/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16295900
Lel, and how many transactions can gold do?

BAIT

>>16295911
>Lel, and how many transactions can gold do?
Why is that relevant? Bitcoin was made to facilitate micro transactions. Satoshi said himself in 2009 that bitcoin could scale to visa levels (17k tx/s) with existing technology. That is 10 years ago! What went wrong?

>>16295935
it will scale once it needs to. why is everyone so obssessed with tx/s

>>16296491
Because the mempool and fee bullshit stops adoption dead in its tracks

>>16295911
Always as many as necessary

>>16296507
not really

>>16296588
Oh okay, so new users like when their transactions take several minutes for a couple of confirmations? New users like when a simple payment has >$1 transaction fees?

>>16296675
it's still a hundred times better than international wire in fees and speed and trustlessness and permissionlessness. bitcoin is fucking awesome as is. gradual scaling with growing demand while keeping it useful is all it needs. full blocks ensure that mostly financial transactions that carry value burden the network not stupid shit. full blocks ensure miners stay alive with diminishing rewards.
instead of adopting every retard tries to "fix" it then wails about it not getting adopted.

The only scaling problem bitcoin has is political, not technical

>>16296752
I get that but saying "it's still better than the old system" is neglecting all the other coins with actually low fees and quick transaction times. Also just because blocks are full doesn't mean they are full of useful transactions, the network gets a lot of spam.

Bottom line is btc is still great but there's more work to be done for sure.

Blockstream was created by banks to hamstring bitcoin so it would be noncompetitive in the market.

>>16295900

do you want the supply capped at 21 million coins or not?

if yes, you move smaller value transactions off chain therefore scaling the network exponentially with every additional lightning node

kill yourselves bsv and bcash shills

>>16295900
because bitcoiners are the new jews

>>16296818
What's the status of the lightning network as of 2019? Does it still have the DoS problem? What happens if watchtower nodes get compromised?

>>16296752
>make a purchase online across the world
>is accepted instantly, fee is ~1%

Vs
>Want to make a purchase
>have to KYC at some crypto exchange
>pay 2-3% in fees to buy bitcoin
>may or may not need to download a wallet for my cryptocurrency
>shop counts an exchange rate ~5% worse than actual bitcoin exchange rate because it's volatile as fuck
>send money to shop
>have to wait 15 minutes for a confirmation
>paid 10x more, waited 30x longer, gave some Chinese scammer my ID
Blockchain technology sure is better than the current system

>>16296787
>is neglecting all the other coins with actually low fees and quick transaction times
neither one of them is secure most of them is not even trustless or permissionless the way bitcoin is. so who cares. anyone can scale a shitcoin to ad infinitum if he gives up any of the holy trinity.

It's been a pain in the anus holding this turd over the last couple weeks.

>>16296870

i've been using it for 2 years with no issues

>>16296898
Wait for the drop to $8k, then $7.7k.

>>16295900
Wow a centralized company can process more transactions than a decentralized ledger???? Btc is doomed

>>16296870
Lightning Network is a retard hooked onto life support that corecucks wheel out every time they get criticized.

>>16296886
it depends if you are a retard or not and an adopter or not.
alternatively:
>bought bitcoin at $400
>if i want to send a serious amount over to someone it arrives 100 times faster and incomparably cheaper than a bank wire
>actual store of value unlike fiat
>conveniently divisible
>easily secured
>unconfiscateable

Considering that there exist several cryptocurrencies and online merchants generally accept them all, I don't think that the transaction capacity of BTC is too much of an issue these days. Maybe just for nucoiners who only know of BTC and nothing else.

>>16296919
BTC could handle way more, even more than PayPal, but (((Blockstream))) decided to cripple the network in favour of Raspberry Pi's.

>>16296886
All your complaints are about centralized companies exploiting fiat to crypto channels... are you dumb

>>16296886
and one more thing for morons like you:
buying coffee was never the problem the world needed solving. you can buy coffee with anything.
securing your wealth, being your own bank was the problem bitcoin solved first and foremost. who knows maybe with ln you can also buy your coffee. would be cool.

>>16296934
Yeah ok. I knew this was just a stupid BSV shill thread. Kys

>>16295935
Blockstream happened

>>16296886
>2-3% in fees to buy bitcoin
bro fees are like 0.5% on coinbase pro and deposits/withdraws are free

>>16295935

It can. You are looking at the wrong Bitcoin. Bitcoin SV is what you want.

