Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees - page 601. (Read 704412 times)

Is that the best you can come up with some BS articles I could come up with a list of articles that list technical reasons on why increasing the blocksize is bad does that make it a valid reason.

on another note looks like the miners have finally thrown in the towel and gave up last block 3 and a half hours ago now just wait for the EDA exploit to fix the profitability for them they only need to trigger a single reduction to keep parity any more and it will be more profitable and back to hyper blocks

Segwit weakens Bitcoin's security model
https://bitcrust.org/blog-incentive-shift-segwit

Risk of SegWit
https://nchain.com/en/blog/risks-of-segregated-witness-mining-cartels/

Dr. Peter Rizun - SegWit Coins are not Bitcoins - Arnhem 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY

Didn't SegWit increase the block capacity?
https://www.bitcoincash.org/
Even if used in 100% of transactions, the increase would equate to 1.7MB blocks. Thus, it is a small capacity increase at best. It will not handle exponential growth or worldwide usage. Second, the soft fork implementation results in discardable signatures, which weakens Bitcoin's security model. Third, it makes future capacity increases more difficult due to bandwidth inefficiency and quadratic hashing attacks which SegWit doesn't solve since an attacker isn't forced to use it.

For those (and other) reasons, Bitcoin Cash was necessary as a pre-SegWit fork. Segwit will not be adopted.

8 times Core told people Segwit is a Blocksize Increase
http://archive.is/6DkOY

Small Blocks Destroy Miner Revenue
https://keepingstock.net/an-open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-c260467e1f0

He probably still uses Windows 95 and hates progress in general.

And why would we want to do that segwit fixes most if not all of the outstanding bugs that satoshi was struggling with

Honest question what do you have against segwit ?

If you remove the mid-august mega-pump / last ditch attack on Bitcoin, and extrapolate the downward slope, we should have been at $0 before October 1st. So we have catching-up to do now 

They were saying that at $600 it wont go below $500 and it's just kept going down but hang in there eventually one of you will get it right 

Yes agree, it seems like it takes a long time and is difficult to achieve, I'm sure the BCH price will not drop under $ 100, this is a good time to invest the price of about $ 300 next year will reach at least $ 1000.

You have to wait so long for this moment but I don't think you will get succeed to pick at this value. This coin still has good support than it bounce back soon once the accumulation will be done.

$50 par value ~ i'll pay that cuz thats where i saw bitcoinSatoshi make moves    lol

No. The current Kore team has very few of the original members who wrote 99% of the code. The current Kore team is the people who ousted the finest devs from Bitcoin development (Satoshi, Gavin, Hearn, Garzik, etc.) with vicious trolling tactics and a cult-like devotion to small blocks and Segwit. In particular Maxwell is a nasty sort of guy - I won't deny that he's a good coder but he is absolutely toxic to the entire scene. Look at my username, I used to be a Kore minion myself, buying in to all of these R3KT campaigns full of personal attacks on devs who didn't tow the Kore party line. Now I read the works of "dissidents" who challenge Segwit/Lightning/small blocks 4ever propaganda, and it's crystal clear how short-sighted and simply wrong these Blockstreamers are.

I agree that 2x is a corporate takeover, why do you think I'm such a Bitcoin Cash fan?  When an open source project gets corrupted by bad people with an inability to make good decisions, it gets forked and improved on by a fresh set of people with renewed idealism. That's the history of open source.

You are bashing the team of brilliant minds that built bitcoin and wrote 99.99% of code in your Bitcoin C(r)ash fork.

The 2X is nothing but attempt to steal Bitcoin entirely by stealing the client code access. The powers behind it figured that it's far easier and million times cheaper to gain control over Bitcoin via sabotage (buying out Garzik and few others), then it is with monopolizing mining power or simply buying up coins.

Trust me, the Core (or "Kore" as you spell it for some reason) know better what solutions to apply for the scaling problem, which is alleviated for now with segwit anyway. Segwit, of course is an engineering solution to the problem (one of many that will follow), not a trivial block increase. And 2X as well as Cash or any other fork "teams" have never been about long term future of Bitcoin or clever engineering in general. They were always about politics and attempts to gain power.

Ironic, coming from a shitcoin pumper such as yourself... How's that FLO LOL?

You sound like you've chugged a nice big cup of Kore Koolaid. "Blindly increasing blocksize", LOL where were you when the BTC blocks were full, the mempool was giant, and people were paying $10 in fees on a $20 transaction?  And "nowhere near enough transaction volume", a new coin is supposed to magically just use its excess capacity? I suppose having 24 transactions per second (BCH) capability instead of 3 per second (BTC Kore) means nothing to you?  How about 1500x lower fees? It's hard to debate that BCH is not technically superior to BTC.  And Segwit is crap - the spam transactions stopped so it sort of works but has created less than 10% capacity increase for BTC. Lightning doesn't even exist and won't work. And when that spam kicks up again in late October...

People aren't adopting BCH that fast but that could change in a heartbeat when the SHTF with btc1/Segwit2x and Kore 1x...  It's almost like the market is completely clueless to the potentially giant trainwreck that is only a few weeks away... from what I can tell despite the Kore FUD (Lukejr says Garzik is going to JAIL LOL) and massive Kore troll campaigns, 95% of hashpower is behind 2x, so Kore is basically fired. Garzik looks like a complete corporate/government tool so this doesn't seem good either. Then we'll have all of the replays, exchange labeling fiascoes, and hard fork address confusion.

{off to buy some BCH}

I will give them that at least they did it right with replay protection but if you split properly then replay protection makes no difference it will only catch the inexperienced

At least the cash guys didn't call it "Bitcoin" like the 2X gang will call their altcoin.

I dont think that you should do something specially before the fork, you should keep your BTC in a safe wallet and be sure you have access to private keys, that is what I did before BCH fork! In rest, keep calm and wait for the fork

This is one I would stay away from without a doubt just a money grab it got mentioned once in one of my twitter posts I had a look for like 2 seconds and that was enough for me

And as for bitcoin cash was was bigger success than expected I just have to give that a big lols the expectation was to steal the majority of power and value from core

If this is real it will go with the long line of failures

Bitcoin XT (RIP)
Bitcoin Classic (RIP)
Bitcoin Unlimited (RIP)
Bitcoin Cash  (Life Support)
Bitcoin Gold (TBA)
Bitcoin 2x (TBA)

Dogecoin at least has different algo and cool meme-based branding. Doge I view as far better investment than Bitcoin Cash - just for the nostalgia and historical value. In fact, I don't foresee anything but steady decline to BitcoinXT and BitcoinUnlimited levels (to zero) for Bitcoin Cash.

Only difference and possible value proposition for BCC is lack of SegWit. But that is not even a positive thing - SegWit is optimisation and improvement to the Bitcoin protocol - one that has just been proven to be effective and stable in the original Bitcoin blockchain. There is no real downside to SegWit (I am not talking about Segwit2X saboteur project, of course).

The increased block size for BCC also has no advantage and rather disadvantages - it is a dumb way of solving scaling issues, that increased technical requirements for running a node. Especially dumb considering that BCC has nowhere near enough transaction volume to justify large block size.

Blindly increasing block size in pursuit of better transaction performance is like increasing engine displacement, disregarding negative effects on efficiency, emissions etc.

BCH ass hodlers are rekt    lol