Ordinals and other non-monetary "use cases" as miner reward on 2140+

[BlackHatCoiner]

Initial syncing takes time, even on Bitcoin when we talk full node, full blockchain on BTC network weights about 2x of XMR.

That's because there's a much less portion of transactions happening in Monero. If you had 800k transactions everyday, it'd be a verification nightmare. Read this comparison.

There are plenty of optimizations being done in this regard and my 10 year old laptop has no problem with current version.

Again, that's the case, because there is orders of magnitude less activity than in Bitcoin. If the on-chain volume goes up by a factor of 100x, things would be noticeably worse. Let alone if it went up by 1000x, or 10000x. In those scenarios, it might be impossible to sync up, because verifying a block might take more than 2.5 minutes, which is the rate at which blocks are generated. 

Monero has Dynamic block size, it scales a lot better than Bitcoin as you can observe it here

I wouldn't call that "scaling". It's just linear growth, parameterized according to on-chain demand. It holds as much water as telling me that Bitcoin Cash is 8 times better in terms of scaling, because it has 32 MB block size. True scaling comes with transaction compression, such as using one UTXO for several off-chain transactions.

Watch it full if you have time and then we can continue discussion, at least the second half about scalability.

Seems like an interesting talk! I'll watch it when I find the time.  

[MeGold666]

Again, that's the case, because there is orders of magnitude less activity than in Bitcoin. If the on-chain volume goes up by a factor of 100x, things would be noticeably worse. Let alone if it went up by 1000x, or 10000x. In those scenarios, it might be impossible to sync up, because verifying a block might take more than 2.5 minutes.

Recently there has been testing being done by voluntary people on a testnet with this in mind, to stress test current version.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/1doyde9/stressnet_first_week_report/

Most transactions processed in an hour: 33074 (equivalent of 794000 tx per day)

So about as high as current Bitcoin charts show, I did not read the report yet but it's interesting to see how it went and hope to see even more demanding numbers.

I wouldn't call that "scaling". It's just linear growth, parameterized according to on-chain demand. It holds as much water as telling me that Bitcoin Cash is 8 times better in terms of scaling, because it has 32 MB block size. True scaling comes with transaction compression, such as using one UTXO for several off-chain transactions.

You're right, block size alone does not solve scaling but it's a big part of it.

There is surely a lot of work to be done before it can scale to the numbers mentioned by you, but it's doable because Monero protocol is constantly evolving and so is the infrastructure of the Internet it resides on.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Recently there has been testing being done by voluntary people on a testnet with this in mind, to stress test current version.

I think it takes around a whole day with modern hardware to finish syncing. With a total of ~43 million transactions, that's verifying ~1.8 million per hour, on average, which is ~500 per second.

This means that if, for some reason, there is an abrupt rise in demand for Monero and more than 600 transactions per second are broadcasted, ordinary users will be unable to sync with the network. You claimed that Bitcoin will not be self-sustainable in more than eight years from now, based solely on the belief that there will be insufficient competition for block space. I assert that Monero will not achieve global adoption under the current status quo, given its dynamic block size and insufficient scripting flexibility for second-layer solutions.

I wonder who's the prayer.

[MeGold666]

I think it takes around a whole day with modern hardware to finish syncing. With a total of ~43 million transactions, that's verifying ~1.8 million per hour, on average, which is ~500 per second.

Well, you don't do it everyday, right ? once you sync, you keep it synced - me personally, I sync once a week and it takes a coffee break to sync.u
As of today, it takes a longer time to sync Bitcoin node from scratch as the size is much larger and downloading blockchain data alone takes longer, then there's verification - it can take several days.

This means that if, for some reason, there is an abrupt rise in demand for Monero and more than 600 transactions per second are broadcasted, ordinary users will be unable to sync with the network. You claimed that Bitcoin will not be self-sustainable in more than eight years from now, based solely on the belief that there will be insufficient competition for block space. I assert that Monero will not achieve global adoption under the current status quo, given its dynamic block size and insufficient scripting flexibility for second-layer solutions.

