I'm not entirely sure why, perhaps this makes me a dick for saying this, but I hope Bitcoin Cash fails horribly. Wasn't Satoshi's original vision for bitcoin to have only 1MB for the block size? I'm not saying that he is correct with this stance, but I don't think it is cool that they use Satoshi's name like that to market themselves when it isn't his "original vision" like they say it is.
"We the people will breath new life into bitcoin"?? What is this? Most of us people don't want a fork, right?
Like so many you have been misinformed by those who wish to see bitcoin fail. The reality is the opposite of what you have been told, beware of the intense level of propaganda that prevails.
Satoshi's original design called for blocks to grow. The 1Mb limitation is currently imposed by a small and voiceful faction of the community who call themselves 'Core Developers' who don't want bitcoin to scale so they can implement an additional layer with their own technology on top of bitcoin.
So for all intents and purposes Bitcoin Cash is closest to Satoshi's vision.
Having said that, it doesn't mean the fork is a good idea. There is a community consensus to implement segwit on Aug 1st and then increase block sizes in November and this is what should be followed.
I agree with this post.
with segwit you add another layer of potential problems. when a simple modification to a 10mb block would have solved the issue temporary before raising to 100mb.
So why shall I have confidence in adding another layer to bitcoin? I am better using pivx for example where there will no problem or question about scaling the block size once the transaction capacity is reached (actually 70tps)...
it's pathetic. How do you plan to make money with segwit? Is there a way to host a second layer node and make some sats?
+1
Some people here get it - Yes it is far better to (free) scale on-chain, say 8MB or 10MB and let it work for some years. This is Satoshi.
How much years this would give us ? about 3-5 or more ?
On the other side you give Moores law a chance (also in Satoshi's vision), and let it work for us - next level technology = free.
Far far better mates!
SW is clearly over-engineering and keeps lots of defs away and the HF Monster needs to play the FUD role.
SW allows better 2nd layer engineering - but in terms of energy and resources this is just wasted and dilutes bitcoins absolutely strongest Satoshi security.
Bitcoin originally had a theoretical max
/message/ read :- block size of 32MB , it was reduced by Satoshi himself/themselves to 1 MB but with pointers on how to scale it in future. Unfortunately , the Bitcoin Core developers have chosen to foist segwit, a potentially dangerous solution and caused a major schism in the community. A second issue with the refusal to increase the block size is the opposing views between those who want Bitcoin to be used as a store of value/asset and those who wish to use it as an everyday currency. In order to facilitate use as a currency, ie allow micro-transactions (buy coffee, pay bus fare etc) blocks must become larger to accommodate the transaction volumes this would entail.
The nature of bitcoin mining is such that miners typically opt to include transactions with higher fees first in the blocks they mine. As such when this debate initially began miners were against the increase in blocksize as it would mean a relative reduction in their profits from fees. This took a turn for the opposite when off-chain scaling was introduced into the conversation and miners figured out they were better off with a high quantity of small fees and large blocks than they were if these transactions went off-chain. Hence miners are now flip-flopping between whichever sounds like it will go in their favor and make the worst yard stick with which to measure community leanings.
Use of bitcoin has been steadily gaining traction over the years with many stores and people now accepting it as a means of settling payments. It is now a topic discussed at the highest levels in many central governments and these developments strengthen the argument that the protocol should reflect bitcoin as a currency , which requires its overall transaction capability to increase drastically.
I think reverting to the initial 32MB limit is the first step. This is not introduction of any new concept, and thus should not result in any backlash. If the Bitcoin Core team can still bring up Segwit at 32MB as a viable solution, IMO that would remove the shadow of their affiliation with off-chain projects as their motivation to suppress the blocksize increase.
The greatest danger now is not what solution actually ends up being chosen, it is actually the motivations behind those who propose that solution. This is true not only for core, but all proposed solutions.
