3 ms·

> Bitcoin cash fees are low because nobody uses it. Every cryptocurrency has a higher maximum throughput than regular bitcoin because doing that is trivial. Bi

> Bitcoin cash fees are low because nobody uses it. Every cryptocurrency has a higher maximum throughput than regular bitcoin because doing that is trivial. Bitcoin cash actually has more transactions per day than regular bitcoin. It's low fees aren't because no one is using it, it is the second most used chain. They increased the maximum block size to be 32x bitcoin which keeps congestion down from happening while having more transactions than bitcoin. It is as simple as that. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bch.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bc... > The reality is the inefficiency required to meet the decentralized trustless verifiable goals is so high it’s not possible to build a crypto payment network which actually handles more transactions than a midsized Costco. This is wrong. This gets said from time to time by people who don't understand how things work or haven't run the numbers. Some people extrapolate from bitcoin being intentionally crippled that there is an actual technical hurdle to more transactions which is not true. There is no technical reason why there can't be many orders of magnitude more transactions with pretty much any cryptocurrency. Only miners and exchanges even need to sync with the main chain. 100x bitcoin's throughput would still only be 150KB/s, far less than a low resolution video stream. After 11 years the entire chain is the size of two large video games on steam. What numbers do you have that makes you say "it's not possible", because I don't think you know what you are talking about.

arcticbull 6y ago
> Every cryptocurrency has a higher maximum throughput than regular bitcoin because doing that is trivial. Bitcoin cash actually has more transactions per day than regular bitcoin. It's low fees aren't because no one is using it, it is the second most used chain. They increased the maximum block size to be 32x bitcoin which keeps congestion down from happening while having more transactions than bitcoin. It is as simple as that. Trust me we both dislike Bitcoin lol. Weren't some BCH miners preferring to mine empty blocks though because the fees were too low so it wasn't worth their time? [1] > What numbers do you have that makes you say "it's not possible", because I don't think you know what you are talking about. Not possible while maintaining the side-quest of allowing anyone with an average computer to run a full node. I believe that constraint was applied to Bitcoin early on to reduce centralization and improve trust/integrity. Mission failed of course, but if you believe that's important, then of course, it remains impossible. I'm not your average hater, if you have information for me that challenges that assertion I'd love to read it. [1] https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/kmb0oh/dear_bch_miners_please_consider_orphaning_hathor/ https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/kmb0oh/dear_bch_miners_...
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  I gave you specific and relevant numbers. When I asked for your numbers that make you say "it's not possible" your response is "Not possible". You said bitcoin cash is not used by anyone, I showed you a graph that it is second in transaction throughput. Empty blocks and running non-mining nodes are trivial and inconsequential gish-galloping from what you said before. Non-mining nodes don't really matter to general users and anyone that can watch 240p youtube has the bandwidth to run one easily. > I'm not your average hater, if you have information for me that challenges that assertion I'd love to read it. I don't know what that means or even what assertion you are making. All you have said is "not possible" without backing it up with any information at all despite everything I outlined above. It should be obvious that multiple orders of magnitude more transaction throughput is possible by looking at the real numbers of bandwidth, chain size, cpu time, latency, etc. etc. Your response was to bring up irrelevant issues to blur what is being discussed.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    I was pretty clear that it wasn’t possible while maintaining the side quest that your average computer can run a full node, yeah? I don’t think that matters but clearly the core team does. I don’t think any of this matters though. I still don’t think you’ve demonstrated meaningful scale, visa alone supports 50,000tx/sec.
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      You said: > it’s not possible to build a crypto payment network which actually handles more transactions than a midsized Costco. That's not true for all the numbers I outlined above. Now you are saying: > I was pretty clear that it wasn’t possible while maintaining the side quest that your average computer can run a full node Which doesn't matter at all and yet is still trivial, for all the numbers I outlined above. Also you weren't "clear" you just made the assertion over and over with nothing behind it. You haven't given a single technical reason. > I don’t think that matters but clearly the core team does. They have told nothing but lies for years. They can't give numbers to back up what they say either. They want to sell a second layer that no one needs. > I don’t think any of this matters though. I still don’t think you’ve demonstrated meaningful scale, visa alone supports 50,000tx/sec. Ah, now the goalposts shift again. First it was more transactions than a costco. Then it was running a node at home. Now it's the transactions visa claims as their max capacity (not their actual transactions per second). The numbers I outlined are trivial for today's technology. Steam games download at 26,000x bitcoin's throughput. A single hard drive can hold the next 300 years of transactions. Why won't you confront these facts and explain the numbers behind your original assertion?