I wonder who's the prayer.

600 tx per second ? you know what's the current maximum for Bitcoin is ? 7.

Monero is way more scalable today, there's no argue about it.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Well, you don't do it everyday, right ? once you sync, you keep it synced - me personally, I sync once a week and it takes a coffee break to sync.

My point is that you can't sync, whether you've synced before or not. It becomes impossible, because you can verify up to 500 transactions per second, whereas the network is growing by more than 600 per sec.

600 tx per second ? you know what's the current maximum for Bitcoin is ? 7.

I know, but I don't claim that it can scale on-chain. I'm big proponent of off-chain solutions because I acknowledge that there is no such a thing as on-chain solution on scalability.

Monero is way more scalable today, there's no argue about it.

Correct, but what matters, IMO, is which one is more scalable over the long term.

[MeGold666]

Well, you don't do it everyday, right ? once you sync, you keep it synced - me personally, I sync once a week and it takes a coffee break to sync.

My point is that you can't sync, whether you've synced before or not. It becomes impossible, because you can verify up to 500 transactions per second, whereas the network is growing by more than 600 per sec.

You're talking way into the future, when there will be this many transactions (maybe in 20 years lol) then infrastructure will be much faster as well and Monero has no protocol limits, only hardware limitations so with time, it all comes together - you would know if you watched the talk from a much smarter man than I am.

600 tx per second ? you know what's the current maximum for Bitcoin is ? 7.

I know, but I don't claim that it can scale on-chain. I'm big proponent of off-chain solutions because I acknowledge that there is no such a thing as on-chain solution on scalability.

You want to build on top of Bitcoin with it's limited small block size ? LN has proven recently that it can't work when L1 has larger transaction count like we have seen with Ordinals spam.

Monero is way more scalable today, there's no argue about it.

Correct, but what matters, IMO, is which one is more scalable over the long term.

Well, Bitcoin is not scalable at all as we can see today.

L1 can be scalable, don't get fooled by LN bullshit  

You need a proper foundation to build on top of it, Bitcoin can't handle L2's of any kind with it's limited block space.
If the transactions on Bitcoin L1 will be high enough to support miners with fees (which I highly doubt), L2's won't work - this has been already proven by the failures of LN to work at high demand times (which were still low compared to what is needed for the network to survive after two more halvings).

Bitcoin trying to handle L2's:

 

By the way, I don't know if you're aware but Lightning Network has it's own scalability problems aside from centralization problems.
But instead of actually fixing it, maybe we'll just stick L3 on top of it, the Bitcoin way...  

It's a serious problem but if nothing changes to the Bitcoin protocol concerning this problems then I'll just grab my popcorn and watch this comedy-drama then come back here to say "I told ya!".
 

[d5000]

1 - You're worried about node centralization and in the same time pushing people to LN which in nature becomes more centralized with time.

I'm not "pushing people to LN". I'm currently not even using it actively myself (after some experiments in 2018 or 2019).
But I would use it if the fee situation of late April, or some months in 2023, became the standard, at least for some transactions.
For the "becoming more centralized" assumption, yes some big blockers in this forum continue to repeat that, but that's pure speculation. I haven't seen really research on that, if you know some, then please point me to it.

full nodes on Bitcoin that are running on old hardware and with bad Internet connection are not doing any good to the network aside from nice looking statistics.

"Network support" is not the only benefit a full node provides.
Their owners may use them for better privacy and more safety against some attack vectors possible with SPV clients (not that this is something an average user has to fear, but somebody doing regularly big transactions could)
Using a client like Electrum you leak a lot of information actually if you don't create lots of wallets and do a high amount of address management. So the option to use Bitcoin Core with an average PC should imo not be sacrificed.

For example Monero has good number of decentralized nodes, not as many as Bitcoin but that's not due to too high requirement (I run full node on my 10 year old laptop no prob.) but rather just being less popular than Bitcoin.

