lets skip the narrative and just already call it hypocrisy/contradicting yourself..

so lets clarify
FEE's are not needed to compensate halvenings.. SPOT PRICE deflation is what compensates halvenings.. not fee's
fee's are not needed as a main income earner any time soon.. so dont fall into the silly rabbit hole of promoting high fees as a good thing. as it then contradicts your fear of 'hard drive costs' being a cost problem of bitcoin users if you now want to say paying $20-$50(recent fee's on network) should be the norm

if you want to suggest paying $50 per tx is ok but $50 for decades of data storage is bad... then you need to stop listing idiots contradictions and stop listening to idiots telling you to say stupidity and instead realise that fee's being high is more of a annoyance than your PRETEND fears of storage cost

and with that said
you also seem to have been fooled into the STUPID narrative that the only way to get more transactions per block is LEAPING to 'visa speeds' or 'millions of transactions'

you really are missing the point of real scaling. there are many ways to improve transactions per block with needing to LEAP.. its called scaling
please learn scaling away from the idiot group that you seem to be leaning into with your current narratives

there are ways to SCALE without LEAPING to huge numbers.. stop thinking the only options is LEAP blocks to huge size or make people LEAP to other networks
scaling is not leaping and  scaling is not other networks (leaping ship)

..
you used to not sound like the cult narrative idiot brigade but i have seen you slowly get fooled into their narratives, promoting their idiotic rhetoric and promotions of a certain sponsored roadmap/subnetwork.. escape the rhetoric before you dig too deep a hole..
..
bitcoin is 15 years old.. and is still only hitting tx targets that satoshi said were possible in 2010
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/n-transactions-per-block
yep still hanging around the same 4k area that satoshi said was possible

yet even before talking about leaping the blocksize
yet even before talking about scaling the blocksize

bitcoin can scale up its transaction count multiple times...
a. uncludge the byte miscount and bad utility of block space(1mb:3mb segregation(bad utility of space)) to actually allow true bitcoin tx data in the full ('weight') block space and not have the cludgy separation (segregation) used for junky metadata, that currently miscounts bytes and ignore byte validity by assuming acceptance without thorough checks by all nodes of what goes in the 3mb area
b. make transactions leaner(yes its possible)
c. introduce fee formula's to punish only the spammers and bloaters to stop spammers/bloaters, while not punishing everyone else whilst letting spammers/bloaters get 'discounts'

average tx size is ~1kb  (4k tx of 4mb)
70% of blockspace is used by bloaters/spammers
meaning making tx leaner. having less spamming and utilising the cludgy 1mb base 3mb witnes to be a unified 4mb space for lean bitcoin value transfer data whereby every byte is purposefully lean to be only related to the tx data and signature proof of moving bitcoin
EG if the current ~4k tx is only 30% genuine bitcoiners. means a block is only genuine bitcoin utilised ~1200tx
so getting rid of spam/junk alone makes a 3.3x better scenario
making tx more lean causes more improvement. then decluging the miscount segregation. improves things further
which can turn a 4mb blockspace to be able to handle ~17,700 lean (226byte tx) of genuine bitcoiner utility, up from ~1200tx which is upto a 14x improvement without even touching "blocksize"

this would cause a increase of tx count for genuine bitcoiners by multiples of the current average tx count before even doing block scaling..
and no blockscaling does not mean leaping to 'millions/billions of transactions per block' nonsense idiots want to pretend scaling means just so they can try to get people to avoid even talking about scaling because the idiots want to pretend scaling is leaping

[Medusah]

Have you read the title of the thread?

Yes, that's why I don't get it how testnet is related with blocksize.

-snip-

Can you tell us how to SCALE at that point?  Since all I am perusing is inconsequential babble.  Tell us how to scale the blockchain on in such a way that the whole world can utilize it without paying a fortune on transaction fees.  And it would be ideal if you could point to a cryptocurrency network that has executed your thoughts.