arcticbull 6y ago

> Every cryptocurrency has a higher maximum throughput than regular bitcoin because doing that is trivial. Bitcoin cash actually has more transactions per day than regular bitcoin. It's low fees aren't because no one is using it, it is the second most used chain. They increased the maximum block size to be 32x bitcoin which keeps congestion down from happening while having more transactions than bitcoin. It is as simple as that. Trust me we both dislike Bitcoin lol. Weren't some BCH miners preferring to mine empty blocks though because the fees were too low so it wasn't worth their time? [1] > What numbers do you have that makes you say "it's not possible", because I don't think you know what you are talking about. Not possible while maintaining the side-quest of allowing anyone with an average computer to run a full node. I believe that constraint was applied to Bitcoin early on to reduce centralization and improve trust/integrity. Mission failed of course, but if you believe that's important, then of course, it remains impossible. I'm not your average hater, if you have information for me that challenges that assertion I'd love to read it. [1] https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/kmb0oh/dear_bch_miners_please_consider_orphaning_hathor/ https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/kmb0oh/dear_bch_miners_...

CyberDildonics 6y ago
I gave you specific and relevant numbers. When I asked for your numbers that make you say "it's not possible" your response is "Not possible". You said bitcoin cash is not used by anyone, I showed you a graph that it is second in transaction throughput. Empty blocks and running non-mining nodes are trivial and inconsequential gish-galloping from what you said before. Non-mining nodes don't really matter to general users and anyone that can watch 240p youtube has the bandwidth to run one easily. > I'm not your average hater, if you have information for me that challenges that assertion I'd love to read it. I don't know what that means or even what assertion you are making. All you have said is "not possible" without backing it up with any information at all despite everything I outlined above. It should be obvious that multiple orders of magnitude more transaction throughput is possible by looking at the real numbers of bandwidth, chain size, cpu time, latency, etc. etc. Your response was to bring up irrelevant issues to blur what is being discussed.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  I was pretty clear that it wasn’t possible while maintaining the side quest that your average computer can run a full node, yeah? I don’t think that matters but clearly the core team does. I don’t think any of this matters though. I still don’t think you’ve demonstrated meaningful scale, visa alone supports 50,000tx/sec.
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    You said: > it’s not possible to build a crypto payment network which actually handles more transactions than a midsized Costco. That's not true for all the numbers I outlined above. Now you are saying: > I was pretty clear that it wasn’t possible while maintaining the side quest that your average computer can run a full node Which doesn't matter at all and yet is still trivial, for all the numbers I outlined above. Also you weren't "clear" you just made the assertion over and over with nothing behind it. You haven't given a single technical reason. > I don’t think that matters but clearly the core team does. They have told nothing but lies for years. They can't give numbers to back up what they say either. They want to sell a second layer that no one needs. > I don’t think any of this matters though. I still don’t think you’ve demonstrated meaningful scale, visa alone supports 50,000tx/sec. Ah, now the goalposts shift again. First it was more transactions than a costco. Then it was running a node at home. Now it's the transactions visa claims as their max capacity (not their actual transactions per second). The numbers I outlined are trivial for today's technology. Steam games download at 26,000x bitcoin's throughput. A single hard drive can hold the next 300 years of transactions. Why won't you confront these facts and explain the numbers behind your original assertion?