/biz/ - Business & Finance

Tx fees.

>>15952329
/thread

>>15952286
mining unused wallets

Mining 2.0

>>15952329
This.

>>15952370
>>15952329
but what if as many have pointed out these fees aren't enough, and what if it leads to bitcoin getting centralized? I guess we can't know until it happens but I think this merits more discussion

>>15952385
>he doesn’t know
Bitcoin is already centralized. Look at the distribution of mining

>>15952286
Who cares? nobody here will be alive when it happens.

fees

>>15952385
the fees only wouldn't be enough if say you limited adoption to 1mb of transactions per 10 min

luckily that hasn't been done unlimited blocksize next feb.

>>15952385
The mining reward subsidy was meant to bootstrap the network, to economically incentivize securing the network while it was still small.

Bitcoin can only survive long term if fees replace the subsidy over time as the network is allowed to grow. Too bad BTC never understood Bitcoin and the 1MB block limit is a certain death sentence for the chain as the subsidy continues to halve.

>>15952286
final bitcoin will be mined in the year 2100 but before that all the earth's coal, oil and energy reserves would be wasted on mining as the energy demands keep rising for bitcoin.

>>15952460
based and boomerpilled

>>15952796
>he thinks the 1MB block limit is forever

It's only for the time being faggot as 1mb is optimum for current hardware and network speeds. Obviously in 20 years time it will make sense to have a larger block size limit.

If they kept the 1mb block limit after all bitcoin had been mined and there was no incentive to mine, then it would be forked with a higher block limit at that point and all mining power would switch to that chain. That would still be a better time to do it than going full retard at the beginning a la BCH/BSV

That's the beauty of the game theory of bitcoin

>>15953697
Define blocksize limit as a function of hardware and network speed

Or is just bitcoin core will decide when, the same way the federal reserve decides when to print money

>>15953714
Yeah but the difference is there's no alternative to the federal reserve, and the decision makers and the money printers are the same group, people can't just fork the USD if they decide they don't like how the economy is being run.

If bitcoin core start hurting miners business by starving them of tx fee revenue, they will fork bitcoin. They haven't yet because the block rewards are still a big enough incentive

>>15952286
>>15952329
the transactions will decrease after the next halvening and most of the miners will go to BSV for profitability, nothing personal kid.

>>15952329
This but if lightning is finally working most txs will be off chain leading to miner collapse and chain death for butcoin

>>15953860
Then miners will fork an increased blocksize

Then more hash power will be on new fork

Then users will move to new fork as it has greater security and lower fees

Just leaving this here

>>15953748
I can respect that. I don't know how you can think and think a 1mb limit is justified by any rational argument or rational function.

to me segwit was the fork. There is no one that thinks btc is peer to peer electronic cash
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

bitcoin currently has a 2gb block limit with unlimited block limit implemented next feb

>>15953930
>I can respect that. I don't know how you can think and think a 1mb limit is justified by any rational argument or rational function.

Because they want everyone to be able to run a full node, and on hardware that's up to 10 years old. Even in the 3rd world where Internet speeds aren't great. I have no doubt that core will allow a blocksize increase in the future. They do not have a monopoly over bitcoin despite what people think. Its still miners who are in control and that will be even more true at each halvening.

>inb4 blockstream shill

>>15954104
a full node is not a bitcoin node read the whitepaper.

even if you want optimize non mining nodes then define blocksize limit as a function of non mining cost. At the moment you have a group of neck beard central planners who have no rational argument for a 1mb limit

>>15954188
If you're going to take the whitepaper as absolute gospel then just buy BSV. Satoshi put a lot of things in the whitepaper and original code that now do not make sense given the current environment. I don't think when he wrote the whitepaper he anticipated entire warehouses of ASICs making mining on a home setup infeasible. So yes in this sense you do now have to take a non mining validating node to be what he meant by node. I love the guy and think he was a genius but sometimes you have to change with the times.

>>15954240
then define blocksize limit as a function of the cost of a non mining node

>>15954240
>I don't think when he wrote the whitepaper he anticipated entire warehouses of ASICs making mining on a home setup infeasible.
https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

>>15954265
What are you talking about? The cost of running a node varies. If you're suggesting having some kind of equation governing the block size limit similar to how difficulty is calculated, it's not going to work.

>>15953697
Imagine still believing Blockstream propaganda.

