/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11842765

128mb blocks every 10 minutes means 765mb an hour =18gb a day.

How many days can you run bitcoin cash on your hard drive before storing the fucking blockchain is 200 terrabytes and nobody can afford to run it.

>>11842824
t o be fair, even the standard BTC chain is so big most normans can't sustain it. I even ran into this problem back in 2015 when I first tried to install Electrum wallet. Facts are, mining has evolved to become the purview of the increasingly technologically advanced mining pools. I see this trend continuing, with the eventual institutionalization and state recognition of mining pools as financial contributors to the global economy.

>>11842765
Satoshi went back to Bitcoin and implemented a 1mb block size limit to prevent spamming. As others have mentioned, larger blocksizes make it more costly to have the ledger distributed, which is highly important for a decentralized currency.

>>11842765
The SV client uses bigger blocks, yes. But the whole hash war isn't even about block size this time.

>>11842897
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a30b56ebe76ffff9f9cc8a6667186179413c6349

Try to fully sync bitcoin core 0.17 with all the recent speedups. And that's only 200gb.
Now imagine what would happen with 0.12*6*24*365=6.3 tb added per year. Even 12 mb is insane, 630 gb per year added.

Seriously, download bitcoin core and do a full sync.

>>11842897
Core cunts are stupid.

>>11842765
SV cunts are stupid too.

>>11842765
How is it bad with big blocks? It's consistently outperformed ABC with big blocks.

>>11842824
block are not full you brainlet, the size will be exactly the same as now, except if there is a peak use, all transaction will be processed
>>11842765
there is no problem if you form and leave people alone, there is a problem when all you do is sabotage and offer no software

>>11843230
No it hasn't. ABC can actually push 32mb consistently. SV hits >>11843218

>>11843218
>>11843241
don't worry bros, it's early and they are removing the kinks. in a couple of months the software will outperform abc

remember that the sv client is forked from abc btw, if you're claiming that abc is much better while sv is shit performance wise you're basically saying abc was shit three months ago (same software)

>>11843398
> you can't be claiming abc was worse three months ago than it is now
> whilst also pointing out that the changes abc made over the past three months were both necessary and optimal
k

>>11843206
Check out the commit I linked, that was Satoshi's doing implementing the 1MB blocksize limit.
People who don't understand history are children, easy to confuse and easy to deceive because they do not understand what truly matters.

>>11843241
When has ABC ever pushed 32MB blocks consistently?

>>11843429
don't worry, it's still early. that 64 mb block was pretty neat, im sure they will propagate much better next time

>>11843442
I know more about this than you. As does anyone who has spent more than a week here fuck off.

>>11843493
Took 40 minutes to propagate and fucked total throughput on the chain. Sv are incompetent. I do not know how many times this needs to be repeated. >>11843218 read and understand.

>>11843463
During the hard fork and a few times after the first stress test that showed the shitty mempool processing inherited from core that the ABC devs fixed. Because they're not incompetent. And that matters.

>>11842824
why would a normal user need to run a node?

>>11843526
Hal Finney described the Lightning network early on as a way increasing transaction throughput. Satoshi Nakomoto objectively made the commit I linked.

Not that I'd expect you to know that though since you're an insecure, inadequate, confused, and corrosive wad of horse shit.

>>11843548
I saw SV mining several 32mb blocks, didnt see ABC mining any. I know they didnt mine any in the pre stress test either. I think you're full of shit, even ABC shills accept SV is mining bigger blocks. They just pretend it doesnt matter.

>>11843535
it's early, relax. they are working to fix the issue.

>>11843582
Yes they accept its mining bigger blocks because it has a bigger block cap. They're not saying it doesn't matter. They're saying it's worse. Which it is because >>11843218 if you're too fucking stupid to grasp that and you can't look at the fucking chain or a tx chart over time I'm not interested wasting my time handholding you through it. Fuck off. You're wrong.

the base layer should stay clean like a virgin, immutable, decentralized amd secue, if you want to buy a s.o.y coffee do it on a second layer or fuck off to nano or the bcash camp.
We need a way to hedge against inflation as securely as possible not a new fucking payment method

The more a coin/token is transacted and the faster it changes hands the less it is worth. Value comes from people willing to hold onto the asset not playing a hot potatoe with it. No one sane would spend an asset that has still a tiny market cap compared to even gold alone

>>11843575
Fuck off dickwad

>>11843636
They are working to fix the stuff abc already fixed and they desperately already tried to sabotage and failed. They are incompetent and I'm not interested in them.

>>11843679
nah you're misreading the situation. the parties have different approaches.

>>11843643
> what is this eldritch sorcery of suggesting a medium of exchange can also be a store of value? WITCH!
Fuck off asshole.

>>11843662
You demonstrably have no idea how multisig works, which is why you don't understand layered scaling solutions. No reason to be mad that you're naturally retarded.

>>11843463
ABC has never reached a 32mb block to my knowledge. Highest they've ever done was 22 afaik.

>>11843696
Yeah, and only one of them works. Which you're not reading. Go follow your conman messiah. I don't care. You're wrong.

>>11843643

> what is money velocity equation

>>11843702
> muh multisig
Yeah p2sh is such a fucking mystery. You're not smart. You're not even average. You just have delusions of adequacy. Fuck off.

>>11843698
you're putting a cart before the horse.
No one wants to use a volatile asset as a medium of exchange because if you feel that it's gonna go down you don't want to hold such thing in the first place and if you feel it's gonna go up you'd be a brainlet to spend/sell

it has to grow in market cap, keep beating inflation and establish itself as a store of value, when its gains a like 10% per year on average then we can talk about using it as a currency

bcashers act as if transacting btc wasn't possible right now.

https://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-token-velocity-problem

>>11843728
exactly, you tell me, because I'm not the one thinking that flipping a shitcoin for coffee will give it any value

>>11843640
>hinging your argument on a chart which shows BSV successfully mining a 64mb block.
you sound mad ABCucks can't do that

>>11843711
wrong? it hasn't even been a week since the 15:th, it IS early. it would be very strange if they aren't hard at work to improve. they are a business after all, not an open-source collaborate

>>11843746
You're just putting the cart and demanding it pull itself. The problem isn't that you aren't aware a medium of exchange can also be a store of value, it's that you're not aware that a genuine store of value must also be a medium of exchange. You are an idiot fed bullshit who never thought critically about it. I'm not interested in your cult. Fuck off.

>>11843754
> looking at a chart that shows an explosion
> "lol fuckin rad explosion though"
Kys.

The level of braindead infused autism in this board is..... Each and every single one of you...

>>11843775
> we deployed to production and utterly fucked up but it's only been a week give us time.
Not familiar with sdlc clearly. Fuck off.

>>11843793
store of value doesn't need instant fucking transaction especially if it means compromised security/decentralization, period.

Time will prove me right when things like nano or bcash are dead in the water because they fell for the coffee meme

>>11843813
rome wasn't built in a day mate, patience is key

>>11843799
it's called winning, faggot. stay cucked.

>>11843821
> my shitty thing doesn't need to be any better and substitute goods which are will be no threat to it at all.
Buy a fucking horse you pleb cunt. It's not better because it runs on carrots. Bitcoin isn't better because it runs on neckbeard consensus and delusions of grandeur nor artificially imposed centrally planned hard limits rather than market set prices for commodity resources produced as optimally as possible. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about and you are a fucking idiot.

>>11843845
By all means keep "winning". You'll be at zero within a few months at this rate.

>>11843862
dogecoin is the future of money

>>11842824

Surely there are ways to optimize storage and search?

>>11843873
> I dun understand what a pow algo is or what codebase inheritance and genealogy is or what developer resources are or pretty much fucking anything waaaah
Neck yourself.

>>11843862
Keep getting angry you naive bcasher, it only shows me how desperate your cult is, keep praying to roger or some other chink that can do whatever they want with your shitty protocol.

Satoshi was ambiguous about scaling and you all would jump into a dry well if that's what you intepreted from his posts

You are absolutely right free market will prove which one of us was right, so far the free market doesn't want some insecure centralized piece of shit fork/alt and that's why all you bcashers are getting more aggressive each month, you pretend like it's all about ideology but deep down you're getting more and more butthurt that the FREE MARKET wants btc and not some cheap ass knock-off with stupid goals for the cost of compromised security

>>11842824
Why would every user need to run a full node? Satoshi said that would be prohibitive to the average user and if u dont get it he doesnt have time to explain

>>11843931
Tldr you are sub zero value time sink. Kill yourself.

