/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.12537751]

for anyone on the fence about BTC vs BCH / lightning vs big blocks

https://youtu.be/Xg_-dz5PqAY

at 6:40
>Required Block Size in MB to serve the world
>200,000,000
>200 terabyte blocks
>28 petabytes a day
>10,200pb / 100 EXABYTES a year

at 32mb blocks (mostly empty)
BCH has to scale another 6,250,000x

we are a long long way away
from everyday people,
or even most businesses from being able to afford peta/exabytes worth of storage

>inb4 raspberry pi
Bitcoin is meant to be transparent, trustLESS money
it ceases to be trustless if nobody can afford to verify their own money
and have to TRUST a handful of billionaires - the only people who can afford hundreds petabytes of bandwith every day
(block propagation)

and even if that were a viable solution,
how do you explain Roger trying (and failing)
to get Lightning on BCH?

>https://www.ccn.com/no-to-bitcoin-cash-opennode-rejects-roger-vers-1-25m-fund-offer/

>https://twitter.com/opennodeco/status/1079180653416103941

he has stopped criticizing lightning altogether

[Anonymous No.12537780]

>I can't do a full sync on my sega dreamcast!

[Anonymous No.12537783]

>>12537751
dude no one cares about bch.
Bitcoin maximalists are all in on BSV, banking-bootlickers are still with the Lightning-token experiment.

[Anonymous No.12537793]

>>12537783
that's false shilling
lightning will solve everything

[Anonymous No.12537799]

>>12537751
This is the face of a man who had to sell his ass in prison.

[Anonymous No.12537803]

>>12537751

This math is so wrong it makes my head hurt. If you wanted 500 billion transactions (roughly the amount made per year) you'd only need a blocksize of about 3 gigabytes. Not 200 terabytes. OP is smoking something funny

[Anonymous No.12537809]

>>12537783
Thats right. Everyone who understands anything in blockchain biz is on the BSV side. LN can never be useful in solving scaling, so BTC is dogshit. BCH on the other hand is ruled by a scammer.
BSV is the only hope for the original Bitcoin chain. If BSV fails as well, some alts will take over.

[Anonymous No.12537825]

>>12537793
1. lightning wont work
2. if it did, it would end up being a shitty version of the current financial system

Core/lightning was meant to kneecap bitcoin (and it worked for years) so that they could say "geez we tried this crypto thing and it seemed like a good idea but i guess it just didn't work. Oh well...back to credit cards, fractional reserves, and debt based social structures!"

[Anonymous No.12537849]

>>12537751
do you realize that no banking system currently "serves the world"
I prefer the niche uses of bitcoin at the moment. Today there is 0 chance that it will be adopted worldwide and by the time we are even close the hardware issue will become a laughing matter.

[Anonymous No.12537872]

>>12537780
>I can't store every irrelevant payment I make on an inherently expensive network for the rest of human history

>>12537803
>you'd only need a blocksize of about 3 gigabytes

its not my math idiot, check the video,
at 6m 40s

Roger made a spreadsheet saying the blocksize needed to serve the world was 200,000,000 MB,
which equals 200,000 GB or 200 TB

if you could do it with 3gb, (you can't)
why is there so much talk of "Terablocks" on the BCH/SV side
and why would the biggest proponent of big blocks shoot himself in the foot;
saying we need something 66,000x times larger than we actually do?

sperg

>>12537825
another person parroting the classic lightning myths

even if lightning hubs were how everyone was paying, (it wont be)
they couldn't do shit because lightning channels/routes are non-custodial,
meaning the hub couldnt do shit to stop a transaction

plus theres onion routing

(and no, lightning channels wont be classified as money transmitters any more than normal miners would)

[Anonymous No.12537908]

>>12537872
>roger is a scammer nutjob and he's WRONG
>let me cite his figures in my argument
you're not getting away with it fucko

[Anonymous No.12537932]

>>12537751
>for anyone on the fence about BTC vs BCH
No one does.
Fuck off roger.

[BSV will win No.12538031]

>>12537751
50 tx/day per person is way too much.
Even 5 would probably be a too generous average.

The only thing you SHOULD need to say about Lightning Network is that the routing is still a unsolved problem. It just doesn't work if more than 10 guys use it at the same time.