[franky1]

Can you tell us how to SCALE at that point?  

yet even before talking about leaping the blocksize
yet even before talking about scaling the blocksize

bitcoin can scale up its transaction count multiple times...
a. uncludge the byte miscount and bad utility of block space(1mb:3mb segregation(bad utility of space)) to actually allow true bitcoin tx data in the full ('weight') block space and not have the cludgy separation (segregation) used for junky metadata, that currently miscounts bytes and ignore byte validity by assuming acceptance without thorough checks by all nodes of what goes in the 3mb area
b. make transactions leaner(yes its possible)
c. introduce fee formula's to punish only the spammers and bloaters to stop spammers/bloaters, while not punishing everyone else whilst letting spammers/bloaters get 'discounts'

as for scaling the blocks without needing dev political decisions..
much like how difficulty does not need dev politics to manually code at every interval of their choosing.. , where instead code exists that uses ~2016 blocks as its bases for self adjustment within the node if there are too many or not enough blocks within a fortnight

we could implement code that every [insert milestone*] if over 90% of blocks are over 90% filled then blocksize increases by X %

*milestone possibilities
26250 blocks (6 months)
52500 blocks (1 year)
105000 blocks(2 years)

and no this is not about leaping to huge blocksizes like the itiot brigades pretends it means

And it would be ideal if you could point to a cryptocurrency network that has executed your thoughts.

dont be fooled into the idiot brigade narrative(aka core tyranny control fangirl cult)

their trick is to not get core to test it on a bitcoin testnet to see if it works or broke/bugs/exploits out.. and if pass then implement in bitcoin..
they instead want anyone not core to f**k off and create a crapcoin, and then be ignored simply because its a crapcoin.. whether it works or not. thus ignore it as a option simply because its a crap coin no one uses even if the code doesnt break
they just want anyone with any proposal thats not the core plan to f**k off the network and leave the bitcoin network in cores dev politics hands just following their core roadmap

and no
proposals dont come after code..
its proposal first. then code, then test on a testnet then if work added as a mainnet candidate release
(as per the cores own moderate guidelines of bips)

[Medusah]

they instead want anyone not core to f**k off and create a crapcoin, and then be ignored simply because its a crapcoin..

If you knew how to scale blockchain, it would not be another "crapcoin".  You just named me a few tiny details and think as if you solved the scaling problem.  Even if we "uncludge the byte miscount" and punish spammers with your "fee formulas", you still cannot handle millions of transactions per second, on-chain.  I repeat:  Can you tell us how to SCALE?  Or are you just another keyboard warrior?

[Casdinyard]

The custodial path is the wrong way.
-----
One of Bitcoin’s strengths lies in the certainty of controlling one’s own funds, with no possibility for others to access them unless they possess the private keys to do so.

During the Blocksize Wars, two distinct factions emerged, represented by equally distinct chains. After the recent end of the Faketoshi saga, only Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash remain from all the noise of those years.
At first glance, it seems that the first faction, Bitcoin, has chosen the long-term path—one where the base layer cannot scale and must ossify to remain secure and decentralized. Meanwhile, the second faction, Bitcoin Cash, has opted for a shorter route—a path where the base layer can scale and adapt more easily, allowing immediate use by all users
In my view, neither of these choices can be definitively labeled as long-term or short-term. If we examine the details closely, developing suitable subsequent layers takes time, but building mass adoption on the base layer requires just as much effort.
-----
I have one certainty: the custodial path is the wrong way, and turning a blind eye could prove fatal.

Currently, on-chain transactions with Bitcoin are still feasible for moderate amounts, but they are prohibitive for smaller sums. Mathematically, fees are destined to increase. Following this trajectory, it’s logical to assume that in the future, we will conduct most transactions on subsequent layers while keeping savings on-chain. Alternatively, we might transform the current system into a slower one, where instead of buying a low-quality pair of jeans each month, to avoid fees we opt for a high-quality pair once a year. However, taking the path of layers 2, 3, and beyond would be in vain.

