Bitcoinˢᵛ Dev Stream 📡

Forwarded from tomothy

2 viewsMateus L., 18:32

Forwarded from BSV Videos 🎥 (₿SV Videos 🎥)

OP RETURN vs. OP PUSHDATA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5LXK2tVZB8
Joshua Henslee - 15/Mar/2022
--
by @BSVVideosBot / @BSVBots

YouTube

OP RETURN vs. OP PUSHDATA

In this presentation, I review why OP_PUSHDATA is not a panacea when it comes to storing data on-chain.

Ryan X. Charles video to Roger Ver explaining economics to him (that was ignored by him):
https://youtu.be/-cTNRhc4Jrw

Xiaohui Liu from sCrypt on how…

2 viewsMateus L., 18:40

Bitcoinˢᵛ Dev Stream 📡

Forwarded from Robbo

https://tsc.bitcoinassociation.net/standards/deferred-fee-allocation/?utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Orlo

Bitcoin SV Technical Standards

Deferred Fee Allocation

The purpose of this specification is to defer the allocation of the miner/node fee paid for a Bitcoin transaction.

3 viewsMateus L., 21:12

Bitcoinˢᵛ Dev Stream 📡

Forwarded from CSW - Slack Channel (@RamonQuesada 🌷)

The bitcoin block header.

Proof of work has no relation to congestion. The introduction of a Merkle structure or binary tree structure means that the mining or proof of work function only must process a small header that at any time in any system would be less than 1 kB. The bitcoin block header is just the eighty-byte string. This in total combines:

a 4-byte long Bitcoin version number,

a 32-byte previous block hash,

a 32-byte long Merkle root (Binary tree hash),

a 4-byte long timestamp referencing the block,

4-byte long difficulty target attributed to the block, and

a 4-byte long nonce used by the nodes (miners).

Consequently, it doesn’t matter whether the block size is 1 MB and contains four transactions a second or rather that the block sizes 1 TB and contains millions of transactions every second of use. The mining process is exactly the same.

Equally, if you consider proof of stake, the number of transactions that need to be processed does not change the size of the blocks. To transact and send 1 million transaction still requires 1 million times the transaction size no matter whether you’re using proof of stake or proof of work. The argument against either of these is a non sequitur.

The simple answer is no matter what system, to validate transactions requires that you have a record of those transactions. The alternative that people talk about, layer 2 solutions is really adding a trusted intermediary. An example of a layer 2 solution that already exists and works well is Coinbase. This exchange has a traditional database that allocates amounts of bitcoin. Of course, this completely ignores the purpose of bitcoin.

The cost of mining one transaction is the same as the cost of mining 100 billion transactions from a proof of work perspective.

Miners work on the header.

They do not send the entire block to the PoW process. The validation can be parellelised.

CSW
Nov 8, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636376625426000?thread_ts=1636376625.426000&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3340