> What numbers are you basing that on? Bitcoin is 1.5KB/s.
You know you can't verify an incomplete block, right? If you think you can just plow ahead after getting the first packet... you are going to have a really bad day once the other miners notice that you can be fooled into wasting hash power on bogus headers. You know that blocks get announced by the miners after they solve the hash, in chunks that can be up to the max blocksize, right? For Bitcoin that is 1MB, for bcash it is 32MB. Imagine if NASDAQ offered two levels of service: one that put the FIX protocol behind a 1MB buffer, and the other behind a 32MB buffer - which one would be disadvantaged? Anyone sitting at the 32MB buffer would be getting their lunch eaten. This is about as fundamental as it gets, so you might want to do some reading - because you've clearly got a big blindspot.
> No they don't. The examples you are talking about are rare and have very little impact.
If you are talking about bitcoin, you are very wrong - it is a thoroughly documented occurrence, it even has a name: the selfish miner strategy. If you are talking about bcash, I dunno one way or the other - I don't pay much attention to the joke coins. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBC48266.2020.9169436
> How long do you think it takes to send around 900KB ?
Again, you need to actually do some reading on how mining works and what the network propagation characteristics are. I really don't want to have this come off as meanspirited, but it needs to be said: you obviously thought you knew how things worked, and you obviously don't - I wonder how many people you've misinformed.
> you are going to have a really bad day once the other miners notice that you can be fooled into wasting hash power on bogus headers.
What are you even talking about here? 900KB takes a fraction of a second to transfer on a modest internet connection, any miner with $10 a month for a VPS can transfer that is a millisecond. No one said anything about downloading fractions of blocks, you hallucinated that.
> Anyone sitting at the 32MB buffer would be getting their lunch eaten. This is about as fundamental as it gets, so you might want to do some reading - because you've clearly got a big blindspot.
What is it that you think is even happening? Blocks get sent out. One has 32x the transaction throughput. Why do you think 32MB or more would be anything other than trivial to send and receive? Any miner can send and receive that in a second.
> I don't pay much attention to the joke coins.
Bitcoin cash already has more sustained transactions than bitcoin. Maybe you should reach beyond the propaganda of /r/bitcoin
> it even has a name: the selfish miner strategy.
Miners that do that take the risk that someone else will propagate a block before them since they didn't share the previous block they found. Empty blocks have much more of an impact on bitcoin because the throughput is so constrained. Empty blocks do not have much of an impact on the usability of bitcoin cash because it has plenty of throughput. A miner maliciously mining empty blocks on bitcoin will also leave a lot of money on the table because they won't get transaction fees.
> you obviously thought you knew how things worked, and you obviously don't
Everything you said is either completely made up or an exaggeration of some minor effect. In your last message you compared something with a 10 minute window to millionths of a second. For some reason you ignored this and ignored the actual numbers of modern bandwidth. You keep using hyperbole but won't quantify anything because the numbers don't add up.
> What are you even talking about here? 900KB takes a fraction of a second to transfer on a modest internet connection...
You are assuming that there are no bad actors in the network who might not want to transfer a block in a fraction of a second, and don't have to because they control the packet rate. Also you seem really hung up on this 900KB figure, you've repeated it in 8 recent posts. You know bitcoin's 30 day average block size has been above 900KB since 2018-10-24? But why would you harp on bitcoin's block size when you are advocating for a max block size that could accommodate all of Visa's transactions? Is is because you know that a 300MB+ block guarantees the death of decentralization and you'd look ridiculous pretending otherwise? To quote you before you presumably exchanged your BTC to double down on your bcash airdrop:
"Once again, whatever people's views on bitcoin at least realize that mining hashes don't dictate how many transactions can be processed by a miner. They mine a block, then they include as many transactions as they think they can get away with and keep the latency low enough to propagate."
Ah yes, that has worked out great for several exchanges and various other cryptocurrency related services. The cloud has been great, fill it with all the things.
> No one said anything about downloading fractions of blocks, you hallucinated that.
You don't seem to understand how packet switched networks function either. Go lookup "MTU", I look forward to hearing how even the most modest internet connection enjoys IPV6 with a 300MB jumboframe policy spanning the entire network path!
> Why do you think 32MB or more would be anything other than trivial to send and receive? Any miner can send and receive that in a second.
It isn't that it'd take them 10 minutes to download the entire block... it is that they are at a 0.92 second disadvantage to their competition - this drives the physical centralization.
