Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BitFS: The Bitcoin File System

bitfs.network

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: BitFS: The Bitcoin File System

#11

Post by voodoosurfer »

dboreham wrote: post #6
volaski wrote: post #3

wow, trying to wrap my head around this thing. how does this exactly work?

Hmm: https://bitfs.network/about This is an intellectual exercise, not a useful service. It's similar to those schemes for storing MP3 files in Google calendar entries, or whathaveyou. The txn cost[1] to write any non trivial amount of data to the Bitcoin chain makes it a very expensive filesystem. [1] around $0.06/byte

Except your Google calendar entries can't be monetized in perpetuity. Remember, every file put on chain is linked to a wallet address. Imagine creating a viral meme and getting fractions of a penny each time it was re-posted somewhere. That's where this is all headed.

Re: BitFS: The Bitcoin File System

#12

Post by BenoitP »

onion-soup wrote: post #9
wp381640 wrote: post #5

Note that this isn't Bitcoin, it's built on Bitcoin SV - a fork created by known charlatan Craig Wright who claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

Wrong statement. Both btc and bsv are forks. But the latter just follows the whitepaper while btc core introduced anti-patterns like block size or segwit.

I'm confused, I thought Bitcoin XT was the one following the white paper. Or maybe it was Bitcoin classic. Or Bitcoin unlimited. But Bitcoin Cash was supposed to be the true one. Or BSV as you're saying. Or it was of course Bitcoin Gold.

I guess a requirement for being the one following the white paper is to take part of a fork with the Bitcoin "Core" chain.

Re: BitFS: The Bitcoin File System

#13

Post by wildsatchmo »

BenoitP wrote: post #12
onion-soup wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong statement. Both btc and bsv are forks. But the latter just follows the whitepaper while btc core introduced anti-patterns like block size or segwit.

I'm confused, I thought Bitcoin XT was the one following the white paper. Or maybe it was Bitcoin classic. Or Bitcoin unlimited. But Bitcoin Cash was supposed to be the true one. Or BSV as you're saying. Or it was of course Bitcoin Gold. I guess a requirement for being the one following the white paper is to take part of a fork with the Bitcoin "Core" chain.

Bitcoin XT is a an old client, not a chain.

Bitcoin Unlimited is a group of developers, not a chain.

Bitcoin Gold doesn't even use the same hash algo, is an unrelated airdrop.

There are only 3 sha256 Bitcoin forks. BTC, BCH, BSV

BTC ticker symbol does not mean it is "the original", it means it was most popular among exchanges at the time of the fork.

BCH was a demonstration of Bitcoin's resilience. When devs tried to alter the protocol in a way that was very controversial, the network forked.

BCH most closely resembled Bitcoin as defined by its' white-paper at that time.

Eventually BCH devs also made controversial changes, and guess what? Bitcoin forked again. Shocker. Bitcoin survives by design.

What I find fascinating is how many people think fundamentally altering it should be acceptable, even though it is the most obvious attack vector.

Re: BitFS: The Bitcoin File System

#14

Post by torusJKL »

dboreham wrote: post #6
volaski wrote: post #3

wow, trying to wrap my head around this thing. how does this exactly work?

Hmm: https://bitfs.network/about This is an intellectual exercise, not a useful service. It's similar to those schemes for storing MP3 files in Google calendar entries, or whathaveyou. The txn cost[1] to write any non trivial amount of data to the Bitcoin chain makes it a very expensive filesystem. [1] around $0.06/byte

The price for writing to BSV is currently 0.5 satoshi/byte. And some miners accept fees as low as 0.25 satoshi/byte.

At the current market price of BSV (USD 350) that is 0.00000175 USD/byte, or 0.001792 USD/KB.

Post reply on HN