>>11843746

Textbook formulation is:
>MV = PY
> Here M is a measure of the money supply, V its velocity, and nominal GDP is written as the product of the overall price level (P) with real GDP (Y).
So for crypto
> M = number of mined coins (const)
> V = velocity, tx/s
> P = inverse of coin price in $
> Y = value of tokenized assets in $
Thus
P = MV/Y
and coin price
1/P = Y/(M*V)

So the "store of value" camp believes that at capping V at protocol level, because any increase in P increases price. This camp is essentially milking new investors to pay early adopters. A.K.A. Ponzi scheme.
The "cash" camp believes that the key is mass adoption, and the increase in value should come from the growth in P outpacing the growth of V, and if V outpaces P, then tough, because the goal was always fucking the banks and not paying early adopters.

>>11843966
BUY BCHSV MONEYS TO BE MADE THERE ALL U NEED TO KNOW

>>11843869
sure thing, bitch.

>>11844108

I miss pajeets shilling their coins... :)

BTC will not exist at the end of 2019.
https://youtu.be/MXMCzhwm554?t=1208
timestamp 20:08

>>11843873
Unironically true, because it’s inflationary.

Libertaricucks will hate this but a purely supply-capped asset can never work. At some point miners have to be incentivized by fees instead of the block reward, which means that user fees will have to grow in Satoshi value to incentivize mining. User fee increases cause a chilling effect, making people not want to use a certain crypto because they can switch to a crypto with lower fees. There are “replacement goods” for BTC - altcoins (or future forks). If fees get too ridiculous, users leave. Meaning they sell, which drops the price, which makes miners shut down, etc. until a new equilibrium is reached - which may or may not include Bitcoin.

>>11843957
>20 posts by this ID
>posts the same pics in every bcash thread
>spergs at anyone willing to reply

lmao why are you trying so hard

>>11844128
YOU WILL SEE. GO DLAGON GO CLAIG WLIGHT

>>11843526
ayo hol up
if it never hits a scale ceiling, why the FUCK did this block take 40 minutes to propagate?>>11843535
are you saying there is a ceiling or there isn't?

>>11844128
and also go back to plebbit you disgraced twat

>>11843731
Angry projections. This entire thread is a simulacrum of you being inadequate. You have not even acknowledge the facts I mentioned, the Satoshi Commit. You project your inadequacies upon my lucid understanding; I have been in this space for over six years.

Satoshi implemented the 1MB block limit back in 2010 and Hal Finney -- the first recipient of Bitcoin from Satoshi -- realized that layered solutions is the only way to go. The baseline layer cannot be blown up to large sizes and still remain as an in-tact singularity.

>>11844273
what are you saiying in plain words man?

>>11844288
Simply that Satoshi Nakomoto implemented the 1MB blocksize limit, and that Hal Finney realized over eight years ago how something like Lightning would be what scales Bitcoin.

These facts trigger delusional fools because it falsifies their narrative.

>>11842824
Nobody gives a shit

Why does Bitcoin need to run on some newbie neet computer?

>>11842765
Increasing the block size is like adding more chairs to a restaurant. Yeah it helps a bit at first but then you start to hit other bottlenecks like lack of available space or staff etc.

With each option you adjust, you have tradeoffs. E.g. bigger place means higher rent, more staff is higher salary. Having something that scales is a careful balancing act between various tradeoffs.

Order matters a great deal here because as the software gets older it will grow bigger and more complex over time. Changes get more expensive to make and you risk upsetting more people if it's not going to be backwards compatible. So ideally you want to make those difficult changes as early as possible in order to minimize that.

t. someone who works on distributed computer systems

The ones who keep calling for bigger and bigger blocks just don't get this kind of thing.

>>11844273
> delusions of grandeur
yep, he had you pegged.

>>11844327
it falsifies my narrative too because I'm balls deep in BSV. I think at the same time that BABC is shit. that said, respect man.

>>11844382
>>11844327
nguyen showed this on youtube, kek

>>11844144
>by fatal I mean that there wont be any BTC at the end of the year

The way he phrases this sounds like the BTC coins themselves will get burnt or become unspendable, interesting

>>11844382
That's wrong, we get it. We just know that artificially centrally planning a block limit is idiotic. Look up Mike Hearn's simulations on what would happen when said limit was hit, they match reality exactly. Every time BTC has actually worked as Greg Maxwell architected it to work, it lost dominance at a rate of 20% per month and other chains picked up the slack. The simple fact of the matter is nobody cares about the rationale you have for your artificial central planning, if the thing you're offering doesn't work, they'll go elsewhere.
Which they have, which is what the simulations showed.
t. also works on distributed computer systems.

>>11844409
now I think I will sell XRP and buy more SV desu

>>11844367
Decentralization. Go try to sync an Ethereum full node from scratch. Bittorrent also found that transmitting smaller blocks of data is easier to synchronize.

>>11844387
They grandeur is not delusional when it is objective. He never refuted my points because he cannot.

BCH is SCAM

>>11844409
yeah he's being vague as usual. we'll see, a lot of things could happen in 2019, especially if BTC drops back below 4k

>>11844444

>>11844438
>Decentralization.
Decentralization, like you, lies on a spectrum.

Killing the usefulness of the system to make it as decentralized as possible is stupid. No need for the state to shut it down if the developers themselves make the network useless.

>>11844438
You don't have any points, and he did refute them. You just didn't understand what he actually said. At no point in time did he say that other layers were not allowable, at no point in time did he say that the chain should be forced past the level of market demand for on chain transactions. He said exactly what everyone smarter than you already knows; Supply and demand on a per layer basis fixes all the problems under discussion perfectly neatly. If all the volume can fit on the first layer given miner capacity, great, if it can't, fees will rise and there's demand for a second layer, and so on, and so forth. But because pic related, fools like you never grasped this.
I never was sure if it was because you were lying to yourself, or if you really are that stupid, but I don't expect actually asking the monkey why it throws feces will do any good so I guess that will remain an eternal mystery.

>>11844422
You are a brainlet if you actually think that talking shit about how BTC market dominance is relevant to scaling out a distributed system.

Economic arguments are only relevant here if you are talking about putting an actual price on the cost of one tradeoff versus another. Let's hear about the actual tradeoffs.

The BTC block limit is not "centrally planned" - for a start, the miners need to reach a consensus on any proposed change by the developers. Actually do some reading on the subject first before making these ridiculous claims. The absolute state of cashie shills.

>>11844617
> Let's hear about the actual tradeoffs.
Your idiotic provably unnecessary artificial and centrally planned block limit costs 20% of market cap per month. If you can't see that this is a tradeoff, I have nothing to say to you and recommend you seek mental help as your brain appears to be missing.
> the miners need to reach a consensus on any proposed change by the developers.
Miners were signalling for a raise continuously for a very long time, it's part of core dogma that miners don't get to mine and their signaling serves no purpose, they exist only for transaction ordering in the block. Yes, this is a radical departure from the whitepaper, but seeing as it's not titled "Bitcoin; a centrally controlled settlement layer for banking" that's hardly worth taking issue with as the greatest of its flaws.
The truth is, core cultists are simply extremely stupid people who have been fed enormous amounts of outright lies by other extremely stupid people. As evidenced by idiots like you who then go back to spewing them out without actually thinking about the nonsense they're writing.
As crass as it is phrased, >>11843206 is indeed right on the money. The past year has shown that every single thing the BCH fork warned was going to happen when core got its way, did in fact happen. In light of this, people still clinging desperately to that chain are quite literally the stupidest people in the ecosystem without a doubt.

>>11844509
>>11844707
Finally some fucking brains.

>>11844707
>>11845013
shameless samefaggery, kys

>>11845013
>>11845069
110 who thinks he's 140 iq here. Big blocks bad let me now appeal to authority and at the same time show my complete ignorance to the 1mb blocksize reasoning, I'm right btw.

>>11845069
Oh look, the SV shill doesn't like the guy who called him a cunt.
Big surprise.

>>11845105
exposed

This space is honestly getting depressing. What will it take to shake the idiots loose from their positions and to accept that they are in fact idiots? Because I don't see how we can go up again with these idiots on board. There's just no justification for it.

