You are the one who asserted cartelization. Who exactly does this posited cartel consist of?
And you replied BTC is as cartelized as BCH (which I don't think is a correct statement).
Cartel consisting of plainly visible J.Wu and R.Ver, plus some likely big shots of the PBOC/Chinese Party/Government who (will) use then (especially Wu) as a sock puppet as soon as the need arises.
Again, the set of miners for BCH is identical to the set of miners for BTC. Which renders irrelevant the following bit:
The
potential set is.
Miners have exactly as much control in Bitcoin Cash as they do in Bitcoin Segwit.
They might have a little more control in Bitcoin than in Bcash, because they don't have Sauron with the master ring above them.
Censorship can happen. Moderate (or unreasonable!) inflation can be programmed as a "fair reward" for miners (most likely friends of the Party), who would become something like a miniature Central Bank, with similar privileges and arbitrary power.
I would suggest you are ignoring fundamental dynamics of nakamoto consensus. The miners are held in check by the threat of the users abandoning the chain they create.
They seem to be abandoning Bcash. As long as there's the original chain to rely on, we're good.
Yeah. We've already discussed these very points, have we not? Why you continue to ignore my replies is beyond my ken.
Not ignoring, but I feel stuck in a loop and it's bad for my health!
Well, that I can understand. I realize that my viewpoints are not share by the majority here on BCT.org. And I am fine with us having a disagreement on the desired direction forward. What I am not OK with is mischaracterization. One example thereof: "The "more reason" I was (and am) asking of you is an effective, documented rebuttal of my points or some subjective reason that goes beyond "I like big big big! Blocks big, me happy!"" Obviously, my replies to you have been more than "I like big big big"..., and for you to characterize it as such is not only uncharitable, it is either lazy or dishonest. Frankly, while I expect that from some here, I did not expect it from you.
Right. You arguments are generally much better than "big big big!". The problem with you is you mix fact and opinion/construction in a clever way, and separating chaff from grain is hard work. So I was just trying to have some fun explaining why I find there's a point beyond which it's not worthwhile to extend the discussion. Some people are pissed off by lengthy debates that run in circles.
You must admit, however, than the childhood trauma gag ("bitten by a small block") was quite funny
