/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.16827780]

Crypto illiterate here. Never mined before.

Can anyone tell me why having big blocks like BSV is a better thing than smaller blocks like Bitcoin Core?

[Anonymous No.16827794]

>>16827780
It doesn't actually matter, it's because people naturally think bigger is better that it's made that way, so people buy into BSV.
This thread will be flooded by many, many Indian gentlemen posting about the superiority of BSV. You should do your own research instead of asking here, you'll only get people trying to scam you.

[Anonymous No.16827797]

>>16827780
you can fit more coins into bigger blocks, if the blocks are too small the coins will fall out. there’s a lot of btc now and the coins are starting to fall out of the blocks, which is a pain because someone has to pick them up and put them in the next block

[Anonymous No.16827803]

Why having a big cock is better than having a small one, OP?

[Anonymous No.16827804]

>>16827780
it allows us to consolidate mining into calvin funded company. this way we can mine invalid blocks and claim satoshi's lost coins.

[Anonymous No.16827814]

>>16827780
nevermind the blocksize, my cock is getting bigger than 20MB just by looking at her face

[Anonymous No.16827818]

>>16827780
would you rather suck a small cock or a big and powerful one? Yeah, that's what I thought. Don't like it? STIFF

[Anonymous No.16827844]

>>16827797
Lol'd

[Anonymous No.16827866]

>>16827780
cute girl what is her name?

[Anonymous No.16827871]

>>16827866
Taftaj. She has a very nice cock

[Anonymous No.16827878]

Bigger blocks = more fees to miners and also more transactions available for each block. Good for P2P and less good for pumping the price up.

[Anonymous No.16827886]

>>16827780
i want this girl to be the mother of my first child

[Anonymous No.16827887]

>>16827871
>>16827866
>>>/lgbt/

[Anonymous No.16827891]

>>16827878
Why not pump the price up a lot with small blocks and then have big blocks? Seems logical desu

[Anonymous No.16827960]

>>16827866
If I ever saw "autism" written on a face it's this one.

[Anonymous No.16829125]

>>16827780
with 1MB blocks you can push 7 transactions per secound. With 1TB blocks you could push 7 000 000 tps, which would allow for microtransactions to take place. Right now internet business model is very inefficient with all the crappy commercials, and sucking up your private informations. With metanet, and scalable bitcoin you would be able to pay in Bitcoin (SV) for every search on google, for like a 20 seconds of watching a video, and you would pay fractions of a cent for each operation like that. In december of 2017 BTC reached $20k, but it dumped significantly. You know why? It's because blocks got full, and you needed to pay $30 to send your transaction. If the blocksize would be increased back then to like 8MB, we might have seen BTC pump as high as 30k or 40k, as the crypto market was 50% higher in january 2018 than when BTC hitter it's ATH in december 2017.

[Anonymous No.16829150]

>>16827780
Unbounded blocks is literally the only way Bitcoin works. Not only mining sustainability, but user sustainability as well. Miners need it for transaction fees and users need it for literally every kind of transaction you can think of and a shitload more that you can't.

[Anonymous No.16829167]

>>16827878
>less good for pumping the price up.
How so?

[Anonymous No.16829168]

>>16827780
Not buying bsv you fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.16829202]

>>16827797
This is the best and most succinct analogy I've ever seen. I'll ask the mods at /r/cryptocurrency to add it to the wiki.

[Anonymous No.16829251]

>>16829125
>like why did BSV not have the foresight to advertise itself as an Eth Wrapper BTC with BSV functionality pegged to BTC??
> like why fight and be drama
BSV please ego death 4 utility

[Anonymous No.16829268]

>>16829251
Wat

[Anonymous No.16829297]

>>16829268
you can fit more transactions in a single block meaning you have to process less blocks at the same time meaning you can deal with a higher workload. This does however require more powerful machines and infrastructure to handle which causes further centralisation.

[Anonymous No.16829495]

>>16829297
>process less blocks at the same time
That doesn't make sense.

>causes further centralisation
Mining already requires millions of dollars in equipment and other costs. Storage and bandwidth inputs aren't going to matter much.

[Anonymous No.16829543]

>>16829125


lmao nice try shill. That's not why It dumped in 2017. Bitcoin has gone through several parabolic boom and bust cycles already. That was another one and there will be more in the future.

Bigger blocks could allow for more TPS but at the expense of handing over a dangerously large amount of centralization to a few select players who could literally hijack the network, double spend etc Just so you can buy a cup of coffee? lol plz go pajeet.

