3 ms·

I disagree. 1. There is no founder directing the project (big plus). "Dear leader" doesnt direct development which is unique compared to almost 100% of the shi

I disagree. 1. There is no founder directing the project (big plus). "Dear leader" doesnt direct development which is unique compared to almost 100% of the shitcoins in the space. 1b. You think adoption rate and the decentralized movement that pushes/promotes adoption is irrelevant? I'm sure all the centralized shitcoin (aka unregistered security) founders would find your view on this hilarious. 2. Non mining nodes ensure transactions/blocks followed certain rules. When attached to wallets and services, that means much more than "just relaying blocks". 3. Layer 1 scaling is poor design. Larger blockchain = less nodes due to more expensive hardware requirements = more centralization. BSV and BCH are mostly dead because of getting this wrong, no debate about it. The original poster is more right than wrong in his view.

CyberDildonics 4y ago
This all reads like straight propaganda from /r/bitcoin and none of it is true. Decentralization of a currency doesn't mean or have to do with development, that is a separate issue. Still, whoever controls github commits is going to control the reference implementation and that isn't many people. Decentralization refers to being able to use money electronically without any third party's permission. All the rest of this are obvious talking points to try to redefine bitcoin as more unique than it is. It was always completely possible to copy everything and modify any part of it. Part of the excitement is that there is actual competition in currencies. Non mining nodes ensure transactions/blocks followed certain rules. When attached to wallets and services, that means much more than "just relaying blocks". This part is just a straight lie and someone has grossly mislead you. Non mining blocks have nothing to do with making blocks or deciding anything. All they can do is relay blocks that the miner decide. This is like someone printing books, those books being sold on amazon and a hundred other stores, then someone arguing that a single library deciding not to carry a book has any bearing on that book being created. 3. Layer 1 scaling is poor design. Larger blockchain = less nodes due to more expensive hardware requirements = more centralization. BSV and BCH are mostly dead because of getting this wrong, no debate about it. When people say things like this it's obvious that they only get information from /r/bitcoin and don't have understanding beyond the heavily curated narrative there. Do you ever stop to think about why other cryptocurrencies don't need a second layer? Do you think the optimal throughput is a few kilobytes per second worth of transactions for the whole world? It all has to be synced on the main chain anyway. A second layer is a solution in search of a problem. Larger blockchain = less nodes due to more expensive hardware requirements Have you ever done the math on this? I can never believe people keep repeating something so obviously wrong. Bitcoin runs at dialup speed. A $10 per month VPS literally runs at 50,000 times the speed that the bitcoin network does. There have been times when average transaction costs spiked so high one transaction fee could pay for the hard drive space and vps time to host a node for months. The craziest thing here is that nodes don't even really matter. The miners can broadcast blocks themselves and anyone can sync with the chain if they want.
- ashwagary 4y ago
  > Decentralization refers to being able to use money electronically without any third party's permission. Decentralization refers to many things, it depends on the discussion. I explained the scope of my statements in the parent. > Non mining nodes...All they can do is relay blocks that the miner decide. You are wrong here, they also do validation which is why its important for wallet owners and services to run their own nodes even if they dont mine. >Do you ever stop to think about why other cryptocurrencies don't need a second layer? Yes, it is because they are highly centralized chains that might as well run on sql and/or ghost chains with no users. >Do you think the optimal throughput is a few kilobytes per second worth of transactions for the whole world? Yes, offchain transaction batching is a good scaling strategy. Satoshi recommended it as a solution. >Have you ever done the math on this? Yes, bitcoin full nodes are much cheaper to host on a vps than ethereum full nodes for that reason. Larger blocks = more bandwidth and hd space = more time to download and fully validate. I assure you, running one costs a lot more than 10$/month. Perhaps you should check the math on your claim.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    Decentralization refers to many things, it depends on the discussion. No it doesn't. Decentralization in cryptocurrency always meant being able to make transactions without a central controlling authority. Someone has mislead you to a strange backwards rationalization to say bitcoin is unique. they also do validation which is why its important for wallet owners and services to run their own nodes even if they dont mine. They might validate blocks before rebroadcasting them. This is not the same as miners dictating the ordering of transactions that goes in to a block. These are two different things. One is vital, one is a very minor convenience. Have you read the actual bitcoin pdf? Have you read about cryptocurrencies outside of /r/bitcoin ? It actually isn't crucial for someone to run their own node, someone just needs a way to query the current state of the chain. Yes, it is because they are highly centralized chains that might as well run on sql and/or ghost chains with no users. Where are you getting nonsense like this? This is circular logic, your 'evidence ' is just saying the same thing over and over. Ethereum has had more transactions than bitcoin for the last four years. Here is actual evidence: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth.html#3y https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth.ht... Yes, offchain transaction batching is a good scaling strategy. Satoshi recommended it as a solution. Satoshi recommended lifting the block size limit and having relatively few nodes that could handle huge amounts of on chain traffic. I don't remember anything about stopping at 1.166 KB/s as throughput. I assure you, running one costs a lot more than 10$/month. Perhaps you should check the math on your claim. Your evidence is "I assure you" ? I'll show you actual evidence and you can check my math. Here you can see a 700KB average block size roughly every 10 minutes. That is 1.166.66 KB/s https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc.html#3m A $10/month VPS will have a 1 gigabit connection. That is going to be 125 megabytes per second. That is 107,204 times faster than the bandwidth of the bitcoin network. The entire bitcoin blockchain is only 437 gigabytes. That VPS could download the entire chain from the last 13 years in about an hour. To give you some reference of how much faster that is than what is needed, an SR71 blackbird at a top speed of mach 3.3 is only 75,600 times faster than a slug. As for drive space, the entire chain will fit on a 512 GB thumb drive. These can be bought for $40 USD. Here is where the average fee for a single transaction was over $62 USD. A average single transaction cost more than storing the entire chain on an SSD because of the terrible bitcoin throughput. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#3y https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-512GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B083ZLJ5MG/ https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-512GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B0... I would check your math, but you didn't give any at all. You have been taken in by a complete lack of real information. Try asking about it on /r/bitcoin and watch your comment be deleted or shadow banned. There is a reason you aren't getting any real information.

