Topic: Bitcoin Cash and the increased block size dilemma (Read 87 times)

This helped, thanks for taking the time to find these.

Lower transaction fees. They dont believe second layer solution are possible to work as are planed. Bitcoin developers believe that is possible.  Time will tell who was right.

it is not 8gb, but only 8mb blocksize.


As you can put more transactions in a block, there is more space for transactions with low fees, such as 1sat/byte (the minimum). So it makes the transactions get their first confirmation faster, within the 10minutes.

The downside is that you are making blocks bigger, so it will be more expensive to run a node.

Bitcoin made an alternative, which bitcoin cash didn't agree, which is to make transactions size smaller, instead of the block bigger. So you can still put more transactions in a block, but the block size is the same.



I think you should study and get your own opinion. Have you tried bitcoin cash forum? Or bitcoin SV forum?
You are coming to a bitcoin forum asking opinions about an altcoin. Of course people here will tell you that your altcoin is a shitcoin.

You can read satoshi nakamoto opinion here:

You'll have to read a lot between the lines. BCash was a dream to make something which will take Bitcoin's crown. It was meant to give some people a lot of free money and hopefully a lot of power too.
Of course all this is hidden behind technical details and (a lot of) drama.

AFAIK, it's mostly about scaling the blockchain for future use. We've had a few timeframes where Bitcoin's network was congested and basically the community divided into those who want specific features of BTC to be changed (hence the apparition of BCH) and those who wanted to leave BTC the way it was and not make block size changes.

Consider it a change towards a more scalable cryptocurrency that has more chances to work flawlessly even under a surge of users and transactions.

I am personally neutral as in I don't mind if someone creates a fork as soon as it doesn't affect me, as a BTC holder, BUT I will always put BTC before any other altcoin or fork. The decentralized manner of cryptocurrencies mean that a divided community will end up in 2 separate communities instead of having some kind of war between the two out of which one wins. Decentralization means we're free to create what we believe in, and even if our visions are in opposition, we'd still both survive as soon as we have support.

I do not have much in-depth knowledge of the technological aspects of cryptocurrencies so if anything wrong has been said in my post, please someone fix my bullshit.

Here is an article that explains and answers some of your concerns and questions: https://www.coindesk.com/what-is-the-bitcoin-block-size-debate-and-why-does-it-matter
And here you have some pros & cons for the block size change: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36085/what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-the-increase-of-the-block-size-limit
Here is Brian Armstrong's (Coinbase CEO) article about the block size debate: https://blog.coinbase.com/scaling-bitcoin-the-great-block-size-debate-d2cba9021db0?gi=bfa5b6ec442e

Other links that may help:

• https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem

I am researching something on Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. I am trying to find out the reasoning behind the fork and what did the developers of Bitcoin Cash expect to get with an 8GB block size? Just more transactions per block and less congestion or is there more to it? I have not been able to find much info about it. What are the positives they got from it?

Can someone guide me in the right direction? I am looking for a neutral point of view and fact based. Please no Bitcoin Cash is shit discussions, that wont help me any further in my research.