/biz/ - Business & Finance

chain death spiral here we come

Stop being retarded
https://fork.lol/pow/retarget
This is how you'll see if/when BTC ever gets its useless ass kicked in a CDS. Not that it even matters because pic related and useless boomer corecuck fuckheads on their containment coin must be flushed before the ecosystem can move forward.

>>11920779
Brainlet here...quick rundown?

>>11920927
Imao ok nigger. I’m sure that will happen.
>muh death spiral
You fags just want something else to take over btc because you missed out. Sorry, but after this “hashwar” is over your alts will be dead

>>11920980
Blocks are now on average like an extra minute since the past few weeks. Really not a big deal like these people make it out to be.

>>11920985
Given that hashpower follows profitability, it can happen. Just because this isn't it happening, doesn't mean it won't.
I love this "you missed out" narrative, bitch where the fuck do you think the people who got in 2011 before you 20k buyers fucking came in and muh digital gold'ed the shit out of the market went? We were there before you, we even know the product was sabotaged. You refuse to even acknowledge that very basic fact which can be easily verified with information directly from the historical record.
You're a complete fucking waste of market input and you need to be flushed with your boomer shitcoin.

>>11921049
>We were there before you
no you werent. Stfu newfag

>>11921087
Yes we were

>>11921087
You useless cunt.

>>11921049
It could happen, sure, but is it going to?
Lol no.
>muh I’m early adopter
>muh satoshis vision
>muh sabotage
God you’re such a nigger. Clearly you’ve never taken a networking class because if you had you would know bitcoin is a flood network and inherently doesn’t scale. If you want bitcoin to be an anarcho capitalist utopia you will never get mass adoption because it can’t scale up on that way. To scale, it needs to follow what the internet did and adopt additional layers.
It’s really not that complicated, but apparently to nigger faggots like you it is.

>>11921087
get out.

>>11921099
>>11921112
It’s not like the same British chink was the one to implement the block size limit.
You guys are such fags

>>11921125
Imao salty much?
>some dead chink wrote some words down, therefore we must follow them like a religion.
Bitcoin is owned by the community now. And the community think you guys are niggers.

>>11921113
That's not going to work on me shit for brains, I'm a software developer, and your claims about the impossibility of running 28kbps datastreams over the global internet highlight that it is in fact you who have no fucking idea what you're talking about. the sums were done fucking ten years ago >>11921112 and real world experiments have validated them in testnets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M as well as BCH working on the necessary changes to your sabotaged shitcoin node implementations to get these in production from both ABC & BU.
And scaling the base layer doesn't ban extra layers, it just means they actually have to compete with the base layer, unlike your sabotaged shitcoin where they dictate the state of the base layer by processing the vast majority of the transaction throughput as described in >>11920927
TLDR; you are infectious cancerous swine and should neck yourself, fuck off.

>>11921183
Your community is wholly composed of useless niggers fuckhead.

>>11921155
Fuck off mewling cunt.

>>11921186
Everyone stop what you’re doing and give this guy a hand.
He’s a software developer
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Thank you for your input sir. Your intelligence is clearly superior to mine because you are a software developer. Such high intellect.

Anyways why does the internet have a max packet size? Why is it only 64K? You’d think with our advances in technology we would be able to raise the max packet size, correct?

Well we can nigger, but it makes the baselayer less stable. We should have a solid foundation to build a house. Also we have raised the effect blocksize with the implementation of segregated witness, but apparently that’s not good enough. Actually Craig Wright has proven that nothing will ever be good enough for you nogs.

Whatever. You’re a retard.

>>11921183
>Bitcoin is owned by the community now. And the community think you guys are niggers
>Bitcoin is owned by the community now

Imagine being this retarded. Bitcoin is owned by blockstream. It is the de facto dictatory of BTC development.

>>11921277
Block stream maintains bitcoin core and proposes BIPs (bitcoin improvement protocols). The community still has to vote for those BIPs with their full nodes.

You would know that if you ran a full node and you weren’t a nigger

>>11921274
>Well we can nigger, but it makes the baselayer less stable.

Holy shit you're a brainlet. Fucking idiot. We can't raise the packet size because the PHYSICAL DEVICES don't support it. You'd have to fucking replace PHYSICAL DEVICES. With bitcoin it's easy. Just update the clients.

>>11921274
Like a fucking transmission variable that isn't related to total throughput and doesn't force all traffic through alternative layers is equivalent to a block size limit which was supposed to be temporary and does exactly that. Christ you're a fucking retard baka.
And if you love CSW so much, why don't you follow him? He's a useless fucking fraudulent know nothing nigger just like you, you'd be in good company.
Every time you fuckheads open your mouth I am just stunned by the level of stupidity you exhibit. You think you can fucking argue with and debate empirical reality and the facts on the ground about the territory in question, you fucking cannot. Everybody knows the story behind the sabotage of BTC was bullshit, it's been proven in both test and production, you can bitch to the contrary all you like, but the figures are right there for anybody with half a brain to understand them and your political subterfuge serves only to move more niggers into your useless fucking containment camp.

