Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zarathustra]

Dolce & Gabbana joins the NFT gold rush

The fashion house is auctioning a collection of tokens on digital luxury marketplace UNXD.

wired.me

Dolce&Gabbana; and now Ernest & Young on the Polygon Sidechain. Where is Enterprise on the Bitcoin Forks?

.

 

[cbeast]

No need to wait for CSW much longer. He doesn't have a solution for war or totalitarianism.

 

[79b79aa8]

Dolce&Gabbana; and now Ernest & Young on the Polygon Sidechain. Where is Enterprise on the Bitcoin Forks?

i am skeptical of the longevity of NFTs and online luxury items . . . It would be interesting to know more about the EY collaboration. the problem for polygon is that a network is only as strong as its weakest link. and polygon's lower-level network, on which it depends for finality, is a rattle of weak links.

i did suggest to try Enterprise on the Bitcoin Forks, in particular through BU/BCH. I was told BU is interested in protocol, not enterprise. and in any case somewhere along the line BCH lost appetite for scale, which was a prerequisite.

If there are business use cases for a public distributed time stamped appendable database and digital contract processor -- this awaits confirmation -- sooner or later they will be looking at BSV. sustained avg block size of ~60MB over the past month, with several peaks above 1GB, afaik mostly from igaming, chinese social media txns and assorted NFT hype.

expected to be a drop in the bucket, or bust.

 

[AdrianX]

NFTs and online luxury items

LOL, I'm just as skeptical, what irony. "The new luxury is virtual". We're all going to live in luxury welcome to the matrix...

I was told BU is interested in protocol, not enterprise.

BSV strongest motivation is it's a protocol. not enterprise.

If there are business use cases for a public distributed time stamped appendable database and digital contract processor -- this awaits confirmation

IBM (aka enterprise serving enterprise) is providing those services to every tyrannical government/business that whats them, betting out BSV to the market. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-450-airlines-now-ibm-154953479.html

sooner or later they will be looking at BSV.

or IBM or a dozen other blockchain applications. BSV is cool and all, but while the big influential companies in BSV focus is on more tyranny and serving corrupt politicians, rather than propagating honest money, BSV's blockchain will remain vulnerable to block reorg attacks and those who are manipulating money to corrupt the system will continue to do so and, BSV could continue to be ignored as not relevant.

 

[Zarathustra]

LOL, I'm just as skeptical, what irony. "The new luxury is virtual". We're all going to live in luxury welcome to the matrix...

 

[Zarathustra]

i am skeptical of the longevity of NFTs and online luxury items . .

And I fear it's the future....

Metaverse style: the fashion houses vying to dress your online avatar

While the clothes are virtual, they are selling for real money

www.thenationalnews.com

 

[sgbett]

Fees Collapsing. Blocksize up!

 

[sgbett]

I'm not defending BTC, BTC can't and won't scale with a transaction limit, It'll eventually succumb to manipulation that'll undermine its integrity on or off-chain.

It is worth understanding the subsidy and the block reward: BSV to BTC in this instance is an apples-to-oranges comparison, so, it is not a threat or something to consider.

The 10 BSV block reward (less the subsidy of 6.25) has a relative value of about $1680 and about 10,000 inputs (total transaction count of 5,869). so that's about $0.28 per transaction. 1 BSV costs about $168 USD.

Let's imaging BSV was worth $10,000 (1/4 less than the price of BTC).

If 1BSV was worth $10,000 and the market rate for a transaction was the same at $0.28 per transaction, and you did the same number of transactions, 5,869, with the same real-world cost. The block reward would be $1680 worth of BSV that's 0.168 BSV and not 10 BSV.

The cost per transaction impacts the block reward, The amount in BSV will shrink based on the value of BSV.

A low price of BSV, and a relatively high block reward, is useful when you want to launder ill-gotten gains via a mining pool by declaring it as income.

Hmm, your BSV 10k scenario doesn't add up to me. Even using the above 0.25 sat/byte I think mining reward is much better.

