pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 15 replies \ @ryu 27 Oct \ parent \ on: BIP 444: Reduced Data Temporary Softfork bitcoin
Most sources have it at its current 2 MB blocksize at 3-7 TPS, so multiplying the highest value gives us 56 TPS; the lowest value at 3 TPS multiplied would still give us 24 TPS, which whilst not comparable to VISA's TPS is far better than what BSC has now.
Still nowhere near BCH's 200 TPS, but an improvement would be felt. That's not even factoring in transaction fees, which aren't a thing (officially) in BCH due to its prioritization of cheap and fast transactions (most of the time), but if you wanted something confirmed instantly, you could pay 50¢ or a full U.S. dollar (or stacker pleb's local fiat equivalent) in sats if you so chose.
write
preview
0 sats \ 14 replies \ @ek 27 Oct
Have fun with 200 TPS while I use lightning.
Fees aren’t a thing in BCH because there’s no demand.
Your instant confirmation is zero or one confirmation. You should not accept on-chain payments with just one confirmation.
reply
0 sats \ 13 replies \ @ryu 27 Oct
I use what I do currently in spite of my increasingly vocal hangups, because it's as I've said on Nostr, it's still better than fiat in spite of everything being done to make it suck.
Hopefully you're acknowledging where Lightning falls short at both a technical and usability level (when it works, I mostly have no issue with it functionally). If things had to be done the exact way it was again, but with eight years of hindsight, the best of Lightning itself and Cashu would be the system I'd prefer under those specific circumstances.
reply
25 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 27 Oct
Hopefully you're acknowledging where Lightning falls short at both a technical and usability level
I do
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @ryu 27 Oct
Good to hear that, even if you don't feel the way I do about the scalability problem (and question). We can both agree though that undefined blocks that are allowed to balloon to hell are bad, at the very least.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 27 Oct
What’s an undefined block?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ryu 27 Oct
This shit.
reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 23h
Ah, I didn’t see that you meant “undefined” with “allowed to balloon to hell” and not undefined + “allowed to balloon to hell”
reply
5 sats \ 7 replies \ @ek 27 Oct
Do you acknowledge increasing the block size to “scale bitcoin” does not make sense given that it does not solve the problem, only delay it?
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @ryu 27 Oct
Scaling it to try to beat traditional payment processors, I do agree that's a nonsensical pursuit and endeavor.
Increasing it to remain and retain competitive ability and decentralization at an individual level isn't something I feel is nonsense though.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 27 Oct
If we can’t beat traditional payment processors and bitcoin will still actually be used for payments one day everywhere in the world, these traditional payment processors will build centralized solutions on top.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ryu 23h
Ideally, the statist asskissing ceases well before it reaches the displacement point. Otherwise, it's globally adopted at the cost of disruptive impact and ability to truly finance freely.
Niche Displacement > Accepted Subversion
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 23h
Now you’ve lost me but that’s okay
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ryu 23h
What part creates a schism? The entire point of Bitcoin as it was originally created was to disrupt both traditional banking systems and the global fiat currencies underpinning them; I'm sure the OG cypherpunks (who are all using Monero or Pirate now, or something even more niche and/or private) and Satoshi themselves would be pissed seeing JPMorgan Chase and firms like Blackrock gush all over it now that it poses no systematic threat.
view all 2 replies