/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>13498534
I dont think theyll ever got through with the 300kb proposal.

300kB sounds comfy

>>13498552
this, ignore the twitter troll

mfw still don't know what a block is or what goes into it

>>13498666
Its literally an array of transactions. Simple x to y transactions take a small amount of memory, more complicated ones use more, but there's only so much that'll fit into a single block
Each block is a CD with 1mb capacity

The blockchain is a huge stack of CDs with the lowest one being the genesis block.

The miners that compete to get btc are actually competing to be the one that gets to put the next CD on the stack. On bitcoin this happens every ~20 minutes.

>>13498759
lol at this autist.

>>13498759
Based and blockchainpilled

>>13498778
lol at your life

>>13498666

The blocksize will never change because Bitcoin is immutable (which is why it has value). OP is a shitcoin bagholder thinking that if the spams on the internet Bitcoin will crash and his shitcoin bag will pump. Imagine having that cosmovision in 2019.

>>13498552
they do whatever they want and corecucks will just follow and defend the decision for free

Why ahould I care bout block size?
Mining rewards? From a practical standpoint I dont see how packing txs in 300kb or 1mb chunks makes difference, if the net has a steady load.

>>13498952
During last bull run people wasn't be able to make a transaction with a fee lower than 35 dollars: https://bitcoinfees.info/

corecucks and satojtards are pathetic

all bitcoins suck ass but BCH is only one that is worthy of the name at least

300kb isnt small enough imo, 100kb and below is more healthy

>>13498963
That's because the network was being spammed by bitmain. When your largest miner decides to attack the network shit's going to get fucked up. This is what an adversarial system looks like.

>>13498963
So, more txs go around, difficulty goes down, blocks appear more frequently.
Isnt btc designed to adjust mining difficulty automatically?

>>13498862
just fyi that graph is incorrect, eth is linear too -just a steeper linear

>>13498963
>>13498984
The fees are large because BTC is digital gold, real gold is heavy and expensive to transport so BTC needs to emulate all the properties of gold to be digital gold

>>13498759
Nice description, except it's every 10 mins.

>>13498862
The blocksize has already changed. The cap wasn't there at the beginning but simply instated by whingers to prevent spam making the blocks too big while fees were too cheap to incentivize miners to invest in enough connectivity to propagate them. The blocksize has nothing to do with immutability either but keep tossing out dem words you heard others use.

>>13498984
My bullshit meter just showed a negative value. Oh wait, that was integer overflow

If only Craig wasn't claiming to be satoshi as some sort of publicity stunt I'd look into this. I just don't touch projects lead by scammers, but that's my personal preference.

>>13499024
this guy gets it. BTC should work to emulate physical gold as closely as possible. 500 dollar fees and week long tx times to send thousands of dollars across the world are perfectly reasonable.

>>13498952
FEES! Bigger blocks equals more fees which compensates for the diminishing block reward after halvings. The block reward is just a subsidy to bootstrap the network.

>>13498984
The miners could only spam the network because of an artificial scarcity. If they spam a big block it just costs them the amount to fill the blocks up but with no replace by fee the of fees won't go anywhere near as much. With 1GB there would be 10 bitcoin in fees and 12.5 bitcoin reward. After the halving this becomes important. With TB blocks there will be 10000 odd bitcoin in fees per block at 1 sat/byte and 6.25 bitcoin as blocl reward. This is how it is designed to work at scale.

>>13498988
The difficulty can only go up or down 20% in a single difficulty adjustment which is every 2 weeks (2060 blocks). If the hashpower drops by more than 20% then it can still only go down 20% but that means the block time will average out at longer than 10 mins and the next difficulty readjustment in longer than 2 weeks. If there is a big exodus of hashpower this could cause chain death spiral and no tx being able to be processed.

