3 ms·

Does this mean I would need an own power plant to sent and receive message with this protocol?

by tehabe 8y ago

stephengillie 8y ago
It would be like an IRC server where your username is your public key - and your messages are signed with the recipient's public key, so only the recipient can decrypt it. Like some kind of "PGP chat server". Unless you wanted Coin functionality included. Public rooms in the "PGP chat server" would have their public key as their room name. "Joining" the room would involve being sent the room's private key by an administrative bot. The server could send to all clients the full firehose of encrypted strings from all parties, and let the clients decrypt any messages they can. The clients could group chats into channels and messages by which private key successfully decrypted each string.
sumanthneppalli 8y ago
While the Bitcoin network does consume a lot of power, the Bitcoin Cash network is highly efficient and can process a lot of transactions with the same energy requirements. You would need to pay a fees of around a cent to send each message. You need not pay anything to receive a message. We believe that as the Bitcoin Cash network becomes stronger, transaction fees would get even cheaper.
- aafdginionio 8y ago
  >the Bitcoin Cash network is highly efficient and can process a lot of transactions with the same energy requirements. Untrue. It's one order of magnitude better. That doesn't make it "highly efficient." Bitcoin is well over four orders of magnitude less efficient than Visa, which is appalling. Even a tenfold improvement over Bitcoin is still dog shit. And that's comparing to Visa, which isn't reasonable. Chat messages don't need the same guarantees as financial transactions. There's no need to put every chat message in a single ACID database. A system built specifically for chat (like Tox) can scale far better. >You would need to pay a fees of around a cent to send each message. Only because Bitcoin Cash isn't used for anything. If people start building applications that stress the network (like your chat application!), those fees will skyrocket. Fees are only low as long as the system has spare capacity. Low transaction fees are only evidence that the system is underused, which means no one's found a use case yet. >We believe that as the Bitcoin Cash network becomes stronger, transaction fees would get even cheaper. Blockchains are anti-scalable. As the network gets bigger and more popular, it gets no faster at all. It just gets vastly less efficient. More miners means more power consumption and more users means more congestion. There is no known way to scale these systems.

Does this mean I would need an own power plant to sent and receive message with this protocol?

by tehabe 8y ago

Does this mean I would need an own power plant to sent and receive message with this protocol?

It would be like an IRC server where your username is your public key - and your messages are signed with the recipient's public key, so only the recipient can decrypt it. Like some kind of "PGP chat server". Unless you wanted Coin functionality included. Public rooms in the "PGP chat server" would have their public key as their room name. "Joining" the room would involve being sent the room's private key by an administrative bot. The server could send to all clients the full firehose of encrypted strings from all parties, and let the clients decrypt any messages they can. The clients could group chats into channels and messages by which private key successfully decrypted each string.

sumanthneppalli 8y ago

While the Bitcoin network does consume a lot of power, the Bitcoin Cash network is highly efficient and can process a lot of transactions with the same energy requirements. You would need to pay a fees of around a cent to send each message. You need not pay anything to receive a message. We believe that as the Bitcoin Cash network becomes stronger, transaction fees would get even cheaper.

aafdginionio 8y ago
>the Bitcoin Cash network is highly efficient and can process a lot of transactions with the same energy requirements. Untrue. It's one order of magnitude better. That doesn't make it "highly efficient." Bitcoin is well over four orders of magnitude less efficient than Visa, which is appalling. Even a tenfold improvement over Bitcoin is still dog shit. And that's comparing to Visa, which isn't reasonable. Chat messages don't need the same guarantees as financial transactions. There's no need to put every chat message in a single ACID database. A system built specifically for chat (like Tox) can scale far better. >You would need to pay a fees of around a cent to send each message. Only because Bitcoin Cash isn't used for anything. If people start building applications that stress the network (like your chat application!), those fees will skyrocket. Fees are only low as long as the system has spare capacity. Low transaction fees are only evidence that the system is underused, which means no one's found a use case yet. >We believe that as the Bitcoin Cash network becomes stronger, transaction fees would get even cheaper. Blockchains are anti-scalable. As the network gets bigger and more popular, it gets no faster at all. It just gets vastly less efficient. More miners means more power consumption and more users means more congestion. There is no known way to scale these systems.