Bitcoin Forum
August 27, 2026, 01:01:40 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 31.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: FAQ: Bitcoin hard-fork 2026 "Blake2b"  (Read 254 times)
pooya87
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 4200
Merit: 12506



View Profile
Today at 05:31:30 AM
Merited by athanred (1)
 #21

they wouldn't have to store 800 GB of data from the start, but only some fraction of it, related to the UTXO set, and whatever their users will want to claim.
UTXO set is still too big itself. According to statoshi.info it is 11.4 GB with 165 million UTXOs. Smiley

If “copied code = shitcoin” was the true rule, then early Bitcoin-derived coins would be in that same bucket.
That's why Dogecoin is a shitcoin as well Smiley
But I agree that objective is important too. They didn't create bcash, bcashsv or lukecoin to innovate or solve any problem. They created these shit-fork-coins to make some noise and by using bitcoin's "brand" fill their own pockets. That uselessness and their objective makes their product a shitcoin.

▄▄████████████████████▄▄
▄███████▀▀██████▀▀███████▄
████████████████████████
████████▄▄██████▄▄██████

████████████████████████
██▄▄█████████████▄▄██████
██▀▀██████████████████▄▄██
██████▀▀██████████████▀▀██
██████████████████████████
██████▀▀██████▀▀████████
████████████████████████
▀███████▄▄██████▄▄███████▀
▀▀████████████████████▀▀
 
 DΞX.fo 
▄▄██████
█████████
██████████
█████████
██████████
█████████
▀▀██████

▄███████
▄██████████
████████████
█████████████
█████████████
|
▄▄█
▄████▀
▄███▀
▄██▀▄██
█████▀▀
███████
████████
▀██▄████
▄████▄▄
▄█████▀███
▄█████▀████
█████▀███████
▀██▀█████████
|..BTC......XMR...
..USDT.....LTC...
....Fees  0.8%.....
athanred
Member
**
Offline

Activity: 105
Merit: 168


View Profile
Today at 06:36:45 AM
 #22

Quote
UTXO set is still too big itself.
Of course, but even in that case, they don't have to store it entirely from the start. For example: if they have the block headers, then users can gradually import needed parts of the UTXO set, while leaving everything else unused. There is a command called "importprunedfunds". It allows pruned nodes to import coins, even though they don't have the old block data anymore, because of pruning. Which means, that instead of carrying the whole UTXO set from the start, they could use "txoutproof" values, and gradually import historical data, and only to the extent of actual usage. And then, if some coins are left untouched for years, then they don't have to store any information about it.

Also, by doing it in that way, it would actually create an incentive, to keep your own transactions on your side. Then, if spammers will be unable to provide proofs, that their UTXOs exist, then they would be unable to spend their coins. Which will solve the problem of spammers, putting stuff in the UTXO set, and thinking that the rest of the network will store it forever. In theory it could, but it is not strictly needed, to have a purely monetary network, to keep the whole UTXO set. Instead, it could be shifted into user's side, to provide a proof, that a given UTXO exists, when spending it.
MoparMiningLLC
aka Stryfe
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2912
Merit: 3581


EIN: 82-3893490


View Profile
Today at 06:43:02 AM
 #23


But I agree that objective is important too. They didn't create bcash, bcashsv or lukecoin to innovate or solve any problem. They created these shit-fork-coins to make some noise and by using bitcoin's "brand" fill their own pockets. That uselessness and their objective makes their product a shitcoin.

well they believe they created their alt to solve a problem. bcash for block size - bsv no idea except for CSW to be in charge so he could "regain" his coins (yes I know the satoshi coins are not his - tell him that lol) and BIP110 believe they are saving the blockchain from spam - they are not.

▄▄████████████████████▄▄
▄███████▀▀██████▀▀███████▄
████████████████████████
████████▄▄██████▄▄██████

████████████████████████
██▄▄█████████████▄▄██████
██▀▀██████████████████▄▄██
██████▀▀██████████████▀▀██
██████████████████████████
██████▀▀██████▀▀████████
████████████████████████
▀███████▄▄██████▄▄███████▀
▀▀████████████████████▀▀
 
 DΞX.fo 
▄▄██████
█████████
██████████
█████████
██████████
█████████
▀▀██████

▄███████
▄██████████
████████████
█████████████
█████████████
|
▄▄█
▄████▀
▄███▀
▄██▀▄██
█████▀▀
███████
████████
▀██▄████
▄████▄▄
▄█████▀███
▄█████▀████
█████▀███████
▀██▀█████████
|  BTC     XMR  
  DAI     LTC  
   Fees  0.8%    
All Bitcoin 3D printing needs at [url=https://www.cryptoclo
Danish Ali
Jr. Member
*
Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 49


View Profile
Today at 11:22:11 AM
 #24

That's why Dogecoin is a shitcoin as well Smiley
Fair enough, at least that is consistent. Can't really argue with someone who's willing to call their own example a shitcoin too instead of making exceptions.

They didn't create bcash, bcashsv or lukecoin to innovate or solve any problem. They created these shit-fork-coins to make some noise and by using bitcoin's "brand" fill their own pockets. That uselessness and their objective makes their product a shitcoin.
This easily makes it the strongest argument so far. This logic (intent + no real new ideas) makes way more sense as a test for a shitcoin than simply “did they copy code?” It is a much cleaner line, which is not what I was pushing back against before.
One thing I would throw out, by that logic, plenty of original code altcoins would also count as shitcoins, since many of them are not particularly creative either. So maybe real question isnt “forks vs altcoins,” but rather “did this project bring anything new or is it just hype and branding?” Forks just make that obvious faster because copy paste is so blatant.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!