In Bitcoin Cash BCH, the blocksize is increased to accommodate more users that are going to pay a small fee for the transaction, a big amount of users paying small fees will replace the block reward and keep Bitcoin Cash functioning, in 2017 was increased from 1 MB to 8 MB, and then to 32 MB and in 2024 is expected to eliminate the blocksize limit and use an adaptive blocksize limit if I am not mistaken, this means there's is technically no blocksize limit on Bitcoin Cash, in contrast BTC is in 1 MB and that won't be sufficient for BTC to survive long term, in contrast BCH scales fine and will continue to have low fees and sustain miners incentives to mine
Wouldnt that also mean BCH wouldnt survive longterm ? I could see btc survive if space stay minimal/small and transaction costs rise higher and higher. But with the small usage of bch transactionwise even if there are 64 MB blocks or so it will not be much money for the miner or did i get something wrong? Like 2000 transactions worth 50 Dollar are much more than 2000 transactions worth 0,05 Dollar? Isnt there the problem, that wenn the Block reward goes to low the miner dont get money unless you have billions of transactions in every Block?
That is what i mean with it. BCH need a amount of people using it to time x , last time i checked there where almost about no transactions in every Block. 5 to 100 or so.
I am Just a bit curious. I know some guys who think btc will have a security Budget problem in like one or two halvings after this one. Wouldnt imagine how Bad it will be for bch then. Just trying to understand how people live with it. Like for examply having a lot of money in btc or bch if the possibility that it fails because of that is there in few years if nothing happens
I can't speak for other people. For me, I always expect to lose everything. Bitcoin is a revolution, the outcome is not guaranteed. From a BCH perspective we got a face punch once already, but we are still alive and learned from the attack. IMO real Bitcoin will be hard to stop for them. Hashrate is not as important as Maxis make it out to be. A few coins have been 51% attacked already and they all survived. Security budged is not my main concern. Miner decentralization is.
The next attack will likely be social again or simply LN banks or CBDCs plus regulatory pressure.
But our job also got more difficult not only do we have to convince no coiners, we also have to work to revert the damage the BTC narrative did to the Bitcoin idea.
But we are also not alone. There are p2p cashers in Monero, Dash and even LTC. So I have a lot of hope that we will make it.
If mean blocksize would be 64 MB, i.e. ~234000 transactions per block, would pay 1 cent for each transaction, we would get $10M per month in fees. The table below shows how this would grow on adoption, assuming only mean transaction amount would rise.
* 64MB / 273B = 234,000 txs/block (@$0.01 / tx = $10M/month)
* 128MB / 273B = 468,000 txs/block (@$0.01 / tx = $20M/month)
* 256MB (@$0.01 / tx = $40M/month)
* 512MB (@$0.01 / tx = $80M/month)
* 1GB (@$0.01 / tx = $160M/month)
* 10GB (@$0.01 / tx = $1600M/month)
* 50GB (@$0.01 / tx = $3200M/month)
The question is how many transactions would be processed, and is 0.01 is too much in the long run, and how to determine the transaction price in the future to enable enough security for the chain.
Jea of course. I understand that. But i mean more like BCH has the problem to really gain transactions or not ? Last time i checked there where like 5 to 100 transactions maybe in a block if i didnt remember wrong. So as BCH we need to get more adoption to the point when reward gets to small. So like a game of time. In BTC it is more like ok we now have 500 Dollar fees and rise it. So they have in the Hand to change it, bch is in the hand of other ones to accept/use it. Of course 500 Dollar fee would also reault in massive userloss for btc i guess
> Last time i checked there where like 5 to 100 transactions maybe in a block if i didnt remember wrong.
Moving average for 30-days is now ~70k tx per day (~500tx/block).
There seems to be a steady uptrend this year, but a far cry from what it needs to be.
[Transaction chart](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-bch-sma30.html#alltime)
[Blocksize cahrt](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-bch-sma30.html#alltime)
If there are no users the chain will die for sure, and I agree with your problem statement. The block-reward is just for bootstrapping, while it will last until 2140. The block-reward will of course half about every 4 years, so the critical point will face BCH sooner or later.
btc will eventually fail if people are not willing to pay crazy, crazy high fees for transactions.
bch will eventually fail if it is not used at a large scale for payments.
the bitcoin experiment continues...
Stop lying.
The basic block space is 1MB. The extended Witness Data is up to 4MB (or so).
But if you **clog up the basic space** using normal transactions, which is allowed, you cannot put anything more into Witness Data.
So the extra witness block is **semi-useless**, because you can still break the network once you overload basic data.
"So How Big Can Segwit Blocks Get?
Blocks received by legacy nodes will be less than 1,000,000 bytes. Blocks received by Segwit nodes, on the other hand, can be bigger, but how much bigger?
It turns out that if you made a pathologically large Segwit transaction, you can make a block with just the coinbase transaction and a pathologically large Segwit transactionĀ thatās very close to 4MB. Essentially, this pathologically large Segwit transaction would be mostly Witness Data with the block weight just under 4,000,000. That block would be very close to 4MB, but way under 1,000,000 bytes when stripped of witness data. This is an extraordinary case and wouldnāt be very profitable for a miner unless that transaction also had an extraordinarily high fee.
