@rogerkver what I can't completely understand is why with all the obvious flaws of the LN, there is still a big hope it will fix all BTC problems.
The more I look at the LN the less it make sense to me, and moreover is the obvious infiltration of big corporations that are not even hidden.
Keep you good work man and thanks for all you do to promote economical freedom.
hey @rogerkver, isn't it a problem that in order to scale to, say, Visa level number of tps, you'd see block sizes and the size of the blockchain become so huge it would be require huge servers??
No, that's not actually a problem, or more precisely it's not a complete roadblock but a 'problem' already considered in the original design that should be mitigated over time if scaling on chain is just seriously considered and tried. I can recommend a few resources.
First read Satoshis own writing and the design paper in particular. Satoshi was actually very clear on how to scale and even in the paper he released there is briefly a plan laid out on how to facilitate it.
Gavin Andresen tried re-explaining this many times before becoming isolated and eventually pushed out from the upper echelon of the developer community around the official client. At the very end he made several moves trying to decentralize development by launching competing clients, realizing that likely Satoshi had been wrong in expecting only one client to be enough for the network. You can see what he had to say here. He has since made casual contributions in the Bitcoin Cash community.
In order to scale the blocks to very large size, technologies displayed at several of the past Bitcoin and now Bitcoin Cash conferences can be used. Even without technologies such as advanced pruning etc, this can likely be done without endangering anyone who wants to run an advanced SPV or so called "full node" - which does not actually count as a node per the design - on their computer as a hobbyist or for extra security in transactions.
This article explains some of the potential hurdles to different sorts of onchain use cases and how to mitigate them even if we can implement almost inconceivably large blocks (past several terrabytes just to begin with).
I could go into much greater detail of how Bitcoin was designed to function, but please ask this question in the r/btc subreddit or to developers on r/bitcoinabc if you want a more thorough answer.
When nothing else works, just keep moving that goal post and try guilt by association instead.
I've already said plenty that I disagree with Roger about much, but that he is not a scammer. That I think Craig Wright is, but neither control Bitcoin Cash.
i totally understand the appeal of fast and cheap transactions. but i dont get this whole "we are bitcoin" thing. It's clearly been decided by consensus that bch is not "called" bitcoin. cant you just be your own thing and be ok with that? bch can stand or fall on it's own merits, who cares if it is called bitcoin or not. it's a silly detail you are harping on
You can call it Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin BCH. It's not a big deal. People will know what you are talking about.
But there's a point to be made here, that if the old Bitcoin recourses such as the Bitcoin.org, the old Wiki, BitcoinTalk and r/Bitcoin had not been manipulated and if the pre-scheduled scaling roadmap as per the Bitcoin design had been continued without introducing SegWit, the fork would never have taken place.
Then there was the swamping of Twitter and Youtube with automated "bcash" spam etc, but that's a different chapter.
In one of my recent post, I wrote about a recent report that talked about how two whales did a transaction for 99 million dollars in LTC in a single transaction costing the sender about 40 cents and with the transaction only taking about 2 minutes and 30 seconds to complete. So if anyone didn't want to use BTC, I don't understand why they would not simply just use LTC which has proven itself to be a solid currency for years.
LTC is great for many reasons, but it will have higher and higher fees as well if developers don't do something about it. This combined with RBF policy could give the same bidding war that happened in Bitcoin SL "Core" (BTC) and would prohibit using zero-conf transactions. It also has SegWit, which is not always considered good by those investing for the long term.
Starting off as a memecoin similar to Doge, it doesn't share the same transaction history and interest as the two large Bitcoin forks. Nor does it have a highly developed ecosystem and hashrate.
@rogerkver what I can't completely understand is why with all the obvious flaws of the LN, there is still a big hope it will fix all BTC problems.
The more I look at the LN the less it make sense to me, and moreover is the obvious infiltration of big corporations that are not even hidden.
Keep you good work man and thanks for all you do to promote economical freedom.
What's the story with the $BCH shuffle project? is it going o have 'mixer' attributes?