The way routing works in LN is when you send a tx you take a snapshot of the WHOLE network and calculate the optimal path. Then you onion wrap the pre-set path and send it on its way, hoping that no paths change too much.

This works currently because almost nobody uses LN so the paths don't change while your tx is transacting. The more people using it at the same time the higher chance for failure because the snapshot your client gets is immediately outdated.

Btw I remember someone saying Roger made a calculation error somewhere but I can't find the comment because the youtube comments are mostly just spam.

[Anonymous No.12538036]

>>12537872
>if you could do it with 3gb, (you can't)
>why is there so much talk of "Terablocks" on the BCH/SV side
because it won't just be a payment system.

[Anonymous No.12538060]

>>12537751

[Anonymous No.12538063]

>>12537908
>you're not getting away with it fucko
I was citing his figures to show how retarded his vision for Bitcoin is
but yeah if he's a scammer as you say he is, it could be many times larger than 200TB
which proves my point even more

>>12538031
i saw no mention of that in the comments, but open to seeing that if you ever cite that claim

>>12538036
with 3 GB blocks, assuming a pop of 8b
every person could only transact 40 times per year

[Anonymous No.12538104]

serious question: is there even existing a way currently to store the tx data more efficiently?

[Anonymous No.12538105]

>>12537751
Roger is drugged and has wrong math. He's talking about tx per day. That's 10,000,000,000x50 per day right? Divide that by 3000tx/block and you don't get a nice number, you get the 200TB stuff. But that's not correct, you still have to divide by 144! Because a day has 144 blocks and boom you get a way nicer, realistic number of 1.4TB. Easily possible.

[BSV will win No.12538108]

>>12537803
Let's see: 3 gb blocks = 3000000000 bytes.
Let's say 1 tx averages 600 bytes.
That's 5000000 tx/block, which is a bit over 8333 tx/sec.

8333 * 60 * 60 * 24 = 719971200 tx/day.
719971200 * 365 = 262789488000 tx/year

So with a on-chain blocksize of 3 GB we will have ~262.789 billion tx/year. Earth population is 7.53 billion so that would mean each person could do approx 34 tx per year.

So at least 300 GB blocks is needed for each person in the world today to be able to make ~9 tx per day if the average is 600 bytes. By that time though the average would be smaller, today's average is larger due to exchanges sending to many outputs.

Anyway, Roger's math is way off and he should take down the video since it apparently tricks people like OP into thinking on-chain scaling is unviable. By the time over 7 billion people actually used Bitcoin 300 GB blocks would be child's play.

It's child's play for big companies today, just imagine how much storage YouTube uses every 10 minutes.

[Anonymous No.12538111]

>>12538031
>This works currently because almost nobody uses LN
>so the paths don't change while your tx is transacting.
>The more people using it at the same time the higher chance for failure
>because the snapshot your client gets is immediately outdated.

I wont claim to have an extensive knowledge of routing/network topology/etc

but the crux of your argument is that channels will be constantly opening and closing
and I dont think they will

people generally dont withdraw cash multiple times a day, it's usually a few times a week at most

similarly, people will fund their LN wallets according to their usual weekly/monthly spending

so on a daily basis i dont think the topology will change a huge amount on an hourly/daily basis

and as LN adoption grows, people will have less of a need to close channels as BTC is better spent off-chain than on-chain

[BSV will win No.12538113]

>>12538063
>but open to seeing that if you ever cite that claim
made my own calculation instead

[Anonymous No.12538119]

>>12538104
yes, Lightning
lets just say you spend $400 a week,
across 15-28 transactions
(2-4 a day)
instead of those dozens of transactions being stored individually, they are lumped into 1 transaction to open the channel,
or 2 if you ever need to close it again

[Anonymous No.12538122]

>>12538108
>>12538105
These guys get it. OP hates Roger but bases his argument on his flawed maths. Roger makes the correct point with very wrong maths.

