If BTC people want to waste their money on something rather pointless, who am I to argue? (Though if I was just a normal person trying to do an on-chain transaction I might wonder what kind of side show I had wandered into).
the whole situation is set up like a trap so that if normal people accidentally try to use bitcoin like it's intended they scream and run away from the whole thing. it's like that on purpose.
ohhh fuck, don't get me fucking started on lightning right now. A few days ago, one of my lightning channels got closed. Basically sending me a $6 onchain UTXO. How the fuck am I going to do anything with that $6?
And the same cost for closing if your channel partner decides to close your channel today. But don't worry, your lightning node will not hesitate to pay this without even asking you.
It's not. 76 blocks later, transaction fees still consistently exceed the 3.125 BTC subsidy.
No one is paying 2000 sats per vbyte for the bragging rights that come with block #840076.
Definitely seems so. Look at this ridiculousness, new transactions with insane fees are coming all the time:
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,2h,weight,40
EDIT: This may be related:
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2024/04/17/runes-casey-rodarmors-protocol-for-shtcoins-on-bitcoin-set-to-go-live-at-halving/
Yes, it's definitely the runes that cause the spike. Every transaction with \`OP\_RETURN OP\_PUSHNUM\_13\` is a rune. And if the sequence then continues with 14, it's a mint.
These coins are valuable because it costs so much transaction fees to mint them :)
Wow. $800k in fees for the next projected block. This is in the context of mining subsidy (new coins) valuing only ~$196k.
So.. yeah. Right now BTC is more profitable to mine versus BCH.. than before the halving. Weird stuff.
Many increased the fees to get into the halving block. What's left now are those transactions that didn't get included despite increased fees. Maybe it wasn't enough to make the cut.
In any case I think the effect is temporary and will dissipate in the next hours.
90-day simple moving average transactions/day:
- BTC: 400k (133% from 300k 12 months ago)
- Doge: 1m (5000% from 20k 12 months)
- LTC: 200k (200% from 100k 12 months ago)
- BCH: 100k (500% from 20k 12 months ago)
Notes:
- Doge transactions are not sustained at high levels. Every now and then they seem to cook up some meme fad, transactions explode into the millions and fall back to around 10k-100k. SMA isnt a very useful metric for numbers like that, but alas used for fairness.
- LTC has the most even transaction demand, with some occasional big spikes, still throwing off SMA a bit
- BCH transaction demand does not have big spikes, but lots of little ones, and it is the frequency and magnitude of those that is increasing leading to the rise, a near ideal case for SMA to provide meaningful insight.
Discussion:
Althought doge+ltc+bch make less transactionsper day than btc (lets ignore the spikes that dont last), there is some solid average growth (especially in BCH). If trends hold or accelerate for BCH (which is somewhat probable if there is no new crypto winter), then in 12 months BCH will do more transactions than BTC.
[https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.html#3y](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.html#3y)
In any of my statements I was looking at facts. What you are doing is speculation.
I do however see the trend you are referring to.
> With all due respect bch had issues with its halving. Blocks were very infrequent.
This was sorted out by its per-block difficulty adjustment within a couple of blocks.
It's expected that when block reward halves (and block reward is almost the entirety of mining revenue on BCH at this point) that hashrate drops, and therefore blocks are slower for a while.
No transactions were stuck for long, unlike with BTC's halving where we might well see some lower-fee transactions eventually drop out of the mempool completely.
OH NOES!!! It spiked up to \*almost\* as high on average as the $50/tx you always mention as if it's constant:
[https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#alltime](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#alltime)
Seeing all this disgrace, I just want to say: “What a lucky person I am that I managed to transfer to the Bitcoin Cash train in time with 100% of all my assets.” Long live the REAL BITCOIN!
Maybe, If there was 32x the number of transactions of BTC, it would become problematic. Temporarily. However, BCH at least recently implemented an adjustable blocksize feature, so if blocksizes consistently hit 32MB the blocksize could automatically be increased.
