Bingo. And BCH has proven 8MB blocks work fine. At the moment many are still selling BCH for BTC, but when more direct BCH->fiat exchanges become more mainstream (read: Bitstamp), the BCH price will rocket. Combine that with the November 2x drama and Kore doods ragequitting and we could well see a flippening. When BTC hashpower takes a shit and confirmations take as long as a month, what coin do you think people will run to?
Oh and LN is shit, I won't even bother discussing the million reasons it won't work and won't see mass adoption.
Ive not seen any proof of 8MB blocks working, 1 block is not proof the majority are well under 100k this is not proof of 8MB Blocks working
When Bitcoin Cash wiped out bitcoin satan attempt to flood their network with transactions.
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-8mb-block-479469-clears-over-37000-transactions/On August 16 at approximately 8 am EDT the mining pool Bitclub Network mined an 8MB block on the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) blockchain.
Block #479469 cleared over 37,000 transactions from the mempool making it the largest block found so far on the BCH chain.
Meanwhile, the BCH network continues to capture infrastructure development and industry support.
That is the great thing about using excess capacity, they only need to use it when it is needed.
The rest of the time , they use smaller blocksizes as the larger is not currently needed constantly, but it is there if they need it.
Verses 1 mb segwitcoin doing nothing but taking days and raising fees as their fix.
The fact that even when the Bitcoin Cash difficulty adjusting up and down, they Never have a backlog of transaction like segcrap.
Bitcoin Cash is just a superior product and it took a very little amount of code changes to make it so.
@tekmobile, I imagine when 1mb segwitcoin is frozen in a death spiral , you won't see that as a problem either.
╥Aztek
What are you both talking about? They don't "use smaller blocksizes". It's not like they have a choice to make a bigger block. New blocks are mined at a relatively constant rate and whatever amount of transactions is at that moment in mempool can then be stored in the block. They may decide to not write all transactions and thus make the block smaller but they definitely cannot artificially make the block larger. So saying "they only need to use it when it is needed" is nonsense.
Uhhhm hate to correct a senior member again, but "blocksize" is a shortening of "MAX BLOCK SIZE". Read the code bro.
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
Only in Kore BTC are the blocks constantly full, to where certain uneducated people think that every block has to be that size... So of course you only use a bigger block when you need a bigger block!
You are not correcting anyone, you only just ridiculed yourself so much and on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin.
You not only didn't understand what I said but not even what I was responding to, and not even what they were talking about.
The first person was talking about bitcoin cash saying that most blocks are under 0.1MB and that there was only one 8MB block and it's not a proof of 8MB blocks working. The correct response to that is that if there ever was even one single 8MB block mined/stored/transported then that exactly
is the proof of 8MB blocks working and the fact that there weren't/aren't more has nothing to do with the software, network or miners, because the blocks logically cannot be bigger than how many transactions exist in the mempool at the moment the block is mined. This is such a simple logic that even a 10-year-old would understand that and the fact that he seems to not get it was the DUH moment.
The second person didn't use any of the above valid arguments in his response and instead said that the miners only use bigger blocks when it's needed otherwise they use smaller blocksizes, to which I said that this line of reasoning is nonsense because he is basically saying that the miners
could make 8MB blocks but they don't "use" them because it's not needed, implying they have a choice. That is simply not true. The miners don't have such a choice. The only thing miners can decide is to exclude some transactions, so in effect, indirectly, they can make the block smaller than it could be given the number of available mempool transactions. But they absolutely cannot make the block bigger. The miners don't "use" big blocks, the miners don't "use" smaller blocksizes, they don't "use" anything. The only thing that's happening is that the software automatically writes the mempool transactions into the newly discovered block and the only thing that miners can possibly do in this matter is to exclude some of them, that's all that they can do, nothing else. They don't choose any blocksize, they don't use any blocksize, they don't get to decide anything except excluding transactions. Again, I think this, too, is an elementary school logic but maybe I am wrong here, maybe the nuances and semantics are too subtle for young people brains, or maybe it's a language issue.
Now you pompously come here, apparently having no clue what any of us was talking about, irrelevantly showing some line of code that
doesn't even exist in any of all 4 bitcoin implementations (it did exist in the bitcoin-core source code but
was removed almost 2 years ago -
"read the code bro") and has absolutely nothing to do with the matter anyway, and thinking that you are actually correcting anyone? Well, your arrogant and disrespectful behavior just won you a place on my ignore list, kiddo, and I won't even comment on the fact that I am most probably older than your parents.
for first time in a long time, 
weeeee