Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[solex]

Real-world demand = 1:
Network capacity = 1000:

Head-through-the-wall blockernomics:
Increase capacity to 100,000 times demand. Then watch new users come running like lemmings, 'cause 1000x demand is clearly not enough.

Holistic onchain-scaling strategy:
When demand is low, shift focus from network capacity to adding advanced transaction functionality including some non-monetary use-case support. Then watch users get attracted by new features. Non-monetary uses will drive extra p2p cash usage. If demand gets within an order of magnitude of capacity, then refocus to increasing capacity.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I'd say, don't focus on adding new transaction functionality by changing the protocol, but focus on adoption: creating apps, libraries, tools and so on, do everything possible to allow people to use existing functionalities as easy and convenient as possible.

 

[Norway]

Head-through-the-wall blockernomics:
Increase capacity to 100,000 times demand. Then watch new users come running like lemmings, 'cause 1000x demand is clearly not enough.

Is 32MB enough for Facebook? And do they want to depend on developers from ABC to increase the production quota for blockspace? Most people today believe blockchains don't scale for good reasons.

 

[freetrader]

 

[Griffith]

Block 563628 was orphaned.

But block 563638 made the 103mb!

460k transactions inside

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/block/563638

I honestly cant tell if you are trolling or intentionally burying your head in the sand at this point.

SV mined "the largest block ever" wooh, cool. except it wasnt from txs broadcasted on the network. it was completely internal. This basically equates to meaning all they proved was that the vtx of a CBlock could allocate enough space to fit 100MB of transactions. We already knew you could allocate 100MB of space for a vector so they proved nothing by making this block.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I know that it's transactions have been created internally. MemPool made no secret of it. They created the block to identify bottlenecks and to test the ecosystem.

It's so funny. When BCH had the first stresstest with 20mb blocks, I asked my Core crowd what they think about it. Answer: "We already know'd that it is possible. No surprise. LN can do more. Blablabla". They did everything to dwarf this event, as if it would mean nothing, doesn't change anything, and so on.

The irony is that the former big blockers (now: medium blockers) follow exactly the same script. Since big block tests have gone from BCH to BSV, they do everything to dwarf it. "It's no sustainable load, the transactions have not been propagated, we already know'd that this is possible, lalala".

We had a 103 mb block on a livenet. It propagated good enough to allow a miner to find a next block a few minutes later, and my very cheap vps node was able to keep up with it. That's what we learned. If you are a big blocker you celebrate this. If not, you are a medium blocker

I also celebrate that the first two attempts have been orphaned, btw, and I can't wait to see the next stresstest with transactions floods setting new records for a sustainable load.

 

[freetrader]

@Christoph Bergmann I can only refer you back to this post by @solex

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1351#post-87050

I think you'll find more of us celebrating if BSV's users for which they wanted to demonstrate 128MB blocks actually turn up. Because based on the traffic I'm seeing, SV split the chain for nothing.

In celebration of their achievements, SV supporters now get the honorific 'yuge blockers' from me. It's better than large.

 

[79b79aa8]

Holistic onchain-scaling strategy:
When demand is low, shift focus from network capacity to adding advanced transaction functionality including some non-monetary use-case support. Then watch users get attracted by new features. Non-monetary uses will drive extra p2p cash usage. If demand gets within an order of magnitude of capacity, then refocus to increasing capacity.

problem with this strategy: increasing capacity given the existing codebase implies major network disruption. once demand is within an order of magnitude of capacity, it is too late to refocus on increasing it without threatening usage and destroying value. thereby undermining goal of present adoption.

 

[wrstuv31]

If you're building an app and are planning for success, you realize that a 100,000X capacity compared to current demand is needed.

 

[solex]

problem with this strategy: increasing capacity given the existing codebase implies major network disruption.

So, protocol lockdown is threat to software changes needed for increasing capacity?
Was it too late to lift the 1MB in BTC when blocks started to reach 100KB?
.
@wrstuv31 Regarding 100,000x capacity. Is that still your major consideration when a dozen other app builders are improving their product functionality and gaining users. Remember this is open source. Your improvements for capacity can be easily incorporated into the other apps before they need it.

 

[79b79aa8]

@solex
i didn’t say anything about protocol lockdown, partly for the reason you point out. long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, it would have been good to have a spec. that was never to be. i do think scaling needs to be solved ex ante if large capital is to be attracted to a new asset class.

it was difficult to anticipate that the 1MB limit would be the achilles heel that would lead to BTC’s capture. after what happened, i do not think the comparison is apt anymore.

functionality is already here for fiat, no blockchain required. meanwhile, opening an account with an exchange to trade hard-earned for volatile crypto in order to make a purchase is one step too far from comfort. what is missing is a place to put your savings and and least clear inflation; right now, you can’t even do that with bonds.

following nash and friedman, i was attracted by the possibility of a currency not controlled by a central bank. instead i am offered a software project controlled by micronapoleon, backed up by an oponent project’s hash.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Christoph Bergmann I can only refer you back to this post by @solex

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1351#post-87050

I think you'll find more of us celebrating if BSV's users for which they wanted to demonstrate 128MB blocks actually turn up. Because based on the traffic I'm seeing, SV split the chain for nothing.

In celebration of their achievements, SV supporters now get the honorific 'yuge blockers' from me. It's better than large.

The same can be and was said about the Bitcoin Cash split. It's really funny how the Anti-BSV arguments have transformed to the same scheme as the Anti-BCH arguments.

One question remains: If the BCH scene parrots everything Core and friends said, because you realized after 18 month that Core was right all along - why not pick the original?

 

[Zarathustra]

 

[8up]

We had a 103 mb block on a livenet. It propagated good enough to allow a miner to find a next block a few minutes later, and my very cheap vps node was able to keep up with it. That's what we learned. If you are a big blocker you celebrate this. If not, you are a medium blocker

I don't like it when people pigeonhole others. Only lazy brains do that. That's not what I want to see here.

There are certain reasons for any kind of size blocks. I for one hold each of those coins and I will do so for the foreseeable future as I'm not a fortune teller. In 10 or 20 years maybe I will start to re-allocate my bets into one choice.

I celebrate the advancement of BSV, just as I celebrate the advancement of BCH, BTC/LN or any other project out there.

I'm tired of camp here, tribe there, invented here, fools there,...

True identity is found within oneself.

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

If 2.5 minute blocks is a thing, is there some place like a forum (similar to here) where it is being discussed, and adaptive blocksize as well?

 

[Mengerian]

@SPAZTEEQ

There is no significant proposal or discussion about changing block times, as far as I know.

There is some discussion on adaptive block size here: https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/pull/149

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

@Mengerian

thank you

 

[Norway]

If people against BSV want to understand our perspective, I reccommend this article by Eli Afram:

https://www.yours.org/content/the-split--and-the-future-now-we-build-3b3ba286bea6#

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Did you know that the ABC fork permanently froze coins sent to a segwit address? I wished I knowd why ..

 

[Norway]

@Christoph Bergmann

Did you know that the ABC fork permanently froze coins sent to a segwit address? I wished I knowd why ..

No, I didn't. How did that happen?