4 ms·

Looks great. But choosing Bitcoin SV as underlying seems a bit unconventional. What is the rational behind it?

by _ink_ 5y ago

bradwood 5y ago
No good reason as far as I can see. Bitcoin SV is as dead as disco. Use something like lightning or solana or Polygon. But this? Nah...
- andelu 5y ago
  BitcoinSV uses the UTXO model, which is easier to scale than global state models like ethereum, solana, etc. And with it's massive block size there is hope for fast payments and low fees.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    What does UTXO have anything to do with scaling of the network? Yeah, you might get more transactions per block without increasing the size too much, but to think that gives a significant advantage over account-based chains is just drinking the kool-aid. Whenever you see someone selling you the idea that there will be a massively decentralized blockchain that can reach a high number of TPS without scaling off-chain, run in the other direction.
    - andelu 5y ago
      It is widely held in the BSV community that UTXO has better scaling properties. Txs can be validated independently of other txs, alowing for parallelization of tx processing. See this for more https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mhvk0U6zqE&ab_channel=UnboundedCapital https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mhvk0U6zqE&ab_channel=Unbou... In account based models tx cannot be parralely validated. Please enlighten me if I have been mislead.
      - rglullis 5y ago
        Yeap, this video is pure snake-oil. It overblows something that is a non-issue (ordering of the transactions) and tries to imply that is the core problem of "scaling". To put another way: if UTXO was paramount for scaling, there would be no need for BSV to exist because BTC (and BCH, LTC, Monero, Doge and so many others) are already based on UTXO. There are many other, bigger challenges and trade-offs to be considering when planning for scaling solutions. All of the solutions claiming they are scaling base-layer chains are doing so at the cost of centralization. Solana claims to make 100k+ TPS, but the amount of hardware required is incredibly expensive. Binance Chain manages to scale because it uses only 8 validator nodes. BSV is making these jumbo blocks, so the moment the network becomes popular it could be requiring 20-30GB per hour in storage, who in their right mind will want to run one of those?
andelu 5y ago
BitcoinSV was probably chosen since it allows using layer 1 for peer-to-peer payments, by using huge blocks. In theory this means low fees and high transactions/seconds. This makes interoperability etc simpler than many layer 2 techs.

Looks great. But choosing Bitcoin SV as underlying seems a bit unconventional. What is the rational behind it?

by _ink_ 5y ago

Looks great. But choosing Bitcoin SV as underlying seems a bit unconventional. What is the rational behind it?

No good reason as far as I can see. Bitcoin SV is as dead as disco. Use something like lightning or solana or Polygon. But this? Nah...

andelu 5y ago
BitcoinSV uses the UTXO model, which is easier to scale than global state models like ethereum, solana, etc. And with it's massive block size there is hope for fast payments and low fees.
- rglullis 5y ago
  What does UTXO have anything to do with scaling of the network? Yeah, you might get more transactions per block without increasing the size too much, but to think that gives a significant advantage over account-based chains is just drinking the kool-aid. Whenever you see someone selling you the idea that there will be a massively decentralized blockchain that can reach a high number of TPS without scaling off-chain, run in the other direction.
  - andelu 5y ago
    It is widely held in the BSV community that UTXO has better scaling properties. Txs can be validated independently of other txs, alowing for parallelization of tx processing. See this for more https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mhvk0U6zqE&ab_channel=UnboundedCapital https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mhvk0U6zqE&ab_channel=Unbou... In account based models tx cannot be parralely validated. Please enlighten me if I have been mislead.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      Yeap, this video is pure snake-oil. It overblows something that is a non-issue (ordering of the transactions) and tries to imply that is the core problem of "scaling". To put another way: if UTXO was paramount for scaling, there would be no need for BSV to exist because BTC (and BCH, LTC, Monero, Doge and so many others) are already based on UTXO. There are many other, bigger challenges and trade-offs to be considering when planning for scaling solutions. All of the solutions claiming they are scaling base-layer chains are doing so at the cost of centralization. Solana claims to make 100k+ TPS, but the amount of hardware required is incredibly expensive. Binance Chain manages to scale because it uses only 8 validator nodes. BSV is making these jumbo blocks, so the moment the network becomes popular it could be requiring 20-30GB per hour in storage, who in their right mind will want to run one of those?

andelu 5y ago

BitcoinSV was probably chosen since it allows using layer 1 for peer-to-peer payments, by using huge blocks. In theory this means low fees and high transactions/seconds. This makes interoperability etc simpler than many layer 2 techs.