Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Coming soon

Interesting take... without taking sides here, I think people should be consistent. Some people are saying that 32mb are nowhere near big enough to support certain businesses that want to use BCH. That may be so, but then those same people shouldn't argue against optimizations that would help us handle huge blocks. Just saying.

I think what they’re saying is ‘we don’t want or need these optimisations to handle huge blocks’

see more

Actually if you read the tweet; he is saying 128mb blocks are not needed right now. I'm just speaking in generalities; let's continue to think rationally and not become like btc fan bois who aren't even consistent within their own arguments.

i doubt BCH will split. Winner takes all. No one will start an alt coin.

We have 3 months for less than perfect communication to percolate.

I think there are better ways to handle all of this, but there is plenty of time.

see more

I think there are better ways to handle all of this

100% agree with that statement.

Load more comments

Stellar should be the closest. In theory, EOS would be closer, but people will have a very hard time deciding which one is a bigger scam: EOS or BCH, thus no guarantee if EOS will ever surpass BCH.

see more

Bch is just bitcoin without segwit and btc core roadmap. Sorry not a scam.

3 points · 1 day ago

I honestly don't see how on-chain scaling can deliver that promise. At all. Satoshi had a lot of things right, but he had *one* thing wrong: Moores law.

It's dead, in fact, and that's a *known* fact. It's not that we won't ever have improvements in computing anymore, but it's *significantly* slowed down.

If we make bitcoin into yet another centralized payment processor, we might as well just buy paypal and make it cheaper. It'd be much easier and give the same level of security.

see more

I honestly don't see how on-chain scaling can deliver that promise. 

That's ok because the rest of us can.

2 points · 1 day ago

New coins are created through mining/PoW. Coins are sent to collateralized nodes as payment for their service. No coins are created through staking. Your book is poorly researched.

see more

For their service

That's essentially staking. Sorry if you don't like that label but expect to get that criticism a lot.

2 points · 1 day ago

Well I can't stop people from rejecting reality and substituting their own like your doing by calling it proof of stake. It's not about what I like, It's clearly a PoW/PoS hybrid, expect to be corrected in the future if you state "Dash is proof of stake."

see more

It's clearly a PoW/PoS hybrid


Load more comments

"there is nothing that could be conceivably desired that cannot be done within bitcoin"

Depends what is meant by "within bitcoin". There are many things you cannot do directly.

For example, if you want to create a script that does a trustless wager based on the block hash of the previous block, there is no op code for that, or other similar ways of introducing randomness that don't rely on shared secrets which can be cumbersome beyond the most basic constructions (i.e. ChainBet).

If you want to make an agreement with 10 people that they will all get an equal share of revenue from, say, a donation address, there is no way to do that because you cannot create transactions ahead of time without knowing the amounts and utxo.

Some things can be worked around satisfactorily; others cannot.

2 points · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

there's no need to send $1 txns

send exactly the same txns we're sending on BCH

if it does nothing but fill up the mempool to bursting, well, that's a test result

OTOH BTC mempool has been emptying every so often so surely some of these txns will get mined

looking at johoe's stats, during the peak in Dec, the max mempool size was ~250K txns. wonder what happens when we send 2.5M like we're going to do on BCH? This is good data to collect.

see more

if you send a million transactions paying a penny, they will simply be dropped and all the transactions paying a dime will go through just fine.

1 point · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

so you're saying BTC currently requires a relay minfee of ~$0.10? that doesn't sound right.

here I see plenty of 1 sat/B txns, which is ~$0.015 USD

what's wrong with 1 sat/B?

see more

no, i'm saying all the actual people that want to send a transaction will simply bid a little bit more than the stress testers. You will not create the $50 fees by sending a million cheap transactions. You will get a " full mempool" but all the actual BTC users will be unaffected. The median fee rate won't rise very much.

Load more comments

Great job. I'm curious why BU still publishies a non bitcoin cash version.

Hey u/jonald_fyookball, have you considered making a Debian package for Electron Cash? I'm a Devuan user, and I don't want to download software that is not a Debian package.

see more

I'm not sure what you are aware but you've changed the fee calculator and it is not working efectivly.

If I click send "MAX" and adjust the fee to 0 the max balance should display the max balance it does not. If I set the fee to 0 the click max again shows less than the max balance and then editing the fee does not change the max balance. Prior versions of Electrum and Electron used to adjust the transaction balance when you changed the fee.

It is nice if you keep the historic behavior so people can add the extra satoshis to the fee and send a round number.

also since V3.1 you've changed the fee policy, after the 32MB hard fork I was able to send free transactions using electron, now that I've upgraded to 3.2 I am not able to send a low fee or free transaction as Electron won't broadcast it.

the historic behavior is preferred, (FYI I have my preference set to edit fee manually)

see more

thx... will investigate

Load more comments

I just hate bcash

see more

Haha. Awesome. Good indicator it's doing something right if a lot of people are spreading propaganda to make useful idiots like yourself hate it.