Blocklets are the ultimate s`o´y s´o`y

>>13498759
Good explanation

>>13498778
kill

>>13498759
samefag here, correction to 10 minutes as >>13499072 correctly stated, no idea where I pulled the 20 out of, must be the weed


also gonna add a simple explanation for the immutability part since that's not covered


imagine that each CD you place on top of the stack must also contain a .zip of the previous CD, this is an arbitrary rule enforced by the bitcoin software, not a law of nature or physics or whatever
now imagine I own bitcoin, the stack of CDs, and would like you to store it in your garage for me while I'm on vacation. While I'm sunbathing, you may think of checking some of the CDs deep within the stack, and maybe altering one of them that isn't full (with 1MB of transactions) so that a transaction within it gets changed from
> 1000 from A to B
to
> 500 from A to B
> 500 from A to my wallet


after all, how would I ever notice, and who the fuck even is 'B'


but when you try to do it, you'll realise that the CD on top of the one you edited has a .zip of the original, unedited CD you messed with. So you archive your new version and replace the original .zip in the CD above with your new .zip, but then you realise now this CD (because of the modified .zip within it) no longer matches its own zipped version on the 2nd CD above your 'hacked' one. This repeats all the way up to the most recent CD, so, if you were to modify ANY of the CDs within the stack, you'd have to discard everything that goes on top of it.
and that is how we can trust anyone to keep and re-transmit copies of the ledger while knowing with certainty that they didn't alter it. That's about 50% of what makes bitcoin and crypto cool and innovative, the other 50% is PoW and other solutions that limit how often you could stack CDs regardless of who you are, to make sure nobody can modify a CD and then re-stack a bunch of modified ones on top of it quickly before anyone else realises.

>>13498534
BTC is rekt and has been for a long time. It was literally hijacked by a hostile entety. BSV is where it's at now

>>13498666
all you need to know about bitcoin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHjYt6Jm5j8

joke's aside, here's a simple explanation:
https://youtu.be/SF362xxcfdk?t=844
jump to 14:04
it's not perfect but it's really good to get a basic understanding.

>>13498759
Not mentioning Peter Gabriel owns the genesis block gets a Yikes! from me

>>13499092
cap was by satoshi

>>13500334
The 1 MB cap was Hal Finney's idea and Satoshi only agreed to it as a temporary measurement against flooding. Since flooding carries a huge cost today the measurement is no longer needed.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.msg10388435#msg10388435

>>13500372
https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/103/#diff-3
no it was done by satoshi nakamoto not saketoshi fagamoto

Holt shit, corecocks are beyond logic.

>>13500389
it's only lukejr who is a totally mentally retarded flat earther faggot

>>13500378
>dense

>>13500443
>delusional lover of aussie shitposters

>>13500186
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHjYt6Jm5j8 [Embed]

Damn, that was actually very well done with nice production value. They must have been early investors

>>13498598

Nice, just bought 300kb

>>13500449
did you look at the link? do you know who Cryddit is? why do you think it was "by satoshi" when he was just the one reluctantly implementing it?

>>13500457
i have to agree that was fucking great!

>>13500486
fuck off if you have nothing of value to contribute!

>>13500519
oh yeah? you just said you thought the video i contributed was "fucking great".

>>13498534
If you are fuckjng trolling now I will find you and shit on ur fucking face. Bsv will never be bitcoin Craig will never be know as the creator of bitcoin and you are a gullible retard

>>13500532
now i'm conflicted, that was a great video but you talk stupid nonsense

>>13500556
>"actually it was hal's idea to implement 1 MB blocksize and satoshi only agreed to it as a temp measurement"
>posts source link, a post by bear himself aka cryddit
>you go off on a tantrum for no reason and get super defensive
mkay

>>13500613
hearsay compared to the actual fucking commit. as far as ray dillinger actual involvement i can't find any other source than himself.

>>13500753
LIKE I SAID yes satoshi implemented the thing but he didn't want it, only reluctantly agreed to it as a temporary measurement against flood attacks.

bitcoin was so cheap in those days that anyone could create flood attacks for many months with almost no cost, but as price goes up the flood attack vector goes away because the cost becomes way too high.

also "hearsay", sounds like you don't know who bear (Cryddit) is. here's an example of him mailing with satoshi in 2008 to help make this "bitcoin" thing a reality:
http://archive.fo/fUSJF

i don't blame you for having been told satoshi wanted 1 MB blocks but i will blame you for being unable to change your mind simply because you hate BSV or whatever

>>13500860
it's not against flood attacks primarily it was against unintentional network split

For anybody that cares here's Craig Wright talking about how Bear was treated:
https://youtu.be/v1_gxvx_QGo?t=967 (16:07)

>>13500876
hit me up with your source and ill check after dinner

>>13500860
>i don't blame you for having been told satoshi wanted 1 MB blocks
it was obviously a temporary measure that much is clear. (much of the debate today is about till when) there is no source that satoshi ever meant it to be a permanent feature. but the fact that he put it there and for good reason is nothing else but cold hard fact. would he have increased it the first time we approached full blocks? i believe yes. not if it risked splitting the network but if he was around there would have been hardly any chance of that. or possibly he would have been sneaky about it and disguised the increase as a bug fix.