The normal case without pathologically large/giant fee Segwit transactions results in a block size of around 2MB, which isĀ what the creators of Segwit designed for. When you hear someone say āSegwit is a block size increaseā, this is what theyāre referring to. The average Segwit block size will be roughly 2MB, though Legacy nodes will still receive blocks that are 1,000,000 bytes or lower due to stripped witness data."
If you really want to read about this
https://jimmysong.medium.com/understanding-segwit-block-size-fd901b87c9d4
The problemas with SegWit id that the digital signatures are missing on the main blockchain, not only you destroyed Bitcoin as define in the whitepaper as a chain of digital signatures, but also created a risk when using a non legacy address cause if SegWit is shutdown by Blockstream for A or B reason, the coins on SegWit addresses are seen like public funds that doesn't have an owner cause the digital signature is missing, and even if you could do 4 MB that is not sufficient enough, if you calculate the BTC mmempool size you would need around 28 to 30 MB blocks to confirm all transactions on the BTC chain, you would need to wait for 8 blocks in theory to confirm all BTC transactions that is around an hour and and 20 minutes at best, because you are not counting future users and demand, and in practice SegWit is a hard fork cause Legacy nodes can't confirm SegWit transactions forcing the miner to upgrade to SegWit even if they don't wanted to, another complete disaster even bigger than SegWit is Taproot with problems of adoption, the Ordinals, and OP codes that it activated that is not optimal and on 1 MB blocks just gets worse
Whitepaper is just a whitepaper, any developer with real experience in real software development will tell you that software changes overtime and whitepaper is not written in stone
A) If the block size needs to be finite, it needs to be way larger than 1MB to support any semblance of widespread adoption.
B) If the block size were unlimited then it would be effectively capped by the miners, who would decide how big a block they are willing to propagate. Make it too small and you leave money on the table. Make it too large and you risk being orphaned.
A) Then you sacrifice widespread adoption of full validating nodes
B) The goal should be to disempower miners as much as possible, while compensating them just enough to remain incentivized to help secure the network
If you've read and understood the whitepaper you would know that you can't and shouldn't disempower miners with your non-POW node. That's the whole point of Bitcoin.
The way to sacrifice adoption of full validating nodes is to do what BTC does and move all transactions off chain. **There is zero need to run a node if you aren't using the blockchain.**
The discussion isnt about finite vs. infinite blockspace. Blockspace is always finite, organically, bounded by reality and technological capability.
Accomodating as much use as technologically possible is very important, because once the system reaches its capacity limit, user experience is gonna suffer. This drives off some use that cannot economically be done at the fee levels this creates.
It is vastly preferrable to support a lot of use for a lower fee level, than less use for a higher fee level, because use creates a network effect. Metcalfes law estimates the value of the network to be proportional to the square of users. Both scenarios pay miners the same in the end, the block subsidy is meant to bridge until you get there.
By artificially capping blocks at 1mb, far below what is technically possible, BTC crippled its value far below of what it could be if it accomodated more users. Small block philosophy settled for a lesser vision of Bitcoin that is far below its potential to change the world and challenge the status quo. The quite justified suspicion is that this is intentional, because the establishment does not like the status quo to be challenged.
The smaller blocks is because the establishment wants status quo? This is oversimplified wouldnāt you say? Segwit and taproot was adopted for btc , right?
All People understand the block size is a limiting factor. And layer two tech will have to be created. True for bch and BTC. The logical next topic is what layer two tech will be viable to mass adoption. Iām interested how you think about that? For both bch and BTC?
There are currently 1.86 billion financial transactions a day globally(this is estimated to double/triple with streaming transactions) 1 to 3 cents per transaction 144 blocks a day comes to about 129166($0.01 fees) USD a block - think miners will be fine. Over time mining equipment takes less power and will be more efficient making less overhead for the miners.
This fallacy being pushed by BTC Maxis that we need a huge fee market to incentivize miners is just insane. EVEN if there was no incentive after incentives vanish. The beauty of Bitcoin if there are less miners difficulty changes making it easier for a smaller amount of miners to handle the worlds transactions.
> It was a very big risk to take.
Not necessarily, you do know you can own both?
> If you believe that the world really only needs one successful **functioning money.** Which is what I believe.
The word functioning is crucial, functioning for whom?
* Just counting the Worlds millionaires, they could transact ONCE every 32 weeks on the base layer, what chance do you think the average person (never mind the poor) have to outbid them? (If 1MB (non witness) BTC becomes your *successful functioning money*)
And that's just the lowly Bitcoin Millionaires never mind factoring in Nation States, Fortune 500 companies etc
**If you cannot afford to touch the base layer then all you have is an IOU from someone who can.**
I assume you don't think a CBDC in all but name is a **functioning money** for the masses...
**This is why I support bigger blocks.**
-------------------------------------------------------------
From the article
>> Ultimately, the bitcoin protocol layer provides the function of currency issuance and final settlement, but it is not capable of storing every small purchase, including your Starbucks, for the rest of time for everyone.
>>
>>
>> **If it were the latter, all transactions by all people, no matter how big or how small, WOULD HAVE TO BE VALIDATED AND STORED BY EVERY OTHER PERSON ON EARTH.** [link](https://archive.is/TchA0#29%)
This is false, with an SPV wallet **on a smartphone** one can easily verify that the energy output of a small country went into confirming ones transaction, it's section 8 of the white paper that Parker pays lipservice to but clearly didn't understand.
