That is just a funfair trick exactly like the “perceived wait time”. The reality is (3.2 MB x10 + 10 x block_header_size) versus (32 MB + 1 x block_header_size).
(When we ignore orphans, etc.)
It is not a parallel at all. Every coin can (and does) become a subject of interest as a coin.
I did present an obvious example that does not affect the database integrity either: the age of the coin’s name. However you want to ignore it, you cannot move the market sentiment.
Yes, everyone seems to recognize BCH as being “born” in '17, and other forks and protocol changes didn’t “reset” that counter. So why should 1-min blocks reset the counter? They won’t. Btw both Monero and Zcash changed their block time, they still kept their age and identity.
1 Like
This is called a “sperg dunk”, a factually true claim, but totally irrelevant. Each header is 80 bytes, the difference in size is less than 0.1%.
2 Likes
That is an interesting, but false claim. I detect the coin’s age using some market characteristics and it is not true that the other changes did not influence the market’s perceived age of BCH.
“detect”. You yourself attribute market moves to your arbitrary concept of age. Other market participants have their own reasons for wanting to buy or sell, and I doubt they consider your “age” at all.
1 Like
Nonsense. I do not attribute market moves to “concept of age”. Other market participants have got their own reasons for wanting to buy or sell. Of course they do not consider “my concept of age”, they simply express their “sentiment” towards BCH in their buy/sell orders.
What’s this supposed to mean then:
How would the market even perceive your “detected” age if nobody else uses this arbitrary method of detecting age?
I’ve had some arguments about 2009 vs 2017 as BCH’s birth year, but I haven’t seen anyone thinking that any later events reset people’s perception of age.
1 Like
Nonsense.
- Everybody perceives some BTC age. I just average the effects on the market based on the available data.
Actually, BCH is (one of) the market leaders. E.g. BTC is not a competition, virtually everybody here knows why. USDT is not a competition any more than USD is. Etc…
Literally all of BTC, USD & USDT are BCH’s competition. All crypto & fiat currencies (in fact, all objects literal and figurative in existence) are competing to be the most accepted currency.
So we need to be as good as we can in that category, because there’s so much competition.
Funny. OK, a proof:
-
BTC has resigned on the media of exchange function. So, no, it is not a competition of BCH in the media of exchange competition.
-
USD is a competition, actually the strongest one.
-
USDT is not a competition, since by definition, it cannot survive USD’s defeat.
Actually, the claim about economical benefits of cutting the block times is easy to falsify: It suffices to take examples of coins that have cutted their block times and check how it influenced their market capitalization compared to average coins not doing that.
1 Like
“X is responsible for price move” is not a falsifiable claim, we don’t have multiverses in which we can examine how just changing the blocktime and keeping everything else equal would play out. Everything else is not equal. How do you know it’s not something else responsible for mcap of those other coins?
Zcash had a 2 year bull run immediatelly following faster blocks activation. Can I prove that faster blocks were the sole cause? I can’t. Can you prove they didn’t contribute? You can’t.
Other coins are mentioned in the CHIP not to prove blocktime-mcap relationship but to falsify the claim raised by critics that changing the block time will break exchange & wallet support etc.
Reducing block time will improve UX for all BCH users, regardless of what the price does.
2 Likes
Indeed.
Seems like we need a new name, perhaps “Price thinking” for this style of argumentation. As we gain prominence, we’ll get more BTC migrants bringing their “Price is an unqualified complete argument” ideas. Price is downstream of value delivered by the ecosystem, albeit it does loop on itself through liquidity increases & marketing hype (rising price is obviously good). But this subtlety escapes many and emerges in this simplistic price-based analysis.
2 Likes
Although in my own personal opinion 1 minute blocks will help price, I think it is important that we refrain from any price arguments in regards to this CHIP.
Please keep it to technical arguments. No one actually knows or can know the effect on price.
3 Likes
Confirmation time is so important that ETH L2s are trying to find ways to innovate from a 2 second block time down to a 0.25 second block time!!
2 Likes
We’ve integrated Flashblocks, built by the team at Flashbots, reducing effective block times from 2 seconds to 250 milliseconds.
So I assume these “FlashBlocks” would be something like Infrastructure Blocks, but on ETH? Also with PoS instead of PoW?
Did I get it right?
PoW L1 will always be limited by practicalities like orphan rate and non-pruneable overheads.
Still, if we have a reliable L1 then us too can experiment with some PoS L2 (stake BCH to some L1 contract to become validator on L2) for high frequency trading or bespoke L2 for a retail payment solution.
L2s have their own risks and trade-offs, and our L1 needs to be good enough to keep enough volume on L1, because our security and future depends on L1 volume. That’s why we still need 1-minute blocks even if we could get 0.25-second blocks on an L2.
3 Likes