TL:DR HODL.
BTC, failed to 2x or commit to scale onchain solutions.
I had a brief exchange conversation one of the core devs
essentially he corrected me as to the demand side and supply side of scaling.
That said he conceded there would be a case for scaling a bit.
I went on and asked what functions would he suggest or family of functions would likely offer the onchain scaling rate?
Stony silence. Maybe he did not read my question.
This puts me to....what I see as the core of the issue.
BTC needs a certain on chain capacity, its all well and good the LN will solve the high TX issues, but right now LN is no really a choice for most people.
In the interim there needs to be some scaling, and that scaling at a higher rate then went LN is widely used.
The failure to 2X or rather the 6 people saying NO, and they don't get to say no in general if people chose to run 2X, has rather caused the ossification of 1x to look more sure.
Now if they were to 2x, and beyond as needed, this would show good dev intent. As it is they have sacrificed a lot of capital and maybe the crow to BCH.
However until BCH adopts segwit and so can run LN, it remains hobbled.
It seems the nearest to best design will take that proportion of the market cap all other things being equal.
It seems prudent to treat splits as an insurance policy and hold equal amount on both splits. This is increasingly true, if those chains split again.
So in short HODL
BTC, failed to 2x or commit to scale onchain solutions.
I had a brief exchange conversation one of the core devs
essentially he corrected me as to the demand side and supply side of scaling.
That said he conceded there would be a case for scaling a bit.
I went on and asked what functions would he suggest or family of functions would likely offer the onchain scaling rate?
Stony silence. Maybe he did not read my question.
This puts me to....what I see as the core of the issue.
BTC needs a certain on chain capacity, its all well and good the LN will solve the high TX issues, but right now LN is no really a choice for most people.
In the interim there needs to be some scaling, and that scaling at a higher rate then went LN is widely used.
The failure to 2X or rather the 6 people saying NO, and they don't get to say no in general if people chose to run 2X, has rather caused the ossification of 1x to look more sure.
Now if they were to 2x, and beyond as needed, this would show good dev intent. As it is they have sacrificed a lot of capital and maybe the crow to BCH.
However until BCH adopts segwit and so can run LN, it remains hobbled.
It seems the nearest to best design will take that proportion of the market cap all other things being equal.
It seems prudent to treat splits as an insurance policy and hold equal amount on both splits. This is increasingly true, if those chains split again.
So in short HODL
The bit highlighted indicates that Bitcoin is never going to scale with the current developers in place.
Bitcoincash does have big blocks, but it isn't as good as some of the alts out there.
My take is that while BTC and BCH take massive lumps out of each other, an alt will sneak up and take the crown.
It would most likely be XMR imho. It's just simply the best after Bitcoin. Again that's imho.
And it's not about the current developers that BTC won't scale onchain. Didn't it occur to you that if you want Bitcoin to scale, you would have to go offchain?
I really wish Bcash gets all the transaction volume and success BTC has just to see what kind of problems that chain goes thru just to prove Core's point.
