Where did I say something about block size? We were talking about transactions, as far as I can tell.
@HardFireMiner
Yes we are talking about transactions - speed and throughput capabilities on the network (TX's per. sec. and fees etc.,), all being relative to what is/was the ongoing blocksize debate, which fractured the community and is/was the major reason for the BCH and BSV forks.
It may surprise you that I'm far from being a Bitcoin maximalist.
This is very simple really (and from a mostly non-technical perspective) ...
If 100 people (transactions) are waiting for a bus (a block) at a bus stop (the point of sale) and said bus can only carry 50 people, the other 50 people must wait for the next bus (assuming that the bus is not already full of course!). The people waiting for the next bus are stuck in the mempool.
The frequency of buses on the timetable (blocktime) is fixed at 10 mins. ("Set in Stone"), said 50 people must therefore wait approx. 10 mins. for the next bus etc., etc.,
This is the nature of Bitcoins TX model (herewith, real-time example) ...
-
https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/The BCH / BSV 'solution' is/was to assume that
we simply require bigger buses (blocks) to solve the issue.
Whilst this might seem to be the perfect solution, more
congestion actually occurs and the reason relative to buses is that it takes longer for people to board and to alight from the bus.
In terms of Bitcoin, bigger buses (blocks) cause more
pollution and will fill up your hard drive faster. If your hard drive is full you can no longer run a node or you need to buy a bigger more expensive hard drive i.e. increased centralization and barrier to entry etc.,
HINT: Empty buses don't need to be bigger!
The Lightning Network is one off-chain solution to this
problem by effectively providing separate shuttle bus services for say peak times - by offloading micro payments etc.,
Hence ...
...snip...
Hal Finney seemed to understand it back in 2010.
Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.
People who think 'Electronic Cash' simply means an asset designed for small daily payments (and need to have no fees and instant confirmations) need to read the Cypherpunk Manifesto:
https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html...snip...
Please think around these concepts further (super market checkouts are also a good example) and the stark reality may dawn on you that BSV is essentially an out-of-service GIGAMEG's (lolz) bus - headed back to the depot of centralization. Supposedly, thousands of passengers are waiting for this mega bus to arrive and each of them is carrying large suit cases of additional data (such as weather maps). Sounds like a nightmare to me.
I do hope the bus doesn't crash or breakdown or something ...
"...CRASHing..." ... Erm ...
-
https://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1993/12/msg00218.html" I thought of a new name today for digital cash: CRASH, taken from
CRypto cASH. "How much crash have you got in your account? Can we FTP
this GIF?" "Not enough... Hey, can I borrow some crash?" It has a nice
cyberpunk sound to it. I don't know if we need a name for the units,
or if we could just get by without.
One of the lessons of the CP publicity is that having a sexy name is
a big plus.
(Apologies if I'm unknowingly regurgitating someone else's idea!)
Hal "Always, way ahead ...
Now imagine trying to store every .torrent on the entire internet on your hard drive. No, not only the .torrent files, but the actual files.
...
Riiiiight.-
https://youtu.be/yuTMWgOduFM-
https://youtu.be/jO5VV5PISHU
