5 ms·

Labelling everyone who does that "1 MB maximalists" is a little extreme, and is probably why people are irritated with BCH's marketing tactics. To view your s

by ryebit 9y ago

Labelling everyone who does that "1 MB maximalists" is a little extreme, and is probably why people are irritated with BCH's marketing tactics. To view your statement in a different light.. maybe people don't care for it trying to succeed based on another coin's name, rather than trying to stand on it's own merits. Bitcoin Gold (for all it's problems) doesn't try to insist it's the real Bitcoin. And 90% of the coins out there were confident enough in their tech to not prefix "Bitcoin" to their name.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
Bitcoin Cash was a hard fork of Bitcoin to implement Bitcoin's original scaling plan, and original vision to be a "peer-to-peer electronic cash", and includes all account balances from before the hard fork. You may disagree that it's the real Bitcoin, but it's undoubtedly open to interpretation, and some of its advocates calling it that doesn't justify mislabeling it as bcash.
- Frogolocalypse 9y ago
  > and original vision Where in the original white-paper is the emergency difficulty adjustment? https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-cash-difficulty-adjustments-2ec589099a8e https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-cash-difficulty-adjust... > peer-to-peer If you don't run a node, or you can't run a node because of resource requirements, you're not a peer.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    The specifics of the difficulty adjustment algorithm are not critical to the original vision, but way to deflect (from the original scaling plan) to a different point. >>If you don't run a node, or you can't run a node because of resource requirements, you're not a peer. We had this discussion before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15883911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15883911
    - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
      > not critical to the original vision riiiiiiiiight.
      - nicky0 9y ago
        Actually the white paper does not specify the details of the algorithm anyway.
  - pmorici 9y ago
    It currently costs less to run a node per month than it does to do three transactions on the blockchain in the same period. Why would anyone care to run a node if the transactions aren't affordable.
    - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
      If the blocksize was increased to double its current resource requirements, where i live in Australia, it would be impossible to run a node at any price. And because the people who run nodes know this, they reject your proposals that reduce bitcoin network security.
      - pmorici 9y ago
        You don't need to run a node unless you are a miner you should be using an SPV wallet. Chances are you already do.
- warbiscuit 9y ago
  > You may disagree that it's the real Bitcoin, but it's undoubtedly open to interpretation It really isn't open to interpretation. And that is why people have been disparagingly calling it a different name; because the insistence that it's "the real Bitcoin" lessens it's credibility. Why is Bitcoin Gold not the real Bitcoin? It's got a more ASIC-resistant proof of work, that's surely also in line with Satoshi's original vision? IMO, that's a much better reason, if adherence to the original whitepaper is what we're measuring by, since it reduces mining centralization. (Heck, if BCH adopted an ASCI-resistant PoW, I'll view in a new light!). But you have to let things evolve. Software is rarely perfect out of the gate. Massive p2p software in particular is such a very new thing, there's going to be all kinds of bugs and dead ends. There may be ways to optimize and polish those dead ends to make them the best they can be, but it won't change the fundamentals of them. And there's tons of levers and settings inside bitcoin. I don't think they're all set right (BCH's new difficulty algorithm seems like an interesting idea, in fact). But one thing that seems to be clear across the biggest coins... a worldwide distributed blockchain ledger just takes too darn long to handle p2p payments worldwide at a reasonable KiB/s. Even ETH, as fast as it is, was brought down by cryptokitties. The coin that succeeds is going to have to solve that in some fashion. And running all the world's transactions through every node, upping the blocksize as needed, isn't going to solve the problem.

by ryebit 9y ago

CryptoPunk 9y ago

Bitcoin Cash was a hard fork of Bitcoin to implement Bitcoin's original scaling plan, and original vision to be a "peer-to-peer electronic cash", and includes all account balances from before the hard fork. You may disagree that it's the real Bitcoin, but it's undoubtedly open to interpretation, and some of its advocates calling it that doesn't justify mislabeling it as bcash.

Frogolocalypse 9y ago
> and original vision Where in the original white-paper is the emergency difficulty adjustment? https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-cash-difficulty-adjustments-2ec589099a8e https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-cash-difficulty-adjust... > peer-to-peer If you don't run a node, or you can't run a node because of resource requirements, you're not a peer.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  The specifics of the difficulty adjustment algorithm are not critical to the original vision, but way to deflect (from the original scaling plan) to a different point. >>If you don't run a node, or you can't run a node because of resource requirements, you're not a peer. We had this discussion before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15883911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15883911
  - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
    > not critical to the original vision riiiiiiiiight.
    - nicky0 9y ago
      Actually the white paper does not specify the details of the algorithm anyway.
- pmorici 9y ago
  It currently costs less to run a node per month than it does to do three transactions on the blockchain in the same period. Why would anyone care to run a node if the transactions aren't affordable.
  - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
    If the blocksize was increased to double its current resource requirements, where i live in Australia, it would be impossible to run a node at any price. And because the people who run nodes know this, they reject your proposals that reduce bitcoin network security.
    - pmorici 9y ago
      You don't need to run a node unless you are a miner you should be using an SPV wallet. Chances are you already do.
warbiscuit 9y ago
> You may disagree that it's the real Bitcoin, but it's undoubtedly open to interpretation It really isn't open to interpretation. And that is why people have been disparagingly calling it a different name; because the insistence that it's "the real Bitcoin" lessens it's credibility. Why is Bitcoin Gold not the real Bitcoin? It's got a more ASIC-resistant proof of work, that's surely also in line with Satoshi's original vision? IMO, that's a much better reason, if adherence to the original whitepaper is what we're measuring by, since it reduces mining centralization. (Heck, if BCH adopted an ASCI-resistant PoW, I'll view in a new light!). But you have to let things evolve. Software is rarely perfect out of the gate. Massive p2p software in particular is such a very new thing, there's going to be all kinds of bugs and dead ends. There may be ways to optimize and polish those dead ends to make them the best they can be, but it won't change the fundamentals of them. And there's tons of levers and settings inside bitcoin. I don't think they're all set right (BCH's new difficulty algorithm seems like an interesting idea, in fact). But one thing that seems to be clear across the biggest coins... a worldwide distributed blockchain ledger just takes too darn long to handle p2p payments worldwide at a reasonable KiB/s. Even ETH, as fast as it is, was brought down by cryptokitties. The coin that succeeds is going to have to solve that in some fashion. And running all the world's transactions through every node, upping the blocksize as needed, isn't going to solve the problem.