Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on July 09, 2024, 06:46:57 PM

If the victim node reaches July 2024, and the attacker launches a Sybil attack on him with 0.1% of the hashrate, mining a block will take him 10/0.001 = 10,000 minutes, which is like a week. The victim can just look it up, if they notice they're stuck at the same block for days.
~
That's why I don't see why eclipse or sybil attacks are so concerning.

You understand I said 0.1% just for the sake of saying it, to show the actual threat!
There is no "victim" node in a sybill attack, it's an attacker isolating from miners' other nodes, your node will still be fed information that will be accepted as true since it's real legit information, it will simply be cut from the other what you call "legit" block, but this block will also be legit!
I love how you dismiss things that even the bitcoin wiki treats as problematic.

Quote from: garlonicon on July 10, 2024, 07:13:44 AM

The number of transactions is quite bad estimator, because you can have transactions, which takes 100 bytes, and you can have transactions, which takes 100 kB. You can have a single-user transaction, and you can have a CoinJoin, or some batched transaction, involving hundreds of users. Should all of them be counted as "1 transaction = 1 transaction"?

And suddenly you went from CPU requirements to the size of the tx, please do tell me what the difference in CPU power needs to verify a 100kb inscription versus a 10kb one! Is it s10x? Cheesy

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on July 09, 2024, 06:46:57 PM

Quote from: stompix on July 09, 2024, 01:10:38 PM

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 it's not possible show me the numbers!!!!

You mean from 4 vMB to 8 vMB? The block size is not 1 MB, this is 2024!

My bad, if we keep shifting through units at one point it's inevitable I would use even virtual Mbps.

Quote from: garlonicon on July 10, 2024, 07:13:44 AM

Do you have BSV node? Does your friend have it? People are whining on forum, that they don't want to run BTC full node, with 600 GB, and you want to tell them, that 10 TB is fine?

If you are OK with 10 or so individuals controlling the currency, then you can design a much better system than Bitcoin.

Do you have a miner? I have still 3 of them! Do you have the power to run them? Do you expect people to live in houses with 10kw power draw and heat-producing louder than a Karcher industrial vacuum thing?

Are you ok with 10 companies controlling the whole mining?
Weird how the threat of decentralization appears only when we talk about nodes, when we talk about mining it's crickets!

Quote from: d5000 on July 10, 2024, 12:04:35 AM

I think a 10MB Bitcoin chain should still be ok. But it would harm the fee market (transaction fees would probably go back close to 1 sat/vByte) and thus miner income.

You know what's funny?
I know 5 guys who still mine on this forum and are still active, pretty weird that their opinion is different.Why would be that?
Because it's simple, fees at 5/sat are worth 1 million a day, please don't make me do the math again for how much hashrate would that be able to keep alive, but it's 3 times LESS than what Core alone has, and 50% of what the next two big guys have!

And with this, we're finally touching the subject!

Instead of you all criticizing me and the block size, do you guys have a solution for this longterm as the title says?

The issue is simple
-fees are right now 1 million a day
-efficiency is around 20w per the, at 5 cents kwh it's 2.5 cents per day
-used gear is for sale at $5 per the th/s

Do the math on how much is needed and tell me how impossible it would be for someone targeting a 2 trillion market to do it!

And of course, nobody promoting PoS coins would even think of launching such an attack cause it won't .....
How much profit do you think bagholders from ETH would gain when the leading PoW coin is attacked?