It does. Or rather there are independent servers running it. I suggest you search r/BTC on Reddit for the sites.
Hell yeah! ..I love to hear this. Thx
From an investment point of view I dont think it is a good idea to confuse the 2 securities. May the best technology win!
hey @rogerkver, isn't it a problem that in order to scale to, say, Visa level number of tps, you'd see block sizes and the size of the blockchain become so huge it would be require huge servers??
No, that's not actually a problem, or more precisely it's not a complete roadblock but a 'problem' already considered in the original design that should be mitigated over time if scaling on chain is just seriously considered and tried. I can recommend a few resources.
First read Satoshis own writing and the design paper in particular. Satoshi was actually very clear on how to scale and even in the paper he released there is briefly a plan laid out on how to facilitate it.
Gavin Andresen tried re-explaining this many times before becoming isolated and eventually pushed out from the upper echelon of the developer community around the official client. At the very end he made several moves trying to decentralize development by launching competing clients, realizing that likely Satoshi had been wrong in expecting only one client to be enough for the network. You can see what he had to say here. He has since made casual contributions in the Bitcoin Cash community.
In order to scale the blocks to very large size, technologies displayed at several of the past Bitcoin and now Bitcoin Cash conferences can be used. Even without technologies such as advanced pruning etc, this can likely be done without endangering anyone who wants to run an advanced SPV or so called "full node" - which does not actually count as a node per the design - on their computer as a hobbyist or for extra security in transactions.
This article explains some of the potential hurdles to different sorts of onchain use cases and how to mitigate them even if we can implement almost inconceivably large blocks (past several terrabytes just to begin with).
I could go into much greater detail of how Bitcoin was designed to function, but please ask this question in the r/btc subreddit or to developers on r/bitcoinabc if you want a more thorough answer.
thanks for the long answer!
You're welcome =)
Obviously a straw man, but otherwise well done. I'm sure you could put your skills towards something actually useful.
Promoting a scammer and conman is useful in your opinion, ye? Well done mate.
When nothing else works, just keep moving that goal post and try guilt by association instead.
I've already said plenty that I disagree with Roger about much, but that he is not a scammer. That I think Craig Wright is, but neither control Bitcoin Cash.
i totally understand the appeal of fast and cheap transactions. but i dont get this whole "we are bitcoin" thing. It's clearly been decided by consensus that bch is not "called" bitcoin. cant you just be your own thing and be ok with that? bch can stand or fall on it's own merits, who cares if it is called bitcoin or not. it's a silly detail you are harping on
You can call it Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin BCH. It's not a big deal. People will know what you are talking about.
But there's a point to be made here, that if the old Bitcoin recourses such as the Bitcoin.org, the old Wiki, BitcoinTalk and r/Bitcoin had not been manipulated and if the pre-scheduled scaling roadmap as per the Bitcoin design had been continued without introducing SegWit, the fork would never have taken place.
Then there was the swamping of Twitter and Youtube with automated "bcash" spam etc, but that's a different chapter.
Never got a reply from you on twitter.
Nice posti nya,saya suka cara berkarya anda,@rogerkver
In one of my recent post, I wrote about a recent report that talked about how two whales did a transaction for 99 million dollars in LTC in a single transaction costing the sender about 40 cents and with the transaction only taking about 2 minutes and 30 seconds to complete. So if anyone didn't want to use BTC, I don't understand why they would not simply just use LTC which has proven itself to be a solid currency for years.
LTC is great for many reasons, but it will have higher and higher fees as well if developers don't do something about it. This combined with RBF policy could give the same bidding war that happened in Bitcoin SL "Core" (BTC) and would prohibit using zero-conf transactions. It also has SegWit, which is not always considered good by those investing for the long term.
Starting off as a memecoin similar to Doge, it doesn't share the same transaction history and interest as the two large Bitcoin forks. Nor does it have a highly developed ecosystem and hashrate.
I appreciate your commitment.
best of luck sir.