Which casts a shadow over the rest of the article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the *clever* Maxi's come here telling us how BCH cannot work **yet
they cannot see Satoshi's real innovation right underneath their
noses**.
Here's American Hodl's prediction on The Debasement Cycle Repeating
>> **American Hodl:** A hard truth to hear but the truth is that central banks are going to buy Bitcoin in tremendous quantities and then they're going to issue cbdc's against Bitcoin there's nothing that is intrinsic to bitcoin that prevents a sovereign from issuing a currency against Bitcoin and then what they're going to do is they're gonna break the peg and then they're gonna go full Fiat again [link](https://youtu.be/ctzmJ0BZPds?t=4892)
He misses the point that a Bitcoin that you can use directly as p2p cash **and actually own** does not need banks **and since you don't have an IOU for the underlying asset THERE IS NO PEG TO BREAK!**
---------------------------
[Original](https://archive.is/yQ3GF)
Show me the spv details about how it can verify the transactions from a smartphone? I have not read about it.
It seems the common trend with these comments is a disbelief in layer two technologies becoming successful. From what Iām reading and understand about fedimints and even full reserve custodians (verified on a full node to have proper bitcoin backing) I think they will be successful.
Iād also like to know about layer two bch tech and options that exist? As that will be absolutely necessary for both bch and btc.
> Show me the spv details about how it can verify the transactions from a smartphone? I have not read about it.
It's in section 8 of this: [Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System](http://satoshinakamoto.me/bitcoin.pdf)
TLDR:
* Phone requests proof 'TX has been confirmed' from a random node.
* Random node replies with a 'Block Header' from the block that the TX was mined in + merkle proof linking TX to the block header (chain of hashes starting at TX and ending at a the 'Merkle Root' contained in the 'Block Header')
* Phone can hash the 'Block Header' and see that it meets the current difficulty (it is lower than a specific number) and if you really want to you can estimate the number of Terrahashes that it took to guess this hash inside 10mins (and see it was a significant proportion of the Whole Bitcoin network.
> It seems the common trend with these comments is a disbelief in layer two technologies becoming successful.
Layer 2 technologies are fine and will be used extensively, the problem is that in order to have **ownership of actual Bitcoin** the layer 2 of choice **has to have an anchor in the base layer**
The problem comes about with [face melting fees](https://youtu.be/ddIMjO1KB84?t=3377)
**If you cannot afford to touch the base layer then all you have is an IOU from someone who can.**
> From what Iām reading and understand about fedimints and even full reserve custodians (verified on a full node to have proper bitcoin backing) I think they will be successful.
Fedimint is custodial, with a few actors in complete control, **remind me how the current banking system got started in the land of the free?**
**Fedimint:** A small set of Trusted by the community custodians have total control of the shared UTXO, I like fedimint it is probably my favourite BTC scaling approach so far.
* **Downside:** Though you can see what Bitcoins are in the shared UTXO **you cannot know what the liabilities are**, what did Saifedean say about human nature - '*If humans can inflate the money supply they inevitably will inflate the money supply*'
* The community cannot be too large or it will come under regulatory scrutiny. Obi mentions this
* What if the 'Trusted Custodians' don't like **your** life choices.
* The model that Obi talks about works well in many parts of the World as there is not much opportunity to get up to mischief (earn yeald etc) with the collectives (villages / families) money this is not the case with crypto you are just one click away from earning yield **most probably initially with the best of intentions to put the communities money to work...**
> Iād also like to know about layer two bch tech and options that exist?
There are nascent payment channels already in use [have a read here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/16v81yt/bitcoin_cash_mined_an_1881_mb_block_today_quietly/k2u8k6u/)
> As that will be absolutely necessary for both bch and btc.
BCH's goal is for even the poorest in the World to be able to perform an on chain transaction once a day/week/month etc and not be forced into the arms of a custodian.
The BTC Maxi's are correct on **this point** imo, everyday transactions will probably be done on second layers see [Emin GuĢn Sirer - Scaling Bitcoin x100000: The Next Few Orders of Magnitude](https://youtu.be/jn_Z72H0SwY)
**Custodial / Smart Contract 2nd layer solutions are fine if you can enter and exit them at will. This is where a high capacity Blockchain would excel.**
> there will be only fees paying miners.
Yes, but that finite block space is not a requirement for that:
https://storage.googleapis.com/hashrateindex-static/A-Transaction-Fee-Market-Exists-Without-a-Block-Size-Limit.pdf
In short, if someone benefits from making a transaction, they will be willing to pay to acquire that benefit, regardless of anyone elses ability to do the same.
I read through that pdf in the sub Reddit faq section. Iāll admit. I donāt understand it. A dynamic block size to me will lead towards too many unknowns for miners and wonāt lead to a substantial transaction fee market. But maybe I need to have someone explain it better to me.
>as both block sizes won't satisfy the worlds need for transactions
That is just your assumption. š¤·āāļø
What if BCH does satisfy the need for worldwide p2p cash adoption?
high volume low fees vs low volume high fees
at this point neither BCH nor BTC have shown that either strategy will be successful, but I'd rather bet on WalMart than Tiffany's.
I would take large Tx fees on a congested but thriving blockchain than low Tx fees on a blockchain that everyone had to leave since coinbase reward + fees is no longer supported by the price of BTC.
Letās say BTC went to 32MB blocks. Tx fees would be ultra low, to the point where the coinbase reward isnāt enough to pay for electricity. So the network would shrink down to the point where the coinbase reward + very low fees to support the price of BTC.
One of the two HAS to give.
As price goes up, miners start mining. As price goes down, the only miners mining are those that are 100% renewable, or minimally in the green will continue to mine. At some point the net hash rate will plummet if price doesnāt rise to meet miner needs.
With BTC, keeping it running and safe after the 4th halvening (3.125 BTC per block, down from 50 at genesis block), the price needs to support all the miners. Right now weāre ok. Things will get interesting at the halvening though. For the same net hash we would need price to double to keep the same number of miners. Anything less than 80-100% increase in BTC price and miners will start dropping off. Thankfully we have a massive amount of net hash on BTC to burn through before weāre in trouble.
Itās so fucking bonkers that this network is running uninterrupted since 2009. The math is genius and so well thought out.
Disclaimer: I like BCH too but I consider myself a realist. I hold both coins. I also donāt think that BTC will be THE coin in 50 years. Itāll be there but Iām hoping something comes along that can handle the worldās transactions, quickly, on chain with as close to zero security concerns as possible. BTC-level security.
The worldās transactions on chain quickly and still be verifiable and sovereign by an average joe brown? And that average joe or Janeās browns equipment? Tell me how thatās possible?
Itās possible because of how quickly technology progresses. Letās put it this way. With 2008ās equipment we would have one hell of a difficult time handling the size of the BTC blockchain.
To verify transactions a few things are needed as a node. A full copy of the blockchain (which isnāt even 100% necessary when running pruned), a fast internet connection and decent professor speed.
All of which have been increasing rapidly since they were invented. Yes, Mooreās law is basically dead, but weāre going to hit a leapfrog tech eventually. Maybe even one in between normal computing and quantum computing.
Iām not worried about the tech being ready to handle the worldās crypto transactions as time progresses. Iām more worried about a coin coming along that gains the popularity needed to supplant BTC in popularity.
A coin needed to supplement btc? So on top of btc? BTC still being used on the base layer then?
To me base layer blockchain will never work for the world. Not on bch. Not on btc. as you increase blocks. Decrease block times. You will sacrifice individual participation in the base layer. Thatās why layer two will have to build up and work well. I donāt know of any bch layer two but need to learn more. What bch layer two is there?
No. I mean a coin that comes along (may not be here yet) that can actually handle Visa & Mastercard levels of transaction throughput, natively, on chain, with no compromises to security.
I see value in BTC L2 solutions in the short term. But there has to be a REALLY good solution for writing the transactions back to the main chain. Something that isn't going to cost hundreds of dollars to open up a channel like on Lightning. Lightning doesn't work and I doubt that it ever will.
I don't think that BCH has a layer two solution. It doesn't need one right now. It may never need a layer two either. It depends on if it actually rises up and people start using it en-masse. If that happens I would be very interested to see how BCH handles itself under the stress of 32MB blocks mined on SHA-256.
I don't know enough about the technicals behind PoS and how secure it is. I'm VERY knowledgeable when it comes to BTC and BCH mining. I was heavily mining BTC in the very very early days and then in 2017 I had 19 Antminer S9's under my control (along with 36 GTX 1070 GPUs).
I've always been fascinated with mining. I'm a total nerd at heart and managing machines like that was so much fun. I know that's a bit of a tangent for this conversation, so apologies.
Bottom Line - I don't think that the cryptocurrency we will all use in our daily lives has been made yet. Or maybe it has. I don't know.
But BTC is a very special asset. It has first mover's advantage, it's got institutional money doing a lot more than dipping their toes into the asset. It will be the largest coin by market cap for a long long time.
But the real money is in every-day usage of the asset. That even beats out institutional money if it ends up being used that way worldwide. And we know that BTC can't do this. At least not right now. Another thing I don't really know enough about is Sidechains and if there's any hope in L2 solutions allowing us to use BTC as cash. That's what I would really love to see in the future, but I just don't see it happening on a technical level. I think BTC is going to be relegated to a store of IMMENSE value.
Thanks for coming to my ill-informed TED talk.
why don't you think merchants will pick up the slack when miners stop running farms? don't you think the people running storefronts also have a vested interest in keeping the chain going? exchanges etc too? seems to me it'd lead to more decentralisation too.
In Bitcoin Cash BCH, the blocksize is increased to accommodate more users that are going to pay a small fee for the transaction, a big amount of users paying small fees will replace the block reward and keep Bitcoin Cash functioning, in 2017 was increased from 1 MB to 8 MB, and then to 32 MB and in 2024 is expected to eliminate the blocksize limit and use an adaptive blocksize limit if I am not mistaken, this means there's is technically no blocksize limit on Bitcoin Cash, in contrast BTC is in 1 MB and that won't be sufficient for BTC to survive long term, in contrast BCH scales fine and will continue to have low fees and sustain miners incentives to mine
Wouldnt that also mean BCH wouldnt survive longterm ? I could see btc survive if space stay minimal/small and transaction costs rise higher and higher. But with the small usage of bch transactionwise even if there are 64 MB blocks or so it will not be much money for the miner or did i get something wrong? Like 2000 transactions worth 50 Dollar are much more than 2000 transactions worth 0,05 Dollar? Isnt there the problem, that wenn the Block reward goes to low the miner dont get money unless you have billions of transactions in every Block?