>>11844707
Brainlet LARP confirmed. You're supposed to be talking about software engineering tradeoffs. Clearly you know nothing about them otherwise you'd have mentioned at least ONE and been able to articulate yourself but you can't. Rambling about marketcap in this kind of context shows that you haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Ah yes, now we get to the conspiracy that the BTC devs must be up to some shady shit. Perhaps you can point us to the offending lines of code these bad guys are trying to sneak in? Perhaps someone has created an issue on github for it? Also, it's rather laughable that the screenshot is implying hard forks are bad when we're discussing Bitcoin Cash, given its history and the stupid drama only last week.

>>11845141
> You're supposed to be talking about software engineering tradeoffs.
Utter retard confirmed.. the tradeoff of lower onchain throughput is lower fucking onchain throughput you double turbonigger. That is the engineering tradeoff, like when your shards are limited to cluster nodes of x throughput because that's all the hardware resources you have, the tradeoff is shitty transactions per second performance. That you had to have this spelled out to you is just funny. The real question you should be asking yourself is what does your idiotic artificial limit actually buy you in terms of software engineering tradeoffs? And there your answer will be absolutely fucking nothing, because we have empirical examples in the real world of production blockchains operating 10-20x more than the core chain without breaking a sweat during stress tests. So the limit is not just stupid, it doesn't buy you anything AT ALL.
> Ah yes, now we get to the conspiracy
The thing about "conspiracy theories" is they're not supposed to be provable empirical fact you can point to in material reality like Liquid, Bakkt, and Lightning. So, no, that doesn't really hold up. And throwing in the magic words "hard fork" doesn't make your idiocy any less painful to witness. The point of the image was to demonstrate that core dogma dictates miners don't get to vote, directly contrary to what you idiotically stated.

>>11843931
True. Crypto is gay. I Just want to know what coin institutional money is going in so I can unload my bags. I dont care about angry conspiracy theories.

>>11845202
Don't bother. Seriously if someone is still a core cultist after all this time there is simply nothing that will wake them up. You're correct, but it's not enough, they will just never accept the facts. They're mindless indoctrinated zombies.>>11843206 is the right idea, snarky accurate meme image telling them to get fucked.

yeah pretty much getting to the sage coretard threads level desu

>>11842765

> I don't understand the debate

It's very simple.

The enemies of Bitcoin, the people who hate Bitcoin, who want to see it fail (the powers that be, the establishment, the elite, etc) -- they want to cripple Bitcoin and destroy it, so that it doesn't become what it was meant to be (as outlined in the Whitepaper) and doesn't become massively adopted worldwide by people and businesses alike.

One very effective way of doing this -- of sabotaging Bitcoin -- is to prevent it from scaling effectively, and that they achieved by creating Blockstream who limited the blocksize to 1MB. In response to that, Bitcoin Cash was created. Later they (the enemy) infiltrated that community and got people like Jihan and Roger (maybe he was blackmailed/pressured, maybe they had some dirt on him) to switch side and join the badguys, the Blockstream side (basically).

Their "ABC" project is serving the same purpose as BTC under Blockstream did -- namely to prevent Bitcoin from scaling, by limiting the blocksize.

The "SV" side is staying true to the purpose of Bitcoin Cash, which is to stay true to the Whitepaper. Their goal is to make Bitcoin succeed and become digital cash for everyone on the planet and adopted by business etc.

See pic related. That is the the future of Bitcoin. That is what the Enemies of Bitcoin want to prevent.

Always remember: Whenever you've seen anti-BCH shills and now anti-SV shills, those hired people are the exact same people who earlier before Blockstream existed, attacked BTC and told people to stay way from it and said it was just tulips etc. And later when Blockstream was created and we got BCH, those people suddenly became pro-BTC and anti-BCH (because BTC post-Blockstream was crippled and a paper tiger, while BCH -- being Bitcoin as per the Whitepaper -- posed a threat).

>>11845202
Do you even understand plain English at this point?

A tradeoff is when we want something in this case more transactions a second but in order to do so, even for a centralized system, we have to make one or more compromises to get it. All you've said is that you want it to be fast but haven't explained about the potential drawbacks. Any Engineer is happy to have this discussion in great detail A brainlet and/or a shill is simply unable to do this.

The screenshot you were referring to was claiming that the developers liked the idea of sneaking in code changes. I'm just asking to see what changes you're talking about exactly. Something like a github code is something I can go and check to validate for myself. Rambling about exchanges is not actually evidence for this. Show me the actual evil code changes that's being proposed (git branch) or just shut the fuck up already.

>>11845380
based and satoshi-pilled

>>11842824
why would you store full empty blocks? bch gets like 10 transactions on a good day.

>>11842824
not supporting CSW but 2TB is what 50$ so $150 a year to store 18GB a day.

Seems not that much

>>11845413
Initial sync will take weeks.

>>11845380
>>11842765

Also, OP, pay attention to the tactics they use. They always attack personalities and people, instead of making sound arguments about the technology. When BCH was new, they focused on Roger and made it all about him, then later after he was won over to their side and ABC (aka BAB) was created, they suddenly became friendly with Roger and instead attacked Craig in the exact same manner. And in the extremely rare cases where they (the anti-Bitcoin people) attempt to discuss technical issues, they show a poor understanding or are intentionally spreading disinformation knowingly.

Remember this: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Bitcoin as outlined by Satoshi in the Whitepaper, and ideas which secures the existence and success of that idea (the idea known as Bitcoin) -- that they avoid discussing. They make it about people, individuals, personalities, as much as possible.

>>11845389
By that logic you should restrict your shitcoin chain to 100kb blocks, or lower. It doesn't make any sense at all. You talk of engineering tradeoffs, but really you have no idea what you're on about. You spec a system based on what you want it to be capable of, and if you want to hobble it, you spec it with artificial centrally planned limits.
I posted the shot in question to make the point that the core devs subverted the original intent of miners voting. I didn't say anything about "sneaking in code changes". You appear to have simply put that on yourself for some stupid reason.

>>11845475
This is complete bullshit. SV is broken because it literally does not function and is demonstrably run by a team of incompetents. That they're bad or naughty or whatever is just icing on the cake.

>>11845445
yeah true... though I dont get why.

Why can't they

[1] put the whole block chain in a torrent
[2] and you down load it take a hash of the whole thing + latest blocks
[3] and check it with the hash of the whole thing

that would ensure legit and you could continue.

You can download a torrent fast enough with a decent connection

>>11843526
This.

Just test if they can think critically, then don't waste any more of your time. And place your bets....

>>11842765
Why should I care about this bitcuck hashwar shit if I'm all in LINK

>>11845491
>SV is broken because it literally does not function
>unfounded statement, completely made up
a team of incompetents.
>Namecalling

I'm sure you convinced a lot of people with those brilliant arguments.

>>11845531

> the real world won't bend to our will. The problem is our whitepaper

Fucking millennials.

>>11845497
We had torrents in the early days, Normal sync is now faster than torrents.
Not sure what 2 and 3 mean. You mean no verification of signatures and blocks? Might as well just start with the utxo set from ~5k blocks ago, essentially a checkpoint.

>>11845531
Reminds me of Anderson Cooper CNN faggots arguing the Bible needs to be updated to accommodate faggotry and usury.

>>11845531
Lmao. Cobra is a known troll, just read his twitter.

>>11845517
this is the funniest image I've seen on 4chan in like 2 years. thanks anon

>>11844255
at the time Satoshi posted that, there was no ceiling

then, a bit later he added the ceiling because blocks were getting almost 1% full and he got scared of spam

>>11845531
The arguments have already been discussed in this very thread. The threatened hashwar that amounted to absolutely nothing, the continuous threats to attempt reorgs and other attacks, all abject failures, celebrating over minting a 64mb block that cratered the chain throughput, self re-org attacks. I am dead serious, SV are incompetent, that is not "namecalling" it is an accurate description of the fact of the matter.
Now if you want to go further than just the technical side of the debate and actually speculate as to what's going on behind the scenes, https://medium.com/@bill_mcgonigle/but-what-about-the-warlords-something-amazing-just-happened-on-bitcoin-cash-be4143fc8e55 makes quite a strong case that this is all a result of the fact that the SV team simply couldn't deliver on the shit they promised, they ran out of time, so instead decided to hold the ecosystem ransom with their hashpower.
But because they're incompetent, they failed even at that.
I'm not going to bother to respond to SV people anymore, because given the price action coupled with the embarrassing incompetence I've seen from everyone on that side of the argument over the past few days, I honestly don't think anyone except paid shills from SV could honestly be arguing this shit, but on the very off chance you're not one, seriously look into what is going on. SV is cancerous bullshit, it's that simple. They're even worse than core, because they can't even run their own shitty chain. At least the coretards can pull that off.