>>16296961
So go dump your life savings into BSV and let us know how it works out

>>16295900
>I though it was supposed to be the new global payment system
not yet,
>>16295900
>Why is BTC unable to process more than 7 transactions a second?
More tx is higher velocity which is like inflation let the shitcoins scale first and we'll port their best

>>16296922

>i need lightning network charts to all be 100% vertical or else the technology and protocol has failed to scale bitcoin

just fucking kill yourselves already

>>16296752
Do you own Chainlink

>>16296969

bitcoin sv doesn't follow the white paper buddy how seething are you right now that we see through your scam?

>>16296989
Lightning network is a joke. You know nobody gives a shit about it right? What exchanges have integrated it? Oh right, 0. Because it's garbage

>>16296992
hell no
i have been saying for years it's a utility token with no utility

>>16296974
>not yet
Satoshi said it could easily do it in 2009. Why do you disagree with him?

>More tx is higher velocity which is like inflation
why?

>>16297008

>said the desperate scam coiner holding massive alt coin bags

>>16297007
Following the white paper like it's some sacred text from God himself is just a retarded idea by itself that doesn't get called out enough

>>16296992

it's just another alt coin scam

>>16297023
Out of arguments, core cuck? I never shilled a coin in this entire thread. Suck my cock you tremendous retard

>>16297029

agreed. that's why when BSV shills repeat "white paper" over and over you need to point out to them that BSV doesn't follow the white paper because it's not the longest chain with the most hashing

>>16295900
btc is a piece of shit coin, just admit the fact and move on

>>16297031

we all know what you are doing, stay mad and poor faggot KEK

>>16297048

KYS

>>16297021
it could technically do it but it's not the time yet

>>16297057
>>16297069

>When your store of value drop 60% and hasn't recovered in a year

>>16296952
Tick Tock Greg

>>16297084
>it could technically do it but it's not the time yet
Who decides when the time is right?

>>16295935
>Satoshi said himself in 2009 that bitcoin could scale to visa levels
inflation is still above $, calm down kid. No one is ever spending BTC unless you're broke or playing the cycle.
>>16296507
>Because the mempool and fee bullshit stops adoption dead in its tracks
Did you see BTC go from $1 to 20K in 2017. 2016 was the year BTC became old tech to everyone here.
>>16296675
every shitcoin i but takes forever for exchanges to have enough to batch send out. So in reality shitcoins aren't always faster
>>16296926
>I don't think that the transaction capacity of BTC is too much of an issue these days. Maybe just for nucoiners who only know of BTC and nothing else.
yep, this sums it up
>>16296971
>So go dump your life savings into BSV and let us know how it works out
haha
>>16296992
>Do you own Chainlink
The erc-20 token? or is it erc 772?

>>16297008
what exchanges integrated bip38 swipe support yet? despite the fact that it's out there for like 7 years now... that's a magnitudes smaller undertaking. lot of things need to happen still way too early in the game.

>>16297103
the market (as in everyone)

>>16297016
>>16297030
>>16297109
Thanks for the massive buy signal.

>>16297140
of course...

>>16297109
>Did you see BTC go from $1 to 20K in 2017.
Yes, it showed we cannot handle a massive influx of new users.
>every shitcoin i but takes forever for exchanges to have enough to batch send out. So in reality shitcoins aren't always faster
Sounds like an exchange liquidity problem on your end and not what I'm talking about at all. Stop moving goalposts.

>>16297126
>the market (as in everyone)
How do they decide it? I want it to scale now. How do people like me decide to scale bitcoin?

>>16297179
>I want it to scale now
too bad.
>How do people like me decide to scale bitcoin?
start using it. i absolutely fucking guarantee it will scale with adoption.

>>16296968
Literally free on Kraken

>>16297219
>start using it. i absolutely fucking guarantee it will scale with adoption.
I do, and most of the time the blocks are full, so why won't it scale? What else do I need to do?

OH NO MY STORE OF VALUE

>>16296886
>fee is ~1%
hahahahahahahahahahaha you wish

>>16295900
its actually 7 an hour

BTC = ((digital gold)).
BSV - digital cash system, micro payment friendly. 720mb big blocks in the last testnet.

>>16297349
Leave BTC and support scalable chains. Most og bitcoiners I know already have.

>>16297421
>Leave BTC and support scalable chains. Most og bitcoiners I know already have.
BCH or BSV?

>>16297430
BSV is taking the image of satoshi and making it a joke. I do not support that.
My choices are NANO and BCH to solve the p2p cash problem.

>>16297430
>BCH or BSV?

>>16297465
>BSV is taking the image of satoshi and making it a joke
how do they make it a joke?

