bcash fees higher than btc in sats/byte

[Anonymous No.9739491]

just noticed this.
explain how this is possible on fast and cheap coin cash.

[Anonymous No.9739575]

for the brainlets out there that means if you got your flippening and bcash was btc price, that would be $1.50 average tx fee.

[Anonymous No.9739587]

>>9739491
>1 person pays a big fee cause they're sending a huge amount and want it to arrive ASAP
>avg price rises
>usd price is still lower
oh look, its absolutely nothing
try harder

[Anonymous No.9739591]

>>9739491
(((averages)))
shitty metric there anon, anyone can pay 500 sat/byte on a few BCH transactions to raise the average, doesn't change the fact anyone else can pay 1sat/byte and be guaranteed in the next block.

[Anonymous No.9739635]

Wallets not setting proper tx fee prices. You can do a tx for 1/4 of a penny and it will be included on the next block.

[Anonymous No.9739644]

With BCH that is.

[Anonymous No.9739650]

>>9739635
Same applies to BTC, wallets and exchanges often set excessive fees, bcash shills then use it to claim BTC fees are too high.

[Anonymous No.9739672]

>>9739587
>usd price still lower
dumbass who cares what usd price it is.
if its higher in sats per byte it will be higher if the price flips, which I assume you want to happen don't you?

>>9739591
true but more than 65 out of 200 of the tx's in the last block are over 5 sats/byte
its mostly just dumbasses and stupid programmers but the real truth is the miners can stop mining 1 sat tx's at any time

>>9739650
exactly

[Anonymous No.9739692]

Sat per byte is a stupid "pay according to size" metric that was coined because of blocks getting full on the blockstream shitcoin.

This sat/byte bullshit is no longer applicable on Bcash since it can now scale without limits.

Free transactions or a flat 1-2 sat per tx regardless of size should be the new standard

[Anonymous No.9739705]

>>9739692
there is no proof bcash can scale
at all

[Anonymous No.9739720]

>>9739672
Except they won't, because there's always other miners willing to mine 1 sat/byte transactions, if some stop then the other miners just get more revenue from fees. Miners aren't retarded, they mine to maximize profits, not throw them away.

[Anonymous No.9739727]

>>9739705
BCH is scaling accordingly for now and the near future. Beyond that it's hard to say because of the unknown in technological progress.

[Anonymous No.9739750]

>>9739727
>BCH is scaling accordingly for now and the near future. Beyond that it's hard to say because of the unknown in technological progress.
BCH has less than 10% of the BTC TX, at no point has it been demonstrated the BCH network can cope with a very large number of TX while maintaining low fees and not outright failing. Any scaling claims remain 100% speculation of theoretical limits.

[Anonymous No.9739814]

>>9739727
Actually it's much more long term orientated with the goal of gradual (yet still fast) adoption up to a global scale, unlike BTC where they're scared adoption won't be able to keep the price up to speed with block halvings, so instead they need to make transaction fees artificially more expensive so miners don't just abandon their chain altogether. It's fundamentally a difference in beliefs, either you want peer to peer electronic cash for everybody, or you want a settlement layer for a few.

>>9739750
It did demonstrate a while back by filling up 8mb blocks with 1sat/byte tx for a day or two, not a single hiccup. 32mb is still peanuts, it is the original limitation of the Bitcoin software before the 1mb cap was put in place, which by the way was only put in place because BTC has so little value it was easy to flood the network for little cost, today that's no longer an issue on either BTC or BCH.

BCH can handle about 20x the throughput of BTC currently, this isn't theoretical, tests have been run with much larger blocks than 32mb. Sure, maybe you can't run a node on your cellular 2G connection anymore with consistent 8mb + blocks, but any node with weight in the ecosystem can handle multiple times more with ease, even with today's hardware and infrastructure. It will only get easier as hardware becomes cheaper.

[Anonymous No.9739820]

I'd like to see any evidence of 1 sat transactions not clearing on BCH.