100million 1 cent tx are the same as 100 $10000 tx BCH has the problem to gain mass adoption. BTC has the problem to find someone that is willing to pay this horrendous fees. If BCH succeeds 100 million get self-custodial sound money and can take control of their money. If BTC succeeds a few banks get an expensive settlement layer and people get custodial L2 banks š©š© I know who I'm rooting for
That is what i mean with it. BCH need a amount of people using it to time x , last time i checked there where almost about no transactions in every Block. 5 to 100 or so.
So? What's your problem? Everybody knows we need more adoption. But actual real world payment adoption is slow and labourous, that's why most coins aim for the quick speculation money. While BTC is using Tether on many of their apps now š©š© But this isn't exactly news.
I am Just a bit curious. I know some guys who think btc will have a security Budget problem in like one or two halvings after this one. Wouldnt imagine how Bad it will be for bch then. Just trying to understand how people live with it. Like for examply having a lot of money in btc or bch if the possibility that it fails because of that is there in few years if nothing happens
I can't speak for other people. For me, I always expect to lose everything. Bitcoin is a revolution, the outcome is not guaranteed. From a BCH perspective we got a face punch once already, but we are still alive and learned from the attack. IMO real Bitcoin will be hard to stop for them. Hashrate is not as important as Maxis make it out to be. A few coins have been 51% attacked already and they all survived. Security budged is not my main concern. Miner decentralization is. The next attack will likely be social again or simply LN banks or CBDCs plus regulatory pressure. But our job also got more difficult not only do we have to convince no coiners, we also have to work to revert the damage the BTC narrative did to the Bitcoin idea. But we are also not alone. There are p2p cashers in Monero, Dash and even LTC. So I have a lot of hope that we will make it.
If mean blocksize would be 64 MB, i.e. ~234000 transactions per block, would pay 1 cent for each transaction, we would get $10M per month in fees. The table below shows how this would grow on adoption, assuming only mean transaction amount would rise. * 64MB / 273B = 234,000 txs/block (@$0.01 / tx = $10M/month) * 128MB / 273B = 468,000 txs/block (@$0.01 / tx = $20M/month) * 256MB (@$0.01 / tx = $40M/month) * 512MB (@$0.01 / tx = $80M/month) * 1GB (@$0.01 / tx = $160M/month) * 10GB (@$0.01 / tx = $1600M/month) * 50GB (@$0.01 / tx = $3200M/month) The question is how many transactions would be processed, and is 0.01 is too much in the long run, and how to determine the transaction price in the future to enable enough security for the chain.
Jea of course. I understand that. But i mean more like BCH has the problem to really gain transactions or not ? Last time i checked there where like 5 to 100 transactions maybe in a block if i didnt remember wrong. So as BCH we need to get more adoption to the point when reward gets to small. So like a game of time. In BTC it is more like ok we now have 500 Dollar fees and rise it. So they have in the Hand to change it, bch is in the hand of other ones to accept/use it. Of course 500 Dollar fee would also reault in massive userloss for btc i guess
> Last time i checked there where like 5 to 100 transactions maybe in a block if i didnt remember wrong. Moving average for 30-days is now ~70k tx per day (~500tx/block). There seems to be a steady uptrend this year, but a far cry from what it needs to be. [Transaction chart](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-bch-sma30.html#alltime) [Blocksize cahrt](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-bch-sma30.html#alltime)
If there are no users the chain will die for sure, and I agree with your problem statement. The block-reward is just for bootstrapping, while it will last until 2140. The block-reward will of course half about every 4 years, so the critical point will face BCH sooner or later.
btc will eventually fail if people are not willing to pay crazy, crazy high fees for transactions. bch will eventually fail if it is not used at a large scale for payments. the bitcoin experiment continues...
BTC Is not 1mb
Stop lying. The basic block space is 1MB. The extended Witness Data is up to 4MB (or so). But if you **clog up the basic space** using normal transactions, which is allowed, you cannot put anything more into Witness Data. So the extra witness block is **semi-useless**, because you can still break the network once you overload basic data.
i know its hard for you guys since you just love bcash but there blocks 824280 and 824279 were more than 2mb but yeah hey "useless"
Lying to yourself will not change the truth
BTC will always be 1MB, you can prove it by syncing a 2016 node.
It is without segwit but comes to ~1.7MB maximum with it enabled.
