/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>57579735
You should do a double spend on BCH then and show the world kek
>>57579851
ABLA is being added in May this year, look it up.

>>11921087
You useless cunt.

>>11906118
I've seen that video before. He doesn't say anything about the software never needing to be modified.
Nobody outside sad boomer corecucks are saying the hardware is inadequate. The demands at the physical level of the task is not the problem. It's that the software is inadequate. Watch the previous video. It goes into the exact problems with the node implementation, mostly that it is single core, not optimised for parallelism at all, has bad locking strategies, and extra pieces in the architecture to force it to go slowly.
We're absolutely on the same page that the goal is both possible and desirable, SV supporters are simply taking the wrong path to get there, whether by malice or ignorance, and that's unfortunate because now it's resulted in a damaging split. But consider the fact that everything everyone on the other side of the split said would happen when SV did what they planned on doing did indeed happen, and worse.

>>11879315
The scale Satoshi was aiming for is pic related.
The image you just responded to proves that SV can't even push 10mb constant throughput.
This disqualifies SV, it's like saying your plastic toy fidget spinner is actually a 747 jet engine turbine. No, it's fucking not and if you say it is because they both have blades and spin, you're a fucking retard.
SV does not have the engineering chops to make Bitcoin actually work as designed, they proved that conclusively. ABC proved exactly the opposite.

>>11847018
> A block size increase, will exponentially increase the amount of bandwidth and computation required to validate the new blocks.
Wrong, more transactions will increase the amount of bandwidth and computation required to validate the new blocks. A block size limit will do nothing at all to change this until those transactions hit that limit. Absent a limit, there will still be a limit set by market forces in the form of increased orphan rates in block inclusion of more transactions, and miners will set their own natural blockchain throughput as a result. And each transaction does not *exponentially* increase the amount of bandwidth and computation required to validate new blocks. That is flatly fucking wrong, pic related. You can spew your jargon as much as you like, or deny that it's a fact in the historical record that Mike Hearn has said exactly what I just said, but you're still fucking wrong, stupid and useless, and I'm really bored listening to you sperg out pretending like you fucking know what you're talking about.

>>11839220
Yeah nah gitfukt corecuck.

>>11821944
Which they can, the problem isn't the physical requirements of doing so, which are summed up in pic related, they are the inefficient way in which the software operates that massively amplifies those requirements, which if not addressed result in uselessly small throughput, as we saw in the BU testnet mocks that topped out at 22mb, as well as the first BCH stress test which topped out at the same, and both highlighted the core sabotage of tx queueing as the culprit.
It is critical to grasp this point; there is nothing challenging about the physical demands of accomplishing visa levels, it is purely a software engineering problem. Core didn't even try to solve it, instead simply surrendering wholesale to the central banking cartel in outright betrayal. ABC and BU as BCH are tackling that problem while SV just said it didn't exist, and are now suffering the consequences for their idiocy.

>>11776792
Fuck off npc.

>>11756018
Satoshi is not wrong, core simply flatly lied. Look at BCH right now with 32mb blocks just fine. Sorry to remaining coretards, but gmaxwell fooled you all and that's all there is to it. Further math to back up just how little of a problem on chain scaling actually is.
ETH is a completely different blockchain with a completely different architecture and scaling model, and it still manages just fine with multiples of BTC throughput if you know how to configure a node worth a damn.

>>11357435
Who told you that and why do you believe him?

Or is that the subject of your own research?

Tell me. A small picture album is about 32MBs. Can you download that in 10 minutes? Probably. Should mining farms that become the backbone of a new global currency be able to do 100 times that? Absolutely.

With 32MBs, the network can handle approximately 130 transactions per second (11.2 million a day). With 320MB, that's a 100million a day (Visa levels). With 3GB blocks, that is more than enough for the whole world to use every day.

Tell me: if you have witnessed the speed of growth of the internet, and if you believe in global sound money..., why do you think miners won't be able to process 3GB blocks every 10 minutes say, 5 years from now?

>>11216404
How far this fucking forum has fallen.
Think through the logic of what you're saying; Failure level 1)
"These chains have a problem that will result in a certain consequence, my alternative doesn't have this problem, because the consequence in question is part of the design"
Failure level 2)
"No product can have a price unless an artificial limit is set on production, that's the problem that the BCH chain has"
Failure level 3)
"I can't do the basic mathematics to figure out the return on a block that was the original target for tx throughput from back in 2008, so I need to make myself a target for humiliation and have some anon come along and do it for me and point out it's over fucking 175k USD per block assuming very low 25c transaction fees from said fees alone, which is over twice what the massively inflated dysfunctional shitcoin chain I am implying is superior by insisting that its solution is necessary. For my shitcoin of choice to compete with this with the artificial block size in place it would need to have TX fees of about 65 USD each. It has never gotten that high and when it got close, it was losing dominance at a rate of over 20% per month"
Why is this market so fucking stupid a full year after all the shitheads should've been toileted? Fuck me dead.

>>10574055

>>10574649

>>10539075
>>10539099
The exact present mining architecture was predicted by Satoshi in the beginning, and was brain numbingly obvious to anyone with the slightest fucking clue of how technology works, which you clearly don't fucking have, useless cunts.