/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>19408182
wew lad
i'm sure glad i can transfer my BitCoin for super low fees whenever i want and the tx will be confirmed within 10 minutes

>>19408182
explain this to me like I'm a small dog

>>19408675
The CoreCucks fucked bitcoin. The mempool is basically where a transaction is stored before it makes it into a block in the permanent blockchain. However, someone decided that each block should be limited to 1MB every 10 minutes. that's a global payment-system that processes 144MB of data every day. It's jack shit. my phone could run a BTC node.

The tragic result of this is that people are bidding against each other in transaction fees, where all participants are blind, they don't see each others bid, only know if their transaction has been confirmed or not.Due to this unknown, people that needs to use the blockchain sets a high fee to get first in line, making your coffee cost twice the original amount, only because you need to pay to pay.

this also causes transaction to stay in the mempool a lot longer, just waiting for people mine it. A transaction can then take several days, and is not useful as a payment system.

small block bitcoin (BTC) sucks, and somehow people got convinced that all this is a good thing for bitcoin. BCH and BSV increased their limit to 32MB and unbounded to try to fix this, but since idiots are emotionally attached to their investment in 1MB BTC, BCH/BSV is always stapled as a scam and fraud, only because they tried to fix a problem.

BTC is useless, can never get "mass adoption", and is only used to buy altcoins.

mass adoption will never happen when adoption is limited by the protocol itself.

>>19408146
>>19408675
>>19409395
your samefagging is obvious and pathetic

>>19409517
That wasn't me

>>19409529
sorry im having a bad day

>>19409395
Imagine building the internet out of hubs. That's how base layer "scaling" works. Its the quickest way to ensure rule by miners and big business. Segwit2x failing was the most bullish thing ever, the fact that Bitcoin couldn't be changed by businesses wanting to dump shit on the chain is a massive success.

Everyone has to hear about everyone else's transactions and they are stored FOREVER. That means no matter how much coinjoining you do, eventually people will expose themselves over time to a KYC service, and so over time chainanalysis can retroactively destroy your privacy by process of elimination even if you were careful. It's all stored there forever. Taking things off chain is extremely important from a privacy standpoint, and from a network standpoint its basically the equivalent of creating switches and routers, so that you don't have blast noise out to every participant in the network and can isolate traffic. Off chain solutions are also good because you can upgrade fast without posing risk to network consensus, since your lightning channels are just settled between two parties.

Despite what bch and bsv people say, Bitcoin was never going to be a good payments system by itself. The only reason it ever worked early in is because yearly inflation in the early days was massive in the early years. The monetary policy of Bitcoin means people will always regret spending it. Store of value is the only thing that makes sense, therefore you protect the base layer and let fees protect the hard cap.

If bch and bsv want a digital payments coin, they need to fork in an inflation schedule. Until then there will never be a rational reason for spending it, you will always prefer to use your inflationary currency first. Neither of these coins is even bringing in > 1 dollar in fees per block. Every halving is going up make security worse and worse

btc is fucked. blockstream which is financed by axa did cripple the network in order to push second layer centralized solutions to be able to get control over transactions.

>>19409797
Liquid is just one version of a sidechain dumbass. Many many more will come. We're also going to get statechains as well which is an even better security model than liquid federated sidechain. The point is there will always be options. Dumping on the base layer has its own major set of disadvantages

>>19409517
Seething corecucks denying the fact that BTC has problems.

>>19409925
ok boomer. the tech will move on, it is only a matter of time until a coin with true onchain scaling and decentralization comes. Also there are a lot of ways to hide your payments even without sidechains. The most excellent outside of privacy coins is ethereum with zkproofs (tornado.cash) actually. bitcoin was cucked hard and maxis are blind delluded bagholders now.