>>16297470
What did he mean by this?

>>16295900
Because Blockstream (the owners of BTC) want it to be like this, so they can sell their shitty sidechains "solutions".

>>16297430
XMR is a good choice too.

>>16297509
>XMR is a good choice too.
Thanks, I'll check it out

>>16297487
Some autist lawyer retard that won't shut the fuck up and won't sign the genesis blocks is on stage jerking off while everyone laughs at him and claims he is satoshi.
Satoshi didn't behave in such a way. Everything he did was concise and driven. Mostly he spoke with code and releases, both of which Craig does not do.
BCH is directly trying to create world money. It will have to compete with other solutions.
NANO is the best p2p cash crypto has ever had, to date.
I want them to all fight on utility and value creation.

>>16297543
>on stage jerking off while everyone laughs at him
It this rally true?

>>16297668
Would some emotional faggot all in BCH and NANO lie about CSW? Perish the thought!

>>16297796
I am not all in and BSV is welcome to fight for utility.
Right now it's something we all laugh at though

>>16297796
Depending on whether he ejaculated or not I don't really find the story to be credible. I also can't see how someone masturbating on a stage while people laugh would impact the technical workings of bitcoin. Hope he can come back to clarify

>>16295911
Literally infinite in parallel

>>16297814
They laughed at bitcoin in 2011, too.
In any case, didn't mean to give you too hard a time. I hold all three major chains (BTC/BCH/BSV) and am overweight BCH/BSV

>>16297349
>most of the time the blocks are full
that's the point, to keep them full. for now segwit adoption lets tx count grow. basically bitcoin has a virtual blocksize of 2 to 4mb once that caps (or segwit is at around 85% adoption possibly) the blocksize will get increased, however the timing right now is not ideal for such a thing so close to the halving. it would only make sense if someone could guarantee the increased block size gets filled by the halving and keeps on being filled during the halving. which noone can.

>>16296886
>is accepted instantly, fee is ~1%
Hell no. Heres what square charges me.

>Your fee will be 2.6% + 10¢ of the total transaction amount for any of the following payment types:

Swiped Magstripe Cards
Swiped or Inserted Chip Cards
Contactless (NFC) Payments
Prepaid Gift Cards
Point-of-Sale API Swiped or Inserted Payments
Swiped Virtual Terminal Payments
Effective September 24, 2019, the processing rate for tapped, dipped, and swiped payments accepted in the Square Point of Sale app is 2.6% + 10¢. If you activated your account with Square before this date, this new rate for card-present payments will go into effect November 1, 2019. Learn more about the update to Square’s fees.

If you purchased your Square Register before August 20th, 2019, your contactless payments, swiped or inserted chip cards, and swiped magstripe cards processed through Square Register have a 2.5% + 10¢ fee.

Your fee will be 3.5% + 15¢ of the total transaction amount for any of the following payment types:

Card on File Transactions
Manually Entered Card Payments
Point-of-Sale API Keyed-In Payments
Manually Entered Virtual Terminal Payments
The higher fee for manually entered transactions is due to a greater risk involved with these payments, as neither the payment card nor the cardholder need to be present for the payment to occur.

Your fee will be 2.9% + 30¢ of the total transaction amount for any of the following payment types:

Invoices
Online Store
Square eCommerce API
eCommerce Card on File payments

>>16297965
just because people who didn't understand bitcoin laughed at btc does not mean when people who understand bitcoin and laugh at bsv are in the same situation.

>>16298010
>that's the point, to keep them full
How can it grow if the blocks are full?
Wouldn't that be just like a bonsai kitten? It grows until the confinement of the bottle and then it stops growing because the container makes it impossible to grow bigger

>>16298175
Here's a picture to illustrate the bonsai kitten point

>>16298175
>How can it grow if the blocks are full?
it grows until it can remain always full if blocks don't get full it's time to stop growing maybe even shrink.

>>16298175
the confinement ensures the fee market which ensures that transactions provide real value and not useless junk increasing the burden disproportionately.

>>16298262
>confinement ensures the fee market
How do confinements (restrictions) ensure free market? Isn't confinement the opposite of free? Is a prisoner free because he is confined? I'm just a little confused. Hope you can help me understand this

>>16296946
The problem is how you value items and in what currency do you value it. People that invest in Bitcoin and crypto in general look at how much in fiat their Bitcoin is worth, not in sats. Until we tie a value of coffee to satoshi's instead of cents or other fiat currencies, crypto will not be adopted. Everyone is waiting for Bitcoin to be worth a damn so they can cash out into fiat. That's all investing in crypto is about.

