Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.
Bitcoin was ment to be peer-to-peer money not gold 2.0 like they are claiming atm.
If those core devs didnt fk things up, ALOT of retailers would be using bitcoin already and there wouldnt be bitcoin cash.
And some legacy corp's would be losing a lot of money right now.
Personally i think some entities want to get their hands on bitcoin wheel before old banking system falls apart.
People who attack bitcoin cash or roger ver are just brainwashed, that guy been in this industry from beginning and problably has better knowledge of bitcoin and economy than all of us + some moneyhungry devs.
Bitcoin cash tx per sec isnt much of a thing right now because its couple months old and got no infrastructure but thats gonna change massively..
Bitcoin cannot be "peer to peer" if you have to go through a corporation that is hosting a massive chunk of the nodes, which could be compromised and therefore censoring transactions at will, and that is the future of any "as-big-as-needed" blocks approach. The blocks would be massive, and as a direct result, the network would be centralized.
I don't know why big blockers fail to realize this simple fact. They either don't care, or they are stupid.
Forget about Blockstream, it's a private business. Even if Blockstream didn't exist, the problem of "as-big-as-needed" blocks approach, would still be here. Roger Ver is on record claiming that the blocksize must be made higher as long as you get full blocks. Well, all an attacker next to do is to spam the network (just as they do with the Bitcoin network) then the blocks would be full, and then continue doing this as the blocksize is increased indefinitely. The result: only a handful of corporations control both the nodes and mining on Bitcoin. At that point, you might as well use Ripple.
