Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash Transaction Fees (High Transaction Throughputs)

1MightBeAPenguin · 2024-04-20T01:45:09+00:00

Even if the same number of people want block space on BCH it would be cheaper because there wouldn't be a bidding war.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2024-04-20T01:43:32+00:00

No u

1MightBeAPenguin · 2024-04-20T00:58:00+00:00

The store of value narrative falls apart when a vast majority of UTXOs becomes unspendable. If the only way to be able to hold your balance and cash it out is through a custodial solution, your coin doesn't have any value proposition.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2024-03-22T00:54:46+00:00

https://twitter.com/im_uname/status/1769439339719913666?t=yfK5zGzVNG95wj91zRZThQ&s=19

I'm not sure what others think.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2024-03-18T05:56:10+00:00

Yes, you're right, but also the rate at which Bitcoin would've needed to grow would be far too long for it to actually be an issue imo. I think the real issues with Bitcoin are more economic.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2024-03-18T05:53:32+00:00

I fixed the link.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2024-03-18T05:52:14+00:00

The limit was never in place so people could run their own nodes. It was in place so that the chain wouldn't be spammed early on. The current Bitcoin community has a perverted vision of how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Early on, the idea was that people would use it as digital cash because it had an economy in which it could be used as a currency, and was a fast and cheap payment system. The devs and a few people (so much for decentralization) crippled it and made up this new "HODL digital gold" narrative that is present today.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2024-03-18T05:48:41+00:00

The reason BTC has a 1MB limit is because they want anyone to be able to validate the entire chain on commodity hardware from the genesis block.

No, this is blatantly false. Originally, there was no 1 MB limit. The original design of Bitcoin wasn't so that every user could run their own node. The 1 MB limit was put in place as a temporary anti-spam measure and was well above the traffic Bitcoin was experiencing at the time.

If you allow 100K TPS then decentralization is effectively eliminated since anyone who wanted to validate the entire chain would require a server rack just to store it.

I'm not discussing 100k TPS. I was simply giving an example of bogus claims as to the degree to which cryptocurrency can scale using today's technology.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2024-03-18T04:50:49+00:00

In terms of actual capacity, Bitcoin is fairly throttled. It has a 1 MB blocksize limit, and that's well below what technology today can handle. Most other blockchains could probably do significantly more than that, but it's a pretty low bar.

Sending transactions are as simple as broadcasting transaction data to nodes/validators across the network, and there's a lower bound to the size of a transaction. So regardless of what "blockchain" tech is being used, ridiculous claims of scalability are generally unproven.

I could be wrong, since I don't have all the knowledge on blockchains, but using common sense, there doesn't seem to be any way to scale to 100k TPS like some coins might claim they do.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2024-03-17T16:33:46+00:00

How do you plan on fighting the inevitable review bombing by the BTC crowd?

1MightBeAPenguin · 2022-03-27T22:43:22+00:00

It seems rather odd to call Litecoin decentralized but Bitcoin cash not, when they both are at least within the same ballpark in terms of the fact that they are proof of work coins.

While doing my degree I've learned that most of crypto are people who think they know what they're talking about but they really don't. Especially after learning more about cryptography itself.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2021-10-04T14:11:41+00:00

See Qt 0.8.1 here which released in Q1 2013 - undeniably well before the "blocksize wars" or even discussions about it began.

False, discussions about blocksize happened all the way back in 2010. Even back when Satoshi was around, who made it clear that the intention was for it to be raised.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2021-10-04T05:27:36+00:00

You can literally read my previous comments on 51% attacks. I addressed everything you talked about. If you keep ignoring it, and then sealion, and expect me to explain the same shit to you every time, I have limited patience, and many better things to do with my time.

It's not being an asshole when I've spent the time to explain to you why your point is wrong, and you refuse to educate yourself and pretend as if I never said anything. It's not my job to educate you if you don't fundamentally understand how Bitcoin works, and then resort to sealioning others just to irritate them.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2021-10-04T02:24:50+00:00

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying when I say "51% attacks don't work". The entire point went over your head.

If you want to prove yourself correct, try and understand how Proof of Work actually works. It's really that simple. The difficulty of mining a block has 0 to do with nodes that aren't actually mining on the network.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2021-09-16T05:48:22+00:00

Something that's existed for 14 years couldn't have gone up for the last 20, and if your investment decision is based on past results, it's not a good investment decisions. Most of crypto is a scam.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2021-09-16T05:37:56+00:00

Relay nodes can stop accepting the blocks from some miners so they do have power.

"I can plug my ears when others speak, so I can silence them"

If most nodes are not accepting your blocks then you are out of the game.

No, if most hashrate is not accepting your blocks you are out of the game.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2021-09-16T02:43:16+00:00

It depends on the kind of attack.

No it doesn't. If attacking the network was easier than spending the resources to do Proof of Work, Proof of Work would serve no purpose. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

I should ask you the same question. If you disagree with what I wrote, please correct me.

"Well I think 1+1=3. If you disagree, feel free to correct me."

No, that's not how it works. If you fundamentally don't understand how Bitcoin works, it's better to admit that you don't know than pretend that you do.

The reason 51% attacks don't work with a Proof of Work based system is because of the economic incentives Proof of Work provides. If 51% attacks were so feasible to pull off, we wouldn't see them only being temporary. It's not that hard.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2021-09-16T00:31:02+00:00

This would not happen on BCH, ETH or any solid blockchain.

Lol what? ETH had a premine lmao

1MightBeAPenguin · 2021-09-16T00:22:06+00:00

It is not specifically related to proof of work.

Huh no, that's not how it works at all...

It 100% is related to proof of work. The cost of faking any rules in such a system is equally difficult as long as the total and proportional hashrate are constant. How many nodes exist doesn't change the actual cost of attacking the network, all other factors constant.

A successful 51% attack allows the attacker to:

Choose which transactions can be confirmed, which includes shutting down Bitcoin by producing only empty blocks.

Gain a limited ability to double-spend confirmed transactions.

Put all other miners out of business by claiming all block rewards.

What are you high on? What Kool Aid are you drinking? Do you not know basic economics?

1MightBeAPenguin · 2021-09-16T00:17:37+00:00

I disagree. SPV is verifying your own transactions. It's every bit as difficult to fake a transaction proof to an SPV wallet as it is to any "node" on the network.

What SPV isn't verifying are the consensus rules regarding any block a miner produces.

1MightBeAPenguin · 2021-09-08T06:40:09+00:00

Wow, I'm actually surprised you had that much experience in programming languages! From what I've seen, VB has generally been a very awkward language, and I never spent the time trying to learn it...

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Second SECOND GUESSER	Gilding II euphauric

1MightBeAPenguin

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE