5 ms·

I don't see why the two should co-exist, given there is just no reason for the existence of BTC looking at the present landscape and positioning of the two. For

I don't see why the two should co-exist, given there is just no reason for the existence of BTC looking at the present landscape and positioning of the two. Forcing all the transaction throughput into a channel with bandwidth no greater than a few Fax machines is just stupid, and no argument exists to justify this position at all. It's really amazing that the forces backing it managed to delay it coming to a head all these years, but now that it finally has the conclusion appears mind numbingly obvious.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
That's because you're looking at it from transaction point of view. The BTC guys have been selling the "reserve currency" aspect for a while now, ever since it became apparent that there won't be a viable scaling solution anytime soon. So just looking at it from pure utilitarian view BCH is superior, but BTC team has a point too, because the larger block size does mean it has higher chance of being centralized. The thing is, nobody knows if this will actually result in centralization, nor does anyone know if being moderately centralized will be as bad as we expect. Anyone claiming to know what will happen is either ignorant or a liar. Anyway, to make my point clear, let's imagine BCH does succeed and end up dominating and BTC dies off. There's a chance that BCH will lead to centralization and won't be so different from what the Internet ended up becoming. If you look at how the Internet works nowadays, it's extremely centralized from top layer all the way to the bottom. For example DNS companies can ban certain organizations from existing online simply because there are so few DNS companies, and your ISP can monitor all your traffic and sue you if you download something on Torrent. And Facebook and Google owns everyone's attention online, etc. People who resist BCH are those who think BCH will end up evolving in that direction and kill off BTC in the process because obviously it's much more user friendly. If something like this happens, it's good to have an alternative which has equivalent influence. Also having a competition plays into the game theory of how each party will behave going forward. They won't be able to make drastic decisions if they have a close competitor. I don't think Ethereum is it even though I'm super bullish on Ethereum, because Ethereum is an entirely different beast.
- etherael 9y ago
  > the larger block size does mean it has higher chance of being centralized. That's actually false though. It really is that indisputably simple especially at the on chain throughput levels being discussed presently. The medium of exchange use case does not compromise the store of value use case, it actually is a necessary component of it. Non mining full nodes are not an essential aspect of the security model, and were never intended to be. The core client is just bad. And the only reasonable actual excuse for the limiting of on chain scaling to the level forced by bitcoin core is because it's in the business interests of blockstream. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7c0f4x/what_is_the_long_term_scaling_roadmap_for_bitcoin/dpm8t1g/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=frontpage https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7c0f4x/what_is_the_lon...
- nosuchthing 9y ago
  >the larger block size does mean it has higher chance of being centralized. Centralization already happened with BTC/BTC-CASH. ASICs are operated at scale in data centers with access to cheap electricity. Hard drives are much simpler to acquire and maintain versus the already niche ASIC market and mining pools. Also it's worth noting the BTC community used to praise microtransactions and digital cash payments for market goods, but now that the utility is clogged and combersome the goal posts have been shifted from "this software enables payments" to "this software shouldn't be used for payments except in rare cases".
  - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
    > Centralization already happened with BTC/BTC-CASH. As much as I agree with you on how it's become "more" centralized, this is not a binary thing. So my answer to this is NO, centralization has not "already happened". Yes, it may be getting more and more centralized, but it's not some switch you can flip on and off. This type of absolute expression was exactly what I was ranting about. Note that I agree with most of what you said. I'm just not a fan of these statements of absolutism.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago

That's because you're looking at it from transaction point of view. The BTC guys have been selling the "reserve currency" aspect for a while now, ever since it became apparent that there won't be a viable scaling solution anytime soon. So just looking at it from pure utilitarian view BCH is superior, but BTC team has a point too, because the larger block size does mean it has higher chance of being centralized. The thing is, nobody knows if this will actually result in centralization, nor does anyone know if being moderately centralized will be as bad as we expect. Anyone claiming to know what will happen is either ignorant or a liar. Anyway, to make my point clear, let's imagine BCH does succeed and end up dominating and BTC dies off. There's a chance that BCH will lead to centralization and won't be so different from what the Internet ended up becoming. If you look at how the Internet works nowadays, it's extremely centralized from top layer all the way to the bottom. For example DNS companies can ban certain organizations from existing online simply because there are so few DNS companies, and your ISP can monitor all your traffic and sue you if you download something on Torrent. And Facebook and Google owns everyone's attention online, etc. People who resist BCH are those who think BCH will end up evolving in that direction and kill off BTC in the process because obviously it's much more user friendly. If something like this happens, it's good to have an alternative which has equivalent influence. Also having a competition plays into the game theory of how each party will behave going forward. They won't be able to make drastic decisions if they have a close competitor. I don't think Ethereum is it even though I'm super bullish on Ethereum, because Ethereum is an entirely different beast.

etherael 9y ago
> the larger block size does mean it has higher chance of being centralized. That's actually false though. It really is that indisputably simple especially at the on chain throughput levels being discussed presently. The medium of exchange use case does not compromise the store of value use case, it actually is a necessary component of it. Non mining full nodes are not an essential aspect of the security model, and were never intended to be. The core client is just bad. And the only reasonable actual excuse for the limiting of on chain scaling to the level forced by bitcoin core is because it's in the business interests of blockstream. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7c0f4x/what_is_the_long_term_scaling_roadmap_for_bitcoin/dpm8t1g/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=frontpage https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7c0f4x/what_is_the_lon...
nosuchthing 9y ago
>the larger block size does mean it has higher chance of being centralized. Centralization already happened with BTC/BTC-CASH. ASICs are operated at scale in data centers with access to cheap electricity. Hard drives are much simpler to acquire and maintain versus the already niche ASIC market and mining pools. Also it's worth noting the BTC community used to praise microtransactions and digital cash payments for market goods, but now that the utility is clogged and combersome the goal posts have been shifted from "this software enables payments" to "this software shouldn't be used for payments except in rare cases".
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  > Centralization already happened with BTC/BTC-CASH. As much as I agree with you on how it's become "more" centralized, this is not a binary thing. So my answer to this is NO, centralization has not "already happened". Yes, it may be getting more and more centralized, but it's not some switch you can flip on and off. This type of absolute expression was exactly what I was ranting about. Note that I agree with most of what you said. I'm just not a fan of these statements of absolutism.