| > 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: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc.html#3y > 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: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bc... > 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? |