CyberDildonics 4y ago

This all reads like straight propaganda from /r/bitcoin and none of it is true. Decentralization of a currency doesn't mean or have to do with development, that is a separate issue. Still, whoever controls github commits is going to control the reference implementation and that isn't many people. Decentralization refers to being able to use money electronically without any third party's permission. All the rest of this are obvious talking points to try to redefine bitcoin as more unique than it is. It was always completely possible to copy everything and modify any part of it. Part of the excitement is that there is actual competition in currencies. Non mining nodes ensure transactions/blocks followed certain rules. When attached to wallets and services, that means much more than "just relaying blocks". This part is just a straight lie and someone has grossly mislead you. Non mining blocks have nothing to do with making blocks or deciding anything. All they can do is relay blocks that the miner decide. This is like someone printing books, those books being sold on amazon and a hundred other stores, then someone arguing that a single library deciding not to carry a book has any bearing on that book being created. 3. Layer 1 scaling is poor design. Larger blockchain = less nodes due to more expensive hardware requirements = more centralization. BSV and BCH are mostly dead because of getting this wrong, no debate about it. When people say things like this it's obvious that they only get information from /r/bitcoin and don't have understanding beyond the heavily curated narrative there. Do you ever stop to think about why other cryptocurrencies don't need a second layer? Do you think the optimal throughput is a few kilobytes per second worth of transactions for the whole world? It all has to be synced on the main chain anyway. A second layer is a solution in search of a problem. Larger blockchain = less nodes due to more expensive hardware requirements Have you ever done the math on this? I can never believe people keep repeating something so obviously wrong. Bitcoin runs at dialup speed. A $10 per month VPS literally runs at 50,000 times the speed that the bitcoin network does. There have been times when average transaction costs spiked so high one transaction fee could pay for the hard drive space and vps time to host a node for months. The craziest thing here is that nodes don't even really matter. The miners can broadcast blocks themselves and anyone can sync with the chain if they want.

ashwagary 4y ago
> Decentralization refers to being able to use money electronically without any third party's permission. Decentralization refers to many things, it depends on the discussion. I explained the scope of my statements in the parent. > Non mining nodes...All they can do is relay blocks that the miner decide. You are wrong here, they also do validation which is why its important for wallet owners and services to run their own nodes even if they dont mine. >Do you ever stop to think about why other cryptocurrencies don't need a second layer? Yes, it is because they are highly centralized chains that might as well run on sql and/or ghost chains with no users. >Do you think the optimal throughput is a few kilobytes per second worth of transactions for the whole world? Yes, offchain transaction batching is a good scaling strategy. Satoshi recommended it as a solution. >Have you ever done the math on this? Yes, bitcoin full nodes are much cheaper to host on a vps than ethereum full nodes for that reason. Larger blocks = more bandwidth and hd space = more time to download and fully validate. I assure you, running one costs a lot more than 10$/month. Perhaps you should check the math on your claim.
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  Decentralization refers to many things, it depends on the discussion. No it doesn't. Decentralization in cryptocurrency always meant being able to make transactions without a central controlling authority. Someone has mislead you to a strange backwards rationalization to say bitcoin is unique. they also do validation which is why its important for wallet owners and services to run their own nodes even if they dont mine. They might validate blocks before rebroadcasting them. This is not the same as miners dictating the ordering of transactions that goes in to a block. These are two different things. One is vital, one is a very minor convenience. Have you read the actual bitcoin pdf? Have you read about cryptocurrencies outside of /r/bitcoin ? It actually isn't crucial for someone to run their own node, someone just needs a way to query the current state of the chain. Yes, it is because they are highly centralized chains that might as well run on sql and/or ghost chains with no users. Where are you getting nonsense like this? This is circular logic, your 'evidence ' is just saying the same thing over and over. Ethereum has had more transactions than bitcoin for the last four years. Here is actual evidence: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth.html#3y https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth.ht... Yes, offchain transaction batching is a good scaling strategy. Satoshi recommended it as a solution. Satoshi recommended lifting the block size limit and having relatively few nodes that could handle huge amounts of on chain traffic. I don't remember anything about stopping at 1.166 KB/s as throughput. I assure you, running one costs a lot more than 10$/month. Perhaps you should check the math on your claim. Your evidence is "I assure you" ? I'll show you actual evidence and you can check my math. Here you can see a 700KB average block size roughly every 10 minutes. That is 1.166.66 KB/s https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc.html#3m A $10/month VPS will have a 1 gigabit connection. That is going to be 125 megabytes per second. That is 107,204 times faster than the bandwidth of the bitcoin network. The entire bitcoin blockchain is only 437 gigabytes. That VPS could download the entire chain from the last 13 years in about an hour. To give you some reference of how much faster that is than what is needed, an SR71 blackbird at a top speed of mach 3.3 is only 75,600 times faster than a slug. As for drive space, the entire chain will fit on a 512 GB thumb drive. These can be bought for $40 USD. Here is where the average fee for a single transaction was over $62 USD. A average single transaction cost more than storing the entire chain on an SSD because of the terrible bitcoin throughput. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#3y https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-512GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B083ZLJ5MG/ https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-512GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B0... I would check your math, but you didn't give any at all. You have been taken in by a complete lack of real information. Try asking about it on /r/bitcoin and watch your comment be deleted or shadow banned. There is a reason you aren't getting any real information.