[Anonymous No.9739851]

>>9739814
The first time it failed because miners were mining 2mb blocks only, then the second attempt was sustained for only a few blocks, fees spiked sky high from what I recall. Even the 32mb blocks will squeeze out quite a lot of countries that don't have great internet speeds, forcing them to rely on centralized web based wallet providers. Not that security is even a thing on BTC or BCH anymore since bitmain has 51%+ of hashpower, both have lost their ability to offer trustless and permissionless transactions, plebs just haven't figured out how fucked they are yet.

[Anonymous No.9739860]

>>9739491
>Average TXs
If people want to donate money to the miners, have at it. I'll be using 1sat/byte fee and still get into the next block.

[Anonymous No.9739867]

>>9739491
so target price is 0.5 BTC

[Anonymous No.9739890]

doesn't really matter as people prefer bch now over segwit lightning coin

[Anonymous No.9739897]

>>9739851
Some miners were capping to 2mb, and they quickly upped to 8mb, there still wasn't any fee event though, at worst you had to pay 2 sat/byte for a few blocks.

Also, no one has to rely on a centralized web wallet, you can use SPV as was always intended for the average user, and it will verify your transactions against the latest block header, and also cross check across multiple nodes, all easily done on a cellular connection.

I'm not sure I believe Bitmain itself has 51%+ either, their definitely are a few different large Chinese groups with similar interests though. But, you must realize the miners must keep their networks healthy to profit. Maybe they will decide to kill one chain or the other when the time is appropriate, but that will only be in a case where it maximizes their returns.

[Anonymous No.9739919]

I can spam both BCH and BTC with high fee TXs. Average fees on both chains will increase. The difference is, BTC will have lower fee TXs unable to get into the next block, and BCH low fee TXs will always get into the next block. Average TX alone is misleading.

Try sending a low fee TX right now, do a 1sat/byte fee on both chains and report back.

[Anonymous No.9739936]

>>9739860
For now, you think Jihan will still give you cheap TX if he can get bcash in a dominant position? It's fairly obvious fees don't have a huge impact on market cap or adoption and that the market will sustain $10+ fees. What exactly do you think happens when he has further cemented his monopoly?

I have to give him credit though, hes a skilled business man and very smart. The way he has managed to perform a hostile take over of bitcoin while convincing brainlets hes protecting them from bankers is astounding. He's convinced people to hand him billions and billions of dollars for nothing and they're actually happy about it.

[Anonymous No.9739965]

>>9739936
I'm not sure you realize how mining works. If he doesn't want the low fees, other miners can scoop em up for a profit. Competition, my friend.

Anyways, you're pointing to a problem that doesn't currently exist. Got anything else?

[Anonymous No.9739996]

>>9739897
>I'm not sure I believe Bitmain itself has 51%+ either, their definitely are a few different large Chinese groups with similar interests though. But, you must realize the miners must keep their networks healthy to profit. Maybe they will decide to kill one chain or the other when the time is appropriate, but that will only be in a case where it maximizes their returns.
He has turned off more than 51% twice now in the past attempts to flip BTC. Technically if every BTC miner on earth turned on their miners he probably wont have 51% but typically he has more than 51% of hash power running at any one time. Realistically he can tamper with TX or conduct 51% attacks for a few hours with little trouble.

A couple of mining pools besides antpool are known to be front groups for him. The biggest issue is connections to the chinese government, it's just not possible to have a multibillion dollar company in china without the state being involved and his mining operations often run at what should be a loss after power costs. Also notice that the large chinese crackdown on crypto occurred just after the first big attempt to flip BTC failed almost as if it was a backup plan if they failed to seize complete control. Their motivations remain unclear, its hard to tell if they want to destroy it or subvert it for themselves, either way bcash supporters are willingly handing over crypto to the chinese communist party.

[Anonymous No.9740017]

>>9739965
There is no mining competition, no one can compete with state funded power combined with covert ASIC boost. All the competitors to bitmain were driven out of business. The segwit soft fork broke covert ASIC boost hence bcash was created and hundreds of millions are spent promoting it in attempt to defend bitmains monopoly.

[Anonymous No.9740239]

>>9739890
there have been more segwit transactions than bcash transactions and segwit started a month later