>>16298293
>How do confinements (restrictions) ensure free market? Isn't confinement the opposite of free? Is a prisoner free because he is confined? I'm just a little confused. Hope you can help me understand this
fee market m8 fee not that the market is not free in a fee market, it's all about competing for a scarce resource. the most capitalist thing ever invented. bitcoin is confined in many ways since it's creation. the entire coin supply curve is maladjusted for a stable currency for everyday use.

>>16298328
>Everyone is waiting for Bitcoin to be worth a damn so they can cash out into fiat. That's all investing in crypto is about.
because we are nowhere on the adoption curve yet. you have to face that worldwide bitcoin adoption is less than 0.1% which means we are not even innovators let alone early adopters. altho if we presume that bitcoin will never reach an unrealistic 100% adoption only like 10% then we are approaching early adopter status. tech is not all that useful but proving itself and being built upon.

>>16298344
>it's all about competing for a scarce resource
Would the transactions not still be scarce if we allowed bigger blocks? I don't see how allowing bigger blocks would suddenly create an unlimited supply of transactions. Where would those infinite transactions come from?

>>16298388
>Would the transactions not still be scarce if we allowed bigger blocks?
the scarce resource is the block space.
>I don't see how allowing bigger blocks would suddenly create an unlimited supply of transactions.
it doesn't obviously it's more about devaluation of block space. you can clearly see this trend btc and bsv has the same block size yet btc miners get s 1000x more out of fees. after a few halving this will matter a lot. it's unrealistic to assume with the current adoption curve that bsv tx count will grow a 1000 fold any time soon.
>Where would those infinite transactions come from?
exactly. demand is growing slowly. the block should grow with it not ahead of it. at least that is the small blocker approach.

>>16298373
Yeah it's presumably going to happen at some time in the next 50 years. Bitcoin was set in stone the day the software was created and the mining started. The foundation for keeping it above water is the high input of mining farms that keep growing in size. The interest in Bitcoin is only getting higher. But it will be a number of years later when the markets of the world completely accept it as digital gold or a payment service.

We're in the speculative phase still. The volatile phase. There was a moment in time when automobiles, TV's, computers, and the internet were brand new and no one thought they would be where they were to this day. No doubt that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will fasten our seat belts in for a wild ride into the financial future of the world. It won't be any time soon.

>>16298432
>the scarce resource is the block space
So is the amount of transactions. Why do the block space have to be scarce?

>>16298388
>>16298432
the other part of the approach is two way pegged side-chains allow specialized and or localized chains pick up clustered commercial activity while deriving security from btc via anchoring to the immutable blockchain they can scale more freely. and technically a tree of chains have infinite tx capability even if bitcoin stays at 7tx/s. so that is also in the cards.

>>16298465
>Why do the block space have to be scarce?
so that it has value and not just a burden.

>>16298493
Would the transactions not have value if there was no restriction on blocksize

>>16298505
the transactions value depends on the transacted value. if blockspace is scarce transactions are more valuable naturally.

>>16298524
So it would be a good idea to restrict the size of UPS trucks to only fit, lets say 10 packages, as it would make the shipping of the packages more valuable and UPS would earn more money. Did I understand it correctly?

>>16296969
Poo in the Loo

>>16295935
>What went wrong?
developers were bought. Devs said no to bigger blocks.

>>16298560
no it's a good idea to pack ups trucks full and only have so many trucks that are 95% run full.

>>16298758
>no it's a good idea to pack ups trucks full and only have so many trucks that are 95% run full.
Who should decide the size of the trucks? UPS or the government?

>>16298786
that's a fucking stupid question m8

>>16298844
You don't know the answer?

>>16298856
upc will adjust the capacity to projected demand.
i'm just saying it's a fucking stupid question because you try too hard.

>>16298175
they think the bottle will be filled with 100 dollar notes instead of 5 dollar notes
i.e deluded

>>16298894
seems to be working so far
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/sentinusd-btc-bsv.html#log
cheap blockspace -> cheap network -> no security & lot's of useless data -> huge burden & no reward

>>16298882
>upc will adjust the capacity to projected demand.
If you think UPS should be allowed to adjust their truck size based on their own calculations, why do you not think miners should be allowed the same freedom?

>>16298921
but the funny thing about this is no other coin could possibly pull this off. if any coin can make it with a fee market it's bitcoin.

