Show HN: PeerSend – Social Payments powered by crypto
peersend.com
peersend.com
To use it, the user first needs to get ahold of Bitcoin SV somehow.
Then the user needs to install their software.
Since the software allows "payments" to people who do not have a public Bitcoin SV address, I guess the payment goes to PeerSend and not to the receiver.
PeerSend then tries to contact the receiver and convince them to make a Bitcoin SV address.
If that happens, PeerSend sends the funds to the receiver.
Maybe it's not a big difference, but how can you call 4 clicks "one click"?
Typo in the subtitle too - "PeerSend lets people to freely transfer crypto"
Typo in your fix too - "PeerSend allows people to freely transfer crypto"
A suggestion (since PeerSend is limited to payments with bitcoin / lightining?): Consider building this on top of stable coins likes USDC, DAI, either on offchain networks like celo.org, or lenders like goldfinch, or stacks like silamoney.com
I really believe cross border payments is an important problem to solve (with more and more workforce going remote and products like tryjeeves, brex, usealloy atop traditional financial instruments notwithstanding) and that stable coins can enable that.
Also see: paymobil.co and lastbit.io
- Because merchants do not want a volatile currency.
- Because people in countries with weaker currencies might be interested in accepting/transacting in something that gives them USD/EUR/GBP/JPY.
- Because there are DeFI protocols that are giving better returns than any savings account ever could.
PeerSend allows you to send and receive Bitcoin SV in any website or social platform with a single click!
Found an inspirational Tweet? You can reward it! Want to earn money through social media? Create content and get tips!
We just launched Twitter integration yesterday and working on adding other social platforms like Twitch, Facebook and Youtube.
If you want to test it out, send me your paymail address, I will send you some Bitcoin SV to test.
Cheers
Yeah, you might get more transactions per block without increasing the size too much, but to think that gives a significant advantage over account-based chains is just drinking the kool-aid.
Whenever you see someone selling you the idea that there will be a massively decentralized blockchain that can reach a high number of TPS without scaling off-chain, run in the other direction.
To put another way: if UTXO was paramount for scaling, there would be no need for BSV to exist because BTC (and BCH, LTC, Monero, Doge and so many others) are already based on UTXO.
There are many other, bigger challenges and trade-offs to be considering when planning for scaling solutions. All of the solutions claiming they are scaling base-layer chains are doing so at the cost of centralization. Solana claims to make 100k+ TPS, but the amount of hardware required is incredibly expensive. Binance Chain manages to scale because it uses only 8 validator nodes. BSV is making these jumbo blocks, so the moment the network becomes popular it could be requiring 20-30GB per hour in storage, who in their right mind will want to run one of those?
This app tries to implement one of the many forks “bitcoin SV”, but I think to no avail.
People will use what is easiest and seeing the reel bitcoin integrated means that is what the public will be using...
If the former, may I recommend you take a look at Raiden[0], and especially the light client[1]? It would be perfect for your use case (peer-to-peer payments) and the light client has a SDK [2] which you could leverage into the extension.
Also community is very important to us. BSV is being used in daily lives of many people, far more than other major cryptocurrencies, thanks to its scalability. And a lot of pioneer developers of Bitcoin & blockchain are developing on BSV. These make one very healthy community that is likely succeed.
Look, I don't want to start a flamewar, but you KNOW that this is just marketing speak for "we have no clue what is going to happen if people actually started using the network, but we can fake it until we make it", right?
If you are not even willing to make an honest assessment about the pros and cons of BSV, why should anyone trust you?
But nevermind, your response was enough for me to realize that you are choosing the latter of the choices from my question. The extension is developed in order to bring utility to BSV, not as way to promote the use of crypto in general.
That's a pity, because your UI is really good and it could be beneficial for a lot more use cases if it was not tied to handcash and BSV.
https://bitcoinblocks.live https://whatsonchain.com
There is no problem with practical use. Once you know "peer-to-peer transaction protocol," you will understand that it can work without any problems. https://blog.moneybutton.com/2020/03/30/handcash-and-money-b...
This was Satoshi's original Bitcoin design and is the key to the scalability solution.
For current loads, I believe you.
Come back when you have millions of users and thousands of TPS, and let me know (a) the hardware requirements to run a node, (b) how much it costs to run such a node and (c) what percentage of the population could theoretically afford this.
It is very easy to "scale" if you centralize all processing in a handful of nodes.
"Yes"
This type of graph is called a mandala network. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09082
How "few" is few? What number of would you say is "too few" to count as an actual decentralized system?
> The majority of users use the SPV introduced in Chapter 8 of the Bitcoin white paper.
Why? Why would people get themselves into a system that has none of the advantages of central systems (institutions with authority to correct human errors and some type of checks-and-balances) but will still require them to trust a handful of "specialized miners"?
> Miners compete for their own incentives, processing hundreds of millions of TX.
At what cost? And what kind of capital will be required for the operation to be profitable?
Presumably these costs are not low, otherwise more people would be interested in joining the network and you wouldn't have "few specialized miners".
How distributed are these miners going to be around the world? Given the amount of hashpower that is already concentrated in China, one would assume that these "few specialized miners" would be seeking places where energy can be cheaper and/or subsidized. How robust is a system that depends on geo-political factors? What happens when the cost of securing the network are just too big and China decides it is not worth it anymore and pulls the plug?
If there are "few specialized miners", what's stopping them from colluding?
If the competition is actually efficient and drives the prices down, the operation would be barely profitable. If the ROI is low, what would stop stopping from some bigger entity to just buy them out and keep them running? Doesn't that just give us the world's most expensive central bank?
----
Putting aside the cult-like obsession with Satoshi, the problem with maxis is that they assume always that their models (the "designs") are right and that people will change their behaviors and attitudes to fit into their model. Whoever continues to spew that BS after any kind of "one true way" is either incredibly naive or a pathological crook.
Perhaps the biggest misconception about the Bitcoin network is that miners think they can change the rules.
Satoshi's designed the Bitcoin protocol to be immutable.
Therefore, miners only follow the rules according to their own interests. And it's the police who verify if other miners or users are breaking the rules.
If they can't change the rules, there's no profit for some miners to collude. They can try to get in the way with money, but to no avail.
In order to scale to a large scale, it is natural to specialize. ISPs are few in the world, but We are not saying they are centralized.
This is because it only serves its role according to the Internet protocol.
This is not an obsession with Satoshi. Since we are using what Satoshi made, we check whether it works by itself.
Satoshi fixed the protocol, and I think he is right if scaling were made from the fixed rules.
And the real expansion is taking place.
> Bitcoin protocol to be immutable.
The protocol doesn't matter for the purposes of these questions. The point is that your proposed architecture relies on a "few specialized miners".
These miners (whether BTC, BCH or BSV) are few presumably due to the costs of running the operation profitably. PoW requires a lot of energy and blockspace requires ever more storage capacity - in the case of BSV, they would be requiring TBs of storage per week.
> And it's the police who verify
What police??? You just said before that miners can only act on their own interest, then you go to say there is someone that can force miners to do (or not do) something?
> If they can't change the rules, there's no profit for some miners to collude.
Like you said, in your design, they are few. If they are few, they can act as a cartel, which is effectively THE SAME as "changing the rules". They can collude to increase fees. They can collude to create periodic 51% attacks. They can collude to block transactions from certain addresses.
> ISPs are few in the world, but We are not saying they are centralized.
The cost to run one ISP is not dependent on how many other ISPs are out there. Its profitability may depend on market conditions and the market price may fluctuate due to increasing supply. But the operational costs are predictable and they grow slower than revenue. Also, it's very unlikely that once an ISP acquired a customer that they will be easily migrating to another that started offering better prices. Lastly, an ISP can use its servers for a long time, even if a newer/more powerful model comes to the market.
Mining does not give you that. The cost to run a miner goes up with the amount of competition. Every one is competing for more hashpower and if you don't keep up in the race, your revenue is lost. People running outdated mining rigs will be priced out of the market or forced to buy newer/more efficient rigs. No amount of specialization and optimization will let you compete with a miner that is running on China with subsidized and/or dirty energy.
Bitcoin’s block reward converges to zero. Miners need incentives to existing. The TX fee, which will replace the block reward, exists only when the big block is processed.
The cost of disk storage continues to drop. Miners do not necessarily need to store all data. Please refer to Chapter 7 of the White Paper. I expect that the service to store all data will be provided by another specialized company.
Miners eliminate double-spending attacks according to their own interests. For this reason, I referred to as a police officer.
What do you think are the benefits that a small number of miners can achieve by forming a cartel? Isn't it just an effort not to put a specific TX in a block? Or they reject blocks of honest miners.
Competition from a handful of specialized honest miners prevents double-spending attacks. They handle larger TX with lower fees. This is a completely different form of storage from centralized data storage. Because you don't have to depend on anyone.
All of this was what Satoshi expected. He designed Bitcoin like this.
Thought Bitcoin as a Protocol set in stone for its lifetime “The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.” (June 17, 2010) Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611
Predicted the emergence of server farms with specialized hardware “The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.” (July 29, 2010) Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306
1MB block size limit should be temporary because it would never scale “Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea. Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB. Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed. The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched. But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.” (Feb. 7, 2015) Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.msg10388435#m...
Thought massive on-chain scaling would be possible at low cost, and now it is “Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices. If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.” (Nov. 3, 2008) Source: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/
Transactions will be processed within 10 seconds on snack machine “I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.” (July 17, 2010) Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423
No. If it is more profitable for the miners to go rogue and start selling "double-spending a service" where they create massive chain reorgs, they will. Any blockchain that can not deal with the scenario of the miners going rogue is worth absolutely zero.
All the quotes you are pulling from the forums are at best covering only the "happy-path scenario" or handwaving the fundamental issues we would have with one chain being so fundamental and yet controlled by a handful of miners. Satoshi's proposals only work if the value of the network is low enough to not be interesting for malicious actors.
Your and my predictions for the "happy-path scenario" are different. BitcoinSV is empirically demonstrating that it can be expanded according to Satoshi's design. Still, most people, including you, don't seem to want to see it.
Finally, I would like to thank you very much for all of your patience, listening, and replying.
Your and my predictions for the "happy-path scenario" are different. BitcoinSV is empirically demonstrating that it can be expanded according to Satoshi's design. Still, most people, including you, don't seem to want to see it.
Satoshi designed and made predictions. I hope that you will see it without prejudice that it is now a reality.
Finally, I would like to thank you very much for all of your patience, listening, and replying.
I've said in the very first comment. The problem is not about now, the problem for BSV is that it ignores dynamic changes in the system across time.
You can not say that anyone "is empirically demonstrating that it can be expanded" for future scenarios by using current conditions. It's a very basic mistake, and you keep insisting on it. You talk about static variables in the system (few specialized miners, others just run nodes) without explaining how this will ever reach an equilibrium.
You keep using circular logic to justify your reasoning: "miners will be incentivized to be honest because the paper says miners will be honest due to incentives" is not a valid argument until you show the calculation of the cost/reward for being honest vs for colluding.
Worst of all, you start with the premise that "Satoshi's design" is the final solution and that everyone pointing out its flaws are just stupid not to see it. From reading your comments, it seems almost like you treat the paper as some Revealed Truth and that the different actors are just supposed to fulfill their predetermined roles.
> I would like to thank you very much for all of your patience, listening, and replying.
Yeah, I'm done with that now. I said in the beginning that bitcoin maxis (no matter which fork of it) are either naive or crooks. You don't seem to be a crook, but you haven't convinced me out of the alternative.
I think it's because we have different expectations for the future and our understanding of Satoshi's design is different.
When the first 10MB block was created, even when the 100MB block was created, people still did not believe it.
For now, 1-2 GB blocks are created. Nothing has changed. If a 1TB block is created and processed without problems, would it be acceptable? I think maybe not.
And even if 10TB and 100TB come into existence, there will still be people who believe that scalability is impossible. But by then, it seems that we are already using it widely.
Thank you so much for not treating me as a scammer.
PS. I was delighted to discover so many new things through discussion with you.
That is the best example of looking at a system as something static.
Forget about the exceptionally large block, you need to measure what the blockchain is capable of handling on a long span of time. You will have my eyes and ears when BSV manages to handle average loads of multi-GB blocks during a whole day.
Miners can mine larger blocks to increase their ROI.
I strive to provide sufficient answers to your questions. Please understand even if my English is not good.
The author can just advertise their preferred payment method including a BTC wallet if they like to. And the user can be sure that their money reaches the author instead of PeerSend pocketing it after 24 hours.
Brave attempted this with BAT as well and it seems it was put on ice despite better browser integration and not pocketing the money after 24 hours.