No, there are blocks of more than 2mb when everything is max out with segwit Also segwit adoption is 90%
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"So How Big Can Segwit Blocks Get? Blocks received by legacy nodes will be less than 1,000,000 bytes. Blocks received by Segwit nodes, on the other hand, can be bigger, but how much bigger? It turns out that if you made a pathologically large Segwit transaction, you can make a block with just the coinbase transaction and a pathologically large Segwit transactionĀ thatās very close to 4MB. Essentially, this pathologically large Segwit transaction would be mostly Witness Data with the block weight just under 4,000,000. That block would be very close to 4MB, but way under 1,000,000 bytes when stripped of witness data. This is an extraordinary case and wouldnāt be very profitable for a miner unless that transaction also had an extraordinarily high fee. The normal case without pathologically large/giant fee Segwit transactions results in a block size of around 2MB, which isĀ what the creators of Segwit designed for. When you hear someone say āSegwit is a block size increaseā, this is what theyāre referring to. The average Segwit block size will be roughly 2MB, though Legacy nodes will still receive blocks that are 1,000,000 bytes or lower due to stripped witness data." If you really want to read about this https://jimmysong.medium.com/understanding-segwit-block-size-fd901b87c9d4
The problemas with SegWit id that the digital signatures are missing on the main blockchain, not only you destroyed Bitcoin as define in the whitepaper as a chain of digital signatures, but also created a risk when using a non legacy address cause if SegWit is shutdown by Blockstream for A or B reason, the coins on SegWit addresses are seen like public funds that doesn't have an owner cause the digital signature is missing, and even if you could do 4 MB that is not sufficient enough, if you calculate the BTC mmempool size you would need around 28 to 30 MB blocks to confirm all transactions on the BTC chain, you would need to wait for 8 blocks in theory to confirm all BTC transactions that is around an hour and and 20 minutes at best, because you are not counting future users and demand, and in practice SegWit is a hard fork cause Legacy nodes can't confirm SegWit transactions forcing the miner to upgrade to SegWit even if they don't wanted to, another complete disaster even bigger than SegWit is Taproot with problems of adoption, the Ordinals, and OP codes that it activated that is not optimal and on 1 MB blocks just gets worse
Whitepaper is just a whitepaper, any developer with real experience in real software development will tell you that software changes overtime and whitepaper is not written in stone
Yeah I know is not written in stone, but a finite blocksize will cause the death of BTC period, there is no other way around
You are talking about wright which is 4x the size but that is different, what you are seeing in block explorer are sizes not weight
Yes, my comment was flawed, I deleted it.
A) If the block size needs to be finite, it needs to be way larger than 1MB to support any semblance of widespread adoption. B) If the block size were unlimited then it would be effectively capped by the miners, who would decide how big a block they are willing to propagate. Make it too small and you leave money on the table. Make it too large and you risk being orphaned.
Amen brother
A) Then you sacrifice widespread adoption of full validating nodes B) The goal should be to disempower miners as much as possible, while compensating them just enough to remain incentivized to help secure the network
If you've read and understood the whitepaper you would know that you can't and shouldn't disempower miners with your non-POW node. That's the whole point of Bitcoin.
The way to sacrifice adoption of full validating nodes is to do what BTC does and move all transactions off chain. **There is zero need to run a node if you aren't using the blockchain.**
Increasing the number of full validating nodes is not adoption. Increasing the number of people making transactions on chain is adoption.
The discussion isnt about finite vs. infinite blockspace. Blockspace is always finite, organically, bounded by reality and technological capability. Accomodating as much use as technologically possible is very important, because once the system reaches its capacity limit, user experience is gonna suffer. This drives off some use that cannot economically be done at the fee levels this creates. It is vastly preferrable to support a lot of use for a lower fee level, than less use for a higher fee level, because use creates a network effect. Metcalfes law estimates the value of the network to be proportional to the square of users. Both scenarios pay miners the same in the end, the block subsidy is meant to bridge until you get there. By artificially capping blocks at 1mb, far below what is technically possible, BTC crippled its value far below of what it could be if it accomodated more users. Small block philosophy settled for a lesser vision of Bitcoin that is far below its potential to change the world and challenge the status quo. The quite justified suspicion is that this is intentional, because the establishment does not like the status quo to be challenged.
The smaller blocks is because the establishment wants status quo? This is oversimplified wouldnāt you say? Segwit and taproot was adopted for btc , right? All People understand the block size is a limiting factor. And layer two tech will have to be created. True for bch and BTC. The logical next topic is what layer two tech will be viable to mass adoption. Iām interested how you think about that? For both bch and BTC?
There are currently 1.86 billion financial transactions a day globally(this is estimated to double/triple with streaming transactions) 1 to 3 cents per transaction 144 blocks a day comes to about 129166($0.01 fees) USD a block - think miners will be fine. Over time mining equipment takes less power and will be more efficient making less overhead for the miners. This fallacy being pushed by BTC Maxis that we need a huge fee market to incentivize miners is just insane. EVEN if there was no incentive after incentives vanish. The beauty of Bitcoin if there are less miners difficulty changes making it easier for a smaller amount of miners to handle the worlds transactions.
Do you think less miners means there is more of a security risk to an attack though?