If tx cost is based on sat/byte (as it usually is) then a typical ~250byte tx at 0.25 sats/byte is ~63sats or about 0.6cents

A 1gb block at 0.25 sat/byte is 2.5 BSV, which at $10k would be $25k reward.

I think it is because there is an assumption baked into your explanation that fees will drop by the same multiple that price goes up - so eg (lets assume current price of $200 to make the math easy) a 50x price rise in BSV automatically inferring a 50x reduction in sat/byte (0.25 / 50) would imply 0.005 sat/byte. I don't know that would necessarily be the case.

However - my example assumes fees stay at 0.25 sat/byte. Probably wrong, as competition in the marketplace will likely drive this down to some extent.

I suspect the reality will probably be somewhere in between (though this could be just me falling foul of Argument to moderation!)

 

[AdrianX]

Hmm, your BSV 10k scenario doesn't add up to me.

The block in question was 2GB block it had an average of $0.29 per transaction fee.

Price is what you pay Value is what you get. We're not talking apples and apples, I'm talking fee per transaction you're talking sats/byte if 1 sat was worth $0.01 we won't be using the BSV network.

Can you tell me what the total fees in a block reward in BSV would be in the following scenario: a BSV transaction costs $0.29 per transaction and there are 5,869 transactions, and the price for 1BSV is $10,000?

My point, value is what's important to users.

Even using the above 0.25 sat/byte I think mining reward is much better.

2GB has 2,000,000,000 byte. if each Sat pays 0.25 BSV per byte the total fee would be: 2,250,000,000 sats or 22.5 BSV

It looks better. But if the price of BSV was $10,000 then the block reward value would be equivalent to $ 225,000 if you divide the total number of transactions (5,869) by the total block reward it would be equivalent to paying $38.33 per transaction. I'm not opposed to that idea, but who's going to make data transactions and pay $38.33. I think that market is undeveloped.

Put another way a transaction is 500 bytes then it would cost 125 sats or $0.012.

 

[sgbett]

> 2GB has 2,000,000,000 byte. if each Sat pays 0.25 BSV per byte the total fee would be: 2,250,000,000 sats or 22.5 BSV

Heh I knew I would make a mistake somewhere!... equivalent of $225k per block sounds even better for miners

The reason I use sat/byte is because that is what miners (appear to) use as cutoff for processing tx. Whether or not that is "value" depends on what your use case is (ie how big your tx need to be - this dictates what your per tx fee is).

Whatever the total fee for a tx, it still resolves to a Xsat/byte for some value of X. Maybe miners will accept an even lower sat/byte for larger tx, or for high volumes of small tx (I beleive this negotiation processs is already underway between TAAL and others)

The $0.29 per tx avg/fee is due to weird block composition ie it has some big tx in there. People that might have an unusual use case that requires tx of this size need to decide for themselves whether its value for money, or perhaps think about negotiating with miners.

Post automatically merged: Sep 21, 2021

(or make their tx smaller )

 

[AdrianX]

equivalent of $225k per block sounds even better for miners

The thing is people pay in value, people are unlikely to want to pay tens or hundreds of dollars per transaction. To get a realistic picture of the value per transaction look at the dollar value of the block reward in fees and divide it by the number of transactions. that's more likely what people are willing to pay.

People, BTC excluded at this time, are unlikely to pay more per transaction as the value of the token increases, especially as we scale for the world, something BTC cant do.

The $0.29 per tx avg/fee is due to weird block composition ie it has some big tx in there.

Agreed, but I suspect they'd pay a similar price for the same composition and the same space on the blcokchain regardless of the price of BSV. Meaning that block was worth about $1680. and I don't think it would be worth $100,000 for the exact same block should 1 BSV be worth $10,000.

Post automatically merged: Sep 21, 2021

Bottom line, the amount of BSV per block is irrelevant, the value total in fees is relevant. Value is what you exchange for energy to mine a block.

 

[sgbett]

I agree that "people are unlikely to want to pay tens or hundreds of dollars per transaction" but which tx will attract those kind of fees, and under what circumstances.

To date, simple payments (e.g. p2p cash tx) have always been "virtually free" that was one of the Bitcoin selling points (before core sabotaged the bitcoin.org site!) and I don't see any projection that would invalidate that?

