For some fees matter, 10k times more expensive is not something many can accept. Harsh economic reality.
https://sv.coin.dance/block

s

You say that not many can accept it, but surely the fact that the cheaper chain still doesn't handle as many transactions as this one means there are other factors to consider?  I personally don't understand why people are in such a hurry to imitate the chains that have empirically fewer users.

Plus, if more people actually used the cheaper chains, they likely wouldn't be as cheap as they currently are.   

lesson one: emphasis its important lesson.
whether a altcoin can handle 5ktx or 50ktx it wont get 5k-50k if that coin has no merchant use.
so altcoins have more potential (buffer) but not utilising it due to not having the merchant adoption.

however a certain group of core devs and their fanboys see bitcoin as having the merchant approval, but then trying to stifle bitcoins utility for those merchants by way of fee wars, limiting transaction throughput and promoting that if people dont like those stifling tactics they can just go use another network.

i personally do not understand why anyone who pretends to be a bitcoin(actually they are just core fans but afraid to admit it) fan are in such a hurry to ruin bitcoins utility to promote other networks of less security

Wrong as usual.  Lesson one is that those securing the chain decide what Bitcoin is.  You need to learn that before you can even attempt to lecture on anything else.  But chances are, you never will wrap your feeble little mind around it.  When both non-mining full nodes and miners begin to consider more throughput, perhaps at that point, things might change in a way you approve of.  Until then, suck it.  You are wholly impotent and your views are barely represented on this network.  You lack support for even the most miniscule of changes you'd like to see.

But by all means keep calling those securing the chain "fanboys" and "sheep".  I'm sure that's going to win them over to your way of thinking.  

We've had two years for people to decide that they don't like the direction Bitcoin is going in and leave the network in favour of one that functions in the way you'd like Bitcoin to work.  How many more years do you think it's going to take before it dawns on you that you are wrong?  Or are you just going to keep repeating your baseless scaremongering forever, even when it's abundantly clear that users are not fleeing en-masse to the coins with greater throughput (and weaker literally-everything-else)?

I used to argue that users would naturally follow the coin with the lowest fees.  You know what happened?  Reality proved me wrong and I chose to learn something from that. 

When will you learn?  (Obviously that's a rhetorical question because the answer is clearly "never".)

I'm worried, if a large BSV block can't avoid ddos ​​attacks on the network. I know.  each block can create 36MB.  but a 1MB block is safer from network risk.  anyone can make a block with a limit of 1MB.  if more than 1MB, then invalid.  this maximum limit for :
1. maintaining consensus
2. avoiding decentralization of pool
3. making lots of full nodes

I don't care what miners want. I certainly care whether the network sustains the rational mining incentive (block rewards) built into the original design. It's simple to see that absent set mandatory fees, demand for block space needs to outpace supply for fees to be nonzero -- and certainly for fee revenue to replace the original 50 BTC per block subsidy. We need to put money on the table for miners to secure the chain. Hence the part of the quote that you removed:



As Satoshi once said, unconfirmed transactions are second class citizens. As he also once said, Bitcoin's design is such that fees are to fully replace the block subsidy. So if you want your transaction confirmed, you should pay a fee instead of assuming miners will collate your transaction into a block for free.

Miners aren't offering charity. If the block subsidy didn't exist now, miners would drop off the network en masse. In a couple more halvings, the block subsidy will be a small fraction of the current reward. Do you expect miners to secure the chain for less and less revenue, and eventually nothing? Are you okay with a situation where hash rate is spiraling downward, generations old hardware can be used to reorg the chain and attack the network, etc.?


85% of Bitcoin's supply has already been mined. In five years, the block subsidy will drop to a mere 6.25% of the original reward. Why do you assume we have decades to wait before dealing with this?

I prefer code and transparency.  I don't see how you're going to attract many users if you can't even tell us anything about it.

Your reply is proof that big blockers don't care about the effects of big blocks on the network, or don't understand how Bitcoin works, OR they believe can go around the laws of physics. HAHA, and I'm the stupid one?

No, never. My debate was never about "gigabyte blocks by midnight". Although the big blockers, like you, believe that the network can do a hard fork after hard fork to increase the block size as needed because Moore's Law, correct?

My debate is larger blocks demand better bandwidth, and latency to prevent node centralization. Plus big blockers ignore externalities.

"big blockers" typical echo chamber buzzword from a certain group. if you realised that increasing the transaction throughput can be alot more nuanced than just 'big blocks'. then you would understand more about methods of scaling bitcoin without reverting to the standard claptrap rhetoric of the echo chamber you subscribe to that just wants to propaganda one method

you dont need hard for after hard fork to increase blocksize/transaction throughput. you may have learned this if you were not reading the standard echo chambers and using the standard buzzwords of a certain group. this is why i ave kept saying to do some independent research as you are showing all the signs of being in that propaganda group.

better bandwidth? we are not in dialup era..
56kbit=4.2mbyte/10min
block header plus tx data is way less than 4mb

better latency? (dictionary: delay before transfer)
the only latency issue is mainly being told several different dataset formats other nodes want: stripped, filtered, neutrino and others. a full node should just send out the real full data other full nodes need. having a bunch of nodes that dont archive full data and cant relay full data but still foolishly be classed as 'full nodes' is the thing that will cause more centralisation than anything.

having nodes that dont hold signatures. or only hold prunned data cuts down the amount of real full syncable data. having these nodes connecting to full nodes become leachers while not being part of the main relay operation of the network.
code CAN be made to identify and classify these leacher nodes better and ensure priority 'latency' operations and bandwidth is given to full nodes rather than the leacher nodes.
EG if your node can handle 100 connections then you can have a 80/20 split of full/leacher
EG if your node can handle 10 connections then you can have a 8/2 split of full/leacher

there are many many ways that are not just the 'gigabyte by midnight' rhetoric

its like the tx fee's code can be made to not just treat every tx to the same ~premium, but make spammers pay different than infrequent users. thus making people care/change habits and actually understand bitcoin more