>>16298925
>If you think UPS should be allowed to adjust their truck size based on their own calculations
that's how the world works in a capitalist system.
however it's a shit analogy for bitcoin.
>why do you not think miners should be allowed the same freedom?
because they are naturally incentivized to shoot themselves and everyone else in the leg.

>>16298921
so far the amount of btc minted in blocks is providing profits
next halving that changes and every halfing afterward gets worse and worse and miners have to hope and pray users start paying retarded tx fees
>i will just keep them on the exchange haha
yes it's over

>>16298967
>however it's a shit analogy for bitcoin.
Why is it a shit analogy?

>because they are naturally incentivized to shoot themselves and everyone else in the leg.
How so? What do you mean by "incentivized to shoot themselves and everyone else in the leg"

>>16298969
exactly my point. bitcoin will win because of this. shitcoiners think this is good for them but it's the other way around.

>>16298991
>Why is it a shit analogy?
because ups has a competition bitcoin does not really have a competition.
also because ups has a tangible operating cost per package while bitcoin miners have no tangible cost per transaction.
short term profit maximization strategies result in different outcomes for the two scenario. hence a shit analogy.

>>16298969
>miners have to hope and pray
Miners raise prices or go out of business. No gov subsidies to BTC miners

>>16299020
>because ups has a competition bitcoin does not really have a competition.
Is there only one miner in bitcoin?

>also because ups has a tangible operating cost per package while bitcoin miners have no tangible cost per transaction
Is the cost of power and mining hardware not tangible?

>short term profit maximization strategies result in different outcomes for the two scenario
How so?

>>16299031
>>16299053
jesus luke is a fucking retard. i wish they banned him from twitter like they banned faketoshi.

>>16299055
>bitcoin does not really have a competition
>bitcoin miners have no tangible cost per transaction
just read and comprehend m8 it's there plain as day. i would only make it any clearer if i nailed it into your thick cashie skull.

>>16296765
False

>>16299002
btc wins when it has no miners?
>>16299027
raise prices on who?

>>16299097
Block size

>>16299096
>bitcoin does not really have a competition
Is the different miners in bitcoin not competing?

>bitcoin miners have no tangible cost per transaction
Is the cost of power and mining hardware not tangible?

>>16299111
>btc wins when it has no miners?
no bitcoin wins because it transacts value it will be perceived as valuable and fees will support the miners.

>>16299116
okay brainlet...
>Is the different miners in bitcoin not competing?
they are all mining bitcoin. bitcoin has no real competition.
>Is the cost of power and mining hardware not tangible?
it's practically the same effort/cost for an empty block and a block that contains the entire mempool.

>>16298967
>>If you think UPS should be allowed to adjust their truck size based on their own calculations
>that's how the world works in a capitalist system.
>however it's a shit analogy for bitcoin.

Yikes

>>16299139
>okay brainlet
Why did you suddenly start with name calling?

>they are all mining bitcoin. bitcoin has no real competition
They are competing to build the next block so they can collect fees from the transactions are they not?

>it's practically the same effort/cost for an empty block and a block that contains the entire mempool.
How does that make the cost not tangible?

>>16299148
it's a shit analogy because ups is a single entity not because it's not a capitalist system brainlet.
also a user can and has to choose a delivery company while bitcoin users can't choose their miner. it's really totally different market dynamics and decision trees.

>>16299127
you should see this
>https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-mining_profitability-btc.html#log
it's going to be a wakeup call for you

>>16299169
>Why did you suddenly start with name calling?
because you are willfully retarded at this point.
i said:
>bitcoin does not really have a competition
>bitcoin miners have no tangible cost per transaction
what exactly is there you could possibly misunderstand in these sentences?

>>16299188
that's a retarded chart m8 you can't measure mining profitability this way.

>>16299197
>what exactly is there you could possibly misunderstand in these sentences?
I understand what you write, but I don't understand how you came to the conclusion. That's why I asked the following:

>they are all mining bitcoin. bitcoin has no real competition
They are competing to build the next block so they can collect fees from the transactions are they not?

>it's practically the same effort/cost for an empty block and a block that contains the entire mempool.
How does that make the cost not tangible?

>>16299182

>while bitcoin users can't choose their miner.

They absolutely can and do.

>>16299217
>They are competing to build the next block so they can collect fees from the transactions are they not?
what does this has to do with my sentence? i said bitcoin has no real competition because no shitcoin can do what bitcoin can do. everyone know how miners compete the fuck are you bringing it into this for?
>How does that make the cost not tangible?
per transaction you fucking imbecile!

>>16299238
they can't in general. theoretically you could and there are examples but it's not the normal use-case. it's the miners that pick (and compete for) the transactions.