[BSV will win No.12538124]

>>12538111
>but the crux of your argument is that channels will be constantly opening and closing
that's just half the problem, the real issue is that the balance of the channels will be constantly changing.

so when you calculated the path it was fine but once the tx actually reaches it there won't be enough BTC to transact in the desired direction and your payment fails

the only way to solve this problem is with exceptionally huge nodes. it will cause a backbone of the network, in other words trusted centralized nodes will be needed

[BSV will win No.12538150]

>>12538124
Also imagine opening a channel to your favorite bar but when you try to use it turns out that someone else paid through your channel last night and now it is depleated and you can't use your own channel. The only way for you to be able to use it now is to feed more BTC into the channel with a on-chain (actual BTC) transaction, OR the bartender needs to pay someone else through your channel (which most likely won't happen).

LN has a "solution" for this and that is to take away the ability for someone else to use your channel. But then what's the point of the network if everybody just makes their own channels private? The end result will be that only for-profit channels will remain routable and at that point we're back to the original banking system where your money need to pass through huge, trusted nodes. Sure someone might try to set up a channel outside the official backbone but the channel will instantly become depleted.

[Anonymous No.12538185]

the funniest thing about this 'debate' is how the limiting factor is bandwidth, yet a single fiber link, a fraction the diameter of a coax cable can handle over 20 TB a day for as little as 100/month. what's the size of the entire chain currently? 200 gb?
And the only reason we don't have 50 times that bandwidth today is the retail market for it is too small. We are only where we are today because of porn. Let that sink in. What is responsible for bch/btc being a 100 billion usd financial network, and what will be responsible for it being a 1 trillion network? It's not joseph poon, it's reily reid's poon.

[BSV will win No.12538193]

>>12538185
Why you think the net was born? Porn, porn, porn!
https://youtu.be/YRgNOyCnbqg

[Anonymous No.12538243]

>>12538193
lmao

[Anonymous No.12538251]

>>12537751
The biggest retards actually care about using bitcoin as cash

[Anonymous No.12538300]

>>12538251
all of it's niche uses that make it worth using have it acting as cash
>visa blocks vendor that makes naughty things
oh boy I wonder what type of technology would help in this situation
>banks and retailers collaborate to sequester funds through incentive programs
I wonder if there's a company that solves this specific problem using crypto.
>making near irreversible transactions remotely is an expensive niche served by scummy companies
Darn these bitcorns I really liked western union.
>being a citizen outside of g20 or EU
don't spend that 'digital gold' on bread, use a wheelbarrow full of fiat!

[Anonymous No.12538453]

>>12538150
>when you try to use it turns out that someone else paid through your channel last night and now it is depleated and you can't use your own channel.
>The only way for you to be able to use it now is to feed more BTC into the channel with a on-chain (actual BTC) transaction,
>OR the bartender needs to pay someone else through your channel (which most likely won't happen).

thats... not how Lightning works
you dont lose money if someone routes through your channel

if A, B and C all have $100 in their channel
when A pays C $100, the balances are as follows

>A = $0
>B = $100
>C = $200

B effectively takes A's cash and passes it onto C, losing nothing
(they can actually charge a very small fee)

I'm certain BTC is the way to go,
but I'll probably buy a couple BCH and half a BSV anyway just to hedge my bets

[Anonymous No.12538458]

Bch is worse than btc now
Checkpoints, avalanche pre consensus, mallfix and segwit on the way

[Anonymous No.12538505]

>>12538453
lightning... what percentage of people can afford to actually use it, considering that you have to encumber funds several times your maximum spend (avg channels per node is 8) and simultaneously have the technical wherewithal to actually start up the node in the first place. I would say that's a statistically insignificant amount of the population.
What you're left with is an auditable interbank network that banks would obviously never want to use.

[Anonymous No.12538563]

>>12538458
Bcash is getting segwit??
source?

>>12538505
there are numerous solutions in development to resolve what you just referenced

in particular look into Channel Factories,
and we'll soon be able to create multiple channels from one transaction

[Anonymous No.12538577]

>>12538505
>technical wherewithal to actually start up the node in the first place

yes anon, just like email right?
who would ever use something so freakishly complex,
I'm certain itll never become seemless for normal people

[Anonymous No.12538612]

>>12538577
Email didn't become seamless, it got delegated to service providers very early on. The whole point of this exercise has always been 'muh keys' and 'muh full node'. You can't have it both ways.