Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Bitcoin V bitcoin cash
-
16-12-2017 2:13pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Oh Shauny, you've drank the Roger Ver Kool-Aid.
There are low-cost tx fees with Bcash because nobody is using it! If ever it did get usage on a par with BTC, it would crumble. The 8MB blocks would not be enough. It would have to scale higher to the extent that the network would be centralised and insecure. BTC, on the other hand, CAN scale via Segwit, Lightning Network, Schnorr signatures, etc. We ain't seen nuthin' yet.Shauny2010 wrote: »Bitcoin Cash follows the original Bitcoin whitepaper. The increased blocksize allows for next to zero cost transactions with no conjestion.
Oh, come on. Segwit IS implemented, and it's working fine. And yes, it does reduce tx costs.On Bitcoin, It doesn't have Segwit either. Segwit still isn't implemented. when it eventually gets there (if they can agree which looks unlikely thus many more forks) it will not reduce transaction costs, if anything it will add to them.
Bcash is a sham, nothing more than an altcoin piggybacking off the Bitcoin name. It is backed by criminals like Roger Ver and Craig Wright, and pumped by a certain Chinese mining farm with a vested interest (Bitmain). It, on average, has 5% of the total network hashrate power making it very susceptible to attack and crash. All it will ever be is a pump-and-dump vehicle for whales.0 -
-
pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »BTC, on the other hand, CAN scale via Segwit, Lightning Network, Schnorr signatures, etc. We ain't seen nuthin' yet.
I admire your conviction.
Whether Lightning allows some incredible amount of tx/sec or not, it still needs to settle to the BTC chain at some point.
The main chain is still limited to (does maths) 2,830,464,000 transactions over the course of a generous 90 year lifetime.
There are 2.7 people on the planet for every settlement on chain. How will that work?
Tabs?
The block size has to increase even with Lightning enabled. For Lightning to be used SegWit use has to rise dramatically, far beyond the 10% it's at now.
Increasing block size in some form was seen as a necessity two years ago and most definitely preferred by the users at the time - what's happened that's made the small blocks so valuable to users?
Why do they suddenly not care about having a usable system? A system scalable to billions of users was the point of it after all.0 -
Advertisement
-
It needs to settle only when a channel to a hub is opened and closed. All the micro-transactions in between are settled off-chain. Makes sense, there is absolutely no need for every Starbucks coffee you buy to be verified and listed to a blockchain and to reside on that blockchain forever.
Whether Lightning allows some incredible amount of tx/sec or not, it still needs to settle to the BTC chain at some point.
There is no size-limit to the Bitcoin blockchain.The main chain is still limited to (does maths) 2,830,464,000 transactions over the course of a generous 90 year lifetime.
Says who?The block size has to increase even with Lightning enabled.
Yes, and it is understood to be probably necessary at some time. However, the Bitcoin core developers concluded --correctly so, imo -- that that first would come Segwit and then Lightning before the block size could increase. This prevents bloat on the system, and also builds a more robust and secure ecosystem. The way Bcash has gone about it -- increasing blocksize only -- is a terminal game. What happens when the current 8MB blocks become choked? 16MB blocks; 32 MB blocks 1; Gig blocks? Where does it end?Increasing block size in some form was seen as a necessity two years ago and most definitely preferred by the users at the time - what's happened that's made the small blocks so valuable to users?
Why do they suddenly not care about having a usable system?0 -
I know this - at the speed settlements are currently made (5-6 tx/s as of today) the blocksize has to increase to 8MB just to allow everybody on Earth a chance to open and close a single Lightning channel for themselves in their lifetime.pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »It needs to settle only when a channel to a hub is opened and closed. All the micro-transactions in between are settled off-chain. Makes sense, there is absolutely no need for every Starbucks coffee you buy to be verified and listed to a blockchain and to reside on that blockchain forever.
?pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »There is no size-limit to the Bitcoin blockchain.
There is a limit to the amount of "settlements" per second.
I'm sorry, I must have gotten lost - I'm almost sure the purpose of BTC was to eventually become the de facto store of wealth and means of spending?pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »Says who?
So... The maths says so?
If amount of people on Earth > amount of settlements on chain (and my god, that's spanning a 90 year lifetime), surely the blocksize should increase?pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »What happens when the current 8MB blocks become choked? 16MB blocks; 32 MB blocks 1; Gig blocks? Where does it end?
Nobody knows where it ends, but everybody knows that BTC is nigh unusable as it is.
"Permissionless"/"Censorship-Resistant", "Fast", "Low Fees" - you don't see how these do not apply to BTC any more?
How can this money have low fees and be permissionless if the fees are so high (oh so very high) that poor people AKA "the unbanked" could never dream of using it?
"Oh hey, I earned 5 SwaziBux today, better put that into my fave permissionless, fast, censorship-resistant, low fees crypto-coin!"
hours later
"Oh cool, my money is now a transaction fee! Awesome!"
It feels like the idealists have all died, tbh.0 -
pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »It needs to settle only when a channel to a hub is opened and closed. All the micro-transactions in between are settled off-chain. Makes sense, there is absolutely no need for every Starbucks coffee you buy to be verified and listed to a blockchain and to reside on that blockchain forever.
There is no size-limit to the Bitcoin blockchain.
Says who?
Yes, and it is understood to be probably necessary at some time. However, the Bitcoin core developers concluded --correctly so, imo -- that that first would come Segwit and then Lightning before the block size could increase. This prevents bloat on the system, and also builds a more robust and secure ecosystem. The way Bcash has gone about it -- increasing blocksize only -- is a terminal game. What happens when the current 8MB blocks become choked? 16MB blocks; 32 MB blocks 1; Gig blocks? Where does it end?
Transactions on the lightning network if it ever gets created and agreed upon (which is highly unlikely) is off chain, centralized and open to attack.
Bottom line its not Blockchain Bitcoin anymore.
Nothing wrong with Bitcoin Cash increasing block size, don't worry about increasing block size as long as it works which it is proven to. If we were afraid to increase the size of video files do you think we'd be able to watch HD films?
Segwit has fixed nothing, just look at the transaction times and cost of transactions. I don't think anyone will use Bitcoin to buy a cup of coffee as it could take 10 hours to get confirmations and cost €20 in fees. And who would risk using off chain transactions, you'd be far better off with Visa
Bitcoin has found its use case as a store of wealth but thats it. For micro transactions or everyday their are plenty alt coins out there.
Bitcoin Cash has the lowest fees, no delays and a big following. Write it off at your perl. Me, I have both along with many Alt coins like Neo, Zcash, Omise etc
I think you are this guy on stage
Bitcoin is going to become bitcoin classic at the way things are going0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUgL-4fx2JE
Advertisement