>>19409395
The problem with larger blocks is that the Blockchain will grow at faster rates. And with a larger Blockchain less people will decide to run a full node.
I am currently downloading the Blockchain for my Bitcoin Core Node and it's already fucking annoying to download ~300GB. The less people run nodes the more insecure the network becomes and 51% attacks come more likely.

The Blockchain size will become an issue for all cryptocurrencies in the future, but right now most Altcoins have blockchains with less than ~50 GB which is by many end users still acceptable to download. But when looking at the future (next 20+ years) we should probably focus on keeping blockchains small.

At some point in the future it will be very likely that we will only see very important transactions landing on the blockhain and the rest ending up in Layer 2+ solutions.

>>19410284
the number of nodes DOESN'T MATTER
HASH POWER DOES
YOUR RASPBERRY PIE IS NOTHING

>>19410284
thats core propaganda. i bought a 10 terabyte hdd for ~150 $, im actually running an eth archieve node. Internet is getting faster and cheaper also, blockchains can scale with that. 51% attacks are due to miner and not because of nodes. in fact the mining pools in btc are so big that two pools own 60% of the hashrate. the way forward is pos or a hybrid pow/pos system at best, because anyone can use a laptop in a pos system to mine and validate blocks.

>>19409395
>>19409785
>>19410284
maybe this whole thing was just a bad idea from the start ? I feel like the only reason this shit even still exist at this point, is because of the enormous amount of money spend on mining and propping up the price
looking at it from a pure tech point, it's seems line a dead end

>>19410284
A 2TB harddrive is like 50 bucks. Cope

>>19410284
Most people don't even see the value in running nodes period. Look at how impossible it is to run an Ethereum node without trusting some fast sync source.
The fact that Bitcoin has a culture that cares about running nodes means it's the most likely coin to resist attacks and it already demonstrated that by fending off segwit2x because of gavin and mike hearn spazzing about trying to onboard the world when nobody even cares about payments anyway, people only buy this shit to get rich or because they are sound money libertarians. TPS is the biggest meme in crypto. Silicon Valley will destroy every coin with instant and free transactions with zero emissions, etc. Who gives a fuck, that's not why Bitcoin is valuable and trying to make it compete on that means you sacrifice the things that silicon valley coins can't do

large mempoolers

>NOOOOOOOO FEES CAN'T GO UP PEOPLE WILLING TO PAY FOR TRANSACTIONS MEANS BITCOIN IS DEAD NONONOOOOOOOOO MY KFC NOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAARGH

>>19410416
>Most people don't even see the value in running nodes period.
Most people don't own any relevant of Bitcoin to matter in Bitcoin, which is why blocks aren't going to be made bigger so literal niggers can transact on the blockchain and governments can seize blockchain datacenters.

>>19410377
Its not just storage retard. The fact that you think so means you've never run a node. It can take days to index a node even with all the blocks downloaded because of cpu. The biggest concern is bandwidth, the majority of people in this country have shit tier 50mpbs connections with data caps. I had to artificially limit my btc node upload speed to avoid having my ISP charge me overages.

>>19410354
Miners generate Blocks and nodes verify them. Without nodes miners can produce illegal blocks and nobody will notice. This will split the chain and then we got 51% attacked. You should probably read Mastering Bitcoin or a similar book.

>>19410367
>>19410377
That's true. But still the amount of casuals users running nodes stagnated since ~2014 (when SPV wallets became a thing). A HDD is cheap, but normies won't go through the trouble to setup a node and download halth a TB just for "SeCuRINg ThE NeTWOrk". So who's left to run full nodes? techies and big companies. There you have it: centralization

>>19410368
>maybe this whole thing was just a bad idea from the start ? I feel like the only reason this shit even still exist at this point, is because of the enormous amount of money spend on mining and propping up the price
>looking at it from a pure tech point, it's seems line a dead end
Maybe you are right... I am not exactly bullish on Crypto ATM

>>19410483
i actuslly ran a node in likr a dozens projects already. you can get 300k glass faser for 50 bucks per month. also you are ignoring the other points because you got rekt corecuck

>>19410354
How many loads from roger and craig does a person have to swallow in order to start thinking nodes don't matter?

