the way i see it, the sales side should be bespoke -- because everyone has a different product, and way of selling/configuring, and the factory-floor side should be bespoke -- because of all the different types of equipment. but the middle layer (purchasing, bill of materials, invoices, sales orders, scheduling, processes, work centers) can be standardized.
for me that's why it's important that the middle layer is open source. so that the bespoke layers can tie into it.
ahh, it does -- but there's a slight hair to split.
on sales, carbon supports quoting, sales orders, invoicing, configurator, etc -- but it does not attempt to create a website for you where you can list your products and their configurations. the idea is that you have a site, the site sends info to carbon through the API (whether it's a quote or an order), and then things begin from there.
similarly with production except that the shop floor is pulling intstead of pushing. carbon manages the schedule, the jobs, the capacity planning, etc. and provides a UI for guys on the shop floor to record their time and materials. but if you want to interface with a machine, you'd be pulling information out of carbon through the API, and relaying it to the machine.
At the ERP level everything is abstracted such that every operation is just a black box - stuff (raw materials, subcomponents, labor) goes in, stuff (assemblies, finished goods, scrap) comes out.
This big block propaganda piece fails to address the most obvious issue with their proposal: that increasing block sizes will just increase fees linearly. No one will pay more in fees per transaction because there will be a lot of space left in blocks, so people will keep paying $0.20 per transaction, which today gets us $400, so now we'll get $800? That if increasing the block size doesn't reduce the base $0.20 to some smaller average.
The actual solution to the security budget is to make a ton of payments in a (blindly) merge-mined sidechain and ensure those transactions there pay lower fees but those lower fees get aggregated into a single high-fee paid on Bitcoin. That is the Drivechain proposal: https://drivechain.xyz/.
Yes, but there will be far greater total demand for transactions because the costs will no longer be prohibitive to certain types of commerce (which has network effects).
Drivechain is an idiotic proposal to just give total control of the network to miners. Atomic swaps already enable the same thing, except without a wealth transfer to miners.
You have demonstrated you have no idea of what Drivechain is, you probably never spent the time to learn how it works, and yet you feel entitled to call it "idiotic".
I get it, it's fine to not want to learn things, but that comes with the burden of not being allowed to comment on it.
Apparently you have not carefully read my criticism of the big block proposal above. I've included some numbers. A proper response would have to address those. But thank you for trying.
I have read about drivechain and all of sztorc's half-baked ideas extensively. Sidechains are inferior to altcoins in all respects.
The numbers you have included are just arbitrary prices you are guessing. The price of bitcoin fees is not totally elastic, because the demand for bitcoin transactions is based on network effects. So the total demand increases with the block size at a rate greater than the supply.
This reads like an AI-generated comment. What do you mean by "benchmarks suggest"? The benchmarks are very clear and presented right there in the page.
