CSW's "hash wars" impact on BTC price? - page 2.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: exstasie on December 29, 2018, 01:31:55 PM

Quote from: jbreher on December 29, 2018, 02:14:10 AM

Quote

If you could have 480 tx/s with strong security incentives, without publishing most of them to the blockchain, wouldn't that be better?

No. If it is not published to the blockchain, it is not a bitcoin transaction.

<<...reasonable stuff..>>

Sure - options are good. But to force everything onto a side chain, by stifling the ability to transact freely onchain, is a net negative.

exstasie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1521

Quote from: jbreher on December 29, 2018, 02:14:10 AM

Quote

If you could have 480 tx/s with strong security incentives, without publishing most of them to the blockchain, wouldn't that be better?

No. If it is not published to the blockchain, it is not a bitcoin transaction.

I guess that's not an important distinction to me. The important thing is whether a protocol requires 3rd party trust. That's the point of Bitcoin. Whether transactions are published to the blockchain is more a question of distributed data storage, which can be a nice feature but isn't necessary for peer-to-peer cash transactions.

I think having the option to use different protocols with different security tradeoffs (at different costs) is great for users. Since LN is compatible with Bitcoin, users can decide for themselves when they need Bitcoin's security or transparency, or if it's really not necessary for their needs. And if you need the blockchain to arbitrate a channel dispute, it's there and parties can settle back to Bitcoin.

This just seems better to me. It creates incentives for users to not bloat the chain (causing higher latency and bandwidth costs) because they can transact more cheaply on LN. It enables cheap and instant transactions without compromising Bitcoin in any way.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: nutildah on December 29, 2018, 12:16:19 PM

BTC survived pretty well for being in an apocalypse.

Yup - went from routine greater than 85% dominance down to less than a third. Such success.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: jbreher on December 29, 2018, 11:10:38 AM

Quote from: nutildah on December 29, 2018, 04:04:55 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 29, 2018, 02:45:50 AM

The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in?

This will never be a problem. BCH has trouble coming close to filling its blocks, there's no reason why SV wouldn't also.

BTC also had problems filling blocks. All the way up to the scaleapocalypse.

We know how this story ends.

Yeah but the difference is people actually use BTC for purposes other than coddling their own egos. Nobody wants yet another altcoin pretending to be BTC. Also, BTC survived pretty well for being in an apocalypse.

justdimin

hero member

Activity: 3164

Merit: 675

www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games

These are not science experiment anymore than little kids doing slime tests on youtube channels. We know what they are aiming at and we have seen the path they want to take and we have known for a while that both ways are worthless and useless, that is why they are not going with these in the real bitcoin world.

It is just a way for the rich to grab more money while they can and nothing more, Roger Vers and Jihan Wu's and Craigh wrights are just trying to spend their money on these projects so they could later on collect more. If you spend 10 into something but take out 15 that is a good investment and that's all they are trying right now. Testing something that is already not wanted is not experiment or even liked. We all know eventually bitcoin cash and all its forks will be gone, its just matter of when.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: nutildah on December 29, 2018, 04:04:55 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 29, 2018, 02:45:50 AM

The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in?

This will never be a problem. BCH has trouble coming close to filling its blocks, there's no reason why SV wouldn't also.

BTC also had problems filling blocks. All the way up to the scaleapocalypse.

We know how this story ends.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 29, 2018, 02:45:50 AM

Quote from: jbreher on December 28, 2018, 01:11:09 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 28, 2018, 12:06:38 AM

Quote from: jbreher on December 26, 2018, 04:15:22 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 26, 2018, 02:45:39 AM

Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

Hahahaha! You posted that as if 64mb blocks was a regular thing in your network.

Nonsense. I posted it as if the network was capable of handling that much demand.

The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in?

But I believe the ABC, and SV developers are each doing good science experiments though. Keep it up.

Well, we don't yet know if the system can handle that sort of sustained throughput. We do know that the next block was propagated about five minutes later (luck of the draw), and the system happily linked it to the >64MB block. So we have some preliminary evidence that it may. And we know that -- contrary to the claims of core -- nodes can indeed handle blocks larger than 4MB. That is, if the protocol supports it, and the implementation does not contain any self-imposed bottlenecks (such as a naive mutitasking model).

The probing at the limits has not come to a conclusion. More developments are expected.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 29, 2018, 02:45:50 AM

The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in?

This will never be a problem. BCH has trouble coming close to filling its blocks, there's no reason why SV wouldn't also.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 29, 2018, 02:45:50 AM

But I believe the ABC, and SV developers are each doing good science experiments though. Keep it up.

You have a valid point here, I just don't care for the heavy-handed psy ops that leaders of alternative chains use in order to promote their own economic interests. Their main tactic seems to be introducing more confusion into an area that the general population already finds dauntingly confusing.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: jbreher on December 28, 2018, 01:11:09 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 28, 2018, 12:06:38 AM

Quote from: jbreher on December 26, 2018, 04:15:22 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 26, 2018, 02:45:39 AM

Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

Hahahaha! You posted that as if 64mb blocks was a regular thing in your network.

Nonsense. I posted it as if the network was capable of handling that much demand.

The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in?

But I believe the ABC, and SV developers are each doing good science experiments though. Keep it up.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: exstasie on December 28, 2018, 01:27:41 PM

Quote from: jbreher on December 28, 2018, 01:12:32 PM

I guess that is a matter of perspective. Is there a need to demonstrate capacity?

We already know segwit fails miserably at a tiny fraction of that load.

Fees would definitely rise, but I'm not sure that's a miserable failure.