Its a check and balance on miners, especially if they are economic nodes. If nobody runs nodes then the miners can double spend or create inflation or publish blocks with whatever difficulty they want or ANYTHING they want because nobody will orphan their blocks

>>19410416
Couldn't agree more!

>>19410574
you still need 51% of the hash power to attack, nodes will just check if the code rules are intact. but if a majority of the hashing power supports a tx, this tx gets adapted by nodes. thats the coded consensus algo. so hashing power > nodes

>>19410367
Congrats on being one of like 100 people with the patience to run an eth archive node. That shit is certainly not the norm and never will be.

Try running that node over TOR. Does it still work? Didn't think so

>>19410722
tor is slower to download the chain but it is still fast enough to not be behind more than a few minutes once you have the chain downloaded. also you can use proxys to hide your public ip, most tor exit nodes are compromissed anyways

>>19410706
>but if a majority of the hashing power supports a tx, this tx gets adapted by nodes. thats the coded consensus algo. so hashing power > nodes
Looks like you don't understand bitcoin. Congratulations!
A single miner can mine a block, he doesn't need 51% of the hash power. (Even you on your Laptop, although it is very unlikely that you find the correct hash). The miner then tries to attach an invalid transaction (e.g. giving himself a 100BTC block reward). Then the miner publishes to newly mined block to the blockchain and the nodes verify it and decide whether it is a correct block or not. In this case they will drop the block and continue to wait for a legit one.

>>19410494
>>19410574
you guys are just trolling
nobody is this retarded in 2020

>>19410867
Phase 1: Denial

>>19410899
you'll be in denial when i pound your wife on the blockchain with my huge cock and your little cuck watcher node can't do shit about it

>>19411022
Phase 2: Anger

This is the average corecuck

Hey, BTC has problems, i can't use it
BTC maxis:

>>19411185
Because btc maxis realize the fact that people naturally don't want to spend their Bitcoin. Everyone that ever has in history regrets it. Transferring fiat into crypto so you can make payments is not the real use case, fiat itself is already accepted everywhere with zero friction
Store of value is the only narrative that makes sense for a fixed supply monetary policy

>>19411185
Those guys are literally the cancer of the crypto space... even worse than scammy indian shitcoin shillers. I hope so much that BTC will dump hard on those hive-minded circlejerking pseudo-science using faggots. Once those cucks leave, the crypto space will be 45.5% percent better.

One point I can agree with you!

>>19410416
This

>>19411320
>>19411185
I mean look at this shit: https://twitter.com/techwithcatalin/status/1266137550831464449

How can someone not cringe when looking at this.

>>19411087
based and phasepilled

>>19408146
>hes a small cocker
Check the coom pool

>>19410848
Sure they will drop it because the tx is not supported by the majority. 51% attacks are achieved when one owns the majority of the hashing power and not the majority of the nodes. the nodes follow the protocoll/code and that says that a tx is valid if it is supported by more than half of the hashing power. thats the consensus algo. you cant do shit when you own more than 51% of the nodes, you can only cheat if you own more than 51% of the hashing power.
>A 51% attack is an attack on a blockchain by a group of miners who control more than 50% of the network's mining hash rate.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp
The absolute state of coretards, thats really not difficult to grasp.

>>19411553
You still don't get dude. If you own 51% percent of the hashing power you can, in fact, create dozens of invalid transactions, but the blocks still need to get accepted by the network. If there aren't enough independent nodes, then you can entirely control the blockchain. But if there is a large amount of independent and honest nodes, 51% percent of the hashing power won't do shit, since all the invalid blocks will never make it to the blockchain.
Nodes are like a second layer of security.

or to put in your words:

>Using investopedia to understand blockchain/BTC
The absolute state of BSV/BCH/Whatever-tards.
And yes, it's really not that difficult, but you don't seem to get it nonetheless.