2 points · 4 days ago

When an SPV wallet is presented with a new chain

99% of wallets in existence today never do this at all. Only the early lightweight wallets from 2012 and 1013 ever did this. They have to do all this stuff (get block headers, compare POW, calculate merkle roots) because they get UTXO information from the layer 1 network directly. You can't trust the layer 1 network directly because each node is anonymous. Therefore, you have to do those tricks to make sure the node you are communicating with is capable of giving you recent block information that appears to be valid with respect to the set of nodes you're already connecting with.

If you're trying to understand what "SPV" is, the worse place to find that out is by reading posts on r/btc. Almost everyone on here is wrong about "SPV" in some way or another when they talk about it.

All of the confusion started when Electrum was released and it called itself "SPV" in all of it's documentation. They should have given their model it's own name, rather than just calling itself "SPV", but I understand why they did it (for marketing reasons).

These days almost every popular mobile wallet is based on software that uses the electrum server model of getting UTXO data from a layer 2 api server rather than layer 1. The most popular one today is copay, which is very similar to Electrum, except it's web based. Because it's web based, it appeals to a wider audience of developer (more devs are familiar with REST than are familiar with the wire protocol principles that electrum is based on)

The SPV wallet can be fooled into accepting an invalid block

No. This is not even true of old school BIP37 style "SPV" wallets. The big problem is "lie by omission". A sybil node can tell you that you have no transactions in any block, and the "SPV" wallet has no way to verify that claim to be true.

see more

Electron Cash does all this stuff (get block headers, compare POW, calculate merkle roots). The only aspect in which it is not "true SPV" is that it uses a server network to subscribe to certain addresses rather than querying (with bloom filters for example) layer 1 nodes. The lower level of privacy is an accepted trade off for speed as it would be burdensome to implement HD and have wallets sync from scratch on a restored seed.

An interesting question is: what new PoW function do you choose if you ever find yourself with a malicious mining do you choose it? who chooses it? And how do you choose who chooses it? hmmmmmm

Making op return very large would be bad from incentivization of using bch as cash. It should be more expensive at least marginally to use the blockchain for storage than for tx. Right now 220 bytes is the same size as a typical tx. If you have a huge op return then you get almost a pure sat/byte cost of the data itself without overhead of the tx skeleton, which would make it cheaper not more expensive.

Original Poster2 points · 5 days ago

Not sure if I agree. Naturally one saves data if one doesn't need to split, say, 1 MB in 5 Tx and can send in 1 Tx, this I pointed out.

But bytes are bytes, and the cost is per byte, so 1220 bytes of data where 220 bytes is the Tx and 1000 bytes is the op-return data pays the same as a "pure" tx of 1220 bytes, right? Unless I'm missing something here, looks like it is exactly the same.

see more

looks like it is exactly the same.

I'm arguing that it should be MORE expensive to use it as data. If you want to send 1000 bytes, you should need 5 on chain TX.

lets stay capitalist here, aiight?

you buy btc bch or other shitcoin of the week, thats on YOU. (general "you", not at you nathan)

however, when a website (i.e. starts pushing "Click here to buy Bitcoin", misleading some poor schmuck to buy BCH when everyone (media, academia, etc) calls BTC = Bitcoin

well, then thats not capitalism.. its sheisty behavior at best, fraud at worst.

I dont care if you buy BTC. Just be honest

see more

"Everyone" is wrong. Btc is btc. Bch is bch.

Article was extremely clear to me. Would like to see any serious refutation to it. They present a good case of the benefits.

2 points · 7 days ago

yup, I agree. It's not a given they will sell.

It's a risk BCH holders will have to manage, though.

I don't lie, and try not to FUD. So I won't claim it will definitely happen, because that would be FUD.

see more

They have already sold some. They will sell some (limited amount) more probably and then what? Business as usual.

Actually, BTC is maintaining $6K while BCH continues to drop like a stone.

see more

Tether life preserve pumping in ...3....2....

486 usd, which is over 12 times less then Bitcoin :P

see more

Less than BTC. Ftfy.

Long term bullish yes. A lot of things are building built on bch. Bitmain very committed to bch. Short term bitmain probably has too much supply and we are in the pain trade. Just hodl.

7 points · 8 days ago · edited 8 days ago

Bitmain is basically ICO-ing their BCH in hopes that they can dump it on some institutional investors since they can't sell it without crashing the market to 0.

Not sure how this is bullish or how this counts as commitment. If anything, this counts as them trying to run away from bad decisions.

Additionally how is a company owning 5% of all coins and owning most of the hashrate bullish anyway? (Not focusing here on the 'run away' attempt)

see more

This is your opinion/theory.

Cake day
March 25, 2017
Trophy Case (3)
One-Year Club

reddit gold

Since September 2017

Verified Email

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.