/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11908060

In the next year, nChain intends to ensure that we are packing blocks with paid data (and no, we will not call it spam).

The simple answer is: Bitcoin as SV will have miners earning over $8,000 a block based on use alone. That equates to $640 a bitcoin on exchanges, and we have not factored in the gambling price of bitcoin, just what miners will earn as a service.

This is the issue. Some think that you cannot value cryptocurrency, and to an extent this is correct. In the past, you could not value bitcoin as it was a mere speculative guess as to the future. The reality is that you can always value a product based on the closest alternative goods and services and the substitutes on market. For Bitcoin, this is as a commodity ledger.

Not the hype. Not the global-money argument. These ONLY come when bitcoin is a commodity money, and the ledger is the commodity.

With the Teranode project nChain will be scaling Bitcoin SV to handle over 1.0 TB within the next 3 years (aiming for 2) and growing sizes from there. At that level, miners will earn over $600,000 for each Terabyte block, and this is every 10 minutes on average.

In 2 to 3 years we expect to be at a capacity of 2 to 4 billion (with a b) transactions a block, that is 6.5 million transactions a second. This is also Visa, MasterCard, banking in SWIFT, and ALL global currencies (not just crypto) in under 15% of a block. And this is the start.

>>11908065

The simple answer is: we can do secure, permanent transactions and ledger entries that are set privately for each party at a global scale, and as we scale, the cost for each transaction will only get less.

I expect that you will see Visa using Bitcoin (SV) as its backbone and plumbing within the next 4 years, as we can provide them with a means to transact that is both more secure and faster… and more, it will cost less.

>>11908075

I should not troll on Twitter, but I do enjoy it. There is more importantly a reason why I troll. The reason is also very simple.

There are many “so called” experts in Bitcoin who have no idea what Bitcoin is, and worse, have agendas. Peter Rizen is one of these. These are people who basically loathe Bitcoin and PoW as a concept, and yet seek to gain a following in this arena.

I place a few tweets as trolls from time to time with limited explanations as these manage (always) to get the drooling trolls salivating. I have such a troll tweet below with the response from the fish on the hook. My tweet is correct, but designed to catch certain people.

>>11908081

I should not troll on Twitter, but I do enjoy it. There is more importantly a reason why I troll. The reason is also very simple.

There are many “so called” experts in Bitcoin who have no idea what Bitcoin is, and worse, have agendas. Peter Rizen is one of these. These are people who basically loathe Bitcoin and PoW as a concept, and yet seek to gain a following in this arena.

I place a few tweets as trolls from time to time with limited explanations as these manage (always) to get the drooling trolls salivating. I have such a troll tweet below with the response from the fish on the hook. My tweet is correct, but designed to catch certain people.

>>11908095

Peter has taken a very simple equation, the Poisson probability of two independent systems, and calculated the chance of two events occurring one after the other independently.

This is of course Peter’s biggest failing and where most of his ignorance around Bitcoin starts from. He uses an I.I.D condition, that is, independent, identically distributed events and falsely assumes this when there are conditional probabilities and dependent events.

Independent means that the sample items are all independent events. In other words, they aren’t connected to each other in any way.
Identically Distributed means that there are no overall trends–the distribution doesn’t fluctuate and all items in the sample are taken from the same probability distribution. (Ref)
This is the problem in all of his analysis. These are not independent events.

>>11908152

Let us take the toy model of two miners discovering blocks in a blockchain as a scenario. Miner A and Miner B each find a block within a small period of time. Peter in his analysis would be correct IF these miners would mine independently of one-another, but, in Bitcoin they do not mine independently.

Miners find a block and then send this to all other miners. When that occurs, the miners start over and mine off the new block. So, to have this, we will have block 0 as the start that all miners have agreed to and, block 1 as the next block discovered by the miners.

In the scenario posited, Alice (A) has found a block at a nominal time, (T=0) and Bob discovers a block at a time very close to this but no more than 20 seconds from when Alice discovered a block at height 1 (that is 0s< T ≤20s).

To understand the process, we need to consider what is happening across the system as a whole, and not the actions of the miners independently. When Alice finds a block, she announces this to all of the other miners she is connected to as quickly as she can. The “First seen rule” in Bitcoin mean that the Block discovered by Alice benefits only if it is seen by other miners. The timestamp on her block does not count unless it is too far out, so we ignore this.

>>11908171

If Alice and Bob discover a valid block at exactly the same time, but Alice can propagate her block to other miners faster than Bob, then Alice still wins as she will be seen as the first one. To take this further, if we have Alice effectively able to send a block nearly instantly (say 0.01s), and that Bob takes 2 seconds to send his block, Alice gains a small advantage. In this example, if Alice was to have discovered her block at T=1.0s and Bob discovered a block at the same height at T =0s, then the other miners will have received Alice’s block at T=1.01s and they will see Bob’s block at T=2.0s. So, even though Bob nominally discovered the block first, Alice wins as she propagated the block to the miners first. This of course is one of the MANY serious flaws in the foolish fallacy of selfish mining.