I don't disagree with your conclusion but your logic seems to be marred by regurgitation of talking points.
ASICBoost is a non-issue and really doesn't increase hashing that much in the current environment. Furthermore, ASICBoost was patented by a KORE DEVELOPER. Nobody was screaming bloody murder about it when Lerner filed for the AB patent or when he licensed it to Bitmain. Doesn't that make you wonder why they got everybody worked into a frenzy about AB just when they needed Segwit to get rammed thru?
What do you mean ASICboost doesn't increase the hashing rate in the current environment? If you mean the other chain, then that is true. If you mean the Bitcoin Cash Chain, are you stating the 20% increase in hash rate is vastly overstated?
So let's say somebody is getting 20% more hashing done than somebody else. Can't the other guy just use ASICBoost as well? It's not like anybody gives 2 f*cks in China about a USA patent... Or, if they want to "play by the book", they just buy 20% more miners. It's just not anything to get all worried about. And who is doing the hashing is not that big of a deal unless it's all one person. Jihan Wu runs a mining pool and doesn't own all of that hashpower anymore so than any other pool operator. And again, it would be completely against his self-interest to "rock the boat" and do a 51% attack on BTC or whatever. He just wants bigger blocks so miners can mine more transactions and make more money. Kore wants small blocks 4ever to force Lightning and their patented tech down everyones' throats. I don't want that crap and most people I respect agree with that viewpoint.
Also if you think for more than one second, Ver and Jihan are pumping hundred of millions into BTC, and probably much less into BCH. Jihan runs the largest BTC mining hardware manufacturer, why wouldn't he be pro-BTC? He likely has millions of his own fortune intrinsically tied up with BTC's fate. Ver was known as "Bitcoin Jesus" for giving away what is now millions of dollars worth of BTC. I think it's safe to say he is pro-BTC. The only thing they don't like is the Kore team and how they are deliberately crippling BTC with 1MB blocks, Segwit, and RBF, to provide an excuse for Lightning to save the day. Which you should know is such a stupid plan, if you've read any current research on the subject.
Ver probably has the best of intentions. However, Jihan's motivation is to have as much control as possible; not only with the mining aspect but with the direction of future development as well. If he can basically get KORE fired, I'm sure he'd be more than willing to fill the gap. How perfect for him to be able to totally control the destiny of BTC. In the mean time, if he can't accomplish his desire for absolute power on the BTC chain, he has Bitcoin Cash that he can totally control.
I still don't see what there is to control, the blocksize? What would it mean if Jihan Wu completely controlled a coin (likely it would be a worthless coin)? Again, Kore is sabotaging the original plan to scale Bitcoin so they can run their lame scheme on top of Bitcoin (THAT would qualify as controlling Bitcoin to me...). This has been agonizing to watch, and it won't work. A potential $500 billion market cap is being hamstrung by just $75 million which was invested in Blockstream by Silbert and DCG. There is so much pressure building for greater capacity and speed, and Kore just sits there with their thumbs up their asses saying "no" to everyone, like big babies!
Large blocks are not a problem like Kore screamed relentlessly they would be, and fees are 4000x lower on BCH. High fees and a bloated mempool ARE problems on BTC that have real and grave consequences for BTC, that have drastically reduced BTC's crypto market share AND the BTC adoption rate. These are just facts, yet the Kore fanbois (not saying you are one) just keep burying their heads under some more sand every time they are asked to address it.
I happen to know from experience that large blocks can be a problem for casual users. I happen to own a shitcoin that made the mistake of having 30 second blocks. My computer has a hard time keeping up with these blocks because it needs to spend time downloading the new blocks and verifying them. Since most of the blocks on this chain are empty, I can't imagine how difficult it would be for my computer to keep up with blocks that are near capacity. In order for a coin to scale properly on-chain with 10 minute blocks so that it can realistically compete with Visa, you would probably need 1GB blocks. This definitely would exclude a casual user from realistically running a node. It would also make entry for any startups who need to run a node, like a new exchange, more difficult.
PS: I am not running a Raspberry PI.
Thanks for not running a RasPi. Sure, there are circumstances when you might need to rent a $10/mo VPS to get good performance syncing several 8-32MB blockchains. Big deal. And all of the hand-wringing about "ehrmagerd, blockchain will be 5000 Terabytes in 10 years" - get over it. Prune your blockchain, buy a bigger hard drive, or use an SPV wallet. Yes, it's annoying to have a huge blockchain but the problem can easily be solved in the next 10 years before anyone is adversely impacted.
Tek, good to see you back. You came in right on time to scream about the big blocks.