>>11845558
well I mean this.

[1] Current sync nodes publish a hash(latest block and all proceeding blocks).

[2] You torrent download chain.

[3] Hash of you down load plus latest block.

As long has hashes match you have a legit download. I mean how can you fake it, thats the whole point of hashing.

You should be able to down load a terrabyte in a day or 2 given a good link

Where is the bottle neck I am missing here?

>>11845591
Honestly, why can't ABC and SV just hardfork and make their own coin instead of having this bullshit ideological hashwar?

>>11845380
At which point do "they" realize they are trying to nail jello onto a wall, and just buy in.

This most recent split gives them the opportunity to buy in at a much lower valuation.

How many more splits could they force?

>>11845623
because then neither of them would've "won", which they need to placate their superinflated egos

>>11845623
also they'd have had the same war about which fork gets to keep the BCH ticker

>>11845623
That's exactly what happened, although CSW threatened to force it not to happen with a hash war, because he is an incompetent idiot and it was a rivalrous event with people who are not, he failed miserably and now they're hardforked. But SV isn't giving up on their fantasy of making the ABC side do what they want, so they just keep throwing around demands and making threats, despite the fact they have no power, their token is cratering, and they can't even run their own fucking chain. It's just sad, really.

>>11842765
>Bigger blocks = more transactions,
That would be great if anyone actually used Bitcoin.
This shit is just a ponzi, mine coins and unload them onto suckers who hold then unload onto MORE suckers who hold then unload etc.

>>11845634
And people say I'm insane for thinking this is just about figureheads bitching.

>>11845648
I'm absolutely ignorant on crypto, but why can't they both agree to not have the ticker? Like, just agree that BCH is dead and now there are only BAB and BSV?

>>11845649
Yeah but I mean, have this dumb civil war hashrate fight stop and end, have both side just call it quits and do their own project or whatever. Honestly this dumb civil war just causing damage and nothing else.

>>11845701
People did use Bitcoin, right up until the block limit. then we got multi hour delays and 50 USD tx fees.
Then people didn't use Bitcoin anymore and the entire market cratered.
Totally not related though, or anything.

>>11845712
That's already what ABC have done. They've set checkpoints in the code so that it's not even theoretically possible for nChain to attack them, they have the relationships and approval of almost every single exchange, and they're just proceeding on like SV doesn't exist.
Meanwhile, SV keeps threatening attacks, legal action, etc.
I'm sure ABC would be very happy if SV would fuck off and leave them alone, but that would be up to SV to do.

>>11845712
>but why can't they both agree
because they both have egos the size of the moon and WILL. NOT. BACK. DOWN.

>>11845583
i was asking about the 64mb sv block that took 40 minutes to propagate.
if satoshi was right, that it never really hits a ceiling, then why the FUCK did it take 40 minutes for that block?
there is a limit. fucking clearly.

>>11845768
Core software was never optimised for fast block propagation. Why bother when you have a centrally planned permanent 1mb limit? So the software was shitty at processing large blocks. ABC fixed it a little, SV forked at that point, ABC fixed it a bunch more, SV naively increased the block size limit without implenenting those fixes which they have vigorously rejected and are the genesis for the present war in fact, but not having those fixes the 64mb block they mined took 40 minutes to propagate.
By contrast, Bitcoin unlimited in their testnet was able to propagate a 1gb block in 10 minutes.
Once again; SV are mind numbingly incompetent.

>>11845728
So if I understand right, the hashwar is basically over now, right?

>they have the relationships and approval of almost every single exchange, and they're just proceeding on like SV doesn't exist.
That's good. I saw an article about coinbase saying that ABC is BCH so I assume that's what it means. And polo now opened up deposits and withdraws.

>>11845760
Argh, what lunacy. Someone should just shoot Craig already and remind him why Satoshi remained anonymous. I just want the market to recover so that I can spend my crypto and live as a neet. I already made a good amount, even with this crash, but it's just so tiresome.

>>11845882
> So if I understand right, the hashwar is basically over now, right?
Correct, barring some unknown unknown. SV are still threatening legal action and exposing evil conspiracy theories and etc, but there's no actual known imminent threat they can possibly execute of the present day that allows them to exert leverage.

>>11845728
What legal action could SV even take realistically?

>>11845925
That one I'm not going to pretend I know or understand. I'm an anarchocapitalist largely because I hate fucking lawyers. I have no idea what they could or could not do in that sphere, especially in light of the fact that blockchains are necessarily jurisdictionless and internationally distributed and all the other things that would make enforcement impossible, but if there's one thing I've learned about laws and the state in my time on this earth is that they never let their actual physical limitations get in the way of passing down idiotic declarations.

>>11843957
>he lost the argument.
kys you subhuman pos cashie.

btc has 20x more hashrate, 15x more tx and 20x bigger cap than btrash so its the true BITCOIN according to whitepaper.

chew on rogers dick you mouthbreather

>>11845978

>>11845413
You're right, disk space isn't actually that big a factor compared to the others.

>>11845477
Just 'spec it', yeah? I hate to break it to you but that approach just doesn't work when you start to get into hundreds of thousands of active users. People do their best to anticipate what constraints they can early on but even if they do it perfectly, as they continue to grow they will hit new problems and need to rebalance. This is why I used the analogy in >>11844382 so even a non-technical brainlet can understand. When you deal with your first dilemma or even trilemma of competing concerns to balance you'll understand. For now, you're just talking shit and living in an imaginary world.

Still no mention of any potential drawbacks. Not surprised. Instead, you must make up something I never said about block size in order to make your argument seem more plausible. Yeah, that's the way to really the way change people's minds about why bigger blocks are better.

Again trying very hard to insist my way of assertion that block size is somehow NOT reached by consensus of the network, explain how it's centralised? Repeating the same thing adds no truth to it.

If you look at the code, in particular consensus.h (funny how it's called that, those evil bastards, right?), MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT constant in particular. There you go, that's what's governing the maximum size of a block. The code is there in the open, to understand, modify and run by literally anyone who wants to.

And that post was claiming that devs don't speak to miners, implying they have a shady way of doing hard forks in the code.... but fail to reference the code in question that is backing up the statement. Yeah, I guess I'll just have to take this person's word for it. Is that how your brain works? Because it would explain a lot.

>>11845591
>attempt large blocksizes on the realnet
>blobofshit-incompetence.txt
Going out on a limb here but you really just don't like Craig and are grasping at straws.

>>11846029
> just doesn't work when you start to get into hundreds of thousands of active users
Yes it does, it's called allowing for horizontal scalability, so you can just add more infrastructure to support more users. But maybe you're too fucking stupid to know that too.
> Still no mention of any potential drawbacks
Because THERE ARE NO POTENTIAL DRAWBACKS
It is fucking 1mb blocks, this throughput was not impressive in 1996, and it sure as fuck isn't impressive or heavy load today. LARP'ing asshats like you who pretend it's amazing, especially in light of production blockchains churning out orders of magnitude higher volume with no problems, are simply fucking idiots.
You might actually have a point much higher up, for example if we could analyse some system resources at block size n and say "Look, at this point you reach core saturation for validation on processors below cost n" or "io load" or "bandwidth" or whatever.
But at the stupidly low limits with which we are actually dealing, none of that applies, and you LARPing as if it does just tells me you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
> explain how it's centralised?
Because there's a hard coded limit in the software that sets the fucking acceptable consensus rules for the network, dipshit. That hardcoded limit is set by a petition of six useless incompetent fucking neckbeards, thundercunt. This is centralised by definition and you ignorance of the fact doesn't change it, cockbag.
> And that post was claiming
The post was claiming "CORE IS AGAINST MINER VOTING" because that is literally the title in the fucking header you stupid fucking cunt. God there's nothing more insufferable than a fool who thinks he's a genius. Neck yourself.

>>11846032
I had no problem with Craig, and had in fact defended him, before he went batshit insane on this fork and started pushing for an idiotic war. I still reserved final judgment until that war actually started, and it became abundantly fucking clear just how incompetent he was and how absolutely he had failed in delivering anything approaching an acceptable result.
He is an idiot. SV is useless, these are the facts, get over it.

>>11845909
Good. So basically everything (hopefully) will go up since neither side has any incentive to sell more btc for this war and dump the market. I'll buy a bunch of alts while the market is still down.

Moooooom get Craig here he gives the best blowies! Mom I want Craig Satoshi Wright in here right now to blow my peepy!

