I was interested in the actual difference between on-chain and off-chain, segwit vs non-segwit Bitcoin, found and read:
trustnodes.com
After this I can say that I like the idea of on-chain scaling more. I believe it is a better proposal and lowers the risk of fraud.
PS.: I hold a computer science degree
PPS: Would like to hear your thoughts from a technical perspective
Other urls found in this thread:
mail-archive.com
twitter.com
Won't matter soon.
No reason not to scale both on and off the chain simultaneously though.
In my experience, everyone who has actually studied this and also cares about the future of currency, ends up with the same conclusion.
sure. but at some point it would simply be redundant to hold both
That doesn't make any sense. What do you mean "redundant to hold both?".
On chain transactions and off chain transactions aren't something you "hold".
that's it. i guess the root problem is that they did not wait yet with the fork. and segwit kindof "hijacked" the bitcoin brand
The BTC team has censored dissent on every bitcoin forum they could, on the official forums and on reddit you get permabanned if you speak positively of BCH
hold in means of their usage in general. i believe at some point (if and when crypto becomes the only currency) there is no need to have both. it would just make things more complicated.
>on-chain scaling more
do you?
you really do?
you want BTC to scale?
do you want BTC to scale to visa levels? how big do you think the blocks will be?
are you stupid?
holy shit
bigger blocks is only a small patch for the solution, it's not the real solution
fuck I'm so fucking tired of all the retards who think they can give an opinion on something they know nothing about
In order to have chain transactions, there needs to be on chain transactions.
So the options are ;
On chain and off chain
On chain
No chain
What exactly are you attempting to advocate for?
I think on-chain scaling is better too. However Cash is a chink power grab as much as LN is a Jewish one.
The solution is another fork which addresses the on-chain scaling issue and doesn't fuck around with anything else.
>i'm more intelligent than satoshi
could you imagine 10 years ago that you would be able to stream a blu-ray movie on the go on a handheld device?
Yes as there were handheld players even back then
and you streamed a blu-ray quality movie in the open? how?
on-chain obviously, as that's the only real transaction
>no one can be smarter than some dead larper
Very interesting link, thanks !
What is the problem with big blocks for random consumers?
they believe it will become too resource-hungry when crypto gets widely adopted
It makes people less willing to run a full node, and instead use Electrum or similar light clients, which is essentially what 2nd diagram is.
"At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then,
sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto"
(((they))) are about to get fucked.
>It makes people less willing to run a full node
This is the only talking point I've ever heard against BCH, however I've never really heard it backed up by numbers.
thx
>PS.: I hold a computer science degree
Hey cool, I also have a computer science degree. I even have a PhD in computer science. And I'm preferring Lightning, side chains, and other second and third layer solutions.
Not gonna explain why, though. I did my fair share of explaining but the stream of newcomers and trolls is endless.
>but
*because