3 ms·

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 r

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.

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.