>>11921305
>Block stream maintains bitcoin core and proposes BIPs (bitcoin improvement protocols). The community still has to vote for those BIPs with their full nodes.

Nothing that isn't blessed by blockstream goes through to the core so blockstream is defacto dictator of bitcoin. You'd know that if you weren't a nigger.

>>11921343

So instead of having alternative layers with bitcoin core you'll have alternative layers in ABC? Way to go cuck.

>>11921305
How fucking technically ignorant would you have to be to believe this fucking idiocy? Do you know what the fuck a sybil attack is you fucking shitstain? Do you understand "proof of IP address" Is fucking nothing?
DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF PROOF OF WORK?
FUCK OFF WITH YOUR IDIOTIC MUH UASF TIER BULLSHIT YOU STUPID CUNT.

>>11921368
And you're almost as fucking stupid as the fuckwit you're making fun of. Get it through your head, your shit doesn't work and you're following a conman, pic related.
Just because core fucked up the engineering work on purpose doesn't mean there is no necessary engineering work to be done.
The hard fork that BSV rejected that resulted in pic related was because they wouldn't accept that there was necessary engineering work to do on the sabotaged core node software. That is the empirical real world result of their failure to actually understand the technical landscape under investigation.
If you were smart enough to escape the sabotage of BTC, you should be smart enough to escape the stupidity of BSV that ends up in the exact same cul de sac.
Alternative layers have absolutely *nothing* to do with it.

>>11921343
Hey man, why don't you take a couple of deep breaths.

>>11921403

So now it's necessary to have a second layer in bitcoin? Wow you ABC cucks are hilarious!

>>11921333
Dude it’s so easy. Gosh I guess I never thought of that before.
If we want to upgrade the internets packet size, all we gotta do is get everyone on the planet to agree to upgrade their devices and... welll... we’ll have a better internet. You’re a really smart cookie.

How do you suggest we proceed? I mean it should be easy to get everyone in the world to update their devices at the same time right?

>>11921431

Thats why I'm not trying to update the internet, I'm trying to update the Bitcoin protocol, which is a lot easier thanks to exactly the one thing I pointed out : )

>>11921415
Those are the only fucking kinds I take these days it seems, I'm in a constant state of hate from the absolute stupidity on both sides of the obviously correct path.
I should've just sold everything at 20k, waited for the bloodshed to result in a winner back on a sensible path and bought back in fml.

>>11921427
It is not "necessary" to have a second layer in Bitcoin. You're talking out of your ass.
It should be noted though, there's no way to *stop* people from having however many extra layers they like on Bitcoin. That's why Bitcoin SV wormhole is a thing, because you can't fucking stop it and your dickhead conman is just spinning shit to get you to buy his bags.

>>11921471
>It is not "necessary" to have a second layer in Bitcoin. You're talking out of your ass.

So lets just raise our asses and be at the ready when ABC rams it in. You seem to be singing the high pitched song already from that ass ramming.

You cucks can just settle for your second layer while we Chads follow the vision with teranodes.

>>11921446
Yeah it must be easy to get everyone to agree. That’s why we’re all getting along so well right now. I mean after all, we all believe in satoshi’a vision, so there is no reason for any disagreement. ;)

I for one am glad that we all follow satoshis vision blindly, and do not vote for what is practical to the community.

You’re right. Upgrading software is suuuuper easy.

>>11921501
You are either a shill or an idiot. Having one fucking node that is run by incompetents on software that doesn't work isn't going to scale. And conspiracy theories about ABC when all they've done so far is *exactly the right thing* is just stupid.
Fuck off pajeet.

>>11921343
Imao imao holy shit. Craig Wright gives me a huge boner. Mhhhm I just want to suck daddy Craig’s cum

>>11921512
>Yeah it must be easy to get everyone to agree. That’s why we’re all getting along so well right now. I mean after all, we all believe in satoshi’a vision, so there is no reason for any disagreement.

This is exactly the original point pal : ) The bitcoin that did not follow satoshis vision, which has been established to be scaling the blocklimit by both of us by now, is no longer the real bitcoin. Luckily we still have the real fork following the vision : )

>>11921535

Nice to know that even fervent BCH supporters are now squealing for second layer.

>Having one fucking node that is run by incompetents on software that doesn't work isn't going to scale.

Literally ABC cuck-tier FUD. They will implement teranodes successfully or die trying. Still better than cucking yourself for second layer. Bye bye.

>>11921564
Fuckhead you can repeat "second layer" as much as you want, nobody on the BCH side is actually saying we need second layers or second layers are good or any of your bullshit conspiracy theories. CTOR is not a second layer, it's a first layer optimisation for block propagation.
get the fuck over it, you're wrong and stupid.
Or just collect your fucking rupees if you're just another mindless pajeet shill, whatever.

