Im dont think increasing the bloclsize is the solution in the longrun, but for now i have to admit that bch is working better than btc
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Im dont think increasing the bloclsize is the solution in the longrun, but for now i have to admit that bch is working better than btc
BCH have sucessfully tested 1Gb blocksize.
block size still won't prevent spamming which is what bitcoin cash do to bitcoin all the time lol
Increasing the block size does make it more risky for spammers and more expensive when they don't hit their own blocks.
bigger block sizes will lead to more centralisation as it becomes more expensive for nodes who get no rewards as it is. 1GB block size is not feasible even 8MB would lead to problems once the blocks become full as not many people can afford to download 1GB every day just to run a node. (8MB * 6 *24 = 1152mb per day)
If people make three sends a month... they are spending $120 a month!!!!!!
This buys a fuckton of computer power.
If you are making one Bitcoin transaction every 10 minutes then you are spending over $6,400 a day!
I'm saying Bitcoin should try 1.25 or 1.5.... 2 maybe.
you can't go from 1 to 1.25 that's not how binary works you can go from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 -32 technically it's 1024 bytes to 2048
@bayareacoins
I agree with you on that, bitcoin core is far away from being the optimal solution, and bitcoincash, atm is behaving way better! But i fell that in the long run increasing the blocksize is not the solution, something else needs to be done!
Nodes do not get paid only miners get paid!
How are you calculating the fees exactly? the most I ever paid for one transaction was $10 although I did have to wait 12 hours
Why the downvote @the-ego-is-you?
Satoshi didn't intend for ordinary users to run full nodes. Miners would specialize in their field and regular users would not be forced to run anything.
The decentralization of the Bitcoin network was supposed to happen spontaneously and be encouraged by the use of capital incentives already included in the first version. This also necessitates keeping transactions on the main chain, which is likely why the specific term "decentralization" was never used in the white paper.
Aside from this, Mores law and an interest in developing better technology, if not directly for Bitcoin itself then for other industries, was expected to help with any limits to the scalability of the chain. With time, the security of the network will increase both in terms of hashing power and aligned interest.
If by some chance, for any reason, this still is not enough in the future it is of course always possible to fork again. But if venturing outside of what is properly called "Bitcoin: A peer to peer electronic cash system" and which fundamentals were detailed by Satoshi himself, it can no longer be called Bitcoin.
There are other solutions that work better than BCH.No one want's centralized crypto.
BCH is not centralized. BTC is the coin that is centralized as Blockstream controls the Core devs and they have broken Bitcoin.
It's centralised in terms of who pumps it, manipulates it and markets it. It's how big banks subvert something that's decentralised.
Big banks are invested in most major coins now and especially Bitcoin Legacy/the implementation of supposed "Bitcoin" developed by Core team.
Investment alone is not meaningful to attack as "centralization". Satoshi wanted investment and he wanted miner specialization. He did not however want a developer team to ignore his vision as he had clearly expressed it in print.
It's the incentives in Bitcoin (as per the whitepaper, in now in Bitcoin Cash that is, which still retains these incentives untainted by the developers) that makes it secure and viable as a global money.
-Just to answer your worst concerns however, even if there was a 50% attack this could be limited and even if limiting it was unsuccessful we could still fork.
It's also a mute point who markets it. I could be the best or most well known marketer of Bitcoin one day. Up until recently (when it diverged from Satoshis white paper) Roger was the most prolific marketer of the "older" Bitcoin brand. Does any of this make it "centralized" in the truly meaningful sense of having control of what happens to individual users funds? The answer is clearly no.
I think ripple is showing that there is a clear market demand for centralized crypto.
Agreed. It's unfortunate perhaps, but it will also draw in a lot of experts from other industries and this will likely end up helping the space in the long run.
This solution is Satoshiso own solution and intended for those that already hold or support the early concept of Bitcoin. Not for those that think Bitcoin is irrelevant or that don't see any issues with a small and congested main chain.