CSW is not Satoshi.
BSV is not Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.16829627]

>>16829543
Parabolic rises pretty much always do have a pull back, true. BTC being a complete shitcoin however ended the rise sooner than it would have otherwise. Also the entire marketcap of crypto has been shattered because Blockstream crippled BTC. Literal divide and conquer with thousands of shitcoins that only exist because of Core.

[Anonymous No.16830537]

>>16827814
>>16827886
>her

[Anonymous No.16830553]

>>16827780
WHY ARE YOU FAGGOTS ALWAYS POSTING TRANNIES ON THIS BOARD

[Anonymous No.16830571]

>>16830553
What's wrong, you no likey?
https://
i.4pcdn
.org
/tv/
1551272837890.jpg

[Anonymous No.16830582]

>>16830571

[Anonymous No.16830607]

because vertical line up chart money dollar sign eyes big life

[Anonymous No.16830705]

>>16827780
He has a weird cock.

[Anonymous No.16831469]

>>16827780
The question you should ask is, why should there be a limit size when bitcoin is described without one?

[Anonymous No.16831473]

>>16830582
Hmm I kinda do actually. Depends what his cock looks like

[Anonymous No.16831478]

>>16827794
link is a scam

[Anonymous No.16831485]

>>16827780
i would impregnate her so hard

[Anonymous No.16831494]

>>16831485
Its a tranny

You gay nigga

[Anonymous No.16831521]

I was just looking at his Twitter, than at some point I had a half boner.
Am I a faggot?

[Anonymous No.16831542]

>>16829543
>he doesn't know btc broke it's parabola due to block size ceiling
oof

[Anonymous No.16831645]

>>16827780
This a fantastic thread OP. A question from a seemingly innocent OP with a tranny degenerate attached to the seemingly innocent post. Shills start shilling as usual, but also ask who (((she))) is. Training shills to be attracted to trannies. Fantastic, OP, fantastic. Keep up the good work.

[Anonymous No.16831698]

>>16831521
I'm afraid so

[Anonymous No.16831705]

"A higher limit can be phased in once we have actual use closer to the limit and make sure it's working OK.

Eventually when we have client-only implementations, the block chain size won't matter much. Until then, while all users still have to download the entire block chain to start, it's nice if we can keep it down to a reasonable size.

With very high transaction volume, network nodes would consolidate and there would be more pooled mining and GPU farms, and users would run client-only. With dev work on optimising and parallelising, it can keep scaling up.

Whatever the current capacity of the software is, it automatically grows at the rate of Moore's Law, about 60% per year."
Satoshi 2010

[Anonymous No.16831894]

>>16829543
So here's the real crypto bluepill:

Craig Wright is unironically not Satoshi, the real Satoshi Nakamoto always wanted small blocks and segwit, "Peer to peer electronic cash" was simply a purposeful mistranslation of the Japanese. Blockstream - funded by Bilderberg group - saved Bitcoin by refusing to raise the 1mb block cap, preventing the blockchain from becoming cripplingly large. If they had not done this the blockchain could be as large as 500gb today meaning that Bitcoin node operators would have to upgrade from 500gb hard drives and pay for more storage space, ultimately leading to financial ruin and the death of the network.

Bitcoin as a store of value was just the first step, Blockstream is releasing the full version of the Lightning Network in 18 months, this will lead to a revolution in digital gold and decentralisation by routing all payments through Lightning banking nodes off-chain, this is why Blockstream is so intent to lower the block size to 300kb to incentivise adoption.

Back to hash power, as the price and adoption of BTC increases the blocksize will be gradually reduced to 0kb, closing off the blockchain completely, this will move all transactions onto Layer 2 (Layer 3 and 4 are also in development). With all transactions off-chain the greedy miners will have all their power removed and we will never see another hardfork ever again like the hard forking of 'Bitcoin Cash' and later 'Bitcoin SV' by the fraud Craig Wright (they have their own competing blockchain in the works), this will render the BTC protocol completely free from big blocker influence under the tight but decentralised fist of Blockstream.

[Anonymous No.16831912]

>>16831542
Your own image is evidence of your bullshit. Hash rate apparently tapered and leveled off by 2014 and is where the parabolic increases stopped, but bitcoin price still went parabolic afterward during a time where the hash rate was stagnant. Fuck you

[Anonymous No.16832024]

>>16831912
FUNNILY ENOUGH
i have an interesting hash rate image too
look at block size pic and this one around july 2013
at the halving it will all come crashing down

[Anonymous No.16832030]

>>16827797
How could you type this with a straight face

[Anonymous No.16832063]

every time i see a girl on 4chan i open up the picture and ask "wait is that a girl or a boy?" then i say "no thats a man, baby." then eventually find out that girl is indeed a boy.

[Anonymous No.16832065]

>>16832024
This image is just showing the inverse correlation between mining difficulty and mining profitability probability? These are all correlated to the price of bitcoin. If it keeps increasing then it doesn't matter that the probability of earning reward is dropping to zero, because if you win even once the rewards outweigh the costs associated with mining. Please plot the price of bitcoin along with this or normalize these charts with the price of bitcoin to get a better idea of what you're worried about.

[Anonymous No.16832075]

Can any anons explain to a brainlet like me just why and how bigger block sizes is a permanent fix? If there's more transactions on the blockchain, Jevon's Paradox style, won't that means in a few years there will be a call to increase blocksize again?
Isn't that a poor stopgap solution?
>>16827797
kek. based
>>16829125
>Right now internet business model is very inefficient with all the crappy commercials, and sucking up your private informations.
Non-native English speaker detected

[Anonymous No.16832342]

>>16829125
>1TB blocks
One hard drive per block?

>>16829150
Two words: Lightning Network.

>>16832075
>Isn't that a poor stopgap solution?
Absolutely. Andreas Antonopoulos had a good video from some London conference he was at, where an audience member asked him about scaling. His reply was that Bitcoin will implement EVERY scaling solution -- with big blocks being the LAST one, after all the others have been exhausted.

We're able to get about double the transactions per block thanks to SegWit. Schnorr is in test now and will double it again (so 4X v1.0). LN offloads capacity. Sidechains will offload capacity if people want to use them.

And if the system is struggling to reach Mastercard/Visa levels of throughput, then we can raise the block size five or ten years from now when such increases will be even less disadvantageous than they are today.

BSV's 210MB block shattered their network into three pieces, because some users' hardware couldn't even handle the block. That's a shitty thing to do to your users. Bitcoin (the real one, BTC) is long past the stage where no one is really using it so it can be fucked with at whim. I'm really surprised that Ethereum hasn't figured out that that's a bad idea, but Vitalik is kind of an autist who is just into it for the "I'm doing neat shit!" rush instead of the "we're building the future, one careful step at a time" thing.

[Anonymous No.16832412]

>>16832342
Thanks for the explanation anon.
>One hard drive per block?
Yeah that seems like it's just asking for trouble.
I wasn't aware of BSV shattering the network like that, sounds to me like that's anathema to the whole point of decentralization?

[Anonymous No.16832611]

Read satoshi posts!! Big server farms.

[Anonymous No.16832623]

>>16832065
>These are all correlated to the price of bitcoin
that is the major problem, it should be correlated with being used like in early 2013 >>16831542
before it fell through that threshold and it can't be because the blocksize is capped, it is permanently tied to price.

which means that btc needs deep pocket whales to come in and start buying to raise the price to $30k +/- for the halving to make it profitable for miners, 1 THash a day costs 0.12c in electricity.
(the pic was taken at $12k btc)

you can do basic math to work out their profit from this, they are going to lose $50000 usd in per block reward (at current price and not including fees which are static but scale a little with price), the previous halvings the loss was not anywhere close to that, last halving was approx a $12k loss

soon miners will see they won't make anymore profit and will be paying money to keep the blockchain going, they start to turn it all off and unload bags, chain locks up, no more tx, price crashes, difficulty adjusts, 15~ day wait before reassessing turning on again

imo the likely outcomes -
1. nobody with money and intelligence buys btc because someone needs to buy billions of $ worth and keep it there above 30k at current difficulty
2. no more industrial mining farms that mine btc
3. raspberry pi army appears, whereby 100k gamblers load up their moldy old acer laptops and pay their own money in electricity costs to mine 1 in a million chance lottery blocks for 6.25 btc
4. btc becomes a hobby chain for nostalgia and sits around $1k (generous, it will probably go to zero)

>>16832342
Nice post!
think bigger greg, amazon and google are adding 1tb hdds to their warehouse every second? no
>lightning network
>segwit
>sidechains
cringe
really idiotic to take fees from miners when they are minuscule already and will need to be relied upon more for profit every halving, nice!
btc has no future and no big miners with blockstream driving it
communists can't do economics

[Anonymous No.16832630]

>>16829125
>My retarded rules didn't pass Nakamoto consensus and I had to fork 2 (two) times! Btw I'm Satoshi Nakamoto and my fork is BitcOin!!!