There could be 3 Bitcoins soon
1- bcc - forked from the original chain, upgraded blocks, close to orginal satnak version.
2- btc segwit - another fork but with a controversial 2nd layer, leading to possible centralised bitcoin.
3- standard btc - the one we have all known, 1mb , no segwits, with slow tx.
Which one will you choose as the real bitcoin?
im defo 100% with #1
Dont you mean
1 - BCC
2 - Segwit
3 - Segwit2x
yea, i think so, tbh at times i do get confused between segwit and segwit 2x lol..
but yea , 3 types of btc on the way.
http://coinivore.com/2017/08/10/bitcoin-cash-superior-segwit2x-bitcoin-core-developer/Gregory Maxwell, a Bitcoin Core developer, and Blockstream’s CTO, publicly stated on Reddit that the alternative to Bitcoin born on August 1st, Bitcoin Cash, is superior to Segwit2x.
“Bcash at least has replay protection and HF safe headers now (though it didn’t until it hit its difficulty adjustment rule). It is superior to S2X. It also doesn’t seek to force itself on anyone who doesn’t want it,” Maxwell said.
*It’s very interesting to see a Bitcoin Core developer state that BTC is essentially inferior to its newly split counter part Bcash which is supposed to fix most of the problems developers have with the current legacy BTC.
...
The dev is not saying BTC (segwit) is inferior he is saying segwit2x is.
No offence but for someone so vehemently defending BCH you dont really seem to know whats going on.
no offence taken, we are all here to learn.
1st the comment above, i didnt say anything, its words from maxwell.
ok try and keep it simple, the current btc is now segwit coin and not in line with what the original dev wanted...
bcc is in line with what the dev wanted.
segwit coin is 2tier/2nd layer
bcc is not and functions almost identical to what btc used to.
http://www.trustnodes.com/2017/07/23/bitcoin-cash-splitting-segwitA pseudonymous cryptographer, going by the nickname of James A. Donald, argued that bitcoin could not scale because it:
“Requires each peer to have most past transactions, or most past transactions that occurred recently. If hundreds of millions of people are doing transactions, that is a lot of bandwidth – each must know all, or a substantial part thereof.”
Nakamoto rejected his argument,
*It is an argument that was repeated many times, with Nakamoto rejecting it each time to the point where he looses his cool and gave us one of his most famous lines:
“If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.”
As such, everyone expected bitcoin to scale on-chain along the lines roughly laid out by Nakamoto who implemented a dual soft-limit and hard-limit.
The soft-limit was initially 250kb, which miners raised with no problem, despite the objections of some like Peter Todd and Luke JR, to 500kb, 750kb and then 1MB.
The 1MB hard-limit requires a hard-fork to be lifted. Something some Bitcoin Core developers, like Todd, Luke-Jr and Gregory Maxwell, had been arguing since around 2013 should not occur, with their points being a re-hash of Donald’s arguments.
So big blockers are rejecting segwit. Chain-split hard-forking to Bitcoin Cash, which continues the soft-limit and hard-limit approach laid down by Nakamoto and followed by the bitcoin network for much of its existence.
now can i ask you, is segwit coin really necessary?
is peter toad smarter than satoshi?
what side are you on and why?
thanks m8