But isn't that just supporting what I wrote? Monero nodes are much less hardware consuming than Bitcoin's currently. That's mainly because the network usage is lower. But I think that's the issue you're discussing with BlackHatCoiner ...

But in short, miners are always incentivized while people pay low fees, it's a win win for everyone if you're willing to accept inflation that's going to zero but never reaches zero.

I think the Monero conditions cannot be simply assumed for Bitcoin. Bitcoin has much higher usage. Thus, to have the same fees you would need huge blocks.
I had in the past advocated for a dynamic but still quite small block size. But I think now the "L2 way" is more promising, because doubling or tripling block size, which would be ok still for today's consumer hardware, would not be enough really for mass adoption.
About tail emission: I already wrote it's an acceptable model for me. But the problem is that Bitcoin's value proposition currently draws a lot from the "limited supply" and "digital gold" narrative. In addition, I would prefer to not hardfork forever, even if altcoins are accustomed to that. If Bitcoin was created newly I would advocate actually for a tail emission model.
And Bitcoin can work with transaction fees only, that's the conclusion I get from all current statistics on the subject I know. For coins like LTC I guess the situation could become more critical, but LTC miners actually benefit from Doge's tail emission.

3 - In short term it would hurt but long term Bitcoin would be used more (due to lower fees) and gain more natural price growth which would be much more stable.
Demand for Digital Cash is much higher than Digital Property for investing, Bitcoin would have much higher growth pontential and would be more secure.

Myself I think the "multiple L2" model, with sidechains *and* LN (not *or*!) could bring actually much more benefit, and it would not depend on tail emissions.

But if the security situation really becomes critical, one could implement something very similar to tail emissions actually with Drivechains or other kinds of merge-mined sidechains, with a model very close to the Doge/LTC model I showed above. If each Drivechain has an own utility token which is inflationary, then the Bitcoin miners would actually benefit from merge-mining them. For this reason, if Drivechain or another decentralized sidechain model is implemented, I expect the Bitcoin miners benefitting quite well from them.

Regarding miner centralization I have already written in another post that I disagree that there's a clear tendency towards centralization. I could also speculate and say it's actually the other way around: big miners aren't flexible enough for the rough post-halving conditions. Just a few days ago I saw a new thread in the German subforum of people (real forum users, not forum users talking about something they heard "from friends"...) setting up small solar mining installations.

A heavy crash due to the "deflation obsessed investors exodus" could also go so deep that it would hurt security itself and cause a lot of chaos, maybe even it's the opportunity to a anti-Bitcoin attacker.

Thus my opinion continues to be: We should try to preserve the current Bitcoin mining model and, above all, avoid hardforks. If really (for me, likelihood is low, I'm not "praying" for it) something goes wrong and security becomes too low, then we have some time for alternative solutions like merge-mined Drivechains, and only if that doesn't work we should consider a hard fork to tail emission.

[MeGold666]

1 - You're worried about node centralization and in the same time pushing people to LN which in nature becomes more centralized with time.

I'm not "pushing people to LN". I'm currently not even using it actively myself (after some experiments in 2018 or 2019).
But I would use it if the fee situation of late April, or some months in 2023, became the standard, at least for some transactions.
For the "becoming more centralized" assumption, yes some big blockers in this forum continue to repeat that, but that's pure speculation. I haven't seen really research on that, if you know some, then please point me to it.

There are plenty of studies about this matter:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225966

Statistics show number of channels are dropping for years now:
https://bitcoinvisuals.com/lightning



Some interesting comments about people trying to use this clusterfuck:
https://www.reddit.com/r/lightningnetwork/comments/1d1sibt/okwhats_the_truth_with_lightning/


At this point I have wrote everything I think about current situation in Bitcoin.
I appreciate your time, the discussion was very interesting and good points have been made.

Cheers!

[Wind_FURY]

Bitcoin mining is quickly becoming thing of the past, current landscape is AI.

