I said none of those things, you're reading way too much into it. Of course if a chain can improve it should improve (and btw BCH/BSV'ers actually disagree here, since they to stick as much as possible to the original paper), but blocksizes aren't that simple, increasing blocksize also increases the blockchain size. And the way bitcoin is made there's no real solution for that, that's why there are better chains to deal with high transaction throughputs. They are fundamentally different in a way that BTC simply can't do. So in the context of chains that are forks of BTC there's no real reason to increase the blocksize (as of yet, there might be in the future). But even if there would be a reason right now, the descision which chain would be the main one after such a change would still be decided by the majority.. As for the propaganda, censorship, and all that stuff, again of course the world would be better without it, but there's always going to be idiots and trolls in the world that think that's funny or people who just have an agenda I was just saying it was completely unrelated to the reason why a certain chain was chosen. Just for context, I'm far from a BTC maxi, but yea your final statement is somewhat correct, BTC won so BTC is Bitcoin simple as that. If BCH won, BCH would've been bitcoin, same with BSV and the thousands of other forks. It's not decided by just you or me, it's decided by everyone by literally putting their money where their mouth is. That's why I said it was simple, there's no conspiracies there, it's exactly working as intended for a decentralized system.
Sure there were accusations and ddos attacks, that's still going on between so many chains. But the reason BTC is the considered the real BTC is much simpler, it was a decentralized majority decision, just how it's supposed to work. If most people would've sided with BCH then that chain would've been the biggest one, simple as that. Same thing with the BCH/BSV split, there's a reason why they're so much smaller than BTC, people just don't care about them as much. And like I mentioned in my first reply, when it comes to blocksize, there's no real reason to increase that for throughput. There are much better blockchains out there that are way more efficient for high transaction throughputs.
the "BCH" ticker was also stolen from Bitcoin--- i'm mildly amused by how it was hijacked by some "anarchist" pirates & hauled away to the caribbean as their booty, but uh mostly still pissed at them, that was fucking ridiculous the only Bitcoin that matters is BSV sorry about the confusion let me know if there's anything i can do to help :/
> it'll be surprising to you what that sentence you said comes to mean No, it won't. I've listened to moronic shitcoiners make vague doomsday predictions like this for a decade. You honestly sound like a BCH/BSV lunatic. Have fun losing more of your money.
When trying to buy BTC from Ver's website they even directed people to BCH instead of BTC. It was and still is very cringeworthy. Not usually comparing or even bringing up politics but it just fits, It's like Trump not willing to back down because he lost and his followers cult still claiming he's the real thing.
Yeah, because BCH is where the protocol improvements have been happening. When was the last time BTC did anything interesting at the protocol layer? BTC is what it is, and that's probably fine. It's digital gold, meant to act as a cryptographic store of value between large financial institutions. BCH is more like digital copper, optimized for low value transactions. By value, I definitely hold way more BTC than BCH, but I probably spend BCH about 10x more often than I spend BTC. A decade ago, I spent BTC on all sorts of stuff. Shirts, stickers, coffee at the local coffee shop, etc. You can't do that with BTC anymore, but you can with BCH. No idea if BCH or LTC will get an ETF first, but with BTC approved it would be trivial to justify either of them, since they're all basically clones. Hell even DOGE (what's that, digital aluminum?). Anyway, BCH actually is super useful, and is getting used by a lot of people around the world regularly to make real payments for stuff. The stupid fucking block size wars blinded a ton of Bitcoin maxis to the concept of utility, and they would do well to re-learn it.
"BCH" is also nearly completely worthless, as there's little value left to the system once you start fucking w/ it worthless is different ofc than can you sell it to someone ,, that is why there could be moral consequences to selling someone something worthless for more than it's worth, b/c it is in fact possible to overpay for smth
The /r/btc subreddit is way older than BCH. /r/btc was created for developers who wanted to actually discuss Bitcoin protocol improvements, which would get an immediate ban on /r/bitcoin. Shit got weird. Most of the people who actually wanted to build cool stuff just moved to Ethereum though.
These answers mostly suck. Think about it this way. Blockchains in their purest ideological form are permissionless ledgers. When you look at most every major L1, they are run by the community of anonymous nodes paid in the token. The question of whether the blockchains will still be on the internet is the question of, Will there still be a handful of people willing to run this node for payment. In certain cases, that demand could be purely wiped, but look at the historical cases of ETC or LUNC or BCH, and I think you may start to get a better understanding of what's going on. The major chains? They will all be here. You can't stop them. The real question is what chains will be the most useful roadways for this future way the internet will be used? Those will build the most value. But will all ships rise? No, not all meme coins or whatever, but it's just because all demand evaporates. ​ Think about demand. Governments can't shut these things down. Coders can't. If anyone wants to run the node, it runs.