The purpose of Segwit wasn't to increase tx/s capacity.

Sorry. I shorthanded. I didn't mean segwit the incremental protocol change. I meant the current core protocol set. I subbed 'segwit' for Bitcoin Segwit. That blockchain is incapable of handling a mere fraction of that load.

Quote

The point was to establish a building block for exponential off-chain scaling.

Fair enough, but it is smoke and mirrors...

Quote

If you could have 480 tx/s with strong security incentives, without publishing most of them to the blockchain, wouldn't that be better?

No. If it is not published to the blockchain, it is not a bitcoin transaction.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 28, 2018, 03:23:36 AM

Quote from: STT on December 28, 2018, 01:57:50 AM

Quote from: jbreher on December 26, 2018, 04:15:22 AM

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

That sounds massive,

It would sound "massive", in a good way, only to the people who have not tried to research, and understand how inherently centralizing big blocks are. The big blockers will label it as "propaganda" on their convenience, and reply with propaganda of their own.

Newbies should not be trapped into their narrative.

Newbies should also be aware that mining is already massively centralized on all chains that matter. Whether or not this an actual detriment is a matter of dogma.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: STT on December 28, 2018, 01:57:50 AM

Quote from: jbreher on December 26, 2018, 04:15:22 AM

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

That sounds massive, was there a special need for a 64mb block at that moment.

I guess that is a matter of perspective. Is there a need to demonstrate capacity?

We already know segwit fails miserably at a tiny fraction of that load.

exstasie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1521

Quote from: jbreher on December 28, 2018, 01:12:32 PM

I guess that is a matter of perspective. Is there a need to demonstrate capacity?

We already know segwit fails miserably at a tiny fraction of that load.

Fees would definitely rise, but I'm not sure that's a miserable failure.

The purpose of Segwit wasn't to increase tx/s capacity. The point was to establish a building block for exponential off-chain scaling. If you could have 480 tx/s with strong security incentives, without publishing most of them to the blockchain, wouldn't that be better?

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 28, 2018, 12:06:38 AM

Quote from: jbreher on December 26, 2018, 04:15:22 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 26, 2018, 02:45:39 AM

Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

Hahahaha! You posted that as if 64mb blocks was a regular thing in your network.

Nonsense. I posted it as if the network was capable of handling that much demand.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: STT on December 28, 2018, 01:57:50 AM

Quote from: jbreher on December 26, 2018, 04:15:22 AM

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

That sounds massive, was there a special need for a 64mb block at that moment.

Not at all. And it wasn't "recently," it was once, ever.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9ymkiw/64mb_block_mined_on_sv/

Much like everything else that has to do with SV it was completely manipulated. The fastest average transactions per second SV has ever recorded was 3.34, and that was also only in 1 hour of 1 day.

https://bsvexplorer.io/blocks

Not to mention, the average block size for SV is currently about 10 KB.

https://bsvexplorer.io/tx-stats

The whole "appeal" of BCH was "bigger blocks," and did it catch on with the mainstream? No.

So yet another altcoin whose whole premise is "even bigger blocks" (supported by even bigger egos btw) is doomed to fail.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: STT on December 28, 2018, 03:27:51 AM

I never assume at face value, just was interested to learn why and so on. Markets are often ironic anyway, intended effects go a different way, best laid plans and all that. I'm a big fan of natural dynamics and chaos theory and such like :p

The "why" is to show that they can make a 64mb block. That we already know, but does the Bitcoin Cash SV network have the demand to process that much transactions every block, everyday is the problem.

Plus if they can process that much, you have to ask how much that inherently scales their network in.

STT

legendary

Activity: 4102

Merit: 1454

I never assume at face value, just was interested to learn why and so on. Markets are often ironic anyway, intended effects go a different way, best laid plans and all that. I'm a big fan of natural dynamics and chaos theory and such like :p

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: STT on December 28, 2018, 01:57:50 AM

Quote from: jbreher on December 26, 2018, 04:15:22 AM

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

That sounds massive, was there a special need for a 64mb block at that moment. I realise everybody is competing with everyone else but I dont want to look negatively on any blockchain even if its forked from one I support. As a sector overall, crypto has to advance as we all know big business just wants to centralise this whole idea and handle it all itself in house. Only the competitive advancement by various protocols is likely to really find a solution that plain society really wants and values and is willing to pay for and invest in, otherwise I see all of us on every chain as not winning this likely long term

It would sound "massive", in a good way, only to the people who have not tried to research, and understand how inherently centralizing big blocks are. The big blockers will label it as "propaganda" on their convenience, and reply with propaganda of their own.

Newbies should not be trapped into their narrative.

STT

legendary

Activity: 4102

Merit: 1454

Quote from: jbreher on December 26, 2018, 04:15:22 AM

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

That sounds massive, was there a special need for a 64mb block at that moment. I realise everybody is competing with everyone else but I dont want to look negatively on any blockchain even if its forked from one I support. As a sector overall, crypto has to advance as we all know big business just wants to centralise this whole idea and handle it all itself in house. Only the competitive advancement by various protocols is likely to really find a solution that plain society really wants and values and is willing to pay for and invest in, otherwise I see all of us on every chain as not winning this likely long term

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: jbreher on December 26, 2018, 04:15:22 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 26, 2018, 02:45:39 AM

Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

Hahahaha! You posted that as if 64mb blocks was a regular thing in your network. Dogecoin, on average, processes more transactions than Bitcoin Cash SV, https://cash.coin.dance

Topic: CSW's "hash wars" impact on BTC price? - page 2. (Read 1894 times)