Create account

replied 896d
Instead, #BSV relies on a more centralized decision-making process led by the main development team.
4 / 30 2
1,623
replied 895d
BSV is a completely centralized scam run by a small cartel with CSW, Calvin Ayre and Aker at the top, with a few shell companies to make it seem less centralized. Utter shit.
2
2,356
replied 896d
Decentralized Decision Making: The Importance of CHIP in the BCH Network http://xolos.army/2023/01/17/decentralized-decision-making-the-importance-of-chip-in-the-bitcoin-cash-network/
2
1,623
replied 895d
BSV has only made a few minor protocol changes, usually reverting to the way things previously were. Mostly they've just been scaling and removing limits.
1
13,333
replied 895d
...and they have introduced a MAJOR one recently. OP_CourtOrder that makes it possible to confiscate coins w.o. keys that effectively completes BSVs status as a centralized shitcoin.
3
3,356
replied 895d
OP_CourtOrder | WTF
3
1,933
replied 894d
WTF..indeed :-)
1
1,023
replied 890d
I agree there is concern about that and have spoken out on the issue:
replied 890d
They claim they can do it without a protocol change and that it could be done on any bitcoin fork
replied 890d
"They claim they can do it without a protocol change" - LOL

"That it could be done on any bitcoin fork" - sure but good luck getting majority hash running it for BCH & BTC.
replied 888d
I agree their claims on the issue are suspect
2
60,600
replied 883d
Looks like BTC is on the same path:
replied 883d
BTCs trajectory towards becoming a shitcoin started in 2017. So, no surprise there.
2
2,047
replied 883d
Yep, I'd go back even further and say BTC has been on a bad course since at least 2014 when RBF was added.
1
1,023
replied 883d
Are you opposed to a fee market in the first place? Or is there a different way from RBF, that you would want to see implemented?
replied 883d
Both BCH and BSV removed RBF. Miners can make more money from fees in the long run by increasing TX count, not by charging more per TX.
1
1,023
replied 883d
I agree with this.
1
1,023
replied 883d
RBF was created due to mempool size growing beyond block size limit. That should never be the case. IMO there shouldn't even be a block size limit
1
1,023
replied 883d
...BSVs fault was that many services dependent on running own nodes started to fail w. huge blocks. Now it is extreme centralized w. VERY few nodes & hence single points of failure.
2
2,047
replied 882d
Maybe home nodes that aren't doing anything. For miners the increased block size is fairly negligible.
2
1,623
replied 882d
What do you think about dynamic block sizes? With a fee structure encourage increasing blocksize when it's appropriate to do so, ofc
1
1,023
replied 882d
Not sure what you mean by dynamic block sizes. As you said there will always be some sort of limit. But if people are hitting it then something is wrong IMO.
1
1,023
replied 882d
I mean dynamic, as in growing and shrinking to scale smoothly with demand. Seems obvious IMO.
https://localmonero.co/knowledge/dynamic-block-size
replied 882d
Sounds like a mess, not sure why you'd ever lower the block size cap. If miners can't handle more transactions they should get off the network.
1
1,023
replied 878d
It's not about miners being unable to handle more transactions; it's about having block sizes that match mempool demand
1
1,023
replied 883d
Mostly agree with this.
Block size limit should in principle have no limit. But in reality there will always be a limit.
1
1,023
replied 890d
BSV is a state sponsored attack on BCH. Hopefully most people realize this by now. Nothing good will ever come from it.
1
600
replied 890d
I tend to agree.
replied 890d
reminds me of this, https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9vi00u/craig_wright_plan_on_stealing_old_wallet_balances/
1
600
replied 895d
I know!
1
25,000
replied 895d
Just like BTC


About Privacy Terms Stats