Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Christoph Bergmann]

It's nice they are doing this. But 170mb alone are Ryan uploading high res photos from San Francisco. It's more like a battle testing for real and sustained big blocks than adoption.

I don't think it will add much value at this stage. Maybe when business start using the chain for real things, like uploading contracts, records and so on.

Money is purchasing power. To have demand for money, it needs to be a unique kind of purchasis power, with things you can only buy with this money. That's what makes getting crypto into mainstream so hard. You can already use all kind of money's to buy everything with.

For some time bitcoin had (and still has) online drug markets as the unique purchasing power, later altcoins and shitcoins, now it's more like a purchasing power as a goal itself.

And there are thousands of coins competing to be just 'purchasing power'. It wouldnt make much sense for bsv to compete with all them on being the crypto mechanism for purchasing power. BCH does a good job for this.

But creating a unique purchasing power seems like a smart move from bsv. They are already years ahead with letting people purchase structured blocks pace, they are uncompeted in this field, not anyone even close to it.

Sure, it is already madness, let there be 1000 Ryans uploading hi res pictures, and we have gigabyte blocks. We will learn a lot about blockchain capacity, thats for sure.

 

[Norway]

@Christoph Bergmann
Ryan's uploads is just a drop in the ocean. Or bath tub. Or maybe a small glass, he he. But it's just a small fraction of the use. Do the math.

The tools are popping up at a fast pace. The Bottle browser now comes as a Chrome extension, 1-2 days after the browser itself was released! Just paste b:// and c:// addresses in the URL field of your Chrome browser.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bottle-for-chrome/elgcknijnoofagngfagklmaekokfnjcm/

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

The math is easy. The Bavarian digitalized historical archive alone stores 900 terabyte of data in a supercomputer center. Beside the trouble of relying on a very expensive single point of failure for preserving history - this is just one German province and just a part of their historical sources. So, the market must decide which data is valuable enough to be stored.

I see several turnouts. If data gets too much, miners can just raise the fee for opreturn data. In a far future we might see fractured storage, in which very big nodes only keep a subset of data and earn by selling access to it. The more valuable the data, the more incentives to store it too, and the more redundant the data will be.

About bottle: nice, very nice.

 

[Norway]

@Christoph Bergmann
The math I was talking about, was Ryan's contribution to the spike in usage. 170 MB is just enough to keep the average at 1 MB for 1-1.5 day. That said, I think he has been uploading more than that first album he published, so his contribution to the spike is more than I initially thought.

The trend from mid january is growth, though.

 

[cypherdoc]

we might see fractured storage

yes. opreturn should turn out to be required for the most important of file hashes; legal, financial. for the fun full file stuff, like pics, you'll get specialized services like Bitstagram where, if the volume gets great enough, they might charge a small fee for access to KKardashian's personal photos, which she might be able to monetize as well. competitive miner tx fees and archival access fees will keep a lid on overuse of opreturn.

btw, this whole archival service fee node concept may be the hidden answer to the long voiced complaint among hobbyist non mining full node runners; here's your chance to get paid. yeah, it may turn out not be cheap to run one in a datacenter but you'll get paid, perhaps alot.

 

[cypherdoc]

i find these metrics fascinating and potentially very bullish. in the usual case, i'd be tempted to label the rising avg and median tx fees undesirable, but in this case they're still only averaging 3 cents. in the scheme of things, not expensive. Ryan is charging the rather ridiculous fee of $100 per pic, but let's say he gets $1 per. that's still a huge profit and very worthwhile. blocksize is ramping as well, which is just a reflection of the above but still great news since we never have been able to say definitively just how all this capacity might be utilized. for me, as long as these opreturns pay a tx fee to a miner, it's valid and legit. miner profitability has dipped but i think it's more from the price than aggregate tx fees per block. probably just a temporary blip on a more generalized rising trend. if this keeps up, miners will notice:

 

[cypherdoc]

unless you believe BSV is breaking down from the long term trend of the 0.5 Coinex ratio to BCH (i don't), then we are due to get a BSV price ramp to catch back up to both BCH and BTC. in that case, the BSV miner profitability vs BCH in the above graph should cross them over to where BSV becomes more profitable to mine. watch out:

 

[Norway]

Mainnet stress test have started!

https://www.bitcoinfiles.org/30496be39101046329ee276590ed6ea3c8f72318d3de22915759ca9ced659723

 

[cypherdoc]

note how they've figured out a work around to what many devs would perceive as a technical deficiency :

Visit the UTXO split tool and make sure to split your UTXOs to at least as many UTXOs as the number of file chunks you will be uploading. In this example, that is 50. If you plan to upload more, you may want to create more UTXOs. You can currently create up to 750 UTXOs, which is adequate for nearly continuous uploads as your transactions will confirm every 10 minutes on average.

https://blog.moneybutton.com/2019/03/21/step-by-step-instructions-to-upload-large-files-to-the-bitcoin-sv-blockchain/

 

[79b79aa8]

@Otaci @shadders can you point to a place where one can get a good understanding of BSV's position/plans regarding P2SH?