 

Laughable, and it's obvious that you didn't think well about it before making that statement. There's more to mining than mere hashing to "win the lottery" for rewards. There's a particular dynamic between mining difficulty, the price speculation of Bitcoin, the demand for blocks, and so on. To say that it's "becoming a thing of the past" is simply WRONG. In fact, the way HashCash is utilized in Bitcoin, it's actually a thing of the future. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You are arguing not with me but with the reality, read it again:

In recent months, major Bitcoin mining companies have started to swap out some of their mining equipment in favor of rigs used to run and train AI systems. These companies believe that AI training could provide a safer and more consistent source of revenue than the volatile crypto industry. And so far, these pivots have been warmly received by investors, leading to the market cap of 14 major bitcoin mining companies jumping in value by 22%, or $4 billion, since the beginning of June, J.P. Morgan reported on June 24.

Source: https://time.com/6993603/ai-bitcoin-mining-artificial-intelligence-energy-use/

This is happening at ~60k USD price evaluation, if it drops any further you will see a large drop in Bitcoin security.
Current levels of hashrate are a bubble due to the price being a bubble for so many years.

You may hysterically laugh all you want, it won't change a thing. This is current reality.

But that doesn't consider the actual dynamic between the miners - who are also speculators, mining difficulty, and the price of Bitcoin. Those parts are constantly moving that lead to whether a miner adds more hashing power, or reduces hashing power. That's the current reality. Running some of their hashing power for A.I. systems "may" become part of the rotation, but saying that Hashing as a Sybil Protection Mechanism is a "thing of the past" is simply wrong. It's the future.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You're talking way into the future, when there will be this many transactions (maybe in 20 years lol)

It will never occur if there is such a burden in verification, that's what I'm talking about. All of that, under the impression that you'll either run your own node or use a solution like Feather, but by still checking every transaction until your wallet's block height.

But, besides that part, it still cannot work for point-of-sale. No person will wait for 2.5 minutes in the line, just for their transaction to confirm. Transactions must complete instantly, which implies the existence of a second layer.

You want to build on top of Bitcoin with it's limited small block size ? LN has proven recently that it can't work when L1 has larger transaction count like we have seen with Ordinals spam.

Lightning Network is not suitable for global adoption, and I don't remember it ever being portrayed as the ultimate solution to scalability, by its creators. It was just one solution, which can greatly improve scalability within a network of LSPs. Average users have a reasonably hard time using it. That's why we need a second layer that moves complexity back to the servers, like this one: https://arkdev.info/.

[MeGold666]

It will never occur if there is such a burden in verification, that's what I'm talking about. All of that, under the impression that you'll either run your own node or use a solution like Feather, but by still checking every transaction until your wallet's block height.

So you don't believe that computers will be faster 20 years from now ?  

But, besides that part, it still cannot work for point-of-sale. No person will wait for 2.5 minutes in the line, just for their transaction to confirm. Transactions must complete instantly, which implies the existence of a second layer.

Monero has 0-conf transactions, it takes not more than 3 seconds after hitting enter for my transaction to be confirmed when I'm paying for my dedicated server on impreza.host
You can't do this with Bitcoin due to RBF.

Lightning Network is not suitable for global adoption, and I don't remember it ever being portrayed as the ultimate solution to scalability

This was the notion for so many years you probably forgot, to this day uneducated people will say LN is the answer to any Bitcoin issues.

I have already mentioned that I don't want to continue this discussion, mainly because it's exhausting talking with people like you who didn't do their research and continue to talk about problems they don't understand.
Due to this I'm wasting a lot of time just to educate you how things work like with the 0-conf in Monero and I don't like wasting my time.

Cheers and goodbye  

[BlackHatCoiner]

So you don't believe in that computer will be faster 20 years from now ?

I don't believe that technology will scale exponentially, no. However, in a globally adopted scenario with reliance on on-chain transactions, I'd expect the system to do grow by orders of magnitude in terms of verification time.