>>13499020
correct

cute discussion, irrelevant to price tho, you guys might wanna take this to /g/ since price does not care about your gay scaling projects
ETC got 51% attacked and nobody cared enough to make the price move
the scaling problem does nothing for BTC price at all, LN will not move the price, what will move the price is the inflation control (halving) and limited supply, genius work from Szabo (satoshi)

the 1MB is a great contribution by Hal, and they can change that obeying the principle that satoshi stated:
>>13498862 this exemplifies

>>13500186
>>13500372
>>13500443
>>13500486
>>13500613
>>13500860
>>13500907
can you please drop the name?
you don't bring anything by stamping your posts with your name, people will just attack you and not your ideas, 4chan(channel) is supposed to be anonymous, the name option is for specific threads which require you to ID yourself, preferably with a tripcode for verification. your name brings nothing to the discussion, someone can even impersonate your 'moniker' and start useless drama

drop the name

If craig is satoshi then why didnt he just increase the block size

>>13502172
I just have the name for fun and I don't use it in all threads on /biz/. I've already seen others use the name as well, which makes it even more fun.

>>13499790
based

>>13498534
This it's pretty retarded, specially the Dashjr's argument that Moore's Law ended 8 years ago, storage wise it hasn't ended at all and processing power isn't a bottleneck on any node (which could easily be fixed with FPGA's or ASIC's, if there was an economic incentive to run nodes), the argument that bandwidth limitations are a bottleneck it's way more sane but it still can't justify sub-2 MB blocks
The nodes dipping are enthusiasts dropping BTC thanks to Blockstream's bullshit and moving on to BCH/BSV and other coins like Monero, even blockstream cocksucker faglords have dropped their full nodes to run a Lightning Node
The argument that BTC will be made illegal and running a full node will become something prosecuted by the police state it's even more retarded, a public immutable ledger it's a totalitarian statist dream

>>13500407
Nope the rest of them are too.

>>13499790

Excellent explanation!

>>13502811
it's actually the bandwidth that is the least problem right now, because cashies i think we can say proved you can seriously compress blocks in propagation. and you can fucking set your client to prune. the one thing bitcoin needs fixed is that pruning clients don't participate in syncing other clients. that thing should be workable easy enough. adding the two together you get within reason a small block bitcoin that scales organically and actually consumes less resources than the monstrosity it is now.

>>13503357
DOUBLE HASH
O
U
B
L
E
H
A
S
H

>>13503689
MOUTHWASH
O
U
T
H
W
A
S
H

>>13498759
Based
Ironically, I think Bcash's checkpoints are not a bad idea

>>13503975

Think again

https://twitter.com/bsmith12251960/status/1063277772792102912

>>13503999
Checked. Idea not the execution of idea though.

>>13503975
The reason why checkpoints are bad is because it introduces trust* for new users and it replaces the threat of a deep re-org with the threat of additional forks.

Yes, Satoshi implemented checkpoints in 2010 but it was 200 blocks back and in a straight line. More importantly it was a different time, the network was so small that a single large user actually could re-org the chain a year back.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=437

here's a warning about auto-checkpoints that someone wrote 7 years before ABC implemented their auto-checkpoints (auto-finalization):
https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/kecul/solid_coin_shutting_down_for_2_weeks_claims_it/c2jqj1q/

here's an old discussion thread about checkpoints from 2013:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=194078.0

* = a new user can't simply follow the longest chain, when they come online they must trust someone to tell them which chain to download. it literally breaks the very concept of proof-of-work and is a terrible idea. the centralized decision from ABC to introduce checkpoints is what made me start believing more in BSV rather than BCH.

'''ALL I WANT IS A CORE WALLET THAT ISN'T HEAVY AS FUCK!'''

'''EVERY CRYPTO CORE-WALLET IS HEAVY AND LAGGY AS FUCK EVEN IN MY I5 WITH 8GB RAM AND SSD AND I CAN'T DO SHIT WHILE THE WALLET IS OPEN OR SYNCHRONIZING!'''

'''REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'''

>>13500552
Am i the only who thinks the Crack girl is looking better than before?

>>13498984
HAHAHAHAHAHA