>>16299247
>what does this has to do with my sentence? i said bitcoin has no real competition because no shitcoin can do what bitcoin can do. everyone know how miners compete the fuck are you bringing it into this for?
How do you go from this to conclude that miners should not be allowed to decide for themselves how big blocks (see truck analogy) they can mine?

>per transaction you fucking imbecile!
Wouldn't the same apply to UPS and the shipping cost per package?

bitcoin will never ever ever work as intended. it's old garbage along with every damn fork no matter which parameter they change. you need to accept the fact that it failed to be P2P cash system and you need to find something else that can serve that purpose. or just find something that uses blockchain in a meaningful way and actually has a working tech.

no more bullruns for you unless you do that.

>>16299283
>How do you go from this to conclude that miners should not be allowed to decide for themselves how big blocks (see truck analogy) they can mine?
they are free to decide how big blocks they mine within the block limit however they are naturally incentivized to include every tx with a fee until there is space. starting with the highest fee going towards the lowest fee. that's their natural incentive. if blocks are unbounded miners are incentivized to include every last tx they find. otherwise an other miner will and they lose that fee. it's not hard to see they can not regulate the block size effectively nor it is hard to see how it would be unreasonable to expect them to handle unbounded blocks in case of a dos attack (with a bunch of perfectly valid just humongous blocks).

>Wouldn't the same apply to UPS and the shipping cost per package?
no ups has a very tangible and very serious cost per package.

>>16299288
>or just find something that uses blockchain in a meaningful way
nothing aside from bitcoin uses blockchain in a meaningful way. remove what makes bitcoin bitcoin and blockchain is a stinking pile of garbage.

>>16299360
>if blocks are unbounded miners are incentivized to include every last tx they find
Why is bad that a miner includes every TX that is currently available into its block and empty the mempool?

>no ups has a very tangible and very serious cost per package
I don't understand what you are trying to convey. Mining is not free, right? Therefore it must be a cost per transaction, right?

>>16299419
>Why is bad that a miner includes every TX that is currently available into its block and empty the mempool?
because it turns the fee market on it's head transactions no longer bid for blockspace miners effectively underbid each other to include as many as possible.
>Mining is not free
mining is not free including a tx in an unbound block is free or more accurately costs so little it's impossibly to put a price-tag on it.
>Therefore it must be a cost per transaction, right?
no, transactions have no tangible cost. it requires a great many magnitudes higher effort to mine an empty block than to include a transaction into a block.

>>16299546
>miners effectively underbid each other to include as many as possible
Why is this kind of competition bad? Isn't actors underbidding each other a good thing so that services becomes cheaper for the costumers? If ups didn't have to compete with FedEx, do you think the shipping prices would be higher or lower?

>mining is not free including a tx in an unbound block is free or more accurately costs so little it's impossibly to put a price-tag on it.
Why is it impossible to put a price tag on it?

>no, transactions have no tangible cost. it requires a great many magnitudes higher effort to mine an empty block than to include a transaction into a block.
Why do this make you think we should restrict how many transactions a miner is allowed to mine?

>>16299607
>Why is this kind of competition bad?
because it makes blockspace invaluable drives down tx fees and places the upkeep squarely on subsidy. meanwhile encourages undesirable behavior or abusing the system in an unintended way that also builds up global burden. and decreases network security simultaniously.
>Why is it impossible to put a price tag on it?
because it's a few kb ram and a few cpu cycles compared to a bitcoin miner operation it's almost like fresh air for office space sure it costs something but you don't measure it in gulps.
>Why do this make you think we should restrict how many transactions a miner is allowed to mine?
so that a fee market becomes part of the game easily understood by all participants provides a clear guidance to how transaction and blockspace is valued. with the miner subsidy diminishing the tx fees have to take over network upkeep reliably so that we can have a stable network. unbound blocks will never provide reliable reward. worse, in the future if tx count suddenly drops which is an externality for a miner he may decide he withdraws his hashpower from the network as it no longer worth to mine a block at net loss.

it's really not at all different from controlling the supply of new coins or the total supply of them. you set up a system within self governance works because the incentives are right. entire point of the bitcoin codebase. trick is to constrict the block space just enough without killing adoption. so far it was as easy as doing nothing. but soon it will not be enough. 2 years tops.

lemme guess, you still not getting it?