>>11921541
You'd uniroincally be more worthy of respect if you did. BSV may be utter shit, but at least it's not as bad as BTC.

>>11921543
>it is easy for everyone to get along if we use force to upgrade the block size
In all seriousness I don’t have a problem with an alternative bitcoin chain with a larger block size. I think what you don’t understand is that bitcoin is bitcoin, not bcash or whatever because that is what 90% of the community agrees with.
Bitcoin core scales in a backwards comparable modular way. Bitcoin cash scales in an authoritarian way. I would rather vote for bips.

>>11921610
Nobody cares what you have a problem with, because you're a fucking stupid nigger retard who can't tell that the shit tier architecture which you "agree" with, regardless of however many other similarly stupid niggers "agree" with you has one potential outcome only, and it directly contravenes the original fucking purpose of the construct you retarded boomer fuck.
If you just wanted a democracy of brainless fucktards all along, you have hundreds of traditional nation states from which to choose for that option. Bitcoin isn't for you.
Fuck off.

>>11921679
Wow. I thought this was supposed to be peer to peer electronic cash? Are you saying you don’t care what the people think about the protocol? Seems like you’re the nigger who contravenes the original fucking purpose of the construct. Nah that can’t be it.

Bitcoin is for whoever wants to download and run the software. If you’re too much of a nigger to do that and vote for bips you like, then I guess you can:
1) make a different protocol like bcash (good luck getting adoption)
2) not use it
Sorry but the people don’t want a roger ver chink wu and or Aussie faggot oligarchy.

>>11921849
> was supposed to be peer to peer electronic cash?
Exactly, and in order for it to be that thing, it needs to have a set of properties.
> Are you saying you don’t care what the people think about the protocol?
Insofaras what they think about the protocol interferes with those properties, absolutely fucking not.
> Bitcoin is for whoever wants to download and run the software
What is a sybil attack fuckwit? I'll wait, I'll be here all year, but I'll wait. Go ahead. And while we're at it, what the fuck did pic related mean?

>>11921882
The people determine what the properties are. If you don’t like it you can fuck off and create your own protocol (which thank god you have).
A Sybil attack is when fakesatoshi pretends to be real satoshi.

>>11920927
>look mom i posted it again

>>11921125
>peer to peer
you mean peer to centralized (((datacenter))) to peer

>cash
not a thing when the above is true

>without going through a finnacial institution
you just went throught it, same as you would with LN

sorry to burst your bubble, decentralization is expensive

>>11921928
Epic failure, thanks for demonstrating just how fucking clueless you are. No, "the people" give you fucking venezuela. But you don't even have "the people" you have a council of neckbeard fuckwits acting on national security letters from intelligence agencies acting in concert with regulated exchanges around the world responsible to similar agencies implementing whatever agenda they desire on your shitty chain, because that is literally how consensus is arrived on in BTC.
This fucking *illusion* you have that nodes matter is exactly fucking that, you can spin up 10k+ amazon instances and tunnel them to a few hundred nodes and instantly make it appear as if 10k+ new votes are voting on your precious shit tier BIP's. That is what a sybil attack is, and that is why proof of work is what gets the votes in deciding what happens, not how many fucking nodes are signalling for your shitty fucking BIP's.

>>11921087
Based. Craigtossy literally seething.

>>11921979
> you mean peer to centralized (((datacenter))) to peer
No, I mean peer to peer, everywhere including datacenters, which are frequently less prone to interference than home connections depending on the jurisdiction, if I were a resident of say fucking ROMANIA I would prefer to be in control of a node resident in say Iceland or Switzerland to actually validate my transactions. But then I would expect residents of that place to be too fucking stupid to grasp that subtlety and instead just chimp out trying to advance an agenda that they fell for years ago and have too much pride to actually acknowledge has enslaved them.
> not a thing when the above is true
Absolutely not a fucking thing when you force 99% of the tx processing through centralised by design fully controlled second layer transaction processing hubs, but nodes which could be operating anywhere in the world backed by hashing power which could also be operating anywhere in the world, and to the extent those nodes and hashing power are aggressively attacked, the remaining stealthier nodes and hashing power become more valuable? Yes, Cash indeed.
> sorry to burst your bubble, decentralization is expensive
Right, and how expensive it is is set by market conditions on the provision of the layer you fucktard turbonigger.

>>11922002
>what is economic majority
Look nigger, if miners voted for something incomparable with the rest of the network, the network would stop functioning. Full nodes are leverage against the miners. If they were useless than the block size would have been raised long ago.

This thread makes me want to go to /pol/ for the day and be a Nazi

I want to kill you all. I wish that guy who stole all the bitcoin miner servers in Iceland would have just doused kerosene on them and burned them.