> Bitcoin cash already has more sustained transactions than bitcoin. Maybe you should reach beyond the propaganda of /r/bitcoin
lol, the salty salty tears.
> Miners that do that take the risk that someone else will propagate a block before them since they didn't share the previous block they found.
And yet they do it, because it has been mathematically demonstrated to be a winning strategy - even before block bloat induced propagation delay. The rest of the statement is simply nonsensical.
> In your last message you compared something with a 10 minute window to millionths of a second. For some reason you ignored this and ignored the actual numbers of modern bandwidth. You keep using hyperbole but won't quantify anything because the numbers don't add up.
Yeah, you clearly don't understand the comically simple idea that a consistent head start on your competitors guarantees eventual domination. The 10 minute window is completely immaterial to the point. If you can consistently verify the newest announced block 1 second before every other miner - then your average solve rate is guaranteed to be 1 second faster than their average solve rate.
> You are assuming that there are no bad actors in the network who might not want to transfer a block in a fraction of a second,
No, you are assuming that it matters if people try this. Who cares if someone sends slow? No one waits for them. They send a block slow, someone else mines the block and sends it out fast. You have hallucinated this attack, it doesn't happen. Show me evidence of this having any effect if you can.
> bitcoin's 30 day average block size has been above 900KB since 2018-10-24
This is not true. 900KB is where the MAX size of the blocks. The average is much lower from variance. This is not difficult to see:
> But why would you harp on bitcoin's block size when you are advocating for a max block size that could accommodate all of Visa's transactions?
Where did I say any of that? All I've done is point out that the things you say have no evidence and don't even make sense.
> Ah yes, that has worked out great for several exchanges and various other cryptocurrency related services. The cloud has been great, fill it with all the things.
This is just vapid sarcasm. There are no problems with exchanges. If you have evidence, show it.
> You don't seem to understand how packet switched networks function either. Go lookup "MTU", I look forward to hearing how even the most modest internet connection enjoys IPV6 with a 300MB jumboframe policy spanning the entire network path!
Focus please, confront the topic at hand, stop with irrelevant nonsense.
> It isn't that it'd take them 10 minutes to download the entire block... it is that they are at a 0.92 second disadvantage to their competition - this drives the physical centralization.
Show evidence that this happens and is a problem to anyone.
> lol, the salty salty tears.
This is not evidence of anything. Ethereum and bitcoin cash do have more transactions going through them than bitcoin. I will show you the actual information:
> And yet they do it, because it has been mathematically demonstrated to be a winning strategy - even before block bloat induced propagation delay. The rest of the statement is simply nonsensical.
It isn't a winning strategy, it is a mild attack that accomplishes very little and loses money from not including transactions. Bitcoin cash does not have capacity problems so people don't even notice. Sitting on blocks accomplishes very little since the rest of the network is more likely to out mine you as time goes on.
> If you can consistently verify the newest announced block 1 second before every other miner - then your average solve rate is guaranteed to be 1 second faster than their average solve rate.
The time it takes to verify a block is trivial. If it was so important, why aren't all the blocks empty?
You know you can't verify an incomplete block, right? If you think you can just plow ahead after getting the first packet... you are going to have a really bad day once the other miners notice that you can be fooled into wasting hash power on bogus headers. You know that blocks get announced by the miners after they solve the hash, in chunks that can be up to the max blocksize, right? For Bitcoin that is 1MB, for bcash it is 32MB. Imagine if NASDAQ offered two levels of service: one that put the FIX protocol behind a 1MB buffer, and the other behind a 32MB buffer - which one would be disadvantaged? Anyone sitting at the 32MB buffer would be getting their lunch eaten. This is about as fundamental as it gets, so you might want to do some reading - because you've clearly got a big blindspot.
> No they don't. The examples you are talking about are rare and have very little impact.
If you are talking about bitcoin, you are very wrong - it is a thoroughly documented occurrence, it even has a name: the selfish miner strategy. If you are talking about bcash, I dunno one way or the other - I don't pay much attention to the joke coins. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBC48266.2020.9169436
> How long do you think it takes to send around 900KB ?
Again, you need to actually do some reading on how mining works and what the network propagation characteristics are. I really don't want to have this come off as meanspirited, but it needs to be said: you obviously thought you knew how things worked, and you obviously don't - I wonder how many people you've misinformed.