It’s crucial not to let these subsequent layers become mere copies of the current system. Lightning Network is an excellent system, but I cannot truly claim to always possess my funds. Doing so would be far from simple, and I end up relying on someone else. Liquid is cost-effective, and I hold my private keys, but the system is controlled by a few companies. Bitcoin Cash scales, and I have my private keys; I don’t need to trust anyone. However, the mining incentive and fees are near to negligible, making the network vulnerable to attacks.

Make no mistake, Bitcoin works. It is the greatest revolutionary act of the century—a tool that will serve humanity’s evolution. However, we must have vision, think about the future and the next generations. Let’s pause for a moment and take the truly challenging path, perhaps the best but the longest, to make the system entirely uncensorable.
Don’t assume that the solutions we have today are definitive. The upgrade to Bitcoin’s source code that will lead to its victory is yet to come, and it will happen gradually, with total consensus. No, no altcoin will bring about this revolution. Bitcoin’s functionality makes it the only usable tool to achieve our purpose.

Because the issue that the blocksize war brings isn't something that you can just fix in a single day, people will always disagree on things if they were given the chance, moreso if they have made sound points about their cases. This is the case for the blocksize war. On one hand you have the purists who wanted the blocks to remain at a single megabyte, while they know this means that bitcoin's scalability is in shambles, it also means that they can secure bitcoin and shield it from getting tarnished, with the possibility of even losing bitcoin to hackers, and of course against people who see bitcoin as nothing but a cashcow which they would use for their personal gain.

on the other hand, bitcoin needed this scalability so badly if they wanted to have a shot at breaking it globally. It's bad enough that bitcoin's got a bad wrap at the people, it would be even worse if people are pushed away by the fact that you can't use bitcoin without tanking huge fees and slow wait times that sometimes take days.

I'm all for what makes bitcoin better and accessible to the public really. Even if it means we gotta do some massive bitcoin makeover.

[franky1]

they instead want anyone not core to f**k off and create a crapcoin, and then be ignored simply because its a crapcoin..

If you knew how to scale blockchain, it would not be another "crapcoin".  You just named me a few tiny details and think as if you solved the scaling problem.  Even if we "uncludge the byte miscount" and punish spammers with your "fee formulas", you still cannot handle millions of transactions per second, on-chain.

you are stuck in the LEAP to "millions of transactions per second" IDIOCY
as a way to avoid rational discussion of scaling

do you again want to be ignorant to the difference between scaling vs leaping

try not to be a idiot by thinking the only option is 'jump to millions of transactions a second or ignore all other options'
dont be a fool.. try to learn scaling..

we do not need to LEAP to millions of transactions a second
we as a planet do not need a "single world currency where billions of people do their few transactions a day on one currency"
do not use the naive idiotic "one world currency/new world order dystopia agenda" game as a reason to not scale bitcoin

by you leaping to "millions of transactions a second" need(in idiots mind) the second part of that narrative becomes "but doing so leads to dystopia and centralisation so lets avoid it and do nothing instead"

you need to realise scaling is not about the STUPID leap of the millions per second.. so shut up about it
the only idiots speaking of millions per second is the idiot group that dont want any scaling by any measure so use stupid extremes just to even try to quash anyone talking of any proposals outside cores plan


you(and doomad cult) are the only ones suggesting bitcoin should perform every transaction of all people on one currency..
scaling is not what you speak of and scaling is not what you want it to sound like.. get the hint

heres some math
8 billion people, 4 transactions a day (32bill)
32bill/24/60/60=370,000tx  a second

yep so when you STUPIDLY shout the STUPID narrative of millions a second, you done ZERO math, done no logical thinking, no economics to even know what you are talking about. you are just repeating the same nonsense doomads cult speak, and no wonder he gives you merit fo speaking his nonsense

do you know that in the real world, once people pay like 5 transaction a MONTH
(housing, electric, water, gas, local tax)
they then do maybe 4 tx a month for groceries
they then do most 2 transactions a day for incidentals, random stuff
the world do not need millions of tx per second even if there was a one world currency scenario
reality of economics is about 3 a day per person

