/biz/ - Business & Finance

Bitcoin (BCH) to avoid any confusion.

Big blocks lead to network bandwidth exhaustion

t. see ETH and its dApps

>>9649110
it is the exact opposite. Large blocks allows plenty of room for everyone. Try to spam BCH.

>>9649110
Big blocks = big dick

Only incels like Core

>there are unironically late adopters that think early adopters actually care about bcash, or bdiamond, or bprivate, or bgold, or ...

>>9649156
Eth has no blocksize limit. Also bitcoin core is satoshis true vision.

Assume blocks of 10GB every 10 minutes

Every BCH peer will now have to process 10GB/10min = 1GB/min = 1024MB/min = 17MB/s = 136 Mbit/s

Hardly any node will have an internet connection to get/send all this data, thereby bottlenecking the whole network.
q.e.d.


BTC is only still around because its small blocks made this an impossibility, as the ceiling is way below what any machine in the world has access to.

>>9649203
bch is not going to have 10gb blocks anytime soon. When/if it does get to 10gb blocks the tech will be there to ensure decentralization.

>>9649203
we only need full nodes (mining nodes) to secure the network.

>>9649261
the whole argument is that the network has to orient itself around the bandwidth available to its weakest peers, which is impossible to determine.

Going with something stupidly small like 8MB/10min is safe, because if you do the math you can probably operate a node on a dial up connection. The price is (possibly) high transaction latency and corresponding fees (BTC's exact issue) because you might have to wait a long time for your tx to be included in a block.

Going with big blocks leads to the problem in >>9649203

Both have their ups and downs, and if you manage to pick the blocksize right you can optimize for the given architecture (e.g. the internet), although I am yet to see any evidence for why BCH hits that sweet spot.

>>9649203
>can handle literally all volume in crypto right now with 32MB
>implying we'll need 10GB blocks today which would be about 70,000/tps, which is magnitudes more than Visa and Paypal combined

This also ignores organizations that will use militisig(LN) for intra-organizational transactions.

>>9649321
The whole purpose of the blocksize increase is to further promote adoption. $0.22 fees with slow tx time is not appealing to normies.

>>9649403
They are very much working on including bigger opcodes and distributed applications which will inevitably push the blocksize more.

It's not like 32MB was somehow THE superior choice to 8MB. By 1970s standards both are ridiculous, and by 2018 standards both are miniscule.

To simply send numbers from A to B it's fine, sure, but then 8MB "mostly" work too. If you plan on doing stuff like https://memo.cash/ on it that sends pictures and shit all the time, you'll quickly run out of space even with 32MB.

Imagine how much data facebook processes in a 10 minute interval, certainly more than 32MB worth of pix - hence the 32MB are not necessarily the end of the process.

And if we assume constant growth (as you certainly do) we will constantly have to up the blocksize more, until we eventually run into the problems here >>9649203

>>9649029
People here really think that bcash will dethrone bitcoin just because it’s faster? Lmfao get real bitcoin has been around for years and years and has been tried and true bcash is a fucking scam with fake Satoshi behaving like a little bitch and roger, a fucking manchild with no technological knowledge. Fucking weak

>>9649488
It's not even faster and tx fees are the same in sats now. If speed and max tx volume dictated market cap DGB would probably be #1.

>>9649481
Facebooks that operate on a blockchain will likely be a layered operation, as I already said earlier about intra-organizational transactions. That said, apps like Memo.cash still have their place, that is unless storage and bandwidth technology makes a very large leap in the next few years. Which is actually a strong possibility with new materials like graphene beginning to find some new manufacturing processes.

>>9649609
to be honest, a blockchain is probably one of the worst storage possibilities for a social network

First, all data is mirrored on all nodes. This is redundant beyond simply providing failure resistance and globally wastes a lot of space for no major benefit.

Second, a social network has to be censorable to some degree. Imagine someone just dumped a bunch of child porn on meme.cash. The site is tainted forever, and unable to clean itself up because it's immutably stored in the blockchain on dozens of nodes. (which will each face the legal issues associated with storing illegal material).

Does any of that sound smart to you? What exactly is the convincing point meme.cash is making then?

>>9649029
It is Bcash actually.