>Why is this kind of competition bad?
because it makes blockspace *unvaluable drives down tx fees and places the upkeep squarely on subsidy. meanwhile encourages undesirable behavior or abusing the system in an unintended way that also builds up global burden. and decreases network security simultaniously.
>Why is it impossible to put a price tag on it?
because it's a few kb ram and a few cpu cycles compared to a bitcoin miner operation it's almost like fresh air for office space sure it costs something but you don't measure it in gulps.
>Why do this make you think we should restrict how many transactions a miner is allowed to mine?
so that a fee market becomes part of the game easily understood by all participants provides a clear guidance to how transaction and blockspace is valued. with the miner subsidy diminishing the tx fees have to take over network upkeep reliably so that we can have a stable network. unbound blocks will never provide reliable reward. worse, in the future if tx count suddenly drops which is an externality for a miner he may decide he withdraws his hashpower from the network as it no longer worth to mine a block at net loss.

it's really not at all different from controlling the supply of new coins or the total supply of them. you set up a system within self governance works because the incentives are right. entire point of the bitcoin codebase. trick is to constrict the block space just enough without killing adoption. so far it was as easy as doing nothing. but soon it will not be enough. 2 years tops.

lemme guess, you still not getting it?

>>16299822
>unvaluable drives down tx fees
Why is lowe tx fees bad?

>places the upkeep squarely on subsidy
Let's assume for simplicity sake that the subsidy is now so low it's negligible. It's where we are heading any way.

>meanwhile encourages undesirable behavior or abusing the system
What do you mean with "abusing the system"?

>because it's a few kb ram and a few cpu cycles compared to a bitcoin miner operation it's almost like fresh air for office space sure it costs something but you don't measure it in gulps.
Why does this make you think we should not let the miners decide how many transactions to mine?

>so that a fee market becomes part of the game easily understood by all participants provides a clear guidance to how transaction and blockspace is valued
Why would not restricting the block size make it hard for the miners to understand the game? What about it would they not understand?

>unbound blocks will never provide reliable reward
Why not? Why does it need to be reliable anyway? I assume you mean as in the fee reward remains constant for every block? In this sense you could say the reward for ups is not reliable as it varies through the year. They are still able to make profit are they not?

>if tx count suddenly drops which is an externality for a miner he may decide he withdraws his hashpower from the network as it no longer worth to mine a block at net loss.
Then the difficulty would drop and another miner would take its place.

>it's really not at all different from controlling the supply of new coins
It is. You are saying we should supply the use and velocity of money. Do you really think that will lead to more use?

>lemme guess, you still not getting it?
Why did you add this sentence? As an insult?

>>16299607
>Why is this kind of competition bad?
Because the miners getting the fees aren't paying for the costs, EVERYBODY is paying for the costs. It's a tragedy of the commons.

Everybody is incentivized to maximize their profits and fuck everybody else. Which means costs will rise boundlessly and profit remains marginal.

>16299929
>What do you mean with "abusing the system"?
you know exactly what i mean any tx that is non financial in nature is fucking spam. only way to stop spam is to make it expensive enough.
>Why does this make you think we should not let the miners decide how many transactions to mine?
this is where you went full retard... never go full retard!
>Why does it need to be reliable anyway?
jesus fucking christ...
>velocity of money.
that's a retarded notion you can't control the velocity of money via blockspace.
>Why did you add this sentence? As an insult?
at least you got one thing right... congrats!

>>16299992
imo it's not that bad, removing the dos protection willy-nilly is a hundred times worse than the burden (reasonably) larger blocks put on the collective for now.

>>16299265

No, I am telling you that there are plenty of whales and devs who privately hand off their unbroadcast tx to miners of their choice. This has been happening a long time. You're just new.

>>16301014
so it happens twice a year you still can't do it.

>>16301022

Nope, this happens all the time. You're just new.

Entire blocks can be copywritten.

The miners we have now will not resemble the miners of five years from now. They are all cavemen basically.

>>16301039
i think you are full of shit you can't pick a miner any more than i can. that some especially big whales and exchanges could yeah maybe not sure why they would bother but whatever.

>>16301079
also can't see the incentive. by picking a miner you basically lower your odds of being in the next block. there is no added value.

except if you want to move coins out of a segwit wallet on a shitfork that's a special case.

>>16301079
>>16301105

>could yeah maybe not sure why they would bother but whatever.

Because it's the only way to truly use Bitcoin in a private way.

>also can't see the incentive. by picking a miner you basically lower your odds of being in the next block. there is no added value.

The "incentive" is that you're getting fresh coins straight from the vine.

