How could BTC which has a $100B market cap can't compete with smaller coins like BCH which already have Schnorr sigs? What is the BTC dev team even do? Do they sit on their ass and wait to succeed based on having the "digital gold" standard? That doesn't sound like a good strategy and it could result with losing market share even if BTC will remain number one.
How could BTC which has a $100B market cap can't compete with smaller coins like BCH which already have Schnorr sigs...
Colton Rodriguez
Aiden Mitchell
longest chain, most pow done, 100x hashrate. its bitcoin defined by whitepaper you retard.
it literally can stay the same for eternity and will always stay #1 forever. + its marketshare been mooning all year you fork holding cuck.
Jason Gutierrez
Retard.
A blockchain which processes EACH transaction on EVERY node at the same time, and stores the transaction data on EVERY node FOREVER.
What is the most efficient solution to scaling a blockchain like that?
Bcash = Increase the blocksize until the end of time, thus increasing the barrier to entry for miners, increasing centralization, reducing security and still inefficient for day to day transactions which don't need to be run and stored on every node forever.
Bitcoin = Offload processing of day to day transactions to another chain (LN), backed by Bitcoin's chain.
Elijah Taylor
>it literally can stay the same for eternity and will always stay #1 forever.
Why? Its business model is based on having more suckers down the line who'll buy it for more fiat than they invested first. It can go on for only so long untill the pool of suckers depletes.
>its marketshare been mooning all year you fork holding cuck.
52% isn't "mooning". And even that's only because ETH failed to deliver.
Easton Fisher
Roger and jihan are niggers but lol@thinking 1mb cap is a good thing.
Lucas Bennett
>Offload processing of day to day transactions to another chain (LN)
The LN isn't implemented yet, not in a way which will allow for even a tiny number of the world to transact with it, and I'm not even talking about being secure and private.
Gabriel Rodriguez
LN+moderate cap raise would be perfect but blockstream are kikes
Michael Cox
yeah it's no good, it should be half of that to bar poorfags like you from using bitcoin
Luis Butler
>Its business model is based on having more suckers down the line who'll buy it for more fiat than they invested first.
you dont get it. btc is all about being a hedge against inflation + offshore trillions.
nobody wants to pay a coffee with a deflationary asset how fucking retarded is that? you fell for too many reddit memes. bitcoin isnt perfect but it sure is better than any fork will ever be
Samuel Diaz
kys kike
Ayden Anderson
>its bitcoin defined by whitepaper
Wew lad, what a retard
Oh wait I must have forgotten the white paper is titled with 'peer to peer digital gold for hodling'
Evan Rodriguez
when was the last time BCH developers had a public debate with a BIP proposal, especially when i comes to hard forks?
Oh yeah, they've been hard forking (aka changing the consensus protocol) at will and no one gives a shit.
You can't hard fork like that on BTC. Why? Because a large consensus needs to be reached. It's not NPC BCH holders that let devs do whatever they want.
You need to understand the development process of a consensus based distributed system.
It's been 10 years since that post and clearly it's not true. Storage & bandwidth hasn't kept up with Moore's law.
Blake Ortiz
if you dont have consensus, dont fork like a pathetic little cuck just to get ultra rekt. i too would have liked a higher cap but these faggots miserably. lmao@being bullish on a fork.
Christopher Howard
Also, how big are the blocks now? I lost count how many times they hard forked to increase the block size but their mempool isn't even bigger than dogecoin. Why the fuck would you keep making the block size bigger when you can't even fill 10% of it?
Christian Perry
do it faggot
William Turner
The point is that the blocks should never get full to begin with
Juan Lee
If you knew anything about crypto you’d realize the importance of tech is a meme.
Brandon Turner
yes, they should. if the mempool is always emptied with every block, there is no incentive to mine when there won't be anymore emission, since you don't know whether there will be enough tx in the next block you mine for you to break even.
Asher Morris
have sex greg
Michael Jackson
>I choose to ignore a problem therefore it doesn't exist
btw a blocksize increase is on core's roadmap you little seething faggot bitch.
Jonathan King
>btw a blocksize increase is on core's roadmap you little seething faggot bitch.
But then it'll be just another alt shitcoin and will lose the ticker symbol which is the only thing it has.
Not gonna happen.
Logan Kelly
>got personal the second i called him out on being greg
lol its actually greg. have sex you absolute virgin
David Martin
no u ;)
Carson Campbell
Omg lol
Oliver Cruz
no, because in Bitcoin, unlike in random shitcoins, there is Nakamoto Consensus at work, and if a proposal goes through, it becomes the new network consensus.
go people are retarded on this board. when did biz go to the shitter?
Grayson Williams
That unfortunately makes no sense. You then completely remove fees for every transaction. That's a requirement for miners to keep mining after the block reward is gone.
There's obviously the glaring problem that if you let people store information on a decentralized system forever, the cost can't be zero. You can literally kill a coin by spamming it and pay no tx fees, making all nodes store your useless transactions.
Michael Baker
>no, because in Bitcoin, unlike in random shitcoins, there is Nakamoto Consensus at work, and if a proposal goes through, it becomes the new network consensus.
You mean like how it went down with the NYA?
Jordan Peterson
BCore shills are officially worse than BSV shills.
Joseph Perry
You're so retarded I have no words.
Mason Cruz
Fact: big blocks can fit more fees, hence the reward for miners is much bigger.
Nobody will ever want to pay 1000$ transaction fees when there is cheaper alternatives.
Thomas Foster
nya was exactly the opposite and nya got btfo
Evan Reyes
true, it can fit more, but every miner will empty the entire mempool with every next block. so if you're a miner you need to hope that in the next 10mins there will be enough tx in the pool for you to break even. I know it's hard for brainlets to understand, but please, at least try.
