4 ms·

BCH is just kicking the can down the road a bit further. If it were to gain massive adoption rapidly, the only way it could scale if they follow their current i

by max51 4y ago

BCH is just kicking the can down the road a bit further. If it were to gain massive adoption rapidly, the only way it could scale if they follow their current ideology is by hosting the nodes on bigger and bigger server racks, eventually reaching the point where there is only one or two real nodes hosted in a cloud provider datacenter somewhere. I don't know what the perfect block size is, but quadrupling down on on block size and turning down all alternatives is not a good long term plan.

webinvest 4y ago
BCH had slow block times and slow transfer times just like BTC. ETH and many altcoins were more performant.
lawn 4y ago
> I don't know what the perfect block size is, but quadrupling down on on block size and turning down all alternatives is not a good long term plan. BTC's 1 MB (or a bit more with segwit accounting) is just hopelessly obsolote, we could easily handle multiples without any issue whatsoever, and it would require a massive increase there after to reach the state of "one or two nodes". Further, BCH isn't "turning down alternatives". It's a permissionless system after all, and it does have malleability fixes if you want to have layer two for it. It's BTC who is blocking any on-chain scaling and bet everything on the experimental Lightning Network (that's still experimental mind you).
- stickfigure 4y ago
  BCH's block size is also hopelessly obsolete. You simply cannot fix the system by making the blocksize bigger, so BCH is a pointless exercise.
  - lawn 4y ago
    It's not pointless, it's necessary although not sufficient on its own.
CyberDildonics 4y ago
eventually reaching the point where there is only one or two real nodes hosted in a cloud provider datacenter somewhere Ironically this is what is described in the original bitcoin satoshi whitepaper (not 'one or two' obviously), but the math doesn't work out. Right now bitcoin has a throughput of about 1 KB/s, which is slower than a 14.4 dialup modem. The entire 13 year chain fits on a $40 thumb drive with room to spare. Even 32MB blocks (53 KB/s) maxed out for another 7 years would fit on single $220 12TB hard drive. Running a node is only really necessary for miners, exchanges or any other major service but it will be trivial for anyone who can watch a youtube video or stream netflix for at least another decade.
danuker 4y ago
Hopefully we won't end up on the slippery slope of centralization. But even if there were a reduction in the amount of nodes, and in security vs. 51% attacks (looking at miners' profitability), BCH has shown its willingness to consider tradeoffs and changes. There will be opportunity to backpedal if the community considers centralization is a bigger risk than adoption difficulty. I fear BTC's downfall will be caused by its brittleness resulting from the fixed rules.

by max51 4y ago

webinvest 4y ago

BCH had slow block times and slow transfer times just like BTC. ETH and many altcoins were more performant.

lawn 4y ago

> I don't know what the perfect block size is, but quadrupling down on on block size and turning down all alternatives is not a good long term plan. BTC's 1 MB (or a bit more with segwit accounting) is just hopelessly obsolote, we could easily handle multiples without any issue whatsoever, and it would require a massive increase there after to reach the state of "one or two nodes". Further, BCH isn't "turning down alternatives". It's a permissionless system after all, and it does have malleability fixes if you want to have layer two for it. It's BTC who is blocking any on-chain scaling and bet everything on the experimental Lightning Network (that's still experimental mind you).

stickfigure 4y ago
BCH's block size is also hopelessly obsolete. You simply cannot fix the system by making the blocksize bigger, so BCH is a pointless exercise.
- lawn 4y ago
  It's not pointless, it's necessary although not sufficient on its own.

CyberDildonics 4y ago

eventually reaching the point where there is only one or two real nodes hosted in a cloud provider datacenter somewhere Ironically this is what is described in the original bitcoin satoshi whitepaper (not 'one or two' obviously), but the math doesn't work out. Right now bitcoin has a throughput of about 1 KB/s, which is slower than a 14.4 dialup modem. The entire 13 year chain fits on a $40 thumb drive with room to spare. Even 32MB blocks (53 KB/s) maxed out for another 7 years would fit on single $220 12TB hard drive. Running a node is only really necessary for miners, exchanges or any other major service but it will be trivial for anyone who can watch a youtube video or stream netflix for at least another decade.

danuker 4y ago

Hopefully we won't end up on the slippery slope of centralization. But even if there were a reduction in the amount of nodes, and in security vs. 51% attacks (looking at miners' profitability), BCH has shown its willingness to consider tradeoffs and changes. There will be opportunity to backpedal if the community considers centralization is a bigger risk than adoption difficulty. I fear BTC's downfall will be caused by its brittleness resulting from the fixed rules.