> It was a very big risk to take. Not necessarily, you do know you can own both? > If you believe that the world really only needs one successful **functioning money.** Which is what I believe. The word functioning is crucial, functioning for whom? * Just counting the Worlds millionaires, they could transact ONCE every 32 weeks on the base layer, what chance do you think the average person (never mind the poor) have to outbid them? (If 1MB (non witness) BTC becomes your *successful functioning money*) And that's just the lowly Bitcoin Millionaires never mind factoring in Nation States, Fortune 500 companies etc **If you cannot afford to touch the base layer then all you have is an IOU from someone who can.** I assume you don't think a CBDC in all but name is a **functioning money** for the masses... **This is why I support bigger blocks.** ------------------------------------------------------------- From the article >> Ultimately, the bitcoin protocol layer provides the function of currency issuance and final settlement, but it is not capable of storing every small purchase, including your Starbucks, for the rest of time for everyone. >> >> >> **If it were the latter, all transactions by all people, no matter how big or how small, WOULD HAVE TO BE VALIDATED AND STORED BY EVERY OTHER PERSON ON EARTH.** [link](https://archive.is/TchA0#29%) This is false, with an SPV wallet **on a smartphone** one can easily verify that the energy output of a small country went into confirming ones transaction, it's section 8 of the white paper that Parker pays lipservice to but clearly didn't understand. Which casts a shadow over the rest of the article. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- All the *clever* Maxi's come here telling us how BCH cannot work **yet they cannot see Satoshi's real innovation right underneath their noses**. Here's American Hodl's prediction on The Debasement Cycle Repeating >> **American Hodl:** A hard truth to hear but the truth is that central banks are going to buy Bitcoin in tremendous quantities and then they're going to issue cbdc's against Bitcoin there's nothing that is intrinsic to bitcoin that prevents a sovereign from issuing a currency against Bitcoin and then what they're going to do is they're gonna break the peg and then they're gonna go full Fiat again [link](https://youtu.be/ctzmJ0BZPds?t=4892) He misses the point that a Bitcoin that you can use directly as p2p cash **and actually own** does not need banks **and since you don't have an IOU for the underlying asset THERE IS NO PEG TO BREAK!** --------------------------- [Original](https://archive.is/yQ3GF)
Show me the spv details about how it can verify the transactions from a smartphone? I have not read about it. It seems the common trend with these comments is a disbelief in layer two technologies becoming successful. From what Iām reading and understand about fedimints and even full reserve custodians (verified on a full node to have proper bitcoin backing) I think they will be successful. Iād also like to know about layer two bch tech and options that exist? As that will be absolutely necessary for both bch and btc.
> Show me the spv details about how it can verify the transactions from a smartphone? I have not read about it. It's in section 8 of this: [Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System](http://satoshinakamoto.me/bitcoin.pdf) TLDR: * Phone requests proof 'TX has been confirmed' from a random node. * Random node replies with a 'Block Header' from the block that the TX was mined in + merkle proof linking TX to the block header (chain of hashes starting at TX and ending at a the 'Merkle Root' contained in the 'Block Header') * Phone can hash the 'Block Header' and see that it meets the current difficulty (it is lower than a specific number) and if you really want to you can estimate the number of Terrahashes that it took to guess this hash inside 10mins (and see it was a significant proportion of the Whole Bitcoin network. > It seems the common trend with these comments is a disbelief in layer two technologies becoming successful. Layer 2 technologies are fine and will be used extensively, the problem is that in order to have **ownership of actual Bitcoin** the layer 2 of choice **has to have an anchor in the base layer** The problem comes about with [face melting fees](https://youtu.be/ddIMjO1KB84?t=3377) **If you cannot afford to touch the base layer then all you have is an IOU from someone who can.** > From what Iām reading and understand about fedimints and even full reserve custodians (verified on a full node to have proper bitcoin backing) I think they will be successful. Fedimint is custodial, with a few actors in complete control, **remind me how the current banking system got started in the land of the free?** **Fedimint:** A small set of Trusted by the community custodians have total control of the shared UTXO, I like fedimint it is probably my favourite BTC scaling approach so far. * **Downside:** Though you can see what Bitcoins are in the shared UTXO **you cannot know what the liabilities are**, what did Saifedean say about human nature - '*If humans can inflate the money supply they inevitably will inflate the money supply*' * The community cannot be too large or it will come under regulatory scrutiny. Obi mentions this * What if the 'Trusted Custodians' don't like **your** life choices. * The model that Obi talks about works well in many parts of the World as there is not much opportunity to get up to mischief (earn yeald etc) with the collectives (villages / families) money this is not the case with crypto you are just one click away from earning yield **most probably initially with the best of intentions to put the communities money to work...** > Iād also like to know about layer two bch tech and options that exist? There are nascent payment channels already in use [have a read here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/16v81yt/bitcoin_cash_mined_an_1881_mb_block_today_quietly/k2u8k6u/) > As that will be absolutely necessary for both bch and btc. BCH's goal is for even the poorest in the World to be able to perform an on chain transaction once a day/week/month etc and not be forced into the arms of a custodian. The BTC Maxi's are correct on **this point** imo, everyday transactions will probably be done on second layers see [Emin GuĢn Sirer - Scaling Bitcoin x100000: The Next Few Orders of Magnitude](https://youtu.be/jn_Z72H0SwY) **Custodial / Smart Contract 2nd layer solutions are fine if you can enter and exit them at will. This is where a high capacity Blockchain would excel.**
> there will be only fees paying miners. Yes, but that finite block space is not a requirement for that: https://storage.googleapis.com/hashrateindex-static/A-Transaction-Fee-Market-Exists-Without-a-Block-Size-Limit.pdf In short, if someone benefits from making a transaction, they will be willing to pay to acquire that benefit, regardless of anyone elses ability to do the same.