Just a shakeout before a bull run

Happens every year new fag

>>11922043
> Look nigger, if miners voted for something incomparable with the rest of the network, the network would stop functioning.
And we have a fucking concrete example of that actually happening in the form of BSV recently when they voted for something that was "incomparable with the rest of the network" by which I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant "would fuck things up". What you're failing to extrapolate from that is that
A) plebs with nodes can vote to fuck things up just as easily, not even accounting for people running sybil attacks to greatly inflate their voting power. In fact they can do this more easily, because neither of them necessary have fucking *any* skin in the game.
B) There are solutions *other than* trivially vulnerable node voting in order to implement defense from irrational hashing power. BCH did exactly that recently with checkpointing. They still used hashing power to actually vote for which consensus rules would be followed.
> If they were useless than the block size would have been raised long ago.
The only reason the block size was not raised long ago is because BTC abandoned the original consensus mechanism for the project and it is now wholly controlled by six neckbeards in a small political council backed by their connections with exchanges, end of story.

>>11921125
Wow this is some dumb shit. You know 2nd layer is separate to btc right? Like lightning is not btc? Btc meets all requirements but has a 2nd layer for all the small shitty transactions. The original btc is still the same and a great store of value and useful for quick easy bigger transactions. Yes it is not perfect but it is miles ahead of the shit Ver and Craig spew out.

>>11922107
No, the second layer is not fucking separate to BTC, they use the same monetary base shitwit, and you can manipulate it just as easily on that layer as banks have historically manipulated the gold layer on paper backed receipts thereof. This scam gets easier still with Liquid and Bakkt. The fact majority of corecucks don't realise it or desperately try to deny it is of zero fucking consequence.

>>11922102
It worked for sv because nobody uses sv other than Craig Wright. Bitcoin has a lot more services that rely on it, so upgrading something incompatible would cause a lot of issues if a majority did not agree to upgrade. There’s a reason why core values backward compatibility

>>11922162
What the fuck are you even talking about fuckhead? I never said anything worked for SV, I said the exact fucking opposite. SV was an irrational fork and as a result is a fucking shitcoin. The only agenda core have is that which is set primarily by regulators, and secondarily by the bottom line of blockstream, end of fucking story.

>>11922154
>and you can manipulate it just as easily on that layer as banks have historically manipulated the gold layer on paper backed receipts thereof
no, there is a huge difference between a piece of paper (especially containing options) people can just ignore, and irrevocable verifiable cryptographic truth of a transaction.

>>11922335
There's no difference between one cryptographic transaction which is backed by another cryptographic transaction vs a paper receipt backed by gold. If the second layer transaction is tampered with, the backing layer protocol is also fucking tampered with, just like when you tamper with paper receipts for gold, you tamper with fucking gold you brainless twat.
Therefore the security model encompasses both cryptographic transactions. And oh, look, wouldn't you just fucking know it, the lightning network topology just so happens to be centralised by design requiring large hubs with a lot of stake and channels amongst each other which will act as the financial backhaul for the system. I'm sure we can trust those fucking banks and intelligence agencies that will make up those central hubs not to run the same fucking scam they've run on civilisation for hundreds of years now, because fucking reasons, you clueless halfassed fucking moron.

>>11922368
You're right but at the end of the day it's a waste of time. I've seen you in here for months trying to wake people up (well, I assume it's you, maybe it's a bunch of people using your material, or you're one of them, or whatever), and look where you are.
The simple truth of the matter is >>11921049 you should've sold at the peak after what you were well positioned to see as stupidity started. It's now an open question whether the system will ever fix itself from this present problem, and if it doesn't, it's all going to zero.
If it does, remember this next time, and when you see obvious subversion and stupid people going along with it, that's the time to get out. Everywhere, not just in crypto but everywhere. This is a hard life lesson everyone who ever really does anything eventually learns.
Good luck and don't let the bastards grind you down.

>>11922154
No you are wrong, you are so obsessed with being right you are blinded. Just like gold and cash are separate so is btc and lightning. I won gold and when the Bolivar crashed my gold was worth the same(obviously slight market price increases and decreases not taken into account)

>>11922368
This is just plain wrong actually boarding on retarded. You zealots are actually crazy.

>>11922640
No, you're wrong. Look up how lightning transactions actually work. You lock onchain BTC in lightning channels, that is how you can even say stuff like "the lightning network has a total capacity of n BTC".
You're going to get fucked and you deserve it. Fuck off.

>>11922677
wow, I was actually starting to side with the anti-core sentiment due to some of the issues and limitations of BTC. After this it makes me totally reject the Ver/Wright cult.

Firstly you only "lock a specific small amount of BTC on lightning, whatever you need to buy your coffees/ lunch etc. The majority of your wealth is still held in BTC on the main chain. This does not make BTC = lighting.

>>11922668
Sorry kid, he's not wrong.
Everybody that didn't fall for the core memes knows this already.
http://archive.is/oraoa
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/
http://archive.is/aSze9
this just gets way way easier when you add stuff like liquid and bakkt to the mix.

