Daily reminder that: small blocks = small cocks

Daily reminder that: small blocks = small cocks

Attached: LNchannels.jpg (917x769, 73K)

Checked and based

daily reminder that big blockers are retarded

daily reminder that the scaling solution btc takes is one true pow chain in the center and multiple sidechains anchoring to it via merge mining and chains anchoring to them via merge mining and so on will provide a total transaction throughput orders of magnitudes higher than any big block bullshit could hope for while keeping the main network lean and decentralized and also allowing for multiple specialized currencies and platforms to thrive side by side and all enjoy the security they derive from btc (their reserve currency).

daily reminder that more than pow chain especially of the same pow hash is utterly retarded.

*more than one pow chain

>multiple sidechains anchoring to it via merge mining and chains anchoring to them via merge mining
>keeping the main network lean and decentralized

Attached: OYFHQVQ.jpg (1400x1297, 171K)

it's a much better scaling solution than one retarded huge blockchain stored on a centralized cloud stiffling competition and innovation and natural evolution. craigs vision is disgusting deplorable bullshit.

Is it not equivalent to huge blocks if the same miner has to verify the correctness of sidechain blocks he's including?

that 's the point of the sidechains everyone only has to store and transfer what is interest to him. the miners of the main chain don't give a fuck about sidechains. they only verify the transactional integrity of the main chain. the second tier chains may support some rudimental two way binding and atomic swap capability as that would be their specialty.

"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."

- Satoshi Nakamoto 2010

That's how Bitcoin works, if you don't like it STIFF

But then sidechains don't have the full security of the main chain which is about as useless as stand alone chains. The selling point of being a btc sidechain is leeching on the PoW security.

>two way binding
Makes BTC block validity dependent on sidechain validity, and without ZK-proofs which will never happen in bitcoin that means verifying the full block. Unironically prove me wrong, it would make me happy.

>atomic swap
Also no better than a stand alone chain with their own token.

it's evidently not how bitcoin works.
they have the full security. what they don't have is two way trivial trustless exit. which means if their second tier sidechain crooks they are fucked.

>Makes BTC block validity dependent on sidechain validity
no you are jumping to conclusions here the second tier chains will support two way binding not the main chain. and only in a limited way. this probably includes block hash not individual transactions and definitely not their validity in most cases.

>Also no better than a stand alone chain with their own token.
if they can do atomic swap on their own this is not needed, the "atomic swap" in actual excrow swap scheme support is for coins that can't do a trustless atomic swap with each other because they are not 2 way bound.

mainchain will be trustless permissionless decentralized publicly auditable
second tier chains will be trustless publicly auditable distributed trust pos/poa/federation chains
third and lower tier chains can be trustful permissioned extremely efficient however the second tier guarantees you a trustless exit from your smart contract that locks you into the lower tier shitcoins that have the transaction capability far surpassing swift and visa. which means that trying a hostile takeover will be of limited to no profitability. low tier chains that are compromised will simply be abandoned and die.

meh second tier is not trustless and could be permissioned to a degree by a federation charter or something but whatever

>it's evidently not how bitcoin works.

BTC is not BitCoin i

it sure is your little religious sect thinks it will overthrow the fucking catholic church just because you got a better truer read on the holy book kek, but the truth s you will never leave your mothers basement. cultist morons.

>it sure is your little religious sect thinks it will overthrow the fucking catholic church just because you got a better truer read on the holy book kek

Freudian slip showing that you believe in BTC religiously rather than understanding the technicals

BTC: 1mb blocks, 7tx/s
BSV: 2000mb blocks, 14,000tx/s

It's that simple

>Freudian slip showing that you believe in BTC religiously
not really no, but sv cucks are all cultists so i tried an analogy that may penetrate your thick skull. your retarded little cult is never gonna make it. calvin alone has 3 times the hashpower of sv let that sink in... he does with the chain whatever the fuck he wants. and still any big btc miner could 51 it on his bad day without breaking a sweat. it's a permissioned centralized trustful piece of shit that is not secure and probably wouldn't scale either.

>calvin alone has 3 times the hashpower of sv let that sink in

That's a bad thing why?

>he does with the chain whatever the fuck he wants

Miners have an obvious incentive to keep the protocol stable and valuable

>any big btc miner could 51 it on his bad day without breaking a sweat

If it's so easy why hasn't that happened yet? Unlike BTC hodlers miners are not ideological fanatics, they want the best profit and BSV is going to provide them with a big pay rise with a large volume of transaction fees, miners love BSV, they only mine BTC because HODLers are still suicidally throwing money at them by buying it

>it's a permissioned centralized trustful

Blockstream propaganda buzzwords

>That's a bad thing why?
because it means the coin has total central authority which is you know not a bad thing unless you want to make a difference.
>If it's so easy why hasn't that happened yet?
it's so easy i don't know why miners choose to be altruistic repeatedly but they do. even tho we only expect them to be selfish. i wouldn't count on it that's the point.
>Blockstream propaganda buzzwords
you think blockstream matters? you think they have some weird control over what people think? they go with the crowd or get put aside that's all.

lmfao what sort of retard would support anything over a 2mb block at this stage

>because it means the coin has total central authority

Nonsense

>it's so easy i don't know why miners choose to be altruistic repeatedly but they do.

You don't understand BitCoin at all

>you think blockstream matters? you think they have some weird control over what people think? they go with the crowd or get put aside that's all.

They literally have full central control of the BTC protocol and can change it on a whim, what they say goes

>lmfao what sort of retard would support anything over a 2mb block at this stage

You're right, why improve infrastructure ahead of time? Just wait until the current system is completely broken and crippled before considering improving it

Attached: horrible-traffic-jam-pictures1.jpg (600x425, 67K)

>Nonsense
go be retarded somewhere else!
>what they say goes
poor summer child he still don't get it.

i'm with those that say every halving should double the max block size also. that is the minimum that is required for long term scalability with ln and sidechains. sadly the 1mb block limit is a dangerous gamble at this point. it hastens segwit adoption but also hinders adoption more than it should.