3 ms·

> in the code base itself There was a fierce debate that lead to a hard fork over increasing transaction throughput by raising the block size, so I think it's

> in the code base itself There was a fierce debate that lead to a hard fork over increasing transaction throughput by raising the block size, so I think it's really not a given that BTC will change to increase transaction speed. Also, one problem people have with Bitcoin is that the idea of every node of the network storing and processing every transaction is fundamentally not scalabe. Sure BTC can change and adapt, but it's hard to overcome a fundamental design shortcoming.

nemo44x 6y ago
Right and look at the result - Bitcoin Cash is a failure. This is true democracy. We tested both solutions and the champion still stands. When there is incentive (if there ever is) then miners will adopt changes that make sense. But you need a true consensus. This built in conservatism is a great feature of BTC.
- BTCOG 6y ago
  Funny how all voices of reason in the Bitcoin threads get downvoted into oblivion. I'm upvoting your posts to make them seen. Correct. Bitcoin Cash was a fork that tried to prove an incorrect point, and lost the fairest way possible. Increasing block size is simply a bad idea. You do not move fast and break things in mission-critical code. Bitcoin is more focused on working (as it does) and remaining secure. Bitcoin is the best money the world has EVER seen, and it's not important to be able to buy frivolous things with Bitcoin. What is important is making sure value transfer is safe and secure. Those of us who routinely truly use Bitcoin understand we can easily send $50-100 or whichever value you prefer and put in low fees around $0.50-2 and just wait on the money to securely transfer. Not many of us using Bitcoin care if that takes 1-24 hours. The currency aspect is very beta yet, and may even take a few more years to mature and will have to come in layer 2.

3 ms·

> in the code base itself There was a fierce debate that lead to a hard fork over increasing transaction throughput by raising the block size, so I think it's

by zucker42 6y ago

nemo44x 6y ago
Right and look at the result - Bitcoin Cash is a failure. This is true democracy. We tested both solutions and the champion still stands. When there is incentive (if there ever is) then miners will adopt changes that make sense. But you need a true consensus. This built in conservatism is a great feature of BTC.
- BTCOG 6y ago
  Funny how all voices of reason in the Bitcoin threads get downvoted into oblivion. I'm upvoting your posts to make them seen. Correct. Bitcoin Cash was a fork that tried to prove an incorrect point, and lost the fairest way possible. Increasing block size is simply a bad idea. You do not move fast and break things in mission-critical code. Bitcoin is more focused on working (as it does) and remaining secure. Bitcoin is the best money the world has EVER seen, and it's not important to be able to buy frivolous things with Bitcoin. What is important is making sure value transfer is safe and secure. Those of us who routinely truly use Bitcoin understand we can easily send $50-100 or whichever value you prefer and put in low fees around $0.50-2 and just wait on the money to securely transfer. Not many of us using Bitcoin care if that takes 1-24 hours. The currency aspect is very beta yet, and may even take a few more years to mature and will have to come in layer 2.