36 ms·

We believe BSV is an excellent blockchain to build products on, because of its scalability, sustainability, transparency, and instant transaction. Its TPS is un

We believe BSV is an excellent blockchain to build products on, because of its scalability, sustainability, transparency, and instant transaction. Its TPS is unlimited, block size unbounded, and the average network fee is $0.0004. Also community is very important to us. BSV is being used in daily lives of many people, far more than other major cryptocurrencies, thanks to its scalability. And a lot of pioneer developers of Bitcoin & blockchain are developing on BSV. These make one very healthy community that is likely succeed.

rglullis 5y ago
> Its TPS is unlimited, block size unbounded, and the average network fee is $0.0004. Look, I don't want to start a flamewar, but you KNOW that this is just marketing speak for "we have no clue what is going to happen if people actually started using the network, but we can fake it until we make it", right? If you are not even willing to make an honest assessment about the pros and cons of BSV, why should anyone trust you? But nevermind, your response was enough for me to realize that you are choosing the latter of the choices from my question. The extension is developed in order to bring utility to BSV, not as way to promote the use of crypto in general. That's a pity, because your UI is really good and it could be beneficial for a lot more use cases if it was not tied to handcash and BSV.
- kylelee99 5y ago
  You can check the real data. https://bitcoinblocks.live https://bitcoinblocks.live https://whatsonchain.com https://whatsonchain.com There is no problem with practical use. Once you know "peer-to-peer transaction protocol," you will understand that it can work without any problems. https://blog.moneybutton.com/2020/03/30/handcash-and-money-button-restore-peer-to-peer-electronic-cash/ https://blog.moneybutton.com/2020/03/30/handcash-and-money-b... This was Satoshi's original Bitcoin design and is the key to the scalability solution.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    > There is no problem with practical use. For current loads, I believe you. Come back when you have millions of users and thousands of TPS, and let me know (a) the hardware requirements to run a node, (b) how much it costs to run such a node and (c) what percentage of the population could theoretically afford this. It is very easy to "scale" if you centralize all processing in a handful of nodes.
    - andelu 5y ago
      >It is very easy to "scale" if you centralize all processing in a handful of nodes. "Yes"
    - kylelee99 5y ago
      A few specialized miners form a complete graph. The majority of users use the SPV introduced in Chapter 8 of the Bitcoin white paper. Miners compete for their own incentives, processing hundreds of millions of TX. This is also Satoshi's Bitcoin design. This type of graph is called a mandala network. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09082 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09082
      - rglullis 5y ago
        > A few specialized miners form a complete graph. How "few" is few? What number of would you say is "too few" to count as an actual decentralized system? > The majority of users use the SPV introduced in Chapter 8 of the Bitcoin white paper. Why? Why would people get themselves into a system that has none of the advantages of central systems (institutions with authority to correct human errors and some type of checks-and-balances) but will still require them to trust a handful of "specialized miners"? > Miners compete for their own incentives, processing hundreds of millions of TX. At what cost? And what kind of capital will be required for the operation to be profitable? Presumably these costs are not low, otherwise more people would be interested in joining the network and you wouldn't have "few specialized miners". How distributed are these miners going to be around the world? Given the amount of hashpower that is already concentrated in China, one would assume that these "few specialized miners" would be seeking places where energy can be cheaper and/or subsidized. How robust is a system that depends on geo-political factors? What happens when the cost of securing the network are just too big and China decides it is not worth it anymore and pulls the plug? If there are "few specialized miners", what's stopping them from colluding? If the competition is actually efficient and drives the prices down, the operation would be barely profitable. If the ROI is low, what would stop stopping from some bigger entity to just buy them out and keep them running? Doesn't that just give us the world's most expensive central bank? ---- Putting aside the cult-like obsession with Satoshi, the problem with maxis is that they assume always that their models (the "designs") are right and that people will change their behaviors and attitudes to fit into their model. Whoever continues to spew that BS after any kind of "one true way" is either incredibly naive or a pathological crook.

rglullis 5y ago

> Its TPS is unlimited, block size unbounded, and the average network fee is $0.0004. Look, I don't want to start a flamewar, but you KNOW that this is just marketing speak for "we have no clue what is going to happen if people actually started using the network, but we can fake it until we make it", right? If you are not even willing to make an honest assessment about the pros and cons of BSV, why should anyone trust you? But nevermind, your response was enough for me to realize that you are choosing the latter of the choices from my question. The extension is developed in order to bring utility to BSV, not as way to promote the use of crypto in general. That's a pity, because your UI is really good and it could be beneficial for a lot more use cases if it was not tied to handcash and BSV.

kylelee99 5y ago
You can check the real data. https://bitcoinblocks.live https://bitcoinblocks.live https://whatsonchain.com https://whatsonchain.com There is no problem with practical use. Once you know "peer-to-peer transaction protocol," you will understand that it can work without any problems. https://blog.moneybutton.com/2020/03/30/handcash-and-money-button-restore-peer-to-peer-electronic-cash/ https://blog.moneybutton.com/2020/03/30/handcash-and-money-b... This was Satoshi's original Bitcoin design and is the key to the scalability solution.
- rglullis 5y ago
  > There is no problem with practical use. For current loads, I believe you. Come back when you have millions of users and thousands of TPS, and let me know (a) the hardware requirements to run a node, (b) how much it costs to run such a node and (c) what percentage of the population could theoretically afford this. It is very easy to "scale" if you centralize all processing in a handful of nodes.
  - andelu 5y ago
    >It is very easy to "scale" if you centralize all processing in a handful of nodes. "Yes"
  - kylelee99 5y ago
    A few specialized miners form a complete graph. The majority of users use the SPV introduced in Chapter 8 of the Bitcoin white paper. Miners compete for their own incentives, processing hundreds of millions of TX. This is also Satoshi's Bitcoin design. This type of graph is called a mandala network. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09082 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09082
    - rglullis 5y ago
      > A few specialized miners form a complete graph. How "few" is few? What number of would you say is "too few" to count as an actual decentralized system? > The majority of users use the SPV introduced in Chapter 8 of the Bitcoin white paper. Why? Why would people get themselves into a system that has none of the advantages of central systems (institutions with authority to correct human errors and some type of checks-and-balances) but will still require them to trust a handful of "specialized miners"? > Miners compete for their own incentives, processing hundreds of millions of TX. At what cost? And what kind of capital will be required for the operation to be profitable? Presumably these costs are not low, otherwise more people would be interested in joining the network and you wouldn't have "few specialized miners". How distributed are these miners going to be around the world? Given the amount of hashpower that is already concentrated in China, one would assume that these "few specialized miners" would be seeking places where energy can be cheaper and/or subsidized. How robust is a system that depends on geo-political factors? What happens when the cost of securing the network are just too big and China decides it is not worth it anymore and pulls the plug? If there are "few specialized miners", what's stopping them from colluding? If the competition is actually efficient and drives the prices down, the operation would be barely profitable. If the ROI is low, what would stop stopping from some bigger entity to just buy them out and keep them running? Doesn't that just give us the world's most expensive central bank? ---- Putting aside the cult-like obsession with Satoshi, the problem with maxis is that they assume always that their models (the "designs") are right and that people will change their behaviors and attitudes to fit into their model. Whoever continues to spew that BS after any kind of "one true way" is either incredibly naive or a pathological crook.