>>15954276
Then how can you say 1mb is the right limit?
unless you say I trust the central planning of bitcoin core.

define an objective method for determining blocksize limit so as to optimize the ratio of non mining nodes to mining nodes

>>15954323
Because you can say even the most basic node should have no problem downloading 1MB every 10 minutes, and blockchain size will remain manageable for longer. Unless there is a serious and prolonged crisis with exorbitant transaction fees and clogged mempool then why increase it? You're just excluding people from participating in the network

2GB? Absolutely not

>>15954323
And you mention central planning but I think that's a little disingenuous. We are not talking about central planning of the money supply here, just one technical aspect that is designed to ensure the network runs smoothly and has low barriers to entry. From my point of view its to keep the network open to all, not just a select few.

>>15954368
>>15954368
what about 2mb then or 10 or 100. Do you not see how retarded you sound? that what you advocate as a decentralised system is entirely up to some unelected core devs
and all this when non mining nodes do nothing anyway.
and all this when btc will die if fees do not replace the halving mining subsidy


>You're just excluding people from participating in the network
non mining nodes do not participate in the network, read the white paper >>15954188

>>15954394
You're the retarded one. You're having a hissy fit over muh block size limit not being increased when it's not currently even causing an issue. You come across like a mindless BSV pajeet.

I'll repeat for you pajeet, as you seem to have come to the end of your scripted pre written points. Why would you increase to 2mb, 10mb or 100mb when the network is operating just fine? What possible rationale could you have for doing that?

>>15954422
btc is not operating as peer to peer electronic cash, high fees, no zero conf, no spv.
it needs scale to replace the loss of miner subsidy.
it needs scale to have utility and value.
there is no negative to limitless blocks

why limit blocksize to one megabyte when non mining nodes do nothing because they are not nodes >>15954188

>>15954461


>>>15954422 (You)
>btc is not operating as peer to peer electronic cash, high fees, no zero conf, no spv.
>it needs scale to replace the loss of miner subsidy.
>it needs scale to have utility and value.
>there is no negative to limitless blocks

>>15954461

Yep, you just outed yourself as a BSV pajeet.

>hurr durr we should let anyone spam the network with worthless transactions
>hurr durr let's start making changes even though its working fine
>hurr durr I want to be able to buy my soimilk latte with bitcoin

>>15954510
why limit blocksize to one megabyte when non mining nodes do nothing because they are not nodes >>15954188

>>15954518
Holy fuck Pajeet are you stuck in a loop? Maybe refer this one to your manager as you just don't seem to be getting it

>>15953899
Someone is buying a pizza. Nothing to see here.

>>15954534
why can't you answer it

>>15954572
It's already been answered multiple times. I'll try and break it down for you so your feeble 80 IQ mind can try and process it. Aren't I generous? Focus on the words below, individually at first, so you understand what they mean and then try forming them into a sentence.

Because
The
Network
Is
Working
Fine
With
The
Current
Block
Size
Limit

>>15954593
why limit adoption of btc to 5tps or 144mb per day?

>>15954599
Do you understand how the mempool works? If adoption increases and the mempool gets clogged (I don't mean briefly like the pump of 2017) then they would look at increasing the block size limit

>>15954612
blocks are full

why limit adoption to 144mb per day?

>>15954629
Is the mempool clogged? I'm done with arguing with you Pajeet you just ask the same dumb questions over and over. I suggest that you get a better script.

>>15954642
define clogged

>>15953855
BSV is trying to be what it was not designed to be - a general purpose blockchain, which makes it a monstrous inefficient shitcoin, an absolute joke of a coin. Yesterday's conversation with BSV niggers (in which they got completely BTFO) opened my eyes.

>>15954643
So for example, if your boss tries to send your 0.001 BTC monthly salary for shilling BSV on 4chan and the transaction doesn't go through. I'd define that as clogged.

>>15953697
>It's only for the time being faggot as 1mb is optimum for current hardware and network speeds.

I totally agree, 1mb has been and still is the optimum size for hardware in:
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

>Obviously in 20 years time it will make sense to have a larger block size limit.

I'm excited for 2039 when we might see 2mb size blocks, 7tx/s -> 14tx/s is a game changer for global adoption

>>15954651
Link to thread?

>>15954666
>he still wants to buy coffee with bitcoin and doesn't know what a store of value is

>>15954660
what is the risk with increasing the blocksize?

>>15954667 >>15942688

>>15954672
Bitcoin: A peer to peer electronic cash system
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

>>15954672
Where does the value come from?

>>15954695
Proof of work

>>15954699
should the blocksize never be increased if the mempool never gets clogged?

>>15954753
No, because there would be no point in doing so.

>>15954774
You could increase btcs on chain transaction capacity with a larger blocksize

>>15954806
But there is no point if no one is going to use it. Look at what happened with BSV. 99% of the transactions are now just spam to try and fool people into thinking people are using the network.

>>15954814
There is no demand for btc more than 144mb per day?

>>15954823
No retard.

>>15952286
the world ends

>>15952286
we are influencing a generation