Quote from: garlonicon on July 08, 2024, 06:36:24 AM

Let's say that Dogecoin currently is at 150 GB, while Bitcoin is at 600 GB. Which means, that Bitcoin processed 4x more data than Dogecoin.
So, where are those "10x the blocks"?

Are we really discussing carrots and sandwiches here?
Fact! is Doge managed to outclass Bitcoin 7 times in a number of transactions:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-doge.html#6m
Without breaking down! And with users doing transactions on Doge because it was cheaper! Oh, and with maxis right hereon the forum recommending Doge cause it's cheaper!

I will again put the emphasis on Doge, maybe some here get how ridiculous the situation ahs become, we're debating about a competition with a f* meme coin!!!!

What I don't understand is why after talking so much about on CPU power you don't say it, with past 2009 power we could manage 1 MB blocks, with the current processing power of the average CPU we can 2.78MB, 7.65 MB...what is the number?

Quote from: Wind_FURY on Today at 08:27:21 AM

I never posted anything about the dynamic being "mysterious", but there is a dynamic. Miners are speculators too, and because common sense tells every miner that higher difficulty = less profit - and therefore an increasing number of miners will be shutting off their ASICs, then other miners could see that as an opportunity.
Plus Bitcoin's price projection.

If as per the topic title, the reward is gone and we see the fees at this level it means the network won't be able to fund 600Exas but 18Exa, so it terms of raw number the amount spent on gear to overpower it drops from 12 billion to 360 million! Same for the power requirement!

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 08:54:23 AM

Quote from: stompix on July 07, 2024, 02:25:16 PM

Also, miners don't protect against a Sybill type attacks, that's what nodes do!

Why not? Executing a Sybil attack requires re-doing the Proof-of-Work, otherwise the node can figure out it's surrounded by malicious nodes, since they will stop sending him blocks.

A Sybil attack means legit nodes will be broken between fake nods that would top them synchronizing and the false nodes would broadcast only their version of the blockchain, you don't need a majority in PoW since you don't need the chain with most work, you just need to make sure the chain with most work is not relayed between legit nodes!
With enough nodes, you can launch one even with 0.1% of the hashrate, just enough to actually create a block!

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 08:54:23 AM

Besides what garlonicon said about the philosophy behind BSV, have you actually attempted to sync a BSV node? I don't know man, you might... be surprised. Grin

So, did it break?
The tweet says only something about economically feasible, 2022 , we are in 2024 and BSV chain still works despite all the mumbo jumbo about intergalactic CPUs needed to run it!

Nobody here actually answers this:
What would be the technical restraints and how much more would cost a user in 10 years if the chain would move from 1vMB to 8vMB assuming all blocks would be full? If anyone thinks is not possible show me the numbers!!!!

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 08:54:23 AM

Dogecoin has 1 MB block size, and 1 minute time interval. That's the equivalent of 10 MB Bitcoin block size. So, not 10x, but 2.5x.

So 2.5x is sustainable? It is it 3.3x? Or is it 5.87x? Which one?