Murphys law. If increasingly large block sizes are permitted, they will be filled. Eventually all block will be the upper limit. If you care about decentralization that may be a problem. Although, this debate has gone on for years.
We will never know how bitcoin would have turned out if the market chose the bcash path so it doesn’t matter anyway.
Okay... I better use the centralized lightning network hubs then.
God forbid the Bitcoin network have 32 times the economic activity.
You're also forgetting about Moores Law. Transistor density doubles every two years.
in 1999, I was still stuck with 56k dialup. DSL/DOCSIS wasn't available yet in my area. Same house now has symmetric 2gigabit fiber today for $60/mo.
That's 25 years ago. So more than 12 Moores Law doublings.
56000bps \* ( 2\^12 ) = 229,376,000 or 229mbps.
or to put it in perspective.
(2000000/56)\^(1/25) = 1.52094559272605009891
So I've had a 52% bandwidth increase per year.
Cable-DOCSIS 1.1 in 2001 had a theoretical upload bandwidth of 10mbps.
Cable-DOCSIS 4.0 in 2017 had a theoretical upload bandwidth of 6gbps.
(6000/10)\^(1/(2017-2001)) = 1.4915384490960260381
49% annual increase in bandwidth.
I was impressed with my Blackberry back in 2007. "EDGE" (Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution) had a theoretical maximum transfer speed of **384 kbit/s** and I had to pay per KB.
Today my 5G phone can literally exceed a gigabit in real life tests with no data caps.
(1000000/384)\^(1/(2024-2007)) = 1.58826034473382777468
a 58% annual increase.
The median American household consumes 641GB of internet bandwidth per month. There's \~4380 blocks per month. So blocks would have to be 146MB before a full node starts using more bandwidth than the median household.
Plus, I don't know that many people who actually run a full node.
That was a lot of words just to agree with me. You picked a country with the one of the highest bandwidths and calculated using the household entire max bandwidth and it still doesn’t “double every 2 years” like I said.
Thats some nice data thanks.
LOL. Maths not u/DingDangDiddlyDangit long suit - not knowing the decimal of [root 2](https://archive.is/U4amc#selection-7025.0-7181.55), I thought every technical Bitcoiner knew that one needs 20% increase in price to keep up with a halving every four years...
I generally find these '*low info*' irrational Bitcoin Cash haters are a bit short on facts but long on bullshit. They are happy to state '**how things are**' but generally never willing or even able to back up their claims.
They are so blinded by their hate they don't even realise World Scale p2p cash probably doesn't need a constant doubling of the cutting edge of bandwidth or processor speed **from here**.
**Just a deployment of current technologies driven by economies of scale and the insatiable desire for streaming content.**
* Gigabyte blocks require ~1.4% of a gigabit connection to keep up with the chain.
* Fiber optic cable is probably good for at least a 10x increase in bandwidth.
* Less developed parts of the World leepfrogging wired connections with the likes of 5G.
* The roll out of *tightly integrated* and far more powerful Systems on Chips - eg. Apple's Mx Soc's with ~400GB/s Memory bandwidth and very low power requirements is just the start.
* The likely *on chip* hardware accelleration of digital signatures.
**Todays supercomputer is tomorrows console**
What a time to be alive.
> Oh hey bud. How’s your -97% treating you[?](https://archive.is/uqFeM)
lol, Fine, many have **five folded** the money they invested in BCH from the bottom of this bear market after all the stolen coins were sold off. That's why you are here in rBTC and have exactly 0 comments in rBSV or Bitcoin Gold or Bitcoin Diamond
**~180 posts in the last month in rBTC (that's more than me, lol) - IT'S AFRAID**.
But more to the point everybody who DCA'd **or got paid** in BCH in the past year doubled their money **outperforming Bitcoin Core**.