Monero has 0-conf transactions, it takes not more than 3 seconds after hitting enter for my transaction to be confirmed when I'm paying for my dedicated server on impreza.host

0-conf is in the name. No confirmation. Any 0-conf transaction can be double-spent. If you can't see the problem of relying on 0-conf for a globally adopted payment system, then I don't know what to say.

You can't do this with Bitcoin due to RBF.

RBF is only a local policy rule. A transaction with no confirmation can be double-spent since January 2009. That's why we use a blockchain, remember?

This was the notion for so many years you probably forgot, to this day uneducated people will say LN as the answer to any Bitcoin issues.

Right. Uneducated, and I put myself into that group. But, I can clearly see years now that lightning isn't meant to be used by the average user.

I don't see how I'm exhausting to talking to, but if that's how you feel, then goodbye.

[garlonicon]

So you don't believe that computers will be faster 20 years from now ?

Check the CPU frequency 10 years ago, and now. Compare it:

There is one problem with that approach: verification. Sending the whole chain is not a problem. But verifying still is. And what is the bottleneck of verification? For example CPU speed, which depends on frequency:

2011-09-13: Maximum Speed | AMD FX Processor Takes Guinness World Record

On August 31, an AMD FX processor achieved a Guiness World Record with a frequency of 8.429GHz, a stunning result for a modern, multi-core processor. The record was achieved with several days of preparation and an amazing and inspired run in front of world renowned technology press in Austin, Texas.

2022-12-21: First 9 GHz CPU (overclocked Intel 13900K)

It's over 9000. ElmorLabs KTH-USB: https://elmorlabs.com/product/elmorla... Validation: https://valid.x86.fr/t14i1f

Thank you to Asus and Intel for supporting the record attempt!

Intel Core i9-13900K
Asus ROG Maximus Z790 Apex
G.Skill Trident Z5 2x16GB
ElmorLabs KTH-USB Thermometer
ElmorLabs Volcano CPU container

See? Humans are still struggling with reaching 8-9 GHz, and you need a liquid nitrogen to maintain that value. And more than a decade ago, the situation was pretty much the same. So, the CPU speed is not "doubled" every year. Instead, you have just more and more cores, and you have for example 64-core processor, instead of having 2-core or 4-core.

Which means that yes, you can download 100 GB, maybe even more. But is the whole system really trustless, if you have no chance of verifying that data, and you have to trust, that all of them are correct? Imagine that you can download the whole chain very quickly, but it is not verified. What then?

Also note, that if something can be done in parallel, then yes, you can use 64-core processor, and execute 64 different things at the same time. However, many steps during validation are sequential. The whole chain is a sequence of blocks. The whole block is a sequence of transactions (and their order does matter, if one output is an input in another transaction in the same block). The hashing of legacy transactions is sequential (also in cases like bare multisig, which has O(n^2) complexity for no reason).

So yes, you can have 64-core processor with 4 GHz each, but a single core with 256 GHz would allow much more scaling. And this is one of the reasons, why we don't have bigger blocks. The progress in validation time is just not sufficient to increase it much further.

[tread93]

So basically there's some people that theorize about what will happen in 2140+ (to put the extreme scenario in which no further Bitcoin will be generated, but this should be hit in practice way sooner due very low inflation rate) when no longer there will be more BTC issued, so then the question remains to be answered:
How will miners find an incentive to mine blocks if there is no block reward left?

Some people claim that the transaction fees will be enough. Others say that the price will be so high that there will be not enough transaction volume for this to compensate miner activity (then again wouldn't the high fees be enough incentive?).

Well what if the fees are not enough, or there are not enough volume tx going on, or anything else? Would non-monetary use cases like Ordinal inscriptions solve the problem? I imagine in the future blocks will contain massive amounts of second layer transactions and it will be a settlement layer 1 network only. The fees will be very high, so maybe between regular transactions + other use cases it will be enough to keep miners working?

I have been trying to decide if ordinals and basically anything but monetary transactions are a massive amount of time and resources, or perhaps they would actually help with the miner incentive structure?

