3 ms·

> 150Mtx/day means less than 2000 tx/s on average, but you can't dimension the throughput of a system on the average load… Keep in mind that BCH transactions a

by hggh 6y ago

> 150Mtx/day means less than 2000 tx/s on average, but you can't dimension the throughput of a system on the average load… Keep in mind that BCH transactions are "zero-conf" (there is no return-by-fee issue, so double spends aren't viable in the vast majority of transactions [1]). So, in case of a big peak in, most of the transactions would "settled" without the 10-minute confirmation, and after the peak they would be confirmed eventually. It's not the ideal situation, but the final user wouldn't see any difference (unless they are buying something expensive like a car). > without any retribution whatsoever If someday Bitcoin Cash gets to that level, the price will rise (and the number of tx per block) and so the coinbase will be much higher. For example with 2000 tx/s, around 200 bytes/tx, and 1 sat/byte, the coinbase of a block would be 2.4 BCH in fees + the reward (currently 6.25 BCH), and then you can expect coinbases of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. [1] https://doublespend.cash/ https://doublespend.cash/

littlestymaar 6y ago
> Keep in mind that BCH transactions are "zero-conf" (there is no return-by-fee issue, so double spends aren't viable in the vast majority of transactions [1]). So, in case of a big peak in, most of the transactions would "settled" without the 10-minute confirmation, and after the peak they would be confirmed eventually. It's not the ideal situation, but the final user wouldn't see any difference (unless they are buying something expensive like a car). Wat? You realize that without the “10-minute confirmation” as you called it (10 min is not enough, there are stale blocks from time to time) you can spend the same money indefinitely? (double-spending) > If someday Bitcoin Cash gets to that level, the price will rise (and the number of tx per block) and so the coinbase will be much higher. For example with 2000 tx/s, around 200 bytes/tx, and 1 sat/byte, the coinbase of a block would be 2.4 BCH in fees + the reward (currently 6.25 BCH), and then you can expect coinbases of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Miners get that reward. (non-mining) Full nodes get zero, which is the fundamental problem of the bitcoin protocol (Nakamoto didn't envisioned that there could be miners that wouldn't run full nodes, and that most full nodes wouldn't be mining).
- hggh 6y ago
  I think this e-mail [1] answers these two points [1] https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/ https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/
  - littlestymaar 6y ago
    It doesn't. Satoshi simply failed (as you can see in this response) to imagine a world where full nodes and miners would be disjoint entities, and as a result full node receive no reward whatsoever (and the biggest miners don't even bother to verify that the blocks they mine are correct). The reliability and independence of the bitcoin blockchain runs on top of the shoulders of benevolent people running full nodes. Increasing the block size, means increasing the cost for those essential people. Not a good idea at all.
    - hggh 6y ago
      But why would you want to run a "full node" if not for mining? And why would running a "non-mining full node" should be rewarded if it's doing nothing good to the network? Only if you run a business that makes/receives lots of transactions, then would make sense to have the full blockchain, but that doesn't help the network, and shouldn't be rewarded whatsoever. > The reliability and independence of the bitcoin blockchain runs on top of the shoulders of benevolent people running full nodes. You don't need "non-mining full nodes" for that. See point 8 (Simplified Payment Verification) of the whitepaper [1] [1] https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf
      - littlestymaar 6y ago
        > And why would running a "non-mining full node" should be rewarded if it's doing nothing good to the network? If all full nodes are miners, then there is no one to keep the miners to respect the protocol. The two keys points here are halving and difficulty scaling: these are burdens the protocol inflict to the miners. Without third party full-nodes, the miners can decide they don't like these rules and just do as they like. The bitcoin protocol is supposed to be a trust-less one, without non-mining full nodes: the miners control the blockchain and you have to trust them to respect the rules.

by hggh 6y ago

littlestymaar 6y ago

> Keep in mind that BCH transactions are "zero-conf" (there is no return-by-fee issue, so double spends aren't viable in the vast majority of transactions [1]). So, in case of a big peak in, most of the transactions would "settled" without the 10-minute confirmation, and after the peak they would be confirmed eventually. It's not the ideal situation, but the final user wouldn't see any difference (unless they are buying something expensive like a car). Wat? You realize that without the “10-minute confirmation” as you called it (10 min is not enough, there are stale blocks from time to time) you can spend the same money indefinitely? (double-spending) > If someday Bitcoin Cash gets to that level, the price will rise (and the number of tx per block) and so the coinbase will be much higher. For example with 2000 tx/s, around 200 bytes/tx, and 1 sat/byte, the coinbase of a block would be 2.4 BCH in fees + the reward (currently 6.25 BCH), and then you can expect coinbases of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Miners get that reward. (non-mining) Full nodes get zero, which is the fundamental problem of the bitcoin protocol (Nakamoto didn't envisioned that there could be miners that wouldn't run full nodes, and that most full nodes wouldn't be mining).

hggh 6y ago
I think this e-mail [1] answers these two points [1] https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/ https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/
- littlestymaar 6y ago
  It doesn't. Satoshi simply failed (as you can see in this response) to imagine a world where full nodes and miners would be disjoint entities, and as a result full node receive no reward whatsoever (and the biggest miners don't even bother to verify that the blocks they mine are correct). The reliability and independence of the bitcoin blockchain runs on top of the shoulders of benevolent people running full nodes. Increasing the block size, means increasing the cost for those essential people. Not a good idea at all.
  - hggh 6y ago
    But why would you want to run a "full node" if not for mining? And why would running a "non-mining full node" should be rewarded if it's doing nothing good to the network? Only if you run a business that makes/receives lots of transactions, then would make sense to have the full blockchain, but that doesn't help the network, and shouldn't be rewarded whatsoever. > The reliability and independence of the bitcoin blockchain runs on top of the shoulders of benevolent people running full nodes. You don't need "non-mining full nodes" for that. See point 8 (Simplified Payment Verification) of the whitepaper [1] [1] https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf
    - littlestymaar 6y ago
      > And why would running a "non-mining full node" should be rewarded if it's doing nothing good to the network? If all full nodes are miners, then there is no one to keep the miners to respect the protocol. The two keys points here are halving and difficulty scaling: these are burdens the protocol inflict to the miners. Without third party full-nodes, the miners can decide they don't like these rules and just do as they like. The bitcoin protocol is supposed to be a trust-less one, without non-mining full nodes: the miners control the blockchain and you have to trust them to respect the rules.