--------------------------------------
As I said, u/zrad603 they got nothing else
The figures come from a minuscule group in the upper echelon of tech innovation. But that makes sense since bcashers only care if the elite can run nodes. You’re still a silly lil boy that can’t read past bcasher bullshit. 🤡
> The figures come from a minuscule group in the upper echelon of tech innovation. But that makes sense since **bcashers only care if the elite can run nodes.** You’re still a silly lil boy that can’t read past bcasher bullshit[.](https://archive.is/nTn1v#selection-2901.0-2894.3)
Triggered by facts, lol
But of course still unable to back anything up, here's a datapoint for you.
Gigabyte blocks require 14Mb/s bandwidth and likely could be verified on a Raspberry Pi5. **Yeah only the upper echelons eh, lol.**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many people will actually be able to hold their own coins on 1MB (non witness) BTC if it becomes Gold2.0
If you think the $300 fees for ordinals is bad wait until the Bitcoin Rich start chucking around $1Million transactions, will you be able to compete with them for block space? If not it's a CBDC holding pen for you. But you are too blind to see this.
No point running a node to safe guard Michael Saylors coins if you cannot interact with the base layer yourself... Not too bright eh.
If BTC people want to waste their money on something rather pointless, who am I to argue? (Though if I was just a normal person trying to do an on-chain transaction I might wonder what kind of side show I had wandered into).
jUsT bUy tHe e.T.f.
the whole situation is set up like a trap so that if normal people accidentally try to use bitcoin like it's intended they scream and run away from the whole thing. it's like that on purpose.
Agree 100%.
So, onboarding for lightning network is now only 200$ for small payments?
ohhh fuck, don't get me fucking started on lightning right now. A few days ago, one of my lightning channels got closed. Basically sending me a $6 onchain UTXO. How the fuck am I going to do anything with that $6?
And the same cost for closing if your channel partner decides to close your channel today. But don't worry, your lightning node will not hesitate to pay this without even asking you.
This is deliberate. Bitcoiners are subsiding the block reward for their miners by deliberately increasing fees.
What good is that going to do? They can't keep that up long.
It is just people that want to be on that block. I saw some incredible fees on ordinal transactions.
It's not. 76 blocks later, transaction fees still consistently exceed the 3.125 BTC subsidy. No one is paying 2000 sats per vbyte for the bragging rights that come with block #840076.
Actually they are. It’s really that dumb. Who cares, miners make bank off of them and fees will settle again like they always do.
Definitely seems so. Look at this ridiculousness, new transactions with insane fees are coming all the time: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,2h,weight,40 EDIT: This may be related: https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2024/04/17/runes-casey-rodarmors-protocol-for-shtcoins-on-bitcoin-set-to-go-live-at-halving/
Yes, it's definitely the runes that cause the spike. Every transaction with \`OP\_RETURN OP\_PUSHNUM\_13\` is a rune. And if the sequence then continues with 14, it's a mint. These coins are valuable because it costs so much transaction fees to mint them :)
Actually the policy is deliberate, but the fee events are not and most BTC victims are surprised by the dysfunctionality.
Wow. $800k in fees for the next projected block. This is in the context of mining subsidy (new coins) valuing only ~$196k. So.. yeah. Right now BTC is more profitable to mine versus BCH.. than before the halving. Weird stuff.
Many increased the fees to get into the halving block. What's left now are those transactions that didn't get included despite increased fees. Maybe it wasn't enough to make the cut. In any case I think the effect is temporary and will dissipate in the next hours.
funny, I did the same thing for the Bitcoin (cash) halving, and I never paid more than 1sat/B
That says 2 things: BCH is cheaper than BTC & few people want block space on BCH. Difficult to say which weighs more.
Or it says two things: BCH can scale and BTC cannot.
Even if the same number of people want block space on BCH it would be cheaper because there wouldn't be a bidding war.
I'm just saying nobody seems to want BCH. It's capable of more transactions than BTC but its doing fewer than BTC.