>>11846181
fingers crossed.

>>11843802
Let them all get REKT.

>>11846166
>NO POTENTIAL DRAWBACKS
This is literally false for everything, The fact that you're capable of uttering something like this means that you can only perform shallow analysis of even understand that this makes talking to you like talking to a brick wall.

>>11846178
If he's so incompetent why did abc just finish throwing away the last of the nakamoto consensus? Why the fuck would bitcoin.com spend millions on renting hardware? Your calling this race over because abc pussied out and changed the rules so Craig can never get his way? The only fact here is that he really cannot run a 64mb blocksize chain at this point. Stop sipping the /r/btc ancap koolaid.

I work for a cable TV company that installs fiber to the home FTTH. We are currently installing GPON technology. Some ivy league school has clocked one frequency of light at 80 THz thats almost 8GB per second. As far as I know there is GPON 10 that can do up to 10 wavelengths. So imagine 80TB/s internet within 10 years. I know that seems far fetched but it could be that more adoption could drive ONT technology to accommodate this.

>>11846230
The fact you can't understand that some loads are so minescule they are inconsequential is not my fucking problem.
Why don't you go ask your doctor about the long term health effects of the increased load of nail polish when you decide to become a tranny you stupid fuck? See what he has to say about your idiotic concerns.

>>11846242
> If he's so incompetent why did abc just finish throwing away the last of the nakamoto consensus
They didn't. What you really mean is why did ABC add 10 deep reorg auto checkpoints, and what does that have to do with CSW's incompetence. To which I will answer; 1) Because it removes any possibility of an actual hostile reorg attack from the saber rattlers in the nChain camp, who are only able to rattle that saber because they have 4 fucking exahashes. and 2) that 4 exahashes has fuck all to do with CSW, who remains an utterly incompetent waste of space.
> Your calling this race over
It's not a race, it's a war. ABC wanted to enact a set of consensus rules and SV said they could stop them using a hostile attack mechanism. ABC then took measures to ensure that SV couldn't, and SV can't. That is how things are actually done in this space. Now that it's over and SV are whining because ABC fought a better war, you're looking for sympathy because of your failure.
None will be forthcoming.

>>11845802
>grug say no need for block size limit
>grug make big block
>big block no work on real network
>it cores fault big block no work

>>11846340
>removing miner consensus because it's hostile
You couldn't defend yourselves within the nakamoto consensus (twice now this has happened). Will this work in the long run? Let's find out. I think it's completely logical to support abc and not sv, It's basically ancaps vs libertarian capitalists. Also since Craig has bmg/sv and Calving has coingeek/sv that makes Craig a large part of the 4 exahashes.

>>11846449
> You couldn't defend yourselves within the nakamoto consensus (twice now this has happened).
That's wrong too, look at the actual accumulated proof of work between the two chains, even on a pure hashpower basis, BCH is ahead and will likely remain that way. The checkpoints simply remove even any possibility of success, however small, by variance or any other mechanism, from the agenda and thus make it safe for exchanges and the ecosystem to actually get back to business.
The truth is you simply have no point at all. In every way it is possible to lose, SV lost. Get over it.

>>11846494
The DAA was changed and now you've prevented an attack vector that is irrelevant unless there is miner contention. These are facts get over it. If you cannot see the point I'm making then there's 0 point talking to you.

>>11846448
I get that you're a fucking tard, but it is core's fault bigger blocks don't work. They artificially hardcoded a small block limit and thus why bother to optimise the codebase for a function it will never actually need to do? Indeed, they even added slow tx queuing to the mempool to reinforce this small block limit on purpose. It was all by design and very much on purpose. That doesn't mean they're incompetent though, they never tried to optimise it for something they didn't intend to use it for. Unlike say SV, who simply idiotically upped the limit without actually taking into account the fact that core had not designed it to actually work at that limit.
ABC took the correct middle road, they raised the limit and they simultaneously optimised the software so that it could handle that limit.

>>11846449
>ancaps vs libertarian capitalists
>he thinks ideology matters
It's more monkish quasi-incel, blank-slate, narrow-perspective,developers (which is sometimes good) vs people who were of this outlook at the start but had to fight hard, and this changed their perspective towards the practical and self-interested.

>>11846166
Oh no no, but in the real world you can't just keep adding more infrastructure that's not how this works. That's the kind of thing that gets you an exponentially increasing AWS bill which gets you fired or shutters your business.

>Because THERE ARE NO POTENTIAL DRAWBACKS
Kid, I wish it were so simple to just increase a number in the code and there are zero drawbacks but again that's not how these things work in the real world in distributed systems.

Since you can't think of any, let me help you and others who are curious. Let's say we bump up the block size to 128mb. For one thing, to propagate that 128mb out to other miners and nodes is going to take a lot longer. If I'm mining away on the other side of the world, and it takes 8 hops to get to me. Guess what? That's a gigbabyte of alone to transmit. And that's just the raw data. That large block also needs to be validated before its passed on. So we're talking about much slower block times. Slower block times mean that the likelihood of someone else on the network having found another block in the mean time has now increased. So not only are more hashes wasted but with more competing chains going on, it's going to take longer for transactions to get confirmed still.

You see how by changing one small thing in the code a cascade of all these other things happen? These all need to be addressed somehow, and we do that by changing the code. But yeah, as you might have guessed, changing the code again (possibly several times) may create new drawbacks and so that is why engineers like talking about such things, because it's interesting to them.

>>11846516
The DAA was not changed since the first hard fork into the BCH/BTC split, I have no fucking idea what you're talking about. And no, it's still relevant even with the present hashpower dominance, because SV could've gotten lucky or performed a re-org with a surprise burst of hash. Now they're totally fucked and can't do anything. Mission accomplished. This isn't a game where your opponent is forced to play by the rules that allow you to win, the objective is simply to win, and ABC won, and you lost
Get over it.

>>11846528
Holy hell guy, you sure are convincing and come in with force.

>>11846538
> that's not how this works
Yes it is how this works, because if you're running a business where you can't even cover your costs, you have bigger problems than your costs, shit for brains.
> Let's say we bump up the block size to 128mb
I already said if you increase the fucking blocksize by a lot there are potential problems, I already gave direct examples of how you might fuck that up and how nChain in fact did fuck that up. What I said was there are no drawbacks at the tiny limits which have been proposed in core. But you're either too fucking stupid to grasp that, or you want to pretend you are. Either way not my fucking problem. The fact remains BCH is doing just fine on 32mb, which is 32 times higher than the core limit, which was according to Greg Maxwell and his coterie of similarly useless cunts "impossibly dangerous", all the while they never even attempted to optimise for higher onchain throughput, because it conflicted with their political agenda.

>>11846546
>The DAA was not changed since the first hard fork into the BCH/BTC split
Not even true it changed in November but I'm pointing at both sv and abc here, craig wants to change it back and go after btc at some point. ABC seems perfectly fine creating a bubble around themselves and creating community posm consensus, congratulations on your victory! If bitcoin is an economic system driven by miners why the fuck would miners not want the best for their own chain? Anything remotely contentious on ABC will now result in a fork leaving it to the exchanges and the drooling free market ruled over by easily influenced social media. May I remind you BTC still is #1 and tron, eos, xrp are all high valued. This entire debacle has just painted ABC to be a huge group of hypocrites spitting on the whitepaper. Jihan submitted to this shit back when he canned s2x.

>>11846634
> Not even true it changed in November
That's the fucking first hardfork after the BCHBTC split, jackass.
> craig wants to change it back and go after btc at some point.
Great, I think that idea actually has some merit, I laugh at the idea he's the person to make it happen though given his track record.
> ABC seems perfectly fine creating a bubble around themselves and creating community posm consensus,
It's not community posm consensus, it's market consensus. If nChain could've looked at the futures price and actually tried to gauge what the ecosystem thought of their strategy, they'd have fucking know that, but instead they put an idiot fraudster in charge and called it a day. And how'd that turn out for them? Fucking poorly, but it's done now and there's no unfucking it.
> If bitcoin is an economic system driven by miners why the fuck would miners not want the best for their own chain?
Indeed, why would they not? And that's why they jumped to the defense of the BCH chain rather than leave it at the mercy of demonstrably incompetent fraudulent asshats. Which is where your narrative collapses. Stop pretending like you won, you didn't, you lost. In every possible way.
> Anything remotely contentious on ABC will now result in a fork leaving it to the exchanges and the drooling free market ruled over by easily influenced social media.
Anything contentious will be left to the market to decide, and perhaps those who want to actually effectively oppose those contentious changes in future will have learned that the correct way to do that is not the fucking way that nChain just epically failed with.

