209 похожих чатов

Can you elaborate what you mean by 2? I would add

4. Don't provide large continuous junks of space that can easily be filled.

3. this is how I see it. In the end there will always be a way to encode data onto the chain even if you remove OP_return. But if we can find a way to give economic transactions a headstart over other use cases that would be nice.

4 ответов

9 просмотров

5. provide sensible and efficient outlets for speculative pressure so people don't have to pay attention to weird nonsense like consuming blockspace as conspicuous consumption

🎗 Remora_101- Автор вопроса

One of the difference between BCH and BSV is their attitude to minimum relay fees. BCH has it at like 1c or 0.1c. That's so cheap no one ever cares, UNLESS you want to send 10 billion spam transactions in which case it adds up to a lot of money. Which is the whole point, because if you want to send 10 billion spam transactions you definitely need to pay miners for that. As for BSV, they think "microtransactions. lower fees good, the market will sort it out!" and so they set their minimum fee not to 0.1c but to 0.0000001c or something. That's no different to the average user, but MUCH different to a spammer who can now afford spam at like 100 000x less cost. Lower than the cost that miners have to pay in getting more harddrives and bandwidth. Hence why their network has millions and millions of daily transactions but almost no real users - and only a handful of nodes. Big blocks is the right idea, but you can't be stupid with it and go full BSV. So having some sensible minimum spam protection in place fixes really most issues with "inscriptions" or similar on chain data schemes.

🎗 Remora_101- Автор вопроса
Jeremy
One of the difference between BCH and BSV is their...

Ah ok understood, yes this is another deterrent

Похожие вопросы

Обсуждают сегодня

Карта сайта