>>11922713
And what happens when n billion users all lock a specific small amount of BTC on lightning, jackass?
Christ you people don't even fucking think for yourselves. Look --outside-- the immediate fucking assumptions of your own personal experience and consider the system as a whole. And there is no ver/wright. There's engineering constructs that preserve the original promise of Bitcoin (BCH) and there are those that don't (BTC/BSV) end of story.

>>11922769
> And there is no ver/wright.
This desu, plebs don't understand how core have played them, look at the article from pic on >>11921198 http://archive.is/Sdnnc direct quote;

In an email to Craig Wright, Maxwell said:
“I believe it would be adverse for interests that concern me if your influence or prominence in BCH were in any way diminished. I am not aware of how I could be of aid in repairing this situation, but it seemed to me that it would be prudent to at least offer my discreet assistance.”

They're playing BTC plebs and have been for years, and the ones left over are too stupid to see it.

>>11920999
based trips of truth

>>11922769
You risk like 100 btc over thousands or possibly millions of accounts on a not so decentralized network with the other 20 999 900 btc being safe on the decentralized network.

>>11922990
There's absolutely no reason why the entire BTC monetary base cannot be manipulated and consumed by lIghtning, bakkt, or liquid alone, forget about together.
Sorry, you're just wrong.

>>11923006
How? That is not possible if it was possible then any crypto would be susceptible to complete take over and all would be worthless including your btc abc

>>11923034
> How?
Because that's how pegged sidechains work, which is what they all fundamentally are. There's no limit to the amount of BTC that can be on any of them, there's nothing like "GOSH NOW YOU HAVE N MILLION FUCK OFF". You're imagining safeguards that aren't there.
> if it was possible then any crypto would be susceptible to complete take over and all would be worthless including your btc abc
Other cryptos still operate just fine without second layers, only BTC --requires-- other layers. You're forced to accept them and transact on them based on Greg Maxwell's design. You don't have any other option. Second layers on a legit blockchain have to compete with transaction volume on said blockchain, and anything that is the slightest bit fishy about those second layer transactions means people will prefer to transact on chain, which they can do, because absent the sabotage of artificially restricting on chain throughput to 7tx/sec it scales fine to visa levels. >>11921112

>>11923065
> only BTC --requires-- other layers
This alone always made me wonder why coretards were so ready to accept the lie. Like, they live in an ecosystem and see every day that every single other blockchain in existence thinks their narrative on blockchain scaling is bullshit with the potential exception of litecoin, which is a laughing stock joke of a shitcoin, and yet, nothing ever causes them to actually examine why this is so? It's what originally led me to believe that all these coretards were actually astroturf. But after a year of market activity seemingly validating the perspective that at least around 50% of market activity thinks this way, no, it really does seem humans just actually are this stupid, even the kinds you'd imagine would be way smarter because they're actually making investments based on their viewpoints.
Pretty sad really.

>>11923065
No that is not how it works.
>>11923125
To be honest btc is the best store of value like gold.
And something like nano should be used for transactions. That's it done. All these other jackasses with stupid centralized btc like Ver and Wright have tricked a lot of people but should be exposed soon.

>>11920779
oh shit.... we're doooooooooooomed

>>11923125
> at least around 50% of market activity
Approximately 50% of approximately 0-1% is approximately 0%. Don't forget how early we are and how small the crypto market is right now. Yes it's packed with irrational fuckwits right now, but that's why we need the cleansing fire of the bear. These fools need to be flushed. And they will be, because no matter how cult like their devotion, at the end of the day the shit they're trying to sell simply doesn't work, that's all there is to it. Everyone outside the cult on rationally evaluating this shit will just look into it and say "Well that's all fucked up, no thanks" and until that changes, which it won't until the cult is gone, we're not going anywhere.

>>11923210
> is not
I realise that's all you have. But you're wrong. Not my problem though. BTC is a worthless shitcoin and you are an idiot.

>>11923125
Because we’re not comparing our system to altcoins with a few thousand users. We’re comparing it to the internet, the perfect example of a multilayered billion user distributed system.

>>11923323
> every altcoin never intends to have more than a few thousand users they're all incompetent I suck maxwell's cock every night hail core
imagine this.

>>11923342
>implying bitcoin isn’t the biggest cryptocurrency
>implying it doesn’t have more usage than any other crypto
>imagine throwing out basic computer science principals such as layering and encapsulation because
>muh asian mans vision

>>11923392
>implying bitcoin isn’t the biggest cryptocurrency
>implying it doesn’t have more usage than any other crypt
packed with the most idiots, yes.
>imagine throwing out basic computer science principals such as layering and encapsulation because
There's nothing about either basic computer science principals or layering or encapsulation that require artificially setting a throughput limit on a global peer to peer network for electronic cash at 28kbps. Maybe you don't know that, maybe you're an idiot, it certainly appears to be the case, But it doesn't change any of those facts regardless.
You need to be, and will be, flushed like the turd you are.

>>11923421
So what should be the limit? No limit?
I’ll just spam transaction then effectively flooding the blockchain.