>>11846634
> This entire debacle has just painted ABC to be a huge group of hypocrites spitting on the whitepaper.
Wrong, because once again *YOU LOST BITCH*.
> Jihan submitted to this shit back when he canned s2x.
Because he didn't have a choice, because if he tried to do what nChain tried to do this time, core would've responded in the exact same way, because regardless of how fucking idiotic and subversive the core roadmap was, that's what the market actually wanted. And what the market wants is at the end of the day what the market gets, and we just have to fucking deal with that. The way you change it is show the market it's wrong by building something better, and that's exactly what BCH was all about until nChain came along trying to swing its impotent little dick around. Result utterly predictable; epic fail.

>>11846600
The key word in the sentence is exponential cost. So by just casually adding more servers, the cost is going up exponentially relative to your user activity. No business can sustain that kind of cost for long.

>>11846600
>doing just fine
Again, see the key word 'exponential'. I don't tell my peers or my boss hat the servers are 'doing just fine', it's not really good enough when you actually have to budget and try to forecast costs in the future, etc.

Take a look at something like X3 / 3 = y on a graph. Let's say that increasing the blocksize reduces the time to a transaction by three but by doing so, the cost incurred is actually a cube. Do you see how deceptive it looks at the beginning. Everything is just fine, right? Until you hit a certain point and it blows up and you hit a limit (like the time to new block gets to be over a day and your users wonder what the fuck is going on).

>>11846692
>my narrative collapses
You defended your chain by swapping miner consensus for "community consensus". Once again good luck later and congratulations! I've also never said at any point that sv has won a hash war here so half of your ramblings make 0 fucking sense. Also I like how you never retaliated against how the free market is obviously not good at deciding what's best (given how bch lost to btc and the entire s2x garbage). You know what would have prevented this? The miners rallying behind s2x and killing off corecoin, exactly what craig wanted to do here now with abc vs sv, what a stupid fucking idea! Glad that's never possible ever again! Hate on Craig all you want but he wanted to team up with Jihan and push S2X then rollback and stop segwit altogether, Jihan stabbed him alongside all of us in the back. Instead he's now forced into a game where the competition threw away mining consensus and his hashwar now means absolutely fucking nothing. I pray Craig can win here and muster up the power to go back after btc because abc sure as shit never would. You better hope the slow and steady (abc) win the race against btc before the banks catch up.

>>11846808
Also forgot to mention that community consensus can also be contentious resulting in community splits and further slowing you down.

>>11846805
> So by just casually adding more servers, the cost is going up exponentially relative to your user activity. No business can sustain that kind of cost for long.
Bullshit, casually adding more servers to an already optimised elasticsearch cluster is exactly how I scaled a business constantly for up to 50k tx/second, from an initial <1k tx/second. Talk to anyone who has worked with genuine similar scale and they'll tell you the exact same story. Mike Hearn even mentioned it is how scaling is done in his experience at google when he was arguing for raising the block size limit. You are simply wrong and have no idea what you're talking about.
> Until you hit a certain point and it blows up and you hit a limit
And absent a centrally planned block limit, what is the result of that in terms of miner tx inclusion in blocks given that symptom would cause increased orphan rates, and thus corresponding loss in profits? What's that? A market based mechanism for setting a block limit based on actual resources available vs supply and demand? Well fuck, blow me down! It's like a centrally planned super low limit to force a fee market to privilege the business interests of a pack of shitwit neckbeards wasn't necessary at all.
But that would be blasphemy.

>>11846808
>You defended your chain by swapping miner consensus for "community consensus".
Wrong, community consensus does not mean shit, it's market consensus that has and always will prevail in the end. You want to push that it's "community consensus" because then you seem like a noble defender of market or hashpower consensus, but you're wrong. The futures said you were going to lose, and the hashpower proved that you did in fact lose, and you did, in fact lose. There was no "community consensus" involved.
> Also I like how you never retaliated against how the free market is obviously not good at deciding what's best (given how bch lost to btc and the entire s2x garbage).
Resolution is still in progress. And every day we proved those assholes wrong by scaling on chain and left them with egg on their face, the market had to take fucking notice of that. Until nChain came along, joined the time, and scored the mother of all fucking home goals and is now burning cash at a furious pace in a war it is literally unable to win, end of story. Congratulations nChain, nice going, fuck yourself.
> You know what would have prevented this? The miners rallying behind s2x and killing off corecoin
No, you're wrong. Core would've switched the POW, and as the futures showed at a ratio of 10:1, people were cheering on the coretards in their sabotaging of the ecosystem. Miners simply could not stop it. They could either go along with it and make bank off it, or oppose it and be replaced. Those were their only options. They chose the former. And that choice was economically rational.
> because abc sure as shit never would
You clueless fuck, if ABC had convinced the market that it was indeed better, you realise it actually would've killed BTC outright? And your team has done nothing but damage that goal with your idiocy and ignorance? Pic related. Read it and understand how badly nChain fucked the goal it's claiming it has. That event is now much further away because of nChain.

From how an onlooker like myself sees it
>Craig want the Bch team to focus on this that will minimalize complexity issues. Just raising the block size, etc...
>The devs decided to add everything they had their mind at, like some odd wormhole sidechains, smart contracts, CTORs and whatnot
>Not all of those substantial changes were incorrect, but the general trend of this line of thinking leads to dark places. Constant changes with risk to adoption comming from unpredictability
>The devs who didn't see the larger picture didn't like the idea of their playground being spoiled by some naysaying old boomer, so they decided to get rid of him. They don't work for money after all - they are all rich af.
>Craig got mad, but couldn't do anything because his splinter prime dev talent isn't really controllable due to being rich and oblivious.
>Craigs team makes attempts at doing things they think is correct, but can't do anything because not enough competent epople on board - those are left playing with their CTORs

>>11846858
We're not talking about the same thing here. The fact you don't realize it is a testament to just how stupid you really are.

A block size increase, will exponentially increase the amount of bandwidth and computation required to validate the new blocks.

A new record in your elastic search index, is more like m * n log(n) where m is the number of nodes you're running.

These differences matter a great fucking deal as you grow bigger. Don't take my word for it, plot such functions on a graph and actually see the difference.

And the name drop of a Googler is pretty pathetic given that these kind of things (big O notation) is pretty fucking fundamental at passing a Google interview or any CS course.

Again you really have no fucking clue what the hell you're on about. Just kill yourself at this point.

>>11846928
>it's in the process
It's only lost value over time to btc far before this fork shit ever came along. The market consensus ideology you cling to proves you wrong because once again the market is fucking retarded making this a slow and steady race. You did in fact lose, and you did, in fact LOSE. Blocksize has 0 to do with valuation and obviously isn't proving people wrong until the space is actually used and it gains value.
>Core would've switched the POW
Let them then see what happens to its value. We'll never know. It would at least never be called bitcoin.
>if... if abc just!
ABC shouldn't have to convince anyone. Sorry we damaged BCH's shining reputation within the community by agreeing with miner consensus, once again the only thing that would have prevented bch even needing to exist in the first place.

>>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.

>>11847034
Also once again I should mention Craig is mainly looking to expand beyond the current free "market" shitfest we currently have. Large institutional investment making every corefag on twitter completely irrelevant.

>>11847034
> It's only lost value over time to btc far before this fork shit ever came along.
More bullshit, when BTC was operating at its actual scale cap, it was losing market cap at 20% for each month. Maxwell's plan was an UTTER abject fucking failure, and all BCH would have had to do to win would have been to increase adoption and continue to scale on chain as it has, as asset value has always been a function of value transferred.
> Let them then see what happens to its value. We'll never know. It would at least never be called bitcoin.
This isn't fucking magic shitwit, ABC just beat you raw without changing POW, core may well have done the exact same thing at the end of the day by checkpoints, permissioned mining, or whatever other mechanism, and no matter what you did, the Exchanges, core, and their legions of traders would still refer to it as Bitcoin. They still refer to it as Bitcoin now even though it directly contradicts fucking Bitcoin in the very title of the whitepaper. You can't stop people from doing stupid fucking things, humans are generators for stupid fucking things, that is what humans at large do, you can only choose to profit by their stupidity or be washed away by it.
> Sorry we damaged BCH's shining reputation within the community by agreeing with miner consensus
Wrong, you got fucking beaten, the futures were against you, you were outhashed, you lost on accumulated proof of work, you lost in every conceivable way. At this point I am assuming you are an actual nChain shill and starting to realise just how badly you may have fucked up. Great, take it to your supervisors and make them aware of it, the correct way to move the market isn't to wave your dick around and expect everyone else to suck it, it's to show them a better way. If you can't do that, you will fucking lose, end of story. Like you just fucking did.

