/biz/ - Business & Finance

8MB blocks empty the mempool 8x faster than 1mb blocks. Also with 1 sat/byte minimum fee for the time being, the "attacker" is wasting tons of money to increase the fee from $0.005 to $0.01.
It's probably Cash devs doing stress tests on production. And if it's showing anything, it's that 8mb blocks were an amazing idea. 32mb blocks will be even better

it's gonna pump so hard soon, and after it does... btc will go on it's run
go fuck yourself for posting stupid fud

>>6450900
https://coinanalysis.io/bitcoin-cash/

>>6450900
GL with that blockchain download

>>6450801
fork.lol
bch is literally 10% more profitable to mine atm

>>6450900
Why not 64mb blocks? Genuinely curious. Please note that I don't know what a block is/does.

holy SHIT the fud is coming in hot. buy bch anons, I've had my stack since October.. these fucksticks are about to invade this board for a few hours/days before the inevitable pawmp

who are you bastards, and where do you come from?

>>6450801
Listen, cryptos have been around since the 90s. Hashcash, digital-gold, etc. None of them worked until Dr Craig figured out how to make them decentralized: hashing. Greedy miners are the key to avoid social-power attacks. Without this non of this crypto-ecosystem would exist. Miners are supposed to be rewarded. This is the whole point.

Otherwise every other coin might as well be ripple.

>>6450988
>>6450993
No-one in their right mind would store the core blockchain on a laptop SSD either, dumbasses, it's already too big. You do so on an external hard drive.
HDD-s which can store 5 years of full 8mb blocks cost as much as 3 core transaction fees. Fucking lol @ your shitty arguments

>>6450900
>8MB blocks empty the mempool 8x faster than 1mb blocks
Then a 64MB blocksize would make things 8 times faster than BCH, why is nobody making this coin yet??? HUGE POTENTIAL RIGHT HERE GUYS!!!

>>6450801
>hurr big blocks easier to spam
1mb could be spammed harder since less spam is needed to clog up the block.
It's only because bcash isn't used a lot that attackers are able to spam it effectively

>>6451049

Currently 8MB is an optimal trade-off between network speed and required bandwidth.

ahh /biz/ is full of financial freedom warriors. I love this place.

Satoshi didnt put a blocksize limit in original bitcoin, from 2009 to 2010 bitcoin had no blocksize limit.

Satoshi placed the 1mb limit in 2010 after a "dust spam" attack, and in same year Satoshi gave code and example how to increase the blocksize, by a hard fork, at around 2013.

>>6451049
>>6451132
Because we don't need it for the time being. As you'll see from the result of this "attack" 8mb can easily handle the load.
A year from now (assuming decent adoption rates) we'll probably increase again or switch to a dynamic block size which increases as the demand increases. Until then, a limit on the blockchain hard drive requirements will probably do more good than harm.
It's still about tradeoffs, no-one is arguing that, but when 5 years of full 8mb blocks can be stored on hdd-s that cost as much as 3 tx fees on 1mb blocks, you know that 1mb is too little and 8mb seems to hit the sweet spot.