Obviously, the top priority should always be monetary transactions, then if that wasn't enough, the incentive could be filled with non-monetary transactions. Perhaps at the protocol level, make it so that monetary transactions go first, then with less priority process non-monetary transactions. We should consider if ordinals can be saved or not long term, if these use cases could deliver something useful. If they will only bring problems, then perhaps a full frontal attack on them and planning to stop them may be best. But im still open to discuss this before I pick a side.

The thing is that by 2140 we will all be gone and by then our heirs will hopefully have received their inheritance and all the bitcoins will be in new hands. What I have read is that when the last bitcoin has been mined miners will still make money off of the fees for the transactions that still occur on the network and that will keep the network and miners running. You've got to hand it to Satoshi for setting it up this way. Back in the 1900s you had folks mining silver and gold and we are now in the Bitcoin gold rush! There are still many coins to be mined! Its kind of wild because 2140 is in 116 years and it has only been 176 years since the start of the gold rush in 1848. Look at how much gold has increased in value since then, I can only imagine what Bitcoin will be at in 2140. I only wish we could live to see what happens!

[d5000]

Forgot to answer here, sorry

There are plenty of studies about this matter:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225966

Thanks, but afaik this only shows that "there are hubs in LN" and that the network would be less efficient without them. It doesn't show that there is a general tendency towards bigger hubs and that's what I wrote.
But this does not make it centralized. It's quite obvious that only a few participants will have nodes open with more than, say 2 to 4 other nodes. For most participants even one channel is OK.
That it would be a "perfect utopia" like some kind of social network was never realistic, this would also make onboarding costs skyrocket.

I agree actually with you that LN is not a perfect utopia. It's a tool, but a potentially very useful one. I consider it a decentralized prepaid system to bundle dozens, in some cases hundreds of smaller transactions (not millions!) into one. Basically what a credit card is in the fiat world, but where everybody can become a payment processor ...

Statistics show number of channels are dropping for years now:
https://bitcoinvisuals.com/lightning

This is also not showing centralization. It is simply in a stagnant, very (!) slightly retroceding state, where existing hubs may minimally increase their importance. Newest numbers hint to a stabilization. But the current adoption is also not critical because on-chain fees are still palatable. I would have expected a growth however last year during the Ordinals wave, but yeah, we may not be there yet because the tools are still too difficult to use.

By the way, that image about centralization/decentralization your shared - that's exactly what our beloved big blockers were sharing for 7 years now.

That's what I wanted to add still to this thread, then for me also everything has been said, at least regarding these few issues.

[stompix]

But that doesn't consider the actual dynamic between the miners - who are also speculators, mining difficulty, and the price of Bitcoin. Those parts are constantly moving that lead to whether a miner adds more hashing power, or reduces hashing power. That's the current reality. Running some of their hashing power for A.I. systems "may" become part of the rotation, but saying that Hashing as a Sybil Protection Mechanism is a "thing of the past" is simply wrong. It's the future.

There is no mysterious dynamic here, lower income less hashrate, that's it!
Q2 has ended and you can see that despite newer models replacing older with better ths/joules we have still gone down 5%.
Have the coin drop to 50k and you will see how much miners care about dynamic as they shut down!

Also, miners don't protect against a Sybill type attacks, that's what nodes do!

So you don't believe that computers will be faster 20 years from now ?

Check the CPU frequency 10 years ago, and now. Compare it:

There is one problem with that approach: verification. Sending the whole chain is not a problem. But verifying still is. And what is the bottleneck of verification? For example CPU speed, which depends on frequency:

Can you please explain how doge manages to validate 10x the blocks as Bitcoin with all this CPU limitations mumbo jumbo?
Do they use some much wow shiba CPU that are different?

Rather than keep on talking about CPU limitations how about we do something else, see what the limit of the average CPU now in verifying a block is compared to the average CPU back in 2009, cause there might be a surprise! While you're at it you might also explain to me why the mother of all shitcoin cumwrightvision didn't break with 100MB blocks!