Why in the world would BCH and LTC become ETFs??? Both of their marketcaps right now combined are lower than dogecoin. You living under the rock? Neither of those have been relevant since the 2017 bull. BCH has been exposed as a scam and LTC has little holding itself up aside from being relevant during the 2017 bull.
Who cares? They should get dirtier. The more he can pump the price the better. The whole narrative behind that product is to point out the ridiculous fees on BTC. The choice to maximize hash rate and miner revenue set part of the community apart. They are always going to be represented in the BCH chain. Even more it makes it a very tradable asset because guess what happens to BCH every time the BTC fees go parabolic?
In Canada last year the OSC (frosty SEC) imposed a $30K ($22K USD) annual purchasing cap on all cryptocurrencies, the only exemptions being BTC, ETH, BCH and LTC. For *2022* these exemptions made no sense. My guess would be BCH and LTC. Not that I think those are the most deserving today, but tradfi moves slower than crypto. BCH and LTC are forks of BTC, so the Boomers understand it. I think it will be 1-2 full cycles before any alt ETFs are approved.. By then Gary won't be relevant, and the entire political/regulatory climate will shift. I don't think anyone can guess what will happen that far out. By then new coins may emerge (AI generated?) that make these ETFs somehow irrelevant.. Following Canada and Europe though, BCH and LTC are practically identical to BTC and ETH, so that's where I'd place my bet.
You will only use the base layer when you need the censorship-resistant property of bitcoin and those that do will happily pay the fee. Secondary and tertiary layers will scale bitcoin for other uses. You do not need the full suite of bitcoin properties to buy coffee, if you did BCH would be thriving.
In case you're newer to crypto: Bitcoin has had a couple of high-profile splits over the years, as portions of the community disagreed about how to proceed and what trade-offs to make. The first was the BTC - BCH fork in 2017, and later we got the BCH - BSV fork. The former was based on issues around scaling and block size, and frankly had valid perspectives on both sides though obviously the BTC side "won". The latter (BSV) layers on the additional wrinkle of a personality cult built around Craig Wright, who claims to be Satoshi and who acolytes believe is Satoshi despite abundant evidence to the contrary. So it's a little wackier. Regardless, it's important to understand that forks simply represent alternative perspectives on what the network should be, as represented by competing hashpower. This ability to fork is a key aspect of democratic expression on the blockchain--anyone has the right to try to gather support for an idea, argue for its adoption, and initiate a split if no agreement is reached. And after a split, the "will of the people" (so to speak) is expressed in which chain is more supported. Generally speaking we call the more-supported chain the "real" one, and more often than not the other ones die out. But when the fork occurred due to strongly-held convictions, you can have minority chains that continue to hold on to the belief that their chain is the "real" one, even if it lags in popularity. That's true of hardliners in the BCH and BSV communities--they believe that Bitcoin was essentially hijacked by malicious special interests and that their own chains represent the "real" Bitcoin as envisioned by Satoshi. So, it's not that this guy believes there's more than one Bitcoin; it's that he believes that BSV, and not BTC, literally *is* the true Bitcoin.
If you don't like the fees use BCH or LTC or even better XMR (a privacy coin), at least when you value your financial data. Also Lightning for normies like you works best with a custodial LN wallet (with KYC) and its in stark contrast to the values of crypto. Simply use Bitcoin as a store of value. And use other coins more fit for your use case.
That's why BCH did not just change one line of code that allows larger blocks, no we added compression to the blocks. That 1 GB block can be send in just a few kb as long as you have kept your mempool in sync the block does not need to be downloaded, it can be build from the tx in your own mempool. That's why I was not talking about downloading, that's never gonna be a problem. I was taking about taking 1 GB worth of transactions and checking them if they are valid. That's much more a problem for scaling then the bandwith. And by the way, the average day user was never suppose to run a full node. The average user runs a spv client and only checks his own transactions. Why would you care about other people their tx unless you are getting paid to care like miners do or a big business that would lose money if they did not care.
>\[...\] completely ridiculous to have a computer with a hard drive that has a donut transaction from 55 000 years ago. As it is also completely ridiculous that millions of machines validate my morning coffee purchases on the base layer. Some kind of layering is the only way to scale. >Therefore, in its current form both BTC and BCH will die when the block reward runs out enough. I'll mine on my Raspi even for no reward so it'll go forward..
>Increasing blocksize is just kicking the can down the road. Why? According to the design, you don't need to store all the transactions permanently, only for a while, after that you only store blockheaders. And if you use the compression that BCH build in, then a 1 GB block can be send with only 2 or 3 kb of data. So then what is being kicked down the road?