>>11923503
Then prepare to be orphaned by miners that won't build on top of your chain. That you don't even realise this is what actually happens in the real world already is exactly what I meant about your level of knowledge. You are like a small child who discovered the alphabet and as a result you think you've read everything that was ever written. You have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever and it's simply funny to watch. By all means, please keep sperging out tardlet. I want to be able to look back in five years and say "Back then, the average buffoon in the space though x".

>>11923539
Yeah they orphan those transactions because there’s a feemarket and competition for limit block space.

>>11923581
There's a fee market and competition for block space in all instances, because increasing the tx load in a block increases your orphan risk, which directly impacts your bottom line. That fee market is just not enough, and may not ever be enough, to incentivise the use of transparently centralised second layer services like lightning in light of their obvious drawbacks. And that would be terrible for both the agenda of states and central banks, and blockstream's bottom line, which is the only reason why that artificial limit exists.
Sorry, you're wrong.

>>11923805
With unlimited block space there isn’t competition because you can always add more transactions from the mempool to get more money. It does increase the risk of the block being orphaned, but there will be fewer people running full nodes so the orphan risk will go down. Only a handful of people would run full nodes, because it would be too expensive for everyday people to do so.

This is the problem with libertarianism in general. You guys don’t understand what shared goods are.

The blockchain is shared by everyone and when miners start creating these mega blocks, you’ll be negatively affecting everyone else using the blockchain. It’s already 200 gb, which is gigantic. You’re telling me you want to make it bigger and let the miners decide how big they want to get it? Hell no. It’s in their interest to make the blockchain as large as possible to remove competition.

I get where your comming from, but I think you’re wrong, and the rest of the community agrees with me, so the point is mute. You have your altcoin, we have bitcoin.

Are there honestly no intelligent core supporters left at all? I can't remember the last time I saw one of them actually even come close to winning these discussions. They always get their fucking asses handed to them.
What if the cashies are right and we can't go up until they're flushed?

>>11924180
> With unlimited block space
Read what I wrote again. There *is not* unlimited block space, period. Every single increase in the size of the block is an increase in resources to process it as well as an increase in the orphan risk for that block. Both of those things directly impact the bottom line of the miner and can't be ignored period. Once again, "unlimited block space" is a fabrication from core developers, period.
> Only a handful of people would run full nodes, because it would be too expensive for everyday people to do so.
The only people that should be running full nodes are those who get an economic incentive from doing so. That's been the design from the start. See >>11921112 starting from the top "Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that" re SPV.
> This is the problem with libertarianism in general. You guys don’t understand what shared goods are.
This is the problem with socialism in general, it's packed with complete retards.
> I get where your comming from, but I think you’re wrong, and the rest of the community agrees with me, so the point is mute. You have your altcoin, we have bitcoin.
The rest of the community, and you, are idiots. And until you're booted the fuck out we're not going anywhere. And your altcoin isn't Bitcoin, no matter how much you whine to the contrary.

Fuck off with all these forks and drama.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK68jbXOIWY

Ethereum + 0xBitcoin + sidechains for scaling = The new and improved Bitcoin.

>>11924286
Seems to me you’re the one whining.
The outcome has already been decided. You are the vocal losers crying because you didn’t get your way.
This thread wasn’t even a block size debate thread, you just came in and started arguing about it even though nobody except your mining cartel cares about bcash.

So think what you want. Shout as loud as you can. It won’t get you anywhere. Bitcoin core is bitcoin. Every major exchange and merchant agrees.

You have your platform. Have fun with that.

>>11924402
> The outcome has already been decided.
By half of a tiny fraction of nothing as I said in >>11923254 . For as long as idiocy like yours persists, this space will get nowhere. You failed in this argument and you're trying to declare victory by referring to the majority. That doesn't change the facts at all, nobody disputes there's a lot of fools in the world and you're one of them.

>>11924464
Imao.
I am so smart guys. Look at me guys. I spend all day arguing on 4chan. Everyone who is against blocksizes is an idiot compared to my superior intellect. It’s not like increasing the block size has any negative consequences. No no. I know everything and those idiot programmers from block stream know nothing. Grrrrrrrrrr. I’m getting angry that nobody is recognizing my intelligence though. Clearly I am producing convincing arguments and everyone else is just tooo stoopid to understand them. Hehehe everyone is an idiot except me.

>>11924598
You're not even trying anymore, bye fag.

>>11924677
Bye. Nobody will miss you.

>>11921186
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M
>Craig is Satoshi
>he sees the Bch community imply that his precious code is utter shit and optimizes it in ways that makes him look like babby-programmer retards
>he forks out of shame and adds some ideological reasons as to why the original satoshi vision (his shitty code) is correct and final.