>>9649693
>econd, a social network has to be censorable to some degree. Imagine someone just dumped a bunch of child porn on meme.cash. The site is tainted forever, and unable to clean itself up because it's immutably stored in the blockchain on dozens of nodes

Bitcoin already has child porn on the chain.

>>9649708
>bcore "memes"

No, actually it’s “bcash”

>>9649761
bcoin core shills are pathetic

>>9649693
There are some very large benefits to immutability. To me the largest benefit is to store events as they occur. Imagine WWIII breaks out and at the end of the war both sides have their stories told on chain in such a way that the victor cannot censor. Also imagine being a scientist or inventor and you publish your findings to the blockchain. Everyone will see it was you who discovered this first. There are plenty of other advantages as well I'm sure.

>>9649693
It always boggles my mind why people like you are even in crypto

>>9649935
>why don't we just put blockchains into things where it makes no sense
I don't understand why this space has such a bad rep to be honest. Blockchains just fit every business model and make perfect sense for everything.

>>9649786
>There are some very large benefits to immutability. To me the largest benefit is to store events as they occur. Imagine WWIII breaks out and at the end of the war both sides have their stories told on chain in such a way that the victor cannot censor
Because a government keen to censor something will just let you host your 500 tb blockchain on commercial cloud servers. Even if they somehow failed to take it down or block access, they can simply force devs to hard fork and delete parts at gunpoint. The only way it can work is if there was some network and storage that could somehow remain out of reach of governments but still be easily accessed. Bcash claims of being able to provide censorship resistant hosting is marketing bullshit to fool plebs into buying their scam.

I know there has to be losers for there to be winners in this market, so I would just like to take this time to thank each and every one of you BCash fanboys out there who are going out of your way to pump my bags.

God bless you.

>>9650225
>they can simply force devs to hard fork and delete parts at gunpoint
Other than the fact that you don't know how a blockchain or consensus works, there are a multitude of reasons why it wouldn't be worth doing this. Namely it would destroy the value of blockchain if government could just do this. Also by this logic they can already do this now and change the rules to force everyone onto their centrally controlled Fedcoin.

>>9650286
>Namely it would destroy the value of blockchain if government could just do this
No shit, why do you think people want to conserve blocksize and make sure BTC is decentralized across many different countries? You have just pointed out why bcash destroys it's own value.

>>9650520
Its literally the same people mining these chains right now and if you think storage and bandwidth are the primary costs of a mining operation, you're completely deluded. Although that should have been obvious when you said the devs can just HF willy nilly.

>>9650520

Only miners add to decentralization. Non-mining nodes don't do anything for the network (Unless you're a merchant, maybe)

>>9649029
I like “bitcoin legacy” more than bitcoin core

>>9650570
Yes both BTC and bcash are compromised in that the chinese gov can likely censor either chains right now if they really wanted to. Decentralization doesn't just rely on miners, users have to be able to access the chain and submit TX. If you can deny access to the blockchain it's useless to them.

>>9650635
>Decentralization doesn't just rely on miners
Yes it does. Again, going back to your statement about holding up the devs and HFing, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>>9649110

Big blocks lead to stronger network connectivity, more network value and more miner competition ... good for Bitcoin.

>>9650701
which is exactly the reason we have unlimited blocksize amirite :^)

Bitcoin Classic would be a better name for Bitcoin Core

>>9650673
>Yes it does. Again, going back to your statement about holding up the devs and HFing, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Miners can be replaced at any time. HF is unlikely they would just delete the huge blockchain as I said. You have no means to provide secure hosting for a huge multi terabyte blockchain governments want gone.

>>9650796
So some government is just going to invade literally every country on the planet and shut down miners?

>>9649092
Whenever I see this it reminds me of how China pretends that Taiwan is part of the PRC. If your coin is so good don't spread misinformation about it stupid fucking cashie.

>>9650839
It's not only good, it is literally bitcoin. The fork reclaimed bitcoin from Core usurpers, the time will see us reclaim the name on exchanges, CMC, etc.

>>9649321

>>the whole argument is that the network has to
>>orient itself around the bandwidth available to
>>its weakest peers, which is impossible to determine.