 

[AdrianX]

BSV is not advertising P2P cash transactions, It's selling itself as a database and CSW is on record saying that BSV is not money and will probably never be used as cash, but I digress.

My point is a 2GB block with 5,869 transactions that earned $1,680 in revenue will still earn roughly the same amount of revenue regardless of the price of BSV. (value is the driver not sats/byte)

I've explained why. It's because a 2GB block with 5,869 transactions is unlikely to ever earn $100,000.

So it's misleading to say a BSV block that earns 10 BSV will always earn 10 BSV. As has been illustrated, if the price of BSV goes up, the same block size with the same number of transactions with people paying the same value to transact would earn a block reward in fees of roughly 0.168 BSV, should the price of BSV be $10,000 per BSV.

It's not my job to lie to people and tell them BSV is going to earn more than BTC, in fact I'm trying to discourage the lies that are tarnishing the BSV name. I'm just debunking the stupid reasons people give as a rational for attacking BSV.

The bottom line is BSV block rewards are not making BTC miners concerned or jealous. It may take decades for BSV to attract those miners, they will just come over when it's profitable, it's just business. When they come it's unlickly there will be 10 BSV block rewards.

 

[79b79aa8]

USDT / CNY is dropping ~5% below the peg.
look out.

 

[pafkatabg]

I am very happy to see the Gigamegs. It's exactly what I wanted when I chose BSV side of the split. BSV delivered.

I bought BSV because I wanted what we have now. No regrets.

If the original bitcoin protocol at scale can't be successful, then the entire crypto space will be a bad memory after a decade when interest rates are higher and such speculation madness can't be funded.

 

[AdrianX]

I'm a small blocker, so not interested in big blocks for the sake of big blocks. The reason we need to tolerate large blocks is because we want Bitcoin to scale as designed.

The net result of more people using Bitcoin is an increase in the number of transactions, the net result of an increase in the number of transactions is larger blocks of transactions.

If we could have a large number of transactions and small blocks without compromising the design that would be an obvious choice. The reality is if you want Bitcoin the P2P Digital Cash System to work, you need to allow it to scale as designed and let the blocks of transactions grow.

 

[79b79aa8]

very helpful tech notes and clarification by @shilch

porkbun.com | domain for sale

 

[sgbett]

I'm a small blocker, so not interested in big blocks for the sake of big blocks. The reason we need to tolerate large blocks is because we want Bitcoin to scale as designed.

The net result of more people using Bitcoin is an increase in the number of transactions, the net result of an increase in the number of transactions is larger blocks of transactions.

If we could have a large number of transactions and small blocks without compromising the design that would be an obvious choice. The reality is if you want Bitcoin the P2P Digital Cash System to work, you need to allow it to scale as designed and let the blocks of transactions grow.

Well you got BCH for that. I got BSV for my vision of Bitcoin eating the internet. BTC have got their number go up fantasy coin.

This is pretty much exactly what we *wanted* back in the XT days, maxwell or back (I think) even suggested as much but then pivoted to relentless attack to discredit (had to keep the name!)

I couldn't be happier that everything is getting to compete on merit now.

 

[AdrianX]

Well, I've got all of them. and ABC coin aka ecash aka XEC it's the only one in demand right now. It'll be deviating from PoW to a PoW - Avalanch hybrid. (I'm not sure what that means in the long run or why that'd create demand at this time) another one of the only coins in the green today is AVAX a PoS Avalanch hybrid.

BSV is not big blocks for big block's sake. The idea of the metanet and data on-chain is not an exclusive idea, you can have all the benefits of BTC, all the benefits of BCH and all the benefits of eating the internet on one chain, There is no benefit of splitting them up. So long as there is a free market where peers can pay to write to the blockchain, there need only be one chain.

 

[sgbett]

You have me wrong - I agree there is no benefit in splitting them up. There never was. Core should have stuck to the plan, but they didn't for whatever reason(s). Splitting has caused immense damage, but I suspect that will eventually be repaired, and there will only be one chain (aside from perhaps some niche stuff).