>>19411699
i dont hold bsv/bcash man. i will not argue with you any further, you can check any other internet page which describes 51% attacks. the nodes literally only check the code/consensus, and consensus is that a tx is valid if it is supportet by the majority of the hashing power. you can research it a bit for yourself, maybe you will learn something instead of staying ignorant. i have never met a person who is heavily into crypto and doesnt understand how an attack on a network works or what you need for that so you are either the first or not crypto knowledgeable at all.
a 51% attack is in no way dependant of nodes.
https://privacycanada.net/cryptocurrency/51-attack/
https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/51%25_attack
https://cryptopotato.com/area-51-what-is-the-51-attack-and-why-its-a-dangerous-threat-for-cryptocurrencies/
there are literally thousands of other articles describing this. are they all wrong or are you just not knowing how an 51% attack works?
as i said, im done here. not wasting my time anymore

>>19411912
>the nodes literally only check the code/consensus, and consensus is that a tx is valid if it is supportet by the majority of the hashing power.
Stop reading your gay internet articles and read a fucking book and understand bitcoin as a whole.
Here are the real consensus rules. It has nothing to do with your retarded hashrate. You have no clue or whatsoever.
>a 51% attack is in no way dependant of nodes.
"If you don't believe it or don't get it, I don't have the time to try to convince you, sorry."

>>19411912

>>19412136
you still dont fucking get it. the majority of the hashing power decides which tx is valid, if you have the majority you TRICK the nodes into thinking they are valid because the majority hashing power builds the consensus. you are truly more retarded than i thougt. nodes are checking that the tx has the right code and that it was validated, nothing more, as i said time and time again. the same is literally in the screen shot you provided. dont you fucking get it? consensus is built by hashing power. nodes only check that the code is right and that the tx was validated by the hashing power. gosh you are one of the dumbest persons i interacted with the last few weeks on the internet, congratz. now fuck yourself you literally brainlet retard. research how 51% attacks were actually made on different blockchains. THE ATTACKER HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE MAJORITY OF THE HASHING POWER AND LITERALLY NETHER THE MAJORITY OF THE NODES. retard. this concept is rly not so hard to get. as i see you will keep being ignorant, go die you useless scum.

>>19412136
btw it eould be really easy to proof your stand: show me one (1) successfull 51% attack on an pow chain where the attacker held not only the majority of the hashing power but also the majority of the nodes. i will wait. maybe you will see that the majority of the nodes is not needed to game the system, only the majority of the hashing power. as proof of my stand i offer bitcoin gold: a bitcoin fork which was 51% attacked with the majority of the hashing power WITHOUT having the majority of the nodes. as i said, i will wait for your proof of your stand. pow coins only, no pos.

>>19408675
basically BSV is such horrible tech that it needs massive fucking unlimited filesize block size.
retards argue this is a good thing when in reality eventually storing the BSV blockchain on any computation network would be insanely expensive and wont make sense for anyone to do
another thing if you can flood the BSV blockchain (at a cost) with enormous files making the problem even worse for idiots running nodes

unless you want to be buying fucking 20TB's worth of HDD's each month to run a node... dont even think that BSV is good tech or a good idea at all.
it takes up unnecessary disk space and for what? so a conman can dump his bags on retards? its just retarded

>>19408146
looks fine to me
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,2w

>>19411912
in a proper p2p network the 51% attack can not be used to change the rules only for partial or full denial of service. the main reason a 51% majority attack is problematic is because it opens up the possibility of some serious double spends by rewriting block history to some depth.

>>19408675
If you set your fees to almost nothing the transaction takes a few days. With smaller blocks I would have more fine grained control over how much I'm willing to pay to prioritize my transaction. OP is helping to demonstrate that there are no downside to small blocks and we should make them much smaller.