>>11847105
>wave your dick around
But isn't that what ABC just did? They didn't exactly show a "better way". They did "some upgrade" which is not convincing anyone far as I can tell. All the discussion has been about the "hash war" mostly to laugh at CSW. Nobody is wowed by the upgrade here..?

>>11847105
>more bullshit
Sorry reality is bullshit your fairytales never came true. BCH never got the adaption we looked for or atleast the market didn't care.
>corefags are deluded and would've changed nakamoto consensus
Probably but I would say they then lost. I'm also going off your speculation of them actually changing pow so fuck off.
>more rambling about sv losing
Point to a single point in this conversation about me saying sv has won. A single time. You have some obsession with pointing this out as it's in every retarded fucking post you make.
So to finish this off. If sv accumulated more pow than abc would it now have "won" or does it not even matter because there was a complete hardfork? Or does it not matter because people value it higher on exchanges? You have to see a fault with this mentality if you also admit btc would have maintained the bitcoin name regardless.

>>11847054
Except the network isn't just transactions and they don't just increase in isolation. It's often coupled with things like, oh I don't know more users and miners transacting on the network that need to validate the chain.

If you can't see a fundamental thing like how things are actually interconnected then there is no hope for you.

>>11847169
If it wasn't convincing to anyone, then why was the futures price 10x SV on the market? Why did the hashpower so readily jump to the defense of ABC in order to keep it as the most accumulated proof of work BCH chain? And why did everyone agree at the Bangkok miner's meeting except CSW, who came there literally to just tell everyone to get fucked and then left? The truth is the majority was convinced the ABC changes were in fact optimal, and all of the above demonstrates it. It also demonstrates that nobody wanted nChain's changes.
Nobody is wowed by the upgrade because it just worked. Now there's ZCF improved zero conf in the BCH chain and 32mb block propagation all sorted and ready to go, no muss, no fuss, it was the exact opposite of the comedy of errors on the nChain side, and thus nobody is focusing on it.
If you have a hotdog stand and a trainwreck, people watch the trainwreck.

>>11847172
>Sorry reality is bullshit your fairytales never came true. BCH never got the adaption we looked for or atleast the market didn't care.
How long did it take BTC to get to even 7 tx / sec, what was the growth rate for BCH? How much energy was being put into the promotion of adoption? And how much has that all been set back by the abject shitwittery of nChain? Deny it all you want but anyone who is honest knows the answer to these questions and they point in just one direction
> Probably but I would say they then lost
It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else would say, it matters what the economic position the actors in question would end up in, and the economic actors in the position in question would be this; miners go bankrupt. Miners, unsurprisingly, didn't want this. Money matters, not principles.
> Point to a single point in this conversation about me saying sv has won.
You constantly make reference to posm like nChain won except posm carried the day, or community consensus, or any of that shit, but the truth is you just got slaughtered based on futures and hashpower alone, which in turn were influenced by the actions and behaviours on both sides of the table. Consider it a lesson learned and behave appropriately next time, and for god's fucking sake ditch that human trainwreck, he will literally only ruin you.

>>11847195
> but you see anon, nodes have to actually be economically useful in order to operate to their owners in the absence of a block size limit subsidy from our head neckbeards!
Fuck yourself. Literally fuck yourself.

>>11847253
Getting so desperate as to make shit up in your greentext. It's moral necessity that you end your life at this point.

Here's some actual thing you said:

>there will still be a limit set by market forces

Would these be the same 'market forces' as the BCH split, yeah? We definitely need more wonderful companies creating drama shitcoins on the regular.

Never change biz, never change.

>>11847400
I'm not making shit up, don't think I didn't see the trick you pulled, taking the "load on one node in the network with costs paid by the operator" and extending it out to "load across the entire network with costs subsidized by a block limit so economically useless nodes can still keep up". That's why you need to kill yourself. Because it's that kind of dishonesty that has the ecosystem in the place it is. You flat out fucking lied about the load on the network of increased transactions and tried to obfuscate the truth by altering the perspective of what was being discussed, as well as upon whom the burden of the processing of those costs should be placed. So once again, go fuck yourself.
And yeah, the same market forces that caused the BCH split, the split that proved your neckbeard idols and your dishonest coterie in general were talking out of their ass about the impossibility of exceeding the 1mb limit. The market is better than you, it trends towards optimal solutions, which you most assuredly do not fucking have.

>>11847207
Hot dog stand indeed.

>>11847245
Learned a lot about the abc position talking to you. A couple last points before I go to bed. It's hypocritical to state markets are logical and should decide consensus while they objectively chose btc or at the very least admit it's an absolutely fucking horrendous consensus mechanism and is deeply flawed. You should also note by ditching the nakamoto mining consensus entirely you remove a chunk of the whitepaper. Sv in a purest sense is the closest thing resembling the whitepaper at this point. I am really fucking curious what abc would do if say by a divine miracle sv gains more pow over the months. It honestly shouldn't mean anything given what you've said.

>>11847454
Holy shit.. I never caught that before, but you're right, that whole "it scales exponentially" thing is a complete fucking lie based only on the perspective of a single transaction propagating through the entire network and having to accrue those costs to an external subsidy rather than the actual node operator who is supposed to derive motherfucking utility from it..
My eyes always used to glaze over whenever I heard corecucks go off on their exponential bullshit, sneaky fucks.

>>11847594
> It's hypocritical to state markets are logical and should decide consensus while they objectively chose btc
No, because you must allow for the possibility that the markets are correct, for whatever reason that you don't actually know may be. I think it's complete bullshit, you think it's complete bullshit, but that doesn't mean it necessarily actually is. And furthermore, even if we're right, the efficient market hypothesis has a weak form which is the most commonly accepted, and that is purely that it *trends* towards the most efficient solution. It may well trend away from BTC shitwittery just fine long term, indeed I think and hope that it will.
> You should also note by ditching the nakamoto mining consensus entirely
Deep re-org checkpoints are simply not "ditching nakamoto consensus entirely". The consensus ruleset was still set by hashpower, the SV chain simply lost the vote. They then threatened to attack the opposing chain, and deep re-org checkpoints were added to nullify their threats to nothingness.
> Sv in a purest sense is the closest thing resembling the whitepaper at this point.
No, it's not, because it's a single maniac in charge of a stack of hashpower sitting across a tiny amount of nodes, it's not decentralised in the slightest, and the people in charge of it are observably economically irrational and hostile to business, despite the fact that they think otherwise.
> I am really fucking curious what abc would do if say by a divine miracle sv gains more pow over the months. It honestly shouldn't mean anything given what you've said.
Correct, it now doesn't mean anything, because infrastructure is already in place that has negated it, and that infrastructure was provoked by nChain threats, so they have only themselves to blame and should choose to operate differently if in future there are contentious issues that need to be discussed. Or the same thing will happen again. Storming in and making hollow ineffectual threats doesn't work.

>>11847601
they like to dazzle with bullshit, it's all they have.

>>11847454
Except I never said anything 'economically useful' or 'subsidizes'.You're not just a brainlet you need your fucking head checked out m8. Maybe your NPC code needs an update because you're definitely triggering the wrong dialogue here.

>impossibility of exceeding the 1mb limit
Citations required here. Especially when you casually accuse others of being dishonest.

>the market is better than you
Never claimed anything about beating the market. You really are reaching here. You know, sometimes companies get it wrong and that's okay. You know that most new business fail and this is still a relatively new space, right? That means that a lot of coins will eventually die. And I don't think that's anything prophetic or controversial. I can see how it might be for a butthurt holder of shitcoins would be though.

>>11847601
Just claiming it's a lie is not good enough I'm afraid. People have already talked about potential drawbacks of casually increasing the block size to a busy network in this thread. Yet people like yourself will just shout 'lies' and want to talk people in the space. I haven't once mentioned any people in the space because it's irrelevant to the actual discussion.

>>11847727
I'm not interested in anything you have to say, you were caught in an obvious lie and continue to deny it, Either you're dishonest or stupid, either way, it's a waste of time talking to you. Neck yourself.

