Serious discussion BCH V BTC

Serious discussions

Given that BTC is likely to keep its 1mb block side


With plans for BCH increasing block sizes from 32mb to 1gb to what they say 1tb

How likely is that to happen?


If Bitcoin Cash does become a pure cash system. Guessing all the other currency will die. E.g Nano, Digibyte etc

Attached: Screenshot_20180527-085915.png (1920x1080, 494K)

Other urls found in this thread:

iancoleman.io/blocksize/#block-size=1000
coinjournal.net/gavin-andresen-mike-hearn-will-be-the-benevolent-dictator-of-bitcoinxt/
shitco.in/2015/08/19/the-bitcoin-xt-trojan/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Are 1gb or 1tb blocks even possible and the likelihood of them happening?


Complete brainlet here

No, it's a complete fantasy. Internet speeds and storage space are not advancing anywhere near the speed needed to do this in the next decade. You could theoretically do it on large cloud providers and datacenters but it would be highly centralized and easily censored by governments. Modest increases to anything between something like 2mb - 32mb though conserving bandwidth will always make it more resilient to censorship and internet disruptions.

Well, think about transferring 1 terabyte over the web per 10 min block time.
is that possible?

Probably not right now. But likely will be in future.

1 gig in 10 mins is possible now, so I think we are sweet for the next 5 years or so. Even if tech doesn't advance at all

1 gb isn't possible, look at the approximate figures iancoleman.io/blocksize/#block-size=1000
It's out of reach for even most small to medium businesses. You would be limited to using a handful of thin online wallets from various providers, if you're going to centralize it that much you may as well just use something like XRP and not pay faggot miners billions of dollars. There's many flaws with BTC but BCH only exists to make miners money, the more TX they can cram onto SHA256 chains the more money they get, altcoins mined with GPUs or 2nd layer protocols mean less money for chinese mining cartels.

Interesting, so it is mostly bandwidth that is the limitation?

wait a sec, but miners get paid more with small blocks. People compete and offer higher and higher fees to get their transaction into the next block. Like in December last year when it cost $50 per transaction to get a BTC transaction though. Miners were making a killing.
With big blocks that never get full, miner fees will be many but much much lower.
However the currency will be much more useful to the masses as they can actually send transaction. so overall its better for miners if the network grows by making commerce easy. This is a win-win situation, which farsighted miners are going for: grow the network and build the tech that is necessary:
Push technology forward in the kind of arms race that hasn't happened since WW2.
=Sounds pretty exciting to be a big block miner DESU

It's important to know that BCH has raised the maximum block size to 32 MB, not the minimum. Currently the blocks are less than 100 kB in size on average.

It took about 5 years for Bitcoin to get to 1 MB. So even if people use BCH with accelerating rate it will still take, let's say, 40 years before each block start getting near full.

So to answer your question, it's likely to happen but not for a very long time. People will have a lot of time to figure out good ways to distribute blocks that are larger than 32 MB (remember again, "1 TB" blocks would just be the max size).

Side note: You need about 450 kbps to download 32 MB in 10 minutes. In 40 years that speed (55 KiB/s) won't be a problem for most people, even in poor countries.

Attached: Who watches the Watchtowers.jpg (1280x4752, 935K)

Bstream are leftist cucks who think Bitcoin mining is "wasteful"

Buy as many PoW coins as you can bub, because you're spot on about the arms race in tech (as well as electricity and energy solutions). It's going to be all about competition and skin in the game. The pedophiles working on Core (most of whom are late adopters, most pitiful of all Adam Back who literally criticized Bitcoin directly to Satoshi before the first build was even released) don't have any.

Or use 0xBTC on the ethereum chain, which will be PoS EOY

Attached: 0xBTC.jpg (400x400, 13K)

Xthin and CompactBlocks currently reduce the amount of data required to send a blocks data
So a 1GB block doesn't actually require 1GB of data when being sent to another miner.


Other proposals like Graphene would make the amount of data required to be sent to other nodes nothing or negligible the vast majority of the time.
All nodes have their own mempool. Why should a miner send a copy of all tx's in a new block when all those nodes already have them in their mempool?
Graphene would make it so the vast majority of the network builds the new block from all the tx in their own mempool, and only request the few missing tx it may have.
Most tx are seen by the majority of the network within seconds.

Bandwidth is NOT an issue for scaling.