Topic: Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash - page 6. (Read 826 times)

If you are going to be technical about it then discuss it in this topic, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/on-segwit-not-being-backwards-compatible-question-3670474

As the network as it is now, it is backwards compatible. Legacy nodes "read" the Segwit transactions with the witness data stripped off and accept the blocks according to the consensus rules.


Then that is where you should look for good developers to follow. Not the developers that Roger Ver uses for his politics.

Plus Bitcoin Cash does not Roger Ver. They would be a better community without him.

As for me, I will choose the use of bitcoin because bitcoin is easier to do. That means, it will be more efficient because when doing transactions with bitcoin we can have easier transactions but if bitcoin Cash, people still have to convert them back to bitcoin then transact it once again. That is my opinion.

I'm sure it's boring Bitcoin, it's valuable from the beginning, can expand, more development bitcoin cash

LN is not a feature locked to bitoin cores network. the bitcoin core developers admitted this as part of their segwit address format BC1q proposals for LN

as for bitcoin cores ONCHAIN tx/s. again. admitted by the bitcoin core devs. even with 4mb "weight" allowance. the dependancy of the legacy restraint on the blockchain, has stistically made it so even if there was 100% transaction utility of segwit format tx's. only expect 2.1x tx capacity boost compared to the norm.

as for the 7tx/s(never achieved in 9 years by the way)
thats based on 2009 theory of IF every transaction in a legacy block being a lean 1input 1 output tx to allow for 4200tx(=7tx/s). but the reality is that will not happen. on average its only ~2100tx a block(3.5tx/s) not 4200tx a block(7tx/s).

thus IF everyone used a segwit tx format expect (~2100 legacy*2.1) segwit at ~4500 tx a block.. but again thats only an IF everyone used segwit tx format.  so again dont expect 7tx/s as a norm

the reason for "weight" being x4 but not offering 4x capacity is for other bloaty features to come. which dont help transaction count increase but will fill the remaining "weight" buffer without havingas much impact on decreasing tx capacity.
take this as an example. of how you wont get 4x tx capacity.

2mb data. but only 225 tx's in the block
https://blockchain.info/block-height/505225

and what i just said is words from those in the core team. thus feel free to laugh if core fans try to rip their own teams stats apart to then try over promoting features the propagandists dont even understand.

Bitcoin is more promising and reliable than bitcoin cash. The same can not fork bitcoin to overtake this coin.

this is why i am not in team cash.. but yes i also detest core. .. many people cannot see the big picture of the whole ecosystem to see beyond the 2 team drama of finger pointing.

the end result though.
bitcoin core WILL NOT have LN as its sole feature to rival other currencies.
bitcoin core really will need to decide to do something to the core protocol that adds something that other currencies do not have.
bitcoin core will need to step back and publicly announce that they will never again use a 'mandatory dated consensus bypass' upgrade
bitcoin core will need to work as a level playing field, allowing other nodes to use consensus.  no bilateral split, no REKT campaigns

Bitcoin  and bitcoin cash is I think it's the same cryptocurrency. The bitcoin is a worldwide payment system  and decentralized digital currency while bitcoin cash it's brings sound money to the world.

when you look at things in this perspective you can see that bitcoin can always implement the "block size increase" solution anytime we wanted in the future and have that side of bitcoin cash. but bitcoin cash can never implement SegWit and Lightning Network because if it does then they will be negating the first and only reason they forked off which was because they said 1) no changes like SegWit 2) scaling should only be done on-chain. if you break your only reason for existence then you should not even exist.

in short if BCH implements SegWit and LN even if they call it something else and mask it in different ways, BCH price will drop down hard because the little number of believes they have will dump it and go away.

There is nothing else except itself Bitcoin cant be replaced by anyone. There are lots of feature that make it invulnerable. These are :

1. Fast in Transaction.
2. Worldwide acceptance of  crypto.
3. Low Transaction Fees.
4. High Security feature acceptance.

anyone thinking LN is a feature locked to bitcoin core network would be dead wrong. its not going to be something that renews bitcoin core network with anything that other networks will not also have.

this is because LN will be its own network that many other currencies will use. the core devs admit this. that is the whole point of segwit address format BC1q.
so that other networks can have their own currency identity. such as LTC would have LC1q on the LN network

so while many coins would all be using LN, the question still will be, what has bitcoin core devs done specifically to upgrade the bitcoin core network to make it more feature filled, and atleast more scaling proof than other networks that too will use LN.

emphasise this in your mind when thinking of the answer:
when all currencies use LN. what has the bitcoin core network alone got as a scaling advantage that othr networks wont have?