so there is no need for your silly speak of "millions of transactions a second"
even 3tx a day * 8 billion people is no where near millions of transactions a second for the whole planet
3*8b=24b
24b/24hours=1billper hour
1bill per hour=16,666,666 a minute
16,666,666per min=277,777 a second.. = FAR BELOW YOUR NAIVE EXTREME NONSENSE

yep even in the cultish dreamscape dystopian extremist cult/centralised adoring world you wish to push as your version how you see "scaling"(i call your silly speak leaping) atleast get your dystopian maths correct of ~270-370tx a second and not the STUPID (not thought about) "million a second" dumb speak of your dystopian dream of one world currency


so stop using dumb narratives you heard else where that scaling needs millions a second
it makes you look dumb and obvious that you have fallen into the idiot brigade cult trap of talking about silly things to avoid talking about actual scaling

I repeat:  Can you tell us how to SCALE?  Or are you just another keyboard warrior?

i just explained in previous post, quoting an even previous post.... and there is even previous posts to that in many topics over the years that go into even more detail..
 if you cant then do the math of transaction count benefit even when explained in dumbed down version, thats your problem

but ill give you a hint
right now most blocks are junk/bloat/spam filled 70%
meaning of the 4k tx of 4mb only ~1200 is considered rational genuine bitcoiner use
bitcoin right now has an average tx size of 1kb(4k tx of 4mb)

so taking the junk intent and spam intent away, changing then cludgy segregation to then allow true txdata utility. and then making tx leaner. can allow 17,700 tx instead of 1.2k tx genuine bitcoinr use, and thats before even changing the block size beyond 4mb

4,000,000 byte/ lean tx of 226byte = upto 17,700tx genuine bitcoiner use

yep before even changing the blocksize,.. just cleaning up the silly stuff can get a upto 14x+ increase of tx per block of genuine bitcoiner use
and then progressively scaling the blocksize can increase that further
oh and there is ways to make transactions of 1in 2out(destination and change) way less than 226bytes so transactions can get even leaner..
oh and there is ways to make transactions of multiple IN multiple OUT to also be under 226bytes so transactions can get even leaner..
(i used used 226 as a demo number not the limit of leanness)

[ABCbits]

So any solution that tells to just increase blocksize will inevitably turn into a network of one or a few large servers controlled by an entity that could be blocked or physically raided by law enforcement.

That's why block size should be increased based on specific measurement (e.g. cost of hardware and cost of running) , rather than choosing arbitrary number (just like what BSV did).

[franky1]

So any solution that tells to just increase blocksize will inevitably turn into a network of one or a few large servers controlled by an entity that could be blocked or physically raided by law enforcement.

That's why block size should be increased based on specific measurement (e.g. cost of hardware and cost of running) , rather than choosing arbitrary number (just like what BSV did).

the cost of running is negligible

if the idiot brigade telling you stories that the cost of a $50 hard drive is too high, listen to them when they then say they prefer no one transacting unless they pay $50 for one transaction.. and listen hard and good at their hypocrisy and tyranny of not wanting people to use bitcoin unless they pay stupid high fee for one transaction but call that one transaction high fee 'acceptable cost', but stupidly say the same amount is too high to protect decades of transactions
if you agree that $50 is ok for 1tx but $50 is not ok for 20 years of millions of tx.. then you need to sort your math out and not just blindly recite silly things

increase based on measurements.. but that of block fill over time.. not dev politics of deciding costs
core DEVS should not pretend to be economists , pretending they care about the price/cost when all history and examples of their economic decisions show  they prefer to miscount things, discount the wrong things, premiumise te wrong things, and do it all to promote another network people should use.

core devs need to get out of governing the network and get out of sponsoring other network migrations.. and instead concentrate on bitcoin features that benefit bitcoiners not their fiat backed sponsors that want to become the middlemen controller of crypto