This is a huge and common misconception. Bitcoin orients itself as a small world network where all the miners connect to all the other miners and they compete and invest in enough bandwidth and power to get their blocks out to the other miners ASAP. It is NOT a loose mesh of home/user nodes. Whether a smaller node can keep up with the network is totally irrelevant as it is about miners competing. Small nodes that dont mine do nothing for the system.

>>9650766
i agree but i think there was already a "bitcoin classic" attempt

>>9650832
They don't have to, users have to download the blockchain from somewhere and send data to it, if they have no access miners sit there mining empty blocks.

>>9650882
>users have to download the blockchain from somewhere and send data to it
jfc

>>9650858
you still have to synch the new blocks to every miner for consistency, and if the blockchain grows faster than you can sync you end up deadlocking yourself.

It's really not that abstract of a concept.

Bitcoin Core/Segwitcoin is an attack on Bitcoin by crippling it with 1mb blocks and replacing it with Lightning.

>>9650948
https://www.statista.com/statistics/616210/average-internet-connection-speed-in-the-us/

Note: The US isn't even the best internet in the world, not even the top 10.

>>9650948

The point is miners invest in enough bandwidth to do things like that... if you are running a 100 million dollar mining operation you will invest in enough bandwidth to keep up with the network.

these fucking Bitcoin Cash retards are just confusing newbies with their 'bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin' nonsense.

>>9651021
>The point is miners invest in enough bandwidth to do things like that... if you are running a 100 million dollar mining operation you will invest in enough bandwidth to keep up with the network.
And how do the people trying to use this blockchain access it?

>>9651026

They're probably saving new users because bitcoin has no future

>>9651021
Assume the following:

(assume all blocks are of equal size)

>Your node synchs a block in 10 seconds, and takes 50 seconds e to generate a new one

>My node synchs in 1 second and takes 8 seconds to generate a new block

0) A new block is found somewhere on the network at t=0
1) t+1s my node is done synching
2) t+9s my node has found the next block
3) t+10s your node is done synching
4) t+(x<60s) your node is informed that I found a new block and begins synching that.
5) Go to 0)

So assuming I can produce blocks before you are done synching (e.g. you run on CPU with low BW and I run an ASIC with high BW) I can effictively take your node offline by locking it in a sync-loop on my newest blocks.

Therefore you are now effectively contributing zero hashpower, while I get to contribute full.

>Assume >50% of the network get rekt by me in that way.
This is now my network.

Bitfinex scammed me!!!
I decided to do some background research on this coin. /r/bitcoin directed me to bitcoin.org, where I opened the whitepaper and I instantly loved the idea of p2p electronic cash.
So I made a bitfinex account and bought some bitcoin.
But it turns out, they misleadingly sell a shitcoin named bitcoin core as bitcoin.
How do I get my money back?

>>9651169

It happens to many people. Bcore is in the business of scamming newbies

>>9651091

The network is miners competing. If you are running a node on a low bandwidth connection you arent serious about contributing to the network. The network is is capitalist competition, not welfare for home nodes... watch one of craig wrights videos to understand how it works. Low bandwith home nodes do nothing but hold back the network... Bitcoin is mining and proof of work... if you are a miner you invest... hashpower, bandwidth, etc. Competition.

>>9651460
>If you are running a node on a low bandwidth connection you arent serious about contributing to the network
this is only true until you realize I can DoS your box until my bandwidth exceeds yours :^)

>>9651076

With SPV.

>>9649203
Is this the "nodes are non-miners too, i haven't read the whitepaper" argument or the "multi-million dollar miners can't get a 136MBit connection" argument or is it perhaps the "10GB blocks will happen tomorrow guys!" argument?

Getting real tired of you fools.

>>9651632
*"non-mining nodes are nodes too, i haven't read the whitepaper"

>>9649288
>being this dumb to understand what a sybil attack is

>>9649110
To download 32 MB in 10 minutes you need 450 kbps (55 KiB/s). It will be about 40 years until the average block size is over 30 MB.

To download 2 MB in 10 minutes you need 15 kbps (1.7 KiB/s). It took 5 years for BTC to reach 1 MB blocks. Today BCH is at around 100 kB per block on average. Remember that the max is 32 MB, the blocks aren't that big unless needed.

>>9650766
>>9650869
i prefer to use the term "legacy Bitcoin" myself to avoid confusion