>>11924813
>Craig is Satoshi
I see no convincing evidence for this proposition.
>he sees the Bch community imply that his precious code is utter shit and optimizes it in ways that makes him look like babby-programmer retards
A transparent power play looks like a more reasonable justification for this action, especially in light of the fact he didn't just fork some ancient version of the original codebase.
>he forks out of shame and adds some ideological reasons as to why the original satoshi vision (his shitty code) is correct and final.
Once again, that would require him to have actually forked the original codebase which he didn't do. His ideological reasons for the fork are indeed idiotic though.
I'm really not sure where you're going with this nor how it's related to what you're replying to other than to point out "interesting that the node implementation was so messed up back then". Is that your entire point or am I missing something?

>>11924937
Power plays are rarely done for their own sake. There's always a goal in mind.

>>11924974
I would think that would be obvious; nChain was failing completely to deliver on everything they promised. This power play gives them more power, control of their own shitcoin fork to run P&D's on, and in turn more money.
Why play second fiddle in the BCH branch because you're a bad performer, if you can run a media circus and get your own branch where you're the only performer?

>>11921186
Were the code optimizations by Andrew stone in the YouTube vid peer reviewed and implemented?

>>11925075
stay butthurt at your worthless scamcoin cashcuck

>>11925075
nChain Makes tangible business moves and proposes a clear vision as to where things should go that diverges from the myopic version of the other chains, which are entirely focused on the implementation detail of random 'fun' technical features.
This is a major divergence and that makes SV pretty much superior.
M Y O P I A
Y
O
P
I
A

>>11921186
The code enhancement by Andrew Stone seems like a no brainer - multi core processing is obvious. What I can't figure out is what's the competing argument against this? Does his proposed architecture have flaws or something?

>>11926140
There isn't any. But why put a better engine in a car you only use to go to the mailbox? Remember, BTC was limited by design.

>>11926140
>https://youtu.be/tPImTXFb_U8?t=3498
at 58:18 SV devs talk about parallelization, but what one can get from it is that ... they don't really want to talk about it. Given this "Teranode" project I'd assume it's because thye have grander things in mind than a mere multithreaded client.
>https://coingeek.com/coingeek-partners-teranode-project-nchain-enabling-path-1-terabyte-blocks-7-million-transactions-per-second-bitcoin-cash-bch/
>Teranode is unique because it will not be a monolithic “one size fits all” implementation. Instead, the project separates four core functions into a modular microservices architecture approach – making a separate Business (RPC) Layer, Network (P2P) Layer, Process Layer and Storage Layer.

They plan to do a major rewrite on an architectural level I think.

>>11926271
What was the requirement that drove a design feature to limit the processing rate of transactions? It almost seems that multi-core processing wasn't a concept back when the code was first written.

>>11925700
No, because core has no need for them.
I believe BU is in the process of implementing them and ABC is undertaking similar initiatives.

>>11926328
SMP has been a thing for as long as I can remember and I have been coding professionally since 1995, although it was pretty "exotic" back then and mostly limited to SPARC or similar super high end hardware. It has been firmly normal for a very long time now, with even phones and such having multiple cores online
The requirement literally was exactly what I and everyone who saw the con has been saying all along; if the chain scales on first layer it can --actually deliver-- on the initial promise of Bitcoin, and that is A) bad for states and central banks (who will be the entities that run the second layers on BTC) and B) Bad for blockstream whose business model revolves around charging tolls on these second layers. That they changed the design from that to the present one is a matter of the historical record, that they claim it can't be done any better is also a matter of the historical record, and that they have been proven wrong by BCH is also a matter of the historical record. The only thing that isn't absolutely known is the motive for their lying / sabotage / hijack, but not because it isn't obvious, but because we can't read their minds and know with absolute certainty.
Any denial at this stage is simply "we think you're fucking stupid". And frankly they get away with it because most people in the space right now --are fucking stupid-- look at this thread for the evidence of that. None of the alternative positions have any evidence whatsoever.
Citation re blockstream acknowledging their business model directly depends on a limited first layer https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/923309367260274688

>>11925877
None of that's true and if you actually looked into the results of their stupidity you'd be able to verify it. But I don't expect you to, SV supporters are almost as stupid as BTC supporters.

Such an angry thread

Why would anyone focus on multithreading, when one can build a bitcoin client on, for example, a kubernetes cluster, or something of similar nature.

>>11926467
Because the ability to run nodes on things other than compute farms is actually relevant, despite nChain protestations to the contrary. Furthermore, establishing a reliable parallel architecture and appropriate ratios for each operation is even necessary to scaling it up to a multi machine cluster architecture anyway, so any way you look at it this optimisation needs to be done.

>>11926316
Thanks for the YouTube link. What I got from that is multi-core processing is desiarable, but needs to be implemented carefully. I'm impressed by what the SV guys in the vid. I don't understand why others wouldn't be 100% supportive of multi-core processing and rallying behind their goal.

>>11926467
Furthermore, the software engineering challenge you're talking about is something on the level of amazon / facebook / google. And you're talking about allocating the task to a company that can't even pull code that already works and make it continue to work, rolling back optimisations that result in its absolute failure.
I wouldn't trust nChain to build a fucking ticketing system letalone a distributed multi tiered architecture blockchain node. Core may be a pack of useless retards but at least they know their limitations.

