Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Lightning Network vs Bitcoin cash
by
Anti-Cen
on 31/12/2017, 19:55:24 UTC



Is that computed as a side effect of the fact that people don't have, say for example, another 200 gb to dedicate to block chain for each year that passes?

Interesting indeed, nice graph.

if the developers working on BTC could not do the sums like years ago to work out that BTC would not scale
then they should have the block size set using a CONST and seem to be enjoying the current state of
affairs where we are being ripped off by the mining cartel.

See https://blockchain.info/pools

this 200gb problem a year growth in the size of the block-chain will result in having to use a AS-400 computer
to process that amount of data because to balance a wallet you need to walk back down the chain (Link list)
and trace all the part coins in the wallet back to the original mined coins which more or less involves scanning
all 200gb for each transaction and this process gets repeated by all 20,000 nodes on the network.

Distributed systems are not built like this as i am sure many of you here already know and they are not even trying
to clear down the mempool that stands at 115,564,705 bytes and we need to do a bit of house clearing ourselves
and it's time to call out the garbage collector to dump 90% of the full nodes because we don't need this many

if they continue to refuse to implement code shown below
public static money MaxFee=1.50 // Less miners because not enough cream to go around
or
public CONST int32 BlockSize=4 //Just like any decent programmers would use

Then we need to publicly name and shame BTC and it's developers and try to salvage Cryptocoins by backing
one of the other forks because as we speak it's our money and effort that is being dragged down by this mess