31 ms·

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 bitcoi

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
    I get that you’re frustrated but you’re conflating a number of different things. The scaling past a Costco metric applies to Bitcoin which is something you yourself mentioned above re 1.5kb/sec for $25. That were actually aligned on. The scaling meaningfully beyond that with proof of work by increasing block size, ok I get, however it comes at a cost as I mentioned. It does not allow an average person to run a full node. I’m asking how you feel about that. You say the core team is trying to “sell a second layer” - do you have some citations for me to read? Beyond that it’s not clear any POW coin would scale materially because it still has massive inherent inefficiencies in proof of work, which aren’t manifest in BCH at the moment because too few people use it (ok more than BTC but my point about visa wasn’t to move goalposts but to say 7tx vs 116tx/sec still round to roughly zero). Further the direct costs (ie transaction) while low have side effects such as miners not bothering to even mine. Maybe that’s not a big enough problem, ok, but I don’t think anything I’ve said is invalid is it? If it ever actually becomes popular miners will clamor all over themselves and then we’ll have two Argentina’s of power wasted on this. And while yes 50ktx/s is visa peak velocity at time of writing - 24k is typical - bitcoins remains 7 peak, 3 typical, and bch is 120 peak?
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      > The scaling past a Costco metric applies to Bitcoin That isn't what you said. I will remind you again since in every reply you seem to re-write things. > "it’s not possible to build a crypto payment network which actually handles more transactions than a midsized Costco" You didn't say bitcoin, you said it isn't possible at all, which is obviously wrong for the reasons and numbers I gave. You haven't confronted any of that. > It does not allow an average person to run a full node. This doesn't matter at all. You injected this instead of backing up anything you originally said. Only miners and exchanges need to sync with the full chain. For everyone else it's a hobby. It also is not true, again, since the numbers for bandwidth, disk space, cpu time etc are trivial and can be scaled up many orders of magnitude and still be in the realm of streaming video and decades stored on a single drive. > I’m asking how you feel about that. I don't feel anything since the premise is not true. > Beyond that it’s not clear any POW coin would scale materially because it still has massive inherent inefficiencies in proof of work, which aren’t manifest in BCH at the moment because too few people use it I think you have had it explained to you many times that mining is detached from block size. Larger blocks don't mean more mining energy is used. Proof of work or proof of stake has no bearing here, either is orthogonal to transaction throughput. > miners not bothering to even mine If they don't mine, they aren't miners. > but I don’t think anything I’ve said is invalid is it You haven't really said anything valid. Everything has been repeated assertions. You haven't explained the numbers behind anything even after all these replies. Don't move the goalposts from the "transactions of a costco" to visa's claimed max throughput (they do about 1,700 by the way, your 24k is from estimates of the busiest hours of christmas shopping). This is about cryptocurrencies being able to scale orders of magnitude higher than their current throughput no matter how badly you want to distort the topic to not admit your claims are ridiculous. Bitcoin's throughput is what it is because it is limited. Bitcoin cash's throughput is what it is because its 32MB blocks aren't being filled up by design.

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
  I get that you’re frustrated but you’re conflating a number of different things. The scaling past a Costco metric applies to Bitcoin which is something you yourself mentioned above re 1.5kb/sec for $25. That were actually aligned on. The scaling meaningfully beyond that with proof of work by increasing block size, ok I get, however it comes at a cost as I mentioned. It does not allow an average person to run a full node. I’m asking how you feel about that. You say the core team is trying to “sell a second layer” - do you have some citations for me to read? Beyond that it’s not clear any POW coin would scale materially because it still has massive inherent inefficiencies in proof of work, which aren’t manifest in BCH at the moment because too few people use it (ok more than BTC but my point about visa wasn’t to move goalposts but to say 7tx vs 116tx/sec still round to roughly zero). Further the direct costs (ie transaction) while low have side effects such as miners not bothering to even mine. Maybe that’s not a big enough problem, ok, but I don’t think anything I’ve said is invalid is it? If it ever actually becomes popular miners will clamor all over themselves and then we’ll have two Argentina’s of power wasted on this. And while yes 50ktx/s is visa peak velocity at time of writing - 24k is typical - bitcoins remains 7 peak, 3 typical, and bch is 120 peak?
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    > The scaling past a Costco metric applies to Bitcoin That isn't what you said. I will remind you again since in every reply you seem to re-write things. > "it’s not possible to build a crypto payment network which actually handles more transactions than a midsized Costco" You didn't say bitcoin, you said it isn't possible at all, which is obviously wrong for the reasons and numbers I gave. You haven't confronted any of that. > It does not allow an average person to run a full node. This doesn't matter at all. You injected this instead of backing up anything you originally said. Only miners and exchanges need to sync with the full chain. For everyone else it's a hobby. It also is not true, again, since the numbers for bandwidth, disk space, cpu time etc are trivial and can be scaled up many orders of magnitude and still be in the realm of streaming video and decades stored on a single drive. > I’m asking how you feel about that. I don't feel anything since the premise is not true. > Beyond that it’s not clear any POW coin would scale materially because it still has massive inherent inefficiencies in proof of work, which aren’t manifest in BCH at the moment because too few people use it I think you have had it explained to you many times that mining is detached from block size. Larger blocks don't mean more mining energy is used. Proof of work or proof of stake has no bearing here, either is orthogonal to transaction throughput. > miners not bothering to even mine If they don't mine, they aren't miners. > but I don’t think anything I’ve said is invalid is it You haven't really said anything valid. Everything has been repeated assertions. You haven't explained the numbers behind anything even after all these replies. Don't move the goalposts from the "transactions of a costco" to visa's claimed max throughput (they do about 1,700 by the way, your 24k is from estimates of the busiest hours of christmas shopping). This is about cryptocurrencies being able to scale orders of magnitude higher than their current throughput no matter how badly you want to distort the topic to not admit your claims are ridiculous. Bitcoin's throughput is what it is because it is limited. Bitcoin cash's throughput is what it is because its 32MB blocks aren't being filled up by design.