Jacob Rodriguez
I don't see a rebuttal.
If you assume the block limit is never reached, then
everyone will pay the minimum fee. There's no incentive to pay a higher fee as your transaction will be confirmed in the next block.
2 GB per block is insane.
2 GB * 6 * 24 * 30 is 8.64 terabytes. Per month. That's how much storage you need to add per month and you need to download that much and upload that much, per month.
If you turn off your node for a year and try to sync, you need to download 103.68 TB in storage. You need to download that much data as well and hope someone uploads 103.68 TB to you. That's just one node.
2 GB every 10 minutes requires an upload speed of 26.7 Mbps but that takes the whole 10 minutes. If you want 2 GB in a minute where you have a chance to mine the next block, you need 266.7 Mbps upload speed. There's also the problem that blocks are generated in average of 10 minutes. But in reality that's not always the case. Look at the BTC block explorer you'll sometimes see blocks are generated within 10 seconds of each other. I'll leave you to do the math of what upload speed you need to participate in the network.
This can't function in a decentralized system, simply because storing information on a decentralized system forever can't be anywhere near free and the bandwidth / storage requirements is utterly ridiculous, even for an average joe in developed countries.
John Perry
I guess no more arguments from people that only have coins on binance and never ran a node in their life? Or have the IQ to understand to comprehend what a healthy decentralized, trustless, permissionless system looks like?
Hmm ok, I'm out then.
Gabriel Nguyen
>never ran a node
If you believe your shitty node helps to secure the network whatsoever then you're truly a nigger.
Gavin Wilson
>This can't function in a decentralized system, simply because storing information on a decentralized system forever can't be anywhere near free and the bandwidth / storage requirements is utterly ridiculous, even for an average joe in developed countries.
Just when I thought you can't get any more retarded and ignorant...
Henry Morris
>t.
Anthony Martin
I'm sure richfags like you can afford 1 Gbps up/down internet and you add 9 TB of storage to your node a month
Again, no rebuttal.
Then you don't understand what a decentralized system means. A node is a system that's running the consensus code for whatever coin it is. It enforces that coin's rules. For example, in bitcoin, those rules are that the current block rewards is 12.5 BTC. It'll reject blocks that tries to reward a wallet with 100000 BTC for the block reward. It'll enforce the reduction of block reward in 2020 to 6.25 BTC. Without it, you don't have a distributed system or even decentralization.
That's why BCH had to hard fork (hard fork means you change the consensus protocol of whatever it was running before) because BTC protocol would reject 2 MB, 32 MB, 2 GB, etc blocks. This, by definition, means you are no longer following the BTC protocol.
Segwit was activated via a soft fork, meaning it does not force you to use it, it gives you the option to. You do not have to use segwit on BTC. That's the difference between a soft fork and a hard fork. Thus, segwit activated via soft fork does not change the BTC protocol.
Gavin Price
>Schnorr sigs
>being proud of Schnorr sigs
the 1980's called and they want their tech back
Elijah Murphy
300kb block in btc comming :-)
Grayson Rivera
You seriously argue thatt 200k transactions per 10 min is unrealistic for turing complete world currency?
We need the capacity to attract businesses. Nobody wants to build on top of 7 transactions per second with unpredictable costs.
>This can't function in a decentralized system, simply because storing information on a decentralized system forever can't be anywhere near free and the bandwidth / storage requirements is utterly ridiculous, even for an average joe in developed countries.
Wtf. There are much more than 100k businesses that can afford investments for 1 Gbps and server rigs.
Remember what Satoshi said: The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
Wyatt Morgan
it leads to centralization
the average joe can't afford the storage let alone the bandwidth
If all nodes (aka nodes that enforces the rules) are out of the average person's control (where it goes to businesses) then the rules are what those companies say
they can hard fork at will (which is what happens on BCH and BSV mainly bacause no one runs their nodes besides them on AWS)
Nicholas Powell
>taking paid blockstream marketer serious and unironically replying
Carson Garcia
Dogma for saving the weakest links (raspi "nodes") resulted in pathetic 7 tps bottleneck and hodl cult instead of usage and business adoption.
Dominic Lewis
>You seriously argue thatt 200k transactions per 10 min is unrealistic for turing complete world currency?
you don't get it, do you? if you're not sure you will break even with the 200k tx/ 10min (because realistically, sometimes blocks come more frequent and you mine maybe only like 10k tx), you can't be sure whether you actually should commit hashrate. and when there is a better and surefire option for your hashrate, you choose the better one. hence, hashrate drops. if a user can't be sure his tx will even be confirmed, he will use the better and more secure option, hence tx count drops, making the problem for miners even more acute. it's literally a death spiral.
like it or not, blocks need a limit so the mempool cannot be completely cleared out in every next block.
Parker Evans
>There are much more than 100k businesses that can afford investments for 1 Gbps and server rigs.
Stop wasting your time replying to that paid shill. 1. there's no real reason to run a full node for a regular business. 2. you don't have to store the entire blockchain, only the utxo set. 3. all these are fairly easy CS problems which will be solved much earlier than anything useful could be built around the LN, e.g. there are methods like one V Buterin coauthored a paper about which could help validate the blocks probabilisticly while only having to store and view a fraction of the block etc.
Again, don't fall for the same old narrative repeated over and over without researching the claims for yourself because you won't get answers in forums which only do shilling all day long.
Carson Nguyen
This. Blockstream is the biggest BS in crypto.
Hudson Gonzalez
>everyone who disagrees with me is a paid shill
damn right, I'm paid in BTC gainz because I refute stupid niggers like you who luckily fucked off to have their own shitcoin to obsess over now. so better stfu and praise craig or ver or whoever.