>>11926501
>Because the ability to run nodes on things other than compute farms is actually relevant

Where do you put the border to the size of a node?

>>11921274
>Anyways why does the internet have a max packet size? Why is it only 64K?
At the moment? Backward compatibility. It's a huge pain in the ass on high-bandwidth fiber links, because you can have multiple packets literally FLYING IN THE FUCKING FIBER between nodes, so waiting for acknowledgement is retarded.
That's even more retarded if you realize that by 1990s there were fully developed protocols like SONET and ATM which operated on DATA STREAMS between nodes and would have scaled to terabit speeds without any problems. But all this shit phased out because running IP over Ethernet emulation over fiber was cheaper for a while in early 2000s. Now we are locked in this shit technology and my phone call quality is worse than it was back in 1999.
t. telecom engineer

>>11926541
There is none, what the market demands, and the point about nodes being able to validate transactions outside hashing power alone is quite valid, given we now have three (at least) clear examples in which miners acted against the interests of the chains, and no matter what your position on which of those chains was following the correct policy, at some stage of the game miners have demonstrated that they will act against it if it's profitable for them to do so.
It may once have been the case that if core hadn't fucked up so hard, nakamoto consensus would permanently have prevailed, but we're well past that now given the BCHBTC split and now the BSVBCH split. Other approaches must be taken in concert with proof of work to ensure the properties of the ledger that the people using them want to ensure.
Given the above for example, there's no way in hell I'd ever trust the BSV chain if they honestly did execute on their vision of only a single easily attacked centralised massive cluster node that can process a large amount of transactions, because the vulnerability there is transparently obvious.
I would similarly not trust BTC, because although it may be easy to run a non mining node, it's not easy to verify that the system isn't being tampered with on the levels where the transactions actually happen, and they're obvious vulnerabilities.
My view is that the BCH approach is best, where they want nodes to be able to be run by people who have the economic incentive to do so, and don't think it's reasonable to sacrifice the utility of the network in order for more non mining nodes.

>>11920927
One of these “bitcoin must die” fucking lunatics

>>11927739
>only a single easily attacked centralised massive cluster node
Where they even implied that. They said that running nodes will be a business, not a hobby.

>>11927807
What exactly is wrong with that? It's not like BTC maximalists aren't wishing the same on the rest of the ecosystem, and those opposing BTC have a point. It's pretty ridiculous to be pinning your hopes on a world changing peer to peer electronic payment system tamperproof and uncensorable and outside the control of states and central banks on something that's already so obviously controlled by them.

>>11927924
from your own article https://coingeek.com/coingeek-partners-teranode-project-nchain-enabling-path-1-terabyte-blocks-7-million-transactions-per-second-bitcoin-cash-bch/
ZeroMQ components are typically made like that so you can distribute pieces of a singular architecture across many different nodes in the same network. It also directly says "components can, but do not necessarily need to run on the same machines". Once you have it at a scale that it needs to run on multiple machines, yes, it needs to run on multiple machines, by definition. And that means dedicated high end compute clusters in centralised easily identifiable and attackable locations. This is a clear vulnerability.

>>11927739
> Given the above for example, there's >no way in hell I'd ever trust the BSV >chain if they honestly did execute on >their vision of only a single easily >attacked centralised massive cluster >node that can process a large amount >of transactions

I do not believe this is the proposed architecture. What did you read that led you to this conclusion?

>>11928376
See https://coingeek.com/coingeek-partners-teranode-project-nchain-enabling-path-1-terabyte-blocks-7-million-transactions-per-second-bitcoin-cash-bch/
ZeroMQ is a message bus. We use it to distribute high load tasks across massive infrastructures, typically you do something like pull some processing task that will take a few seconds on a core, and fling it out to n machines with n cores each listening on a ZeroMQ bus that then process everything in parallel and spit back the results which are then collated and used.
This is the way you do massively parallel scaling beyond even what a single machine can do. You can use that basic architecture for any high load application, and in article above they clearly state that's what they're aiming at. There's nothing that invalidates this because of the obvious attack surface this would represent, because if you've watched Craig / nChain videos you know they are going to play nice with states and regulators around the world. It's unclear why they think those parties will play nice back, maybe they're already glow in the dark, who the fuck knows, anyway you look at it though, not worth trusting if you actually know what that implies.

>>11928452
But couldn't I, or anyone run a ZeroMQ bus? As long as it's all open source, and everyone is able to participate, what's the issue?

>>11928547
Could you run google's infrastructure? How about their search volume? And as of yet blockchains aren't sharded, so if there's one node in the network that warrants a data center worth of computers for the various load bearing components, that means all the others will need to be that powerful too. This is like an extreme exaggerated version of the btc core arguments that if we allowed on chain traffic to increase nobody would be able to run a node except in a data center. Except in this instance it's nobody would be able able to run a node unless they are actually a datacenter.