Bitcoