4 ms·

Would you say that a lot of smaller coins tout their quickness and cheapness as a benefit but it is simply because of their low usage? I have heard similar abou

• SilasX 9y ago
  Not the parent but I would say yes, definitely. It’s easy to make a cryptocurrency where there is less demand for transactions than can fit in in a small block. The real challenge is when the demand seriously ramps up, which only bitcoin (core) and ethereum have seen.
• gizmo686 9y ago
  Its difficult to say. Having low usage would make most reasonable coins cheap and quick; but does not give us any information of how they would behave at scale. In the case of bitcoin cash in particular; it would probably still be fine at bitcoin scale. This is because its main difference is removing an artificial limit within Bitcoin. As this limit was set without an empirical basis (and bitcoin showed no signs of degradation as it approached the limit), you would probably be able to scale the block size up some without causing problems. How much you can scale is still at question. Here [0] is a talk about this very question. Using a small testnet (~6 miner nodes and 12 clients) they were able to achieve 500tx/s with a 1GB block with relativly minor optimizations of the standard Bitcoin implementation (the final bottle neck here is propagation delay reaching 10 minutes). This is, in my opinion, an upper bound on what the Bitcoin protocol can handle. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDF8bOEqXt4&t=4079 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDF8bOEqXt4&t=4079