[garlonicon]

Can you please explain how doge manages to validate 10x the blocks as Bitcoin with all this CPU limitations mumbo jumbo?

Let's see:

Dogecoin blockchain size: https://blockchair.com/dogecoin/charts/blockchain-size
Bitcoin blockchain size: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/blockchain-size

Let's say that Dogecoin currently is at 150 GB, while Bitcoin is at 600 GB. Which means, that Bitcoin processed 4x more data than Dogecoin.

So, where are those "10x the blocks"?

Do they use some much wow shiba CPU that are different?

They use outdated version of Bitcoin Core, so they are less resistant to some attacks. And when Dogecoin suddenly raised in value and popularity, there was a time, when the network was simply stuck, and nodes were unable to synchronize the chain.

While you're at it you might also explain to me why the mother of all shitcoin cumwrightvision didn't break with 100MB blocks!

Usually, BSV supporters think that non-mining nodes are not important at all, and they are fine, if only mining pools use full nodes. They expect that everyone else can stick with SPV nodes, so even 1 TB blocks is not a problem in that case, because regular users are not going to be independent peers in their system.

[Wind_FURY]

But that doesn't consider the actual dynamic between the miners - who are also speculators, mining difficulty, and the price of Bitcoin. Those parts are constantly moving that lead to whether a miner adds more hashing power, or reduces hashing power. That's the current reality. Running some of their hashing power for A.I. systems "may" become part of the rotation, but saying that Hashing as a Sybil Protection Mechanism is a "thing of the past" is simply wrong. It's the future.

There is no mysterious dynamic here, lower income less hashrate, that's it!
Q2 has ended and you can see that despite newer models replacing older with better ths/joules we have still gone down 5%.
Have the coin drop to 50k and you will see how much miners care about dynamic as they shut down!

Also, miners don't protect against a Sybill type attacks, that's what nodes do!

I never posted anything about the dynamic being "mysterious", but there is a dynamic. Miners are speculators too, and because common sense tells every miner that higher difficulty = less profit - and therefore an increasing number of miners will be shutting off their ASICs, then other miners could see that as an opportunity.

Plus Bitcoin's price projection.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Also, miners don't protect against a Sybill type attacks, that's what nodes do!

Why not? Executing a Sybil attack requires re-doing the Proof-of-Work, otherwise the node can figure out it's surrounded by malicious nodes, since they will stop sending him blocks.

Can you please explain how doge manages to validate 10x the blocks as Bitcoin with all this CPU limitations mumbo jumbo?

Dogecoin has 1 MB block size, and 1 minute time interval. That's the equivalent of 10 MB Bitcoin block size. So, not 10x, but 2.5x.

While you're at it you might also explain to me why the mother of all shitcoin cumwrightvision didn't break with 100MB blocks!

Besides what garlonicon said about the philosophy behind BSV, have you actually attempted to sync a BSV node? I don't know man, you might... be surprised. 

[ABCbits]

Can you please explain how doge manages to validate 10x the blocks as Bitcoin with all this CPU limitations mumbo jumbo?

Dogecoin has 1 MB block size, and 1 minute time interval. That's the equivalent of 10 MB Bitcoin block size. So, not 10x, but 2.5x.

Both 2.5x and 10x only true in theory with different assumption, where
1. Bitcoin block mostly contain witness data (almost 2.5x).
2. Bitcoin block doesn't contain any witness data (10x).

While you're at it you might also explain to me why the mother of all shitcoin cumwrightvision didn't break with 100MB blocks!

Besides what garlonicon said about the philosophy behind BSV, have you actually attempted to sync a BSV node? I don't know man, you might... be surprised. 

The blockchain size is bigger now[1] with very demanding hardware[2], even compared with running ETH node[3].

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20240630095610/https://whatsonchain.com/block-stat/total_block_size
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20240709092849/https://docs.bsvblockchain.org/network-topology/nodes/sv-node/system-requirements
[3] https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/nodes-and-clients/run-a-node/#requirements