3 ms·

I don't believe the issue with BCH is the technology, although it's seen as more of a band-aid solution by detractors. I think the main issues are with the cent

I don't believe the issue with BCH is the technology, although it's seen as more of a band-aid solution by detractors. I think the main issues are with the centralization aspect of Alibaba miners controlling 49% of nodes, Roger Ver not having a great reputation, and the "hostile takeover" attempts of the split.

cocktailpeanuts 8y ago
SegWit created an entirely new class of Bitcoin address and also an entirely new type of transactions to "solve transaction malleability", which could have been solved in many different other ways. Now we have Bitcoin with two different address types. Imagine having a two different type of email addresses (for example you abc@example.com vs. example.com@abc), any competent engineer would recognize this is the beginning of a huge technical debt, even if we don't go as far to talk about the economic implication. Compare that to Bitcoin cash where all it did was increase the block size limit and changed nothing when it comes to the way Bitcoin worked. I'm not making some ridiculous statement such as "Bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin and Bitcoin core is scam", I'm just saying if we're talking about "band aid" technology, what Bitcoin core developers did to Bitcoin is an order of magnitude more of a "bandaid" than what Bitcoin cash did. I stay on top of both BTC and BCH because I care about both chains, and I can tell you for sure while Roger Ver is indeed an famous figure in BCH, he really has no influence over the direction of BCH. All he has is his website bitcoin.com and related businesses and the subreddit in which he's a mod, but other than that, none of his businesses have anything to do with dealing directly with the protocol. He's just simply a passionate libertarian guy who wants to use Bitcoin as a transaction method while BTC developers are now starting to spin the narrative that Bitcoin is not meant to be used for transaction but supposed to be hoarded like gold. I understand where both sides are coming from, but neither of the philosophies are absolutely correct or incorrect, we will have to see how it plays out.

cocktailpeanuts 8y ago

SegWit created an entirely new class of Bitcoin address and also an entirely new type of transactions to "solve transaction malleability", which could have been solved in many different other ways. Now we have Bitcoin with two different address types. Imagine having a two different type of email addresses (for example you abc@example.com vs. example.com@abc), any competent engineer would recognize this is the beginning of a huge technical debt, even if we don't go as far to talk about the economic implication. Compare that to Bitcoin cash where all it did was increase the block size limit and changed nothing when it comes to the way Bitcoin worked. I'm not making some ridiculous statement such as "Bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin and Bitcoin core is scam", I'm just saying if we're talking about "band aid" technology, what Bitcoin core developers did to Bitcoin is an order of magnitude more of a "bandaid" than what Bitcoin cash did. I stay on top of both BTC and BCH because I care about both chains, and I can tell you for sure while Roger Ver is indeed an famous figure in BCH, he really has no influence over the direction of BCH. All he has is his website bitcoin.com and related businesses and the subreddit in which he's a mod, but other than that, none of his businesses have anything to do with dealing directly with the protocol. He's just simply a passionate libertarian guy who wants to use Bitcoin as a transaction method while BTC developers are now starting to spin the narrative that Bitcoin is not meant to be used for transaction but supposed to be hoarded like gold. I understand where both sides are coming from, but neither of the philosophies are absolutely correct or incorrect, we will have to see how it plays out.