---

and to those who hate that people define the network as the bitcoin core network should read some code about what caused the segwit activation. and the new block structure acceptance and the new network topology, the new transaction formats. and that it had to be a mandatory signalling, rather than a consensus choice

    bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
    bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(), Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
    if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
        return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
    }

the code shows that blocks NOT signalling for cores NEW segwit protocol will get rejected. this included rejecting any legacy(bitcoin 2009-2016) block versions that would have been mined on august 1st 2017

yep bitcoin core network rejected blocks on august 1st that were not signalling cores new protocol. again for emphasis including block formats of bitcoin 2009-2016
which if people could read code shows that bitcoin core is not a continuation of the bitcoin 2009-2016 network but a fork away from it by rejecting blocks of that format known as bitcoin 2009-2016..

also. if cores new protocol was truly backward compatible
(not needing new nodes to translat as a upfilter/bridge node to old clients)
(not refusing to relay unconfirmed segwit transactions to old clients)

then the upgrade could have occured by not changing the versionbits and not have to reject legacy blocks. and instead get the opposition to set a version bit. in which the feature would only activate if there was less than 5% showing the version bit change (95% acceptance).

but no the segwit code is NOT backward compatible. it requires a middleman translater in the form of nodes (as gmax calls upstream filters, luke JR calls bridge nodes) to translate and reformat the blockchain. and the network topology had to change to put the old clients on an outer ring of the network. whereby they are not part of the peer to peer relay network, but downstream/bridged from the relay network

in short analogy english speaking nodes of 2009-2016 do not understand the dutch speaking blockchain of 2017-2018. core/segwit nodes can speak dutch and english. the network of 2017-8 is now dutch but the new population can translate and cut down the dutch informtion into a short version that any remaining minority race(old clients) left can be handed. but english speaking nodes cannot be part of the unconfirmd dutch transaction relay postal service because they wont understand dutch.

emphasis. even the core devs admit to this

now to those that still think that core are kings and deserve the power. where will you stand when they retire, decide to do other projects
EG if all the core devs decided at mid day tomorrow to all stop coding. and then 10 minutes later a bug was found that affects all nodes running cores segwit code. what would your attitude be.
would it be calm collected "its ok" or would you panic

you might think core are your kings. but they are not immortal.

if any of you core defenders actually cared about "bitcoin" as a decentralised network. you would not defend core. you would request they disband their mantatory rules and never use mandatory upgrades again(unless network killing bug found) and only use consensus of a open decentralised network for upgrades. whereby the community combine idea's to a unified compromise that all node client software would release a version of that would require less than 5% opposition to activate.

emphasis: consensus, compromise, community
de-emphasis: mantatory, contentious rejection, control

---

also bitcoin cash are not backward compatible.
this is why its called a bilateral split. NEITHER side is a true backward compatible continuation of the 2009-2016 network. which is where the debate begins of who should own brand "bitcoin"..
to which the easy answer is NEITHER. no one should own the brand.

instead its much simpler to say
bitcoin core
bitcoin cash

...
i now expect the standard onslaught of reddit script rebuttles defending core, then pretending its not core its bitcoin, then defending core again..
but ultimately not defending the true ethos of bitcoin as a decentalised everyone on the same level playing field of consensus network

have a nice day.
remember core are not immortal. where will you stand if CORE they stopped coding in 24 hours

I think bitcoin is still the strongest currency. The price increase of BCH is very big but to get top 1 of BTC is too difficult

I think in the long run, bitcoin has a better chance. BTH will not stand the competition with bitcoin and will disappear. I believe that this will happen in 2-3 years. BTH speculative coin with no real application

I think bitcoin cash. In the long run it will be worth more than bitcoin. But not now. 2022

I think we should invest in both coins because we never know who will be winner. Now I see that bitcoin cash has more volatility then bitcoin. Because bitcoin has more capitalization. But if you want trade, with Bitcoin cash you can earn more money and faster.

I think that BCH is right answer but remember that it is just a fork of original BTC.
The amount of people which support BTC or BCH is extremely influence on coin`s importance also.

Max Transaction Capacity

Bitcoin Core Onchain Transactions per second , If they could scale up to 4meg, then 28 transactions per second or 2419200 transaction per day
, but in truth they are most likely less than half at ~12 transaction per second or 1036800 transactions per day.
 
In Theory LN Offchain Transactions will allow a scaling of transaction to exceed Visa, but offchain only.

Bitcoin Cash Onchain Transactions with a 32mb block : 224 transactions per second or 19353600 transactions per day

Using multiple 3rd parties offchain transactions also allow Bitcoin Cash/(any coin) scaling to exceed visa.  (No segwit or LN needed.)

To be first or foremost until later I think bitcoin will always be the main one, but BCH with a cheap price also has a good chance for investment.

For fast and reliable transaction bitcoin is the best.Bitcoin can handle hundreds of thousands transaction per second and cannot encounter any problem at all.BCH and Bitcoin is good for a long term investments

Why do you have to choose between the two? They are different systems. and they can co-exist in the emerging financial world.

If the question was ' which would you choose as a store of wealth?', then I would answer - Bitcoin.

Well when you think about it both have the possibility to be scalable for the long run. If bitcoin cash will need higher blocks devs will increase the capacity of blocks even further although bitcoin with layer two have the possibility to provide faster transactions not to say instant ones with LN once implemented and used by majority. You also have other solutions that are not strictly tied to blockchain tech if we look at other altcoins out there such as NANO and IOTA who not only have the potential to scale but also have free transactions.

To my mind every coin out there will have to scale and will upgrade their code base, we have yet to see what solution works the best.