>>16295900
that's extremely fast
paypal does not do 7 transfers a second
never could
credit cards also don't do it this fast

>>16297048
what the fuck are you smoking
bitcoin is faster than VISA

>>16296886
>fee is 1%
holy shit nice job outing yourself as someone who never sold anything online lmfao

>>16296507
>mempool
no
what the fuck are you smoking lmfao
this thread is so much misinfo and nocoiner coping, you never used bitcoin in your life

>>16301332
>Because it's the only way to truly use Bitcoin in a private way.
nah, the private way would be to broadcast it making sure your ip doesn't leak. negotiating with a miner weakens your privacy.
>The "incentive" is that you're getting fresh coins straight from the vine.
makes zero sense.

only possible way this could be useful if you wanted to keep a tx hidden as long as possible like sending huge amount of btc to an exchange, however it only buys you some minutes before the exchange confirms and credits it you still have 20 minutes where everyone is already alerted. so really no use-case.

>>16295900
turbo channels on LN solve bitcoin's scaling problem
they are transactions that sit the the mempool for a low fee and can be instantly spent anywhere on the lightning network
these transactions eventually settle for like 1 cent and you can send and receive whatever the agreed upon channel amount is instantly as many times as you'd like

>>16301450
>blockchain eats up too much hdd!
>let's spam the mempool instead!
i'm an avid core supporter but wtf???

>>16301433

This isn't a hypothetical scheme, this is already happening, constantly.

>nah, the private way would be to broadcast it making sure your ip doesn't leak
>makes zero sense

1. Give miner 1 BTC
2. Don't broadcast your transaction to all other miners like a chump
3. Get ~0.99 BTC back the next time that miner hits a block, straight from the coinbase.

Congrats, you just got fresh new BTC

>>16296870
>>16295900
anyone can go look up guilia fanti and realize that there are incredibly smart people working on improvements to BTC (dandelion) that are being tested (on grin).

You don’t need your coffee to be on chain. on-chain transactions will be transactions that have a legitimate need to be trustless, like country-to-country business.

in terms of exiting fiat (if that’s your goal) gold is still king, but BTC is a close second.

>>16301491
bringing people onto the lightning network as cheaply as possible will create a minimum fee market in the mempool
it'll make things more stable for miner's profitability after some halvings

>>16301564
makes zero sense but whatever
if you like trustful transactions just stay in fucking fiat.

>>16301613
HOLY FUCKING SHIT HAVE SEX YOU AUTIST

>>16301613

No, it makes plenty of sense, you're just incapable of wrapping your head around it because you're used to being spoon-fed all of your information about bitcoin

>>16301573

>You don’t need your coffee to be on chain. on-chain transactions will be transactions that have a legitimate need to be trustless, like country-to-country business.

If it's not on chain, it's not Bitcoin.

>>16301573
Why use bitcoin if you aren't using the chain? Might as well use doge, it's faster, hast less fees and ACTUALLY USES ITS FUCKING CHAIN

How many use Bitcoin to purchase items versus how many just margin trade or trade Bitcoin for other coins? I'd say there's a lot more people not spending bitcoins as cash, but instead they buy it for the chance that its fiat value keeps going up. Silk Road desu was a successful outlet for Bitcoin where it was used to pay for something other than other coins. Now it was for mostly illegal shit, but it was legit. It's digital gold now and if it pumps again, it won't go past $20,000. We've been down that road before and it failed to handle as many transactions as it did in 2017. The block size should be flexible. Not 1 MB and not 1 GB. Too bad there's a lot of flaws in who is designing the side chains and other shit for all the Bitcoin forks. BCH might have a chance to succeed as digital cash, but BTC should now be used to send large volumes of value internationally. Like country to country payments for imports and exports.

>>16296752
>gradual scaling with growing demand

Except that it can't even scale when needed. During the bullrun in late 2017, BTC's transactions took days to confirm. There's no roadmap nor any plan by the developers on how to handle the scaling problem.

>>16296818
>if yes, you move smaller value transactions off chain therefore scaling the network exponentially with every additional lightning node

Except there's almost no small value BTC transactions (few pennies worth). The Lightning network was created without any research to meet an non-existent demand.

>>16301400
sure thing buddy, sure thing

>>16301400
Visa does 1700 transactions per second versus Bitcoin's 4 transactions per second.

https://hackernoon.com/the-blockchain-scalability-problem-the-race-for-visa-like-transaction-speed-5cce48f9d44

If you're defending Bitcoin, you need to at least get your facts straight.

>>16302708

I've made thousands of transactions on BSV. Probably 10k this year.

>>16302739
Because they are paid to sabotage it.

Watch this video, everything becomes clear:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BZoKH-hX_o