All you need to read is point 7 in the whitepaper to realize that you have been bamboozled. Ever heard somebody say that storing the purchase of a cup of coffee forever on your hard drive is ridicilous? And they are right of course, but that's never been how Bitcoin was designed or even currently IS designed. To make Bitcoin work we don't need to store all our transactions forever, but only 4.2 MB of blockheaders a year. See for yourself. > 7. Reclaiming Disk Space > Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before > it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, > transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree , with only the root included in the block's hash. > Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do > not need to be stored. > A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are > generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems > typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of > 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in > memory. Let me tell you a story to illustrate the weakness of the human mind and how easy it is to exploit it. During the summer of 2010 I first heard about Bitcoin and read the whitepaper. At the time I was the second in command of a small IT company, my friend was my boss. I printed out a copy of the whitepaper and gave it to him, you should read this I said. I think there is some money to be made. He did not read it. Over the years I worked there I kept asking him, did you read the Bitcoin whitepaper. He always had an excuse. I left that company to do my own think. Years and years later in 2018 after the first big bull run to 20K my ex boss changed his entire company and became a litecoin miner. We would actually trade asics once in a while and most of the time we would use BCH for payment. Sometimes I would hire him and pay him with BCH, sometimes he would hire me or buy hardware from my company and pay with BCH. I always asked him: did you read the Bitcoin whitepaper now? Do you understand it now? He would always till have an excuse. His company eventually went bankrupt, he got hacked. He still has no idea how Bitcoin works or what it is or what it's not. He has never forced himself to study it. He is a smart man, he could understand it. But it would take effort. Effort he was not willing to expand. You guys have been bamboozled, but it's to late now. All SHA256 coins will die. All of them where explicity designed with the blockreward as a bribe and a mechanism to distribute the coins to the people that cared to get them. The blockreward is a smaller starter engine to a bigger engine, some jet engines are actually started like this. This bigger engine never got started, there are no 100 million users that use crypto as currency on a daily bases. For any proof of work based crypto, the only way for them to be selfsustainable is to have a large amount of people making a lot of transactions all paying a very small fee that combined provides security for the system.
That is a fair assessment. One with which I agree….every network has their pros and cons…dinamic block sizing is something I think BCH is working on? Correct me if I’m wrong..algorand for sure is doing this though. Perhaps not the only one but I find it an interesting idea. Not sure it would help BCH necessarily due to the design of the blockchain but I am not in the business of building scalable blockchains. Any, have a nice day, sir.
I am aware of the argument against BCH and the larger block debate( nodes becoming too expensive to spin up for the Everyman over time) thus centralizing power over the network in a way that not everyone can participate. But hey, how decentralized is the current BTC mining pool and how affordable are the current BTC mining rigs? I thought so. You have this problem right now! BCH isn’t even close to having this problem …YET
Then you don't understand the whitepaper, you don't need to store the whole blockchain forever, it's spelled out pretty well there. Nor does it seem you realize BCH has xThinner compress blocks by 99% I think you need to keep reading before passing judgement on tech you seem to not fully understand.
yeah sure no. Are you ready? Drumroll please.... I've worked for an SSD and DRAM manufacturer before at their HQ in taipei, Taiwan. Moores law won't carry the BCH blockchain forever. Engineers told us that the ability for a company to get their hands on the top tier resources for the longest lasting hard drives is extremely top heavy. So you not only have competition for who can get the most expensive ASICs but also the issue of who can get their hands on the most reliable hard drives for storing the complete transaction history of the BCH blockchain. BTC has no comment. tick tock next block.
Imagine a non-techy CNBC host from 1999 asking a Microsoft developer how they're ever going to get high-speed video streaming for billions of devices simultaneously using TCP/IP and IPV-4. Bitcoin can scale, without giving up decentralization and security on the base chain like BCH has done. Just give it time. We are in this for the long haul... not for a quick fiat dollar. That's why Bitcoin is NOT cRypTo
We can have it both ways in time. It's just a matter of getting the engineering right. Roger Ver and other BCH'ers should have stayed on the main chain and fought the fight to move Bitcoin forward. We can have it both ways eventually. Support the development, and have some patience.
Because LN was a switch and bait to prevent Bitcoin from ever becoming currency which is a threat to the dollar. LN fans will say things like: well for small value transactions you don't need all that Bitcoin security and so it's okay to use a custodial app. And then in that same breath they will say that a one dollar zero-conf BCH transaction is not safe because BCH does not have enough hashrate. LN is unsusable for 99,999% of the population unless you let somebody manage all your channels for you, which means having to trust somebody else again. See LN is to Bitcoin what paper money was to gold. The Chinese once were upset that gold would enter and leave their borders nillywilly, fucking up their economic policities they tried to execute. So they made that illegal. At the border all your gold was confiscated and you would get paper IOU's for them which you would get back when you left China. LN is exactly that, a bait and switch. You know what eventually happened? People all said: these paper IOU's are much easier and convient to deal with then gold. You know what happened next? IOU's where created that did not have any gold backing ... Of course LN defenders are gonna say: well that just can't happen with LN because of bla bla bla bla. But you know, a code change here and a code change there. Meanwhile both BTC and BCH are going to die when block reward runs out because that reward had one fuction and one fuction only, rewards the miners before billions of transacionts take over and reward the miners. And those never happened. Therefore in it's current form both BTC and BCH will die when the block reward runs out enough.