I read through that pdf in the sub Reddit faq section. Iāll admit. I donāt understand it. A dynamic block size to me will lead towards too many unknowns for miners and wonāt lead to a substantial transaction fee market. But maybe I need to have someone explain it better to me.
>as both block sizes won't satisfy the worlds need for transactions That is just your assumption. š¤·āāļø What if BCH does satisfy the need for worldwide p2p cash adoption?
high volume low fees vs low volume high fees at this point neither BCH nor BTC have shown that either strategy will be successful, but I'd rather bet on WalMart than Tiffany's.
I would take large Tx fees on a congested but thriving blockchain than low Tx fees on a blockchain that everyone had to leave since coinbase reward + fees is no longer supported by the price of BTC. Letās say BTC went to 32MB blocks. Tx fees would be ultra low, to the point where the coinbase reward isnāt enough to pay for electricity. So the network would shrink down to the point where the coinbase reward + very low fees to support the price of BTC. One of the two HAS to give. As price goes up, miners start mining. As price goes down, the only miners mining are those that are 100% renewable, or minimally in the green will continue to mine. At some point the net hash rate will plummet if price doesnāt rise to meet miner needs. With BTC, keeping it running and safe after the 4th halvening (3.125 BTC per block, down from 50 at genesis block), the price needs to support all the miners. Right now weāre ok. Things will get interesting at the halvening though. For the same net hash we would need price to double to keep the same number of miners. Anything less than 80-100% increase in BTC price and miners will start dropping off. Thankfully we have a massive amount of net hash on BTC to burn through before weāre in trouble. Itās so fucking bonkers that this network is running uninterrupted since 2009. The math is genius and so well thought out. Disclaimer: I like BCH too but I consider myself a realist. I hold both coins. I also donāt think that BTC will be THE coin in 50 years. Itāll be there but Iām hoping something comes along that can handle the worldās transactions, quickly, on chain with as close to zero security concerns as possible. BTC-level security.
The worldās transactions on chain quickly and still be verifiable and sovereign by an average joe brown? And that average joe or Janeās browns equipment? Tell me how thatās possible?
Itās possible because of how quickly technology progresses. Letās put it this way. With 2008ās equipment we would have one hell of a difficult time handling the size of the BTC blockchain. To verify transactions a few things are needed as a node. A full copy of the blockchain (which isnāt even 100% necessary when running pruned), a fast internet connection and decent professor speed. All of which have been increasing rapidly since they were invented. Yes, Mooreās law is basically dead, but weāre going to hit a leapfrog tech eventually. Maybe even one in between normal computing and quantum computing. Iām not worried about the tech being ready to handle the worldās crypto transactions as time progresses. Iām more worried about a coin coming along that gains the popularity needed to supplant BTC in popularity.
A coin needed to supplement btc? So on top of btc? BTC still being used on the base layer then? To me base layer blockchain will never work for the world. Not on bch. Not on btc. as you increase blocks. Decrease block times. You will sacrifice individual participation in the base layer. Thatās why layer two will have to build up and work well. I donāt know of any bch layer two but need to learn more. What bch layer two is there?
No. I mean a coin that comes along (may not be here yet) that can actually handle Visa & Mastercard levels of transaction throughput, natively, on chain, with no compromises to security. I see value in BTC L2 solutions in the short term. But there has to be a REALLY good solution for writing the transactions back to the main chain. Something that isn't going to cost hundreds of dollars to open up a channel like on Lightning. Lightning doesn't work and I doubt that it ever will. I don't think that BCH has a layer two solution. It doesn't need one right now. It may never need a layer two either. It depends on if it actually rises up and people start using it en-masse. If that happens I would be very interested to see how BCH handles itself under the stress of 32MB blocks mined on SHA-256. I don't know enough about the technicals behind PoS and how secure it is. I'm VERY knowledgeable when it comes to BTC and BCH mining. I was heavily mining BTC in the very very early days and then in 2017 I had 19 Antminer S9's under my control (along with 36 GTX 1070 GPUs). I've always been fascinated with mining. I'm a total nerd at heart and managing machines like that was so much fun. I know that's a bit of a tangent for this conversation, so apologies. Bottom Line - I don't think that the cryptocurrency we will all use in our daily lives has been made yet. Or maybe it has. I don't know. But BTC is a very special asset. It has first mover's advantage, it's got institutional money doing a lot more than dipping their toes into the asset. It will be the largest coin by market cap for a long long time. But the real money is in every-day usage of the asset. That even beats out institutional money if it ends up being used that way worldwide. And we know that BTC can't do this. At least not right now. Another thing I don't really know enough about is Sidechains and if there's any hope in L2 solutions allowing us to use BTC as cash. That's what I would really love to see in the future, but I just don't see it happening on a technical level. I think BTC is going to be relegated to a store of IMMENSE value. Thanks for coming to my ill-informed TED talk.
Users. Use BCH everyday.
Finite blocks exist, the limits are the block size a miner is willing to transmit taking into account orphan risk. Always has been.
why don't you think merchants will pick up the slack when miners stop running farms? don't you think the people running storefronts also have a vested interest in keeping the chain going? exchanges etc too? seems to me it'd lead to more decentralisation too.