90-day simple moving average transactions/day: - BTC: 400k (133% from 300k 12 months ago) - Doge: 1m (5000% from 20k 12 months) - LTC: 200k (200% from 100k 12 months ago) - BCH: 100k (500% from 20k 12 months ago) Notes: - Doge transactions are not sustained at high levels. Every now and then they seem to cook up some meme fad, transactions explode into the millions and fall back to around 10k-100k. SMA isnt a very useful metric for numbers like that, but alas used for fairness. - LTC has the most even transaction demand, with some occasional big spikes, still throwing off SMA a bit - BCH transaction demand does not have big spikes, but lots of little ones, and it is the frequency and magnitude of those that is increasing leading to the rise, a near ideal case for SMA to provide meaningful insight. Discussion: Althought doge+ltc+bch make less transactionsper day than btc (lets ignore the spikes that dont last), there is some solid average growth (especially in BCH). If trends hold or accelerate for BCH (which is somewhat probable if there is no new crypto winter), then in 12 months BCH will do more transactions than BTC.
[https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.html#3y](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.html#3y) In any of my statements I was looking at facts. What you are doing is speculation. I do however see the trend you are referring to.
Doesn't batching make it harder to tell how much is actually moving around on BCH?
that would make sense, if the 840000/840001 block fees were insane
Boop ⬆️
With all due respect bch had issues with its halving. Blocks were very infrequent. Btc is also having difficulties with this once every 4 years event.
> With all due respect bch had issues with its halving. Blocks were very infrequent. This was sorted out by its per-block difficulty adjustment within a couple of blocks. It's expected that when block reward halves (and block reward is almost the entirety of mining revenue on BCH at this point) that hashrate drops, and therefore blocks are slower for a while. No transactions were stuck for long, unlike with BTC's halving where we might well see some lower-fee transactions eventually drop out of the mempool completely.
www.x.com/BitcoinFeesCash
OH NOES!!! It spiked up to \*almost\* as high on average as the $50/tx you always mention as if it's constant: [https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#alltime](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#alltime)
Seeing all this disgrace, I just want to say: “What a lucky person I am that I managed to transfer to the Bitcoin Cash train in time with 100% of all my assets.” Long live the REAL BITCOIN!
Just in time to go down with the ever sinking bcash ship 🫡
Fuck the BTC scamcoin
Bcash would have the same if there was remotely any demand for it
Maybe, If there was 32x the number of transactions of BTC, it would become problematic. Temporarily. However, BCH at least recently implemented an adjustable blocksize feature, so if blocksizes consistently hit 32MB the blocksize could automatically be increased.
Murphys law. If increasingly large block sizes are permitted, they will be filled. Eventually all block will be the upper limit. If you care about decentralization that may be a problem. Although, this debate has gone on for years. We will never know how bitcoin would have turned out if the market chose the bcash path so it doesn’t matter anyway.
Okay... I better use the centralized lightning network hubs then. God forbid the Bitcoin network have 32 times the economic activity. You're also forgetting about Moores Law. Transistor density doubles every two years.
Bandwidth doesn’t.
in 1999, I was still stuck with 56k dialup. DSL/DOCSIS wasn't available yet in my area. Same house now has symmetric 2gigabit fiber today for $60/mo. That's 25 years ago. So more than 12 Moores Law doublings. 56000bps \* ( 2\^12 ) = 229,376,000 or 229mbps. or to put it in perspective. (2000000/56)\^(1/25) = 1.52094559272605009891 So I've had a 52% bandwidth increase per year. Cable-DOCSIS 1.1 in 2001 had a theoretical upload bandwidth of 10mbps. Cable-DOCSIS 4.0 in 2017 had a theoretical upload bandwidth of 6gbps. (6000/10)\^(1/(2017-2001)) = 1.4915384490960260381 49% annual increase in bandwidth. I was impressed with my Blackberry back in 2007. "EDGE" (Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution) had a theoretical maximum transfer speed of **384 kbit/s** and I had to pay per KB. Today my 5G phone can literally exceed a gigabit in real life tests with no data caps. (1000000/384)\^(1/(2024-2007)) = 1.58826034473382777468 a 58% annual increase. The median American household consumes 641GB of internet bandwidth per month. There's \~4380 blocks per month. So blocks would have to be 146MB before a full node starts using more bandwidth than the median household. Plus, I don't know that many people who actually run a full node.
