GigabytedLast Sunday at 7:57 PM
reallity is plenty of tools are sending transaction with ease with nearly any crypto right now
stop acting like everyone had to decipher the hex string themselves
they dont
in all case sending a human formatted transaction over a network is less efficient than sending a shorter version without all the data that describes the data (and not being human readable)
Sure its cool to be able to tell a amount of coin sent in a tx just by reading it, like 10,000, this takes at least 5 bytes, while you could have sent it with 2 bytes (0x2710)
Im the first to enjoy being able to read directly a message by looking at the data sent, i love it, i really do!
But truth is, its much less efficient this way
So its not that bitcoin didnt went that far, its more cruz that didnt go that far, he did a design decision, he decided that the volume of data sent will never be an issue, so theres no need to go this far
Which i believe is fine for cruz since its not storing those tx , it doesnt need to keep them, so space isnt an issue like some others have
I love cruzbit for its well balanced design, he picked the right tools and took the right decisions so each of the decisions doesnt become an issue to the other
Which shows that the dev have clearly thought ALOT about this and is very skilled (because most doesnt care much and end up in a year with a BIG chain size problem, VBK.... :slight_smile: )
its funny because if cruz became used alot, a bit like bitcoin, you could bet that node operator would request a way to reduce its bandwidth requirements and would probably submit a proposal to change message format
Im sure @Wolf9466 woudl agree with me, sending numbers in text is a crime for efficiency :slight_smile:
In clear, bitcoin is designed to be efficient, while cruz protocol was designed for not being efficient (on purpose to be human readable)

jstnryanLast Sunday at 8:18 PM
cruzbit stores every transaction and every block header. The blockchain is currently 225M, by the way.

GigabytedLast Sunday at 8:18 PM
that seems reasonable
in the example you gave, you decided to send "fe7a5505135a451e806dc948eaa6a559" as text while you could have send it as byte which would have taken 2x less space (plus the quotes space).  In all you could probably AT LEAST cut the 272 bytes you stated in half and probably more