>>11846858
You are the fucking idiot who doesn't understand the difference between logarithmic search on an index in your elastic search index and having to go through a linked list transactions in a block on the chain is linear time.

Yes, your deep insight into scaling will sorely be missed. Please keep telling people to keep adding more hardware, you should definitely patent that solution you could be on to something big there.

>>11847829
You're full of shit, spouting jargon doesn't change it jack. The math laid out in >>11847054 is simple, clear, and concise. You can sperg out and bitch about your exponential logarithmic curves all you want, but nobody with half a brain will be distracted from the simple fact that you are all hat, no cattle.
Jimmy, is that you?

For what it's worth I have now put my entire net worth behind BSV. Massive scaling is just around the corner.

>>11847875

>>11843556
B8?

>>11842897
Why didn’t satoshi know 1mb block would help keep it decentralized and implement it for that reason instead of saying it’s for spam. If he said it’s for decentralization Bcash wouldn’t have happened probably because there whole premise is “muh WP”

>>11847958
Because that's a lie, and not what actually happened.

>>11847875
>bitcoin
>scaling

Hahahhahahajajsjjahahhahahsh

>>11847860
>Linear
>Exponential
It's basic math., not jargon You should have learned this in highschool. The point of saying graph it was so that even a brainlet who doesn't get math properly can actually see with their own eyes how the cost increases. Knowing the difference between the two is fundamental even for software running on a single machine.

>exponential logarithmic
Ah, I think I see your problem here. You don't seem to get basic math. If you weren't mentally retarded you might have a chance here. Alas, no.

>>11847983
I understand it just fine, and it doesn't comport with the image in >>11847054 that does explain the scaling accurately as far as I can tell. You seem to be just completely full of shit, and as >>11847454 points out, you are taking a divergent perspective on the actual load of a transaction in order to characterise increase in said load as exponential. From the perspective of a single actor in the network who actually bears the processing cost, you're simply wrong, each new tx is linear cost increase in load exactly as Satoshi highlighted.

>>11848010
Imagine we had an actual empirical blockchain with higher than 1mb blocks that we could actually validate what is being speculated on in theory here with, then we'd know in practice who is right.
Oh, that's right, we fucking do, and it turns out that douchebag is wrong.

You guys should check how monero solved the problem.

I want to use my cpu to support sv

Suck my dick, collectivist basedboy cucks

>>11843398
I didn't see shit

>>11848197
Oh now I do

>>11848010
I've ignored your shitty image shilling because it actually has nothing to do with what we're talking about this is brainlet territory and I'll explain why.

So you have N number of customers talking to M number of their servers. M is actually quite small, since it's centralized. You could probably look up the number of datacenters if you wanted. And we wouldn't expect new datacenters to be cropping up in the 100s every single day, would we?

On a decentralised network, using of transactions, let's even forget blocks for a second. M is everyone on the network, not just the small amount of datacenters.

From that you can create some simple equations, again using simple highschool math you can actually work it out how the cost increases as you increase the number of transactions.

And guess what, we're skipping over a lot of things like if one of Visa's datacenters needs to talk to another, they're going to trust each other to some degree. When a node or miner sees a new block, it needs to validate it.

>>11842824
Just thinking logically and you'll see how fuckin easy it is to resolve that issue. I'm not a programmer else I would have fixed it already. You can make it unlimited.

>>11848301
Wrong, because although load increases with nodes, so does potential compute resources and also there is a natural limit supply and demand for the provisioning of nodes to work with the network you are hoping everyone either don't know or will ignore. It doesn't work. We know your bullshit back to front. Fuck off. The fact is the load scales linearly per node. You call it exponential because you insert the false perspective of amongst all nodes where only a single node admin who reaps economic utility has to deal with the load on their individual node, which scales linearly, bitch about it as you might to the contrary.

>>11847875
y is your net worth $250.

>>11848151
>38.1%
oh shit i didn't realize SV have caught up so quickly. if the way bitcoin is supposed to work is respected the SV chain can still become Bitcoin Cash

>>11849341
Wrong
https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/proofofwork
They're growing further apart as time proceeds.

>>11850012
>Bitcoin Cash is currently 38% ahead on proof of work
all that matters. was 54% two days ago.

>>11850676
> as the gap widens between two parties, the expression of that gap as a percentage of the total work decreases.
None of this matters at all because SV can't actually do fucking anything, they can't even run their own chain, letalone attack the other one.

>>11850705
sure they can, dunno why you'd think they cant run their own chain.

i don't think people will accept the SV chain as the BCH chain even if they flip it now (as would be correct) but then nChain will have proven that ABC people don't really care about the way bitcoin is supposed to work so it will still be a win for them if they accumulate the most proof of work

also yes you're right about the percentage, my bad on that. coindance should display the gap in hashpower (not percentage) below the percentage line

>>11850800
Because they can't.

>>11850800
> nChain will have proven that ABC people don't really care about the way bitcoin is supposed to work so it will still be a win for them if they accumulate the most proof of work
Then nChain should fuck off and mine BTC, because it has the most accumulated proof of work. This argument holds no water. And is especially idiotic in the context of the fact that nChain doesn't have, and will not acquire at the current rate, an accumulated proof of work lead, period.

>>11850846
BTC is an entirely different crypto. ABC and SV is the same crypto.

>>11850854
> different rulesets
> same crypto
Nope.

>>11850868
by your logic miners can't refuse developer changes to a crypto by continuing to mine the old chain. at that point we might as well just use fiat if we blindly follow the leaders.

>>11850896
How is that bad in any shape or form? Why should the developers have ultimate control over the thing?

>>11850896
They can't as a point of empirical fact, observe segwit2x, and now BCH/SV. This is simply the indisputable reality of the situation. And it's not "blindly following the leaders" because the market has to vet and approve the changes to consensus that are proposed, from whichever source they appear, be that miners or developers. And when the futures fall in one way showing that this is what's going to happen on chain, woe betide any person who tries to push it in the other direction, because they will burn cash by the wheelbarrow in abject futility.
The situation is much like you can choose to fuck your boss' wife in the ass and then gloat to him about it, you have the power to do that, all things allowing, But don't be surprised when you end up out on your ass and suffer enormously economically from doing so. Miners and indeed all other actors in the ecosystem share this exact same freedom, and suffer the exact same consequences if they "make use" of this freedom in a way likely to provoke the same response.

>>11850920
it feels more and more like craig wright is the only one who truly gets bitcoin

>>11850963
You're wrong, get over it. He failed, he has proven his empirical value in a rivalrous contest with the opposing perspective conclusively. It's over.

How will patents in SV work after it becomes the dominating coin?
Won't that give Craig unlimited power over all of finance?

>>11851066
No, if the state and central bank narrative is correct, XRP and BTC will be dominant and SV will be worth nothing.
If the anarchocapitalist narrative is correct, BCH will be dominant and SV will be worth nothing.
There is no narrative where SV is not worth nothing.

>>11850972
it has just begun a week ago

>>11851322
> checkpoints in
> lost hashpower dominance
> exchange volume doesn't want to touch SV with a ten ft pole
> can't even propagate half their own block limit within 4 block timestamp
> waved their dick around making threats
> absolutely failed to deliver on any of them
> actually fucking attacked themselves by accident
> 43 USD and falling
> Jihan and Roger have not yet begun to dump.
And that's not even a complete list..
Yeah, I'm sure it's going to get better soon. Everything is looking so bright for you tards.

>>11851268
>thinking in therms of ideologies
>incapable of answering the question, but still wanting to sound smart, so answering a different question
ideologues should all be culled

>>11851508
It's not in terms of "ideologies" it's in terms of narratives. Both narratives have a very different description of what's going to happen when the metal of crypto hits the meat of the state. It doesn't matter which ideology is right, it matters which one is an accurate description of the realistic results from the event in question.
you should be culled.

>>11845380
r/conspiracy

>>11848723
excuse me more like 6 big ones

>>11851536
>speaking to himself again
How is this relevant to the initial question? Are you a sky-supporter per chance?

>>11842765
>why is it bad with big blocks
there is nothing wrong with larger blocks
that's not the problem here

>>11842878

>NORMANS GET OUT!!! REEEE!

But seriously... As a non normie techie... I enjoy the hardware requirement.

>>11843954
Sounds like something craig would say too lel

>>11848216
explain

>>11842897
Yeah well at this point bitcoin isncentralized by 2-3 mining cartels.