Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
reward: 14.883006
reward from fees: 14.883006 - 12.5 = 2.383006
txn count still has quite a bit to grow to surpass the subsidy, even after next halving.

the alternative is to expect the coin to roughly double in value every four years, for as long as there is a subsidy, to maintain present profitability. that does not seem to me to be a sufficiently conservative proposition to attract long-term investment.

but if such sustained growth does occur, the first model is that much more attractive.
 

_mr_e

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
159
266
@cypherdoc
They will spin this as "more and more of the LN is moving to private nodes and tor and onion blah".

I wish I was joking.
Casa nodes have all moved behind Tor, there has been a push. I just used lightning to buy a gift card and get 4% BTC on foldapp and I gotta say it was a pretty pleasant experience. Surprisingly, that transaction will not show up on any of your metrics.
 

_mr_e

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
159
266
Small payments. Bulk of your coins can sit on the base layer with a small amount on lightning for quick and easy payments. Split your coins and use the best tool for the job depending on your use cases. (And casa nodes do indeed have an onion address for receiving connections, as the network moves more in that direction it will strengthen)
 

trinoxol

Active Member
Jun 13, 2019
147
422
Germany
I don't think the halving is going to affect any chain too much. Even if the security level is reduced by half there are little practical consequences. There are no nation states that buy a billion dollar worth of ASICs to destroy Bitcoin.

Also, it looks like a bull market is about to start. To me, it looks like the security level is going to increase massively on all three Bitcoin family chains over the next few years because of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Small payments. Bulk of your coins can sit on the base layer with a small amount on lightning for quick and easy payments. Split your coins and use the best tool for the job depending on your use cases. (And casa nodes do indeed have an onion address for receiving connections, as the network moves more in that direction it will strengthen)
what makes you so sure the dropping public metrics aren't from the obvious; progressive disuse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sgbett and Norway

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
so how do you distinguish between volatility vs failure? after all, many of us have described precisely how LN is a bad idea.
 

_mr_e

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
159
266
By using it and seeing that it works pretty well and solves many use cases, and will only get better with time.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
contrast that with a totally public blockchain like bsv, where you can see the progress in the form of price, size of blocks produced, improvements in propagation and validation (no more apparent delays), development projects. metanet, etc.
[doublepost=1564861527][/doublepost]well, apparently LTC and XRP work pretty well too but I'm sure you see them as doomed projects too.
[doublepost=1564862100,1564861447][/doublepost]LN narrative constantly changes; from like "look at how many nodes and btc are available" to "nvm the drop off, it's going blind despite us not being able to prove it".
 
  • Like
Reactions: bitsko and Norway

Griffith

Active Member
Jun 5, 2017
188
157
Honest question: Why does BU keep carrying on? What point is there?

It seems that ABC implements the BCH strategy just fine. With BU abandoning BSV, the emergent consensus idea is dead with BU.

Maybe just port the features and optimizations over to ABC and shut BU down? Bundle development resources in ABC.
why would you drop the higher performance client to pool resources into the less optimized one?
[doublepost=1564872129][/doublepost]glad to see this thread is still in full circlejerk mode, never change guys, never change
 
  • Like
Reactions: freetrader

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693

What happened to "lockdown the protocol"?

What happened to the "devs gotta dev" barb against too many changes to simple p2p money which was proven to work 10 years ago?

Cryptocurrencies compete against each other in a Darwinian manner with the survival of the fittest measured by growth in each coin's network effect. Persistent splits in any blockchain split the network effect for that coin, reducing overall usability.

This is a permissionless environment for users. No one can force users to use any particular coin. Core Dev fails when they think they can force users onto the LN. Users come and go at will. So, a winning strategy is to welcome new users, create a friendly environment, offer different types of transactional functionality and services, while minimising kicking users off the coin during periodic software upgrades.

A coin with a stable protocol should find it easiest to maintain its network effect. I am not seeing it in this BitMex graphic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX
By using it and seeing that it works pretty well and solves many use cases, and will only get better with time.
Yes, I have a similar experience. It works, often quite well, and I paid some beers and coffees with it.

But it works less well than bitcoin. Depending on your network, the amount to send and the number of hops between you and the receiver, processing times of 30 seconds happen often. Sometimes a payment fails.

If the routing nodes are behind tor, shouldnt they be visible? Somehow a node must know to route over it...
 

bsdtar

New Member
Apr 1, 2019
20
52
A coin with a stable protocol should find it easiest to maintain its network effect. I am not seeing it in this BitMex graphic.
Yeah, I was curious about these splits so I did some research.

1) Nodes in blue failed to upgrade their clients, so they followed the correct chain until a >128MB block was mined (592605). Even on BCH we have a bunch of nodes running old versions, but what really surprised me is that 2 miners (dpool.top and unknown) failed to upgrade and mined 52 blocks on a forked chain.

2) Nodes in green have upgraded, but are probably bandwidth constrained (they are still active in the network, thus they haven't OOMed). Something similar happened to one of my nodes a few days ago. Mempool rose above the 300MB default limit and lost synchrony. Compactblocks had to request a lot of transactions from the peer that first announced that block. This peer failed to respond with this subset of transactions before the download timed-out (10mins). My node repeatedly tried from other peers and kept failing. A few block headers later and bitcoind started requesting the entire block instead of a subset of transactions. Note that while trying to download this one block, the network was really active with many new INVs and TX coming, which had to be fully downloaded before being rejected due to missing parents.

What happened to "lockdown the protocol"?
I find it interesting that changing OP_RETURN, sun-setting P2SH and conditionally reenabling the original sighash algo are not considered breaking changes here. This same people complained that faaaar smaller changes like CDS and CTOR would break the existing ecosystem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trinoxol

RollieMe

Member
May 6, 2018
27
49
I've got a lot of serious reservations about Bitcoin SV but these issues under discussion aren't really problems for me.

First, any node that isn't invested enough to even do the bare minimum of upgrading their software every few months can immediately be ignored IMO.

Second, scaling (at any pace) is going to make stuff break, guaranteed. If nodes that aren't economic nodes (miners, services) fail to keep up well, who cares? BCH big blockers have been ridiculing the rasperry pi nodes for years now and there's no difference here except, well, scale. If the nodes aren't contributing something economic they're just wasting electricity. It only takes one honest node to signal that a blockchain has been subverted or corrupted. A million hobbyist nodes doesn't add anything to that.

If the economic nodes (miners, services) fail to keep up then that's raw competition and economic incentives at play isn't it? What's the alternative? A strategy of "no one gets left behind" and waiting for everyone to be ready to go to the next level isn't going to scale at all and will just stall.

You could argue that the pace of BSV scaling is unnecessarily disruptive but I'm sympathetic to the "scale rapidly now or be killed by block reward halvenings" idea. I also think that if they can get to a level of demonstrating stable, massive blocks that itself will generate demand for their blockchain. I'm only minimally invested in BSV so I don't really care much and it may end up being a failure for any number of reasons but I'm glad I get an opportunity to watch their strategy played out.