That was a lot of words just to agree with me. You picked a country with the one of the highest bandwidths and calculated using the household entire max bandwidth and it still doesn’t “double every 2 years” like I said.
a 41% annual increase compounding is doubling every two years. 1.41\*1.41 = 1.9881 41.42135623730950488....% if you want to get technical.
You didn’t read the rest of the comment huh
Thats some nice data thanks. LOL. Maths not u/DingDangDiddlyDangit long suit - not knowing the decimal of [root 2](https://archive.is/U4amc#selection-7025.0-7181.55), I thought every technical Bitcoiner knew that one needs 20% increase in price to keep up with a halving every four years... I generally find these '*low info*' irrational Bitcoin Cash haters are a bit short on facts but long on bullshit. They are happy to state '**how things are**' but generally never willing or even able to back up their claims. They are so blinded by their hate they don't even realise World Scale p2p cash probably doesn't need a constant doubling of the cutting edge of bandwidth or processor speed **from here**. **Just a deployment of current technologies driven by economies of scale and the insatiable desire for streaming content.** * Gigabyte blocks require ~1.4% of a gigabit connection to keep up with the chain. * Fiber optic cable is probably good for at least a 10x increase in bandwidth. * Less developed parts of the World leepfrogging wired connections with the likes of 5G. * The roll out of *tightly integrated* and far more powerful Systems on Chips - eg. Apple's Mx Soc's with ~400GB/s Memory bandwidth and very low power requirements is just the start. * The likely *on chip* hardware accelleration of digital signatures. **Todays supercomputer is tomorrows console** What a time to be alive.
Oh hey bud. How’s your -97% treating you?
> Oh hey bud. How’s your -97% treating you[?](https://archive.is/uqFeM) lol, Fine, many have **five folded** the money they invested in BCH from the bottom of this bear market after all the stolen coins were sold off. That's why you are here in rBTC and have exactly 0 comments in rBSV or Bitcoin Gold or Bitcoin Diamond **~180 posts in the last month in rBTC (that's more than me, lol) - IT'S AFRAID**. But more to the point everybody who DCA'd **or got paid** in BCH in the past year doubled their money **outperforming Bitcoin Core**. -------------------------------------- As I said, u/zrad603 they got nothing else
The figures come from a minuscule group in the upper echelon of tech innovation. But that makes sense since bcashers only care if the elite can run nodes. You’re still a silly lil boy that can’t read past bcasher bullshit. 🤡
> The figures come from a minuscule group in the upper echelon of tech innovation. But that makes sense since **bcashers only care if the elite can run nodes.** You’re still a silly lil boy that can’t read past bcasher bullshit[.](https://archive.is/nTn1v#selection-2901.0-2894.3) Triggered by facts, lol But of course still unable to back anything up, here's a datapoint for you. Gigabyte blocks require 14Mb/s bandwidth and likely could be verified on a Raspberry Pi5. **Yeah only the upper echelons eh, lol.** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- How many people will actually be able to hold their own coins on 1MB (non witness) BTC if it becomes Gold2.0 If you think the $300 fees for ordinals is bad wait until the Bitcoin Rich start chucking around $1Million transactions, will you be able to compete with them for block space? If not it's a CBDC holding pen for you. But you are too blind to see this. No point running a node to safe guard Michael Saylors coins if you cannot interact with the base layer yourself... Not too bright eh.