 

[cypherdoc]

they've said they are going to revert it

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/sun-setting-p2sh-8b3c08f271c0

 

[cypherdoc]

its probably a good idea as I've always made the case p2sh is the conduit through which all sorts of offchain /sidechain shenanigans get hidden behind from LN to sidechains to Mast, Taproot, etc. page 18:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj2stSiiJzhAhXMJjQIHXS2C8kQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2Wi5t1Ld-74gTEkpD3RVsG

 

[79b79aa8]

thanks @cypherdoc, i had seen that medium post, but maybe more details are now available. also, i would have thought that some possibly desirable algorithms require P2SH multisig, but frankly i am not sure.

 

[Norway]

Is this plagiarism or the complete opposite?

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&locale=en_EP&submitted=true&DB=&query=Craig+Wright+or+nchain

 

[cypherdoc]

some possibly desirable algorithms require P2SH multisig, but frankly i am not sure.

its true that most multisig tx's are done today via p2sh as opposed to standard multisig. and it's true that alot of things can be hidden behind the redeem script. so it depends on your outlook. certainly many devs love the flexibility it provides. afaic, it's the main way of value of being moved offchain today.

 

[rocks]

I don't think that anyone reasonable person who has looked at either the code or the history can conclude that Satoshi left because he felt the project was completely finished. If you argue this, and you argue for > 1MB blocks then you are being inconsistent since he left that in. Even though he mentioned it could be removed later, he chose to leave it in so I guess its not "done".

I don't think Satoshi ever saw the protocol as limited to 1MB. It was one line of code and he talked about how easy it was to remove. Instead I believe he saw it is a temporary protection for an incomplete client that wasn't fully developed and capable of supporting the full protocol.

This is an important distinction and one that core manipulated confusion over.

Clients will always have some finite capability and limit to them because they exist in the real world, whether that capability is 1MB, 1GB or 1TB per block is immaterial. The protocol however is unbounded and without limit.

I think there is similar confusion today regarding scaling the BCH and BSV clients. I agree with the view that the current 500MB-1GB capabilities are enough given current usage, and energy at this point should be directed towards usage and adoption. If/when block usage increases, then clients can either invest in the next level of scaling, or be dropped from the network and unable to keep up. Those who are able to build the most scalable clients will benefit. This is what should have happened, except core manipulated the one line of code and prevented more capable developers from scaling their clients, so they left (Hearn, etc.). Whatever his faults, I doubt CSW will hold BSV back and instead let the market sort it out through fees. ABC however I am unsure because Armury might keep limits in place if ABC is not the fastest client, which would be core all over again.

 

[cypherdoc]

the problem with amaury is he never says "anything", imo, out of an insecurity of his technical abilities. when he does talk, he talks about economics ; nothing wrong with that except as technical lead, people expect to hear him talk about technical specifics in detail. of course there's always risk to this in getting something wrong so that's why he probably doesn't put himself out there. plus, I think instead of github he has his own private ABC development site, or "infrastructure", as @freetrader calls it. you can't even view commits apparently despite it supposedly being open source. correct me if I'm wrong. personally, I can't trust his vision, mainly because I don't know what it is. the great thing "still" about pwuille, is that when he talks everybody, including me, listens. he may be way off on the economics but his technicals are on point. imo, he is the sole reason BTC still has some credibility. and while I haven't compared the code I'd bet dollars to donuts that BCH's schnoor code was copied from core.

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[lunar]

Is this plagiarism or the complete opposite?

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&locale=en_EP&submitted=true&DB=&query=Craig+Wright+or+nchain

That is an absolutely staggering list. Talk about proof of work. You can kind of understand why some people screech faketoshi, it's beyond their comprehension that one individual could be so productive.

It's almost as if Satoshi left the space when he saw the beginnings of the CoreJacking and pursued the only defence possible, patent every conceivable extension and use case for Bitcoin before anyone else, in order to protect his baby from being abducted.

The next few years are going to see an incredible explosion of utility, as these applications are brought into real world use cases.

Mind blown.

 

[cypherdoc]

no no. I'm sure Faketoshi frauded every patent officer every single time over the several year time period. it's easy. I think it was light bulb u/Zectro who told me all it takes is a bunch of lawyers to intimidate your way to all those patents.there are several light bulbs in this very thread who would back him up on that.

ps: if you run into any hiccups along the way, all you have to do is sign a binding letter that promises to go up to Capitol Hill and testify under oath in front of a US gvt agency that your legit and everyone will believe you.