Pretty interesting…I been looking thru cryptos, and it seems like any crypto that was over valued when hitting the market has tanked & never recovered (ex: ICP, JASMY, BCH)…all the coins that blow up hit the market at a lower price & shot up, as to where the over valued ones just flat line. Have you guys seen a coin that tanked on release, and came back up?
I generally don't recommend PoS chains or payment networks like XLM for the monetary use case. Because most are highly centralized and have entities behind them that could fail (foundations). Compare that to the community development process of XMR, BTC, BCH, LTC.
Yes you are gullible. “Nakamoto Coefficient” was not coined by satoshi, but by Balaji just a few years ago. You dont know how BTC works if you think miners have the power in the network. In 2017 most miners voted by big blocks (BCH), but regular node runners signalled for small blocks… and guess who won? Normal everyday node runners preserved the decentralization of the network. You dont know basic BTC history, and you actually think Nano is decentralized. By the upvote/downvote ratio in these comments it seems like most users here are also hopelessly gullible, and will continue to be tricked by marketing propaganda, and lose money in crypto. Buy and hodl bitcoin, its the easiest thing ever
They already do, welcome to exhibit A: tax policy The only place you may have a hope of crypto being used for payment mechanisms would be in smaller countries. This is why BCH caught on in St Kitts and btc was intentionally handicapped as a payment mechanism and created into what more resembles an investment vehicle with maximum hash rate and miner revenue over low-cost transactions. Blockstream saw the way policy was going. That's the main reason the narrative for Bitcoin changed
There's a good chance I've been in this space a lot longer than most. I still remember the block size wars and when Roger initially split BCH. But none of that makes you money, only way it does is when you get in front of people. When you figure out what narrative is going to be popular and sell into the euphoria. If you go back even further, the 2013 run. There were a lot of people looking to invent alt coins, peercoin and so on. These are designed for one reason. To sell hype and drawing money for people to sell into. That's going to happen again. You guys just have to figure out which narrative to get in front of before the crowds start to really pump the price
Maybe it won't remain the largest exchange, but without doubts it has been the major contributor to bring the market where it is today. CZ executed perfectly for years and kept running an exchange super efficient and reliable for users in the critical years, when everyone and each politician and regulator was shitting on crypto and the whole space was constantly on the verge of imploding (remember BCH, Tether, Chinese and Indian bans, the mining crisis, the devastating crypto crash of 2018, the fall of CoinCheck, BitGrail, QuadrigaCX...). While all this was happening, Binance brought futures, staking, lending, yield farming, tokenized stocks, a DEX, and thousands of trading pairs, with no major withdrawal issues, even in the most critical moments. BlackRock and the others will just come now that the critical part is done, to reap the benefits with their incomparable firepower. Anyone can talk without doing anything, and sure they were not perfect, but without the CZs and the Bukeles to be the first to try, we wouldn't be were we are today.
This has happened countless times before. Remember when we hit $50 in 2017. Fees were also perma high most of the time above 50k. This happens whenever there is a lot of transfers, this is the first real rally we have had in quite some time so it's natural for people to start shuttling things around. You ever notice how BCH spikes when BTC fees get really high? It more or less becomes the perfect selling point for that narrative
It’s already very clear the low fee options (or no fee options…lol) have been put the side and are not used much. See all forks of BTC that increased throughout like BCH…. BSV is a joke but same story. Nano is free banano is free….. very little traction. I think cryptocurrency (without further innovation) is only a good monetary system for truly unbanked ppl. Third word regions and where there is no stable currency. In the US? Pure speculation and “store of value” are the only real use cases. You can’t buy coffee with BTC or eth when the “gas” is 10 bucks at a minimum. Channels on lightening are never going to get close to challenging the worldwide credit card systems either with its current speed and cost….at least with what data I’ve seen. This also predicates everything on building out infrastructure with banks and already existing g partners that have very little reason to change the game. So thing will change, but barring a full collapse of the dollar…. There is no way any crypto is taking over payments in major counties in my life.
Nakamoto wasn't low 5-10 years ago, though. Given enough time, it will reach a critical level. BSV has a NK of 1 and requires 250 confirmations on Kucoin, and BCH requires 15 confirmations on kraken. Even the Bitcoin developer is suggesting 12 blocks now due to the centralization. https://finbold.com/bitcoin-transactions-need-2-hours-to-be-safe-says-developer/ This will only get worse as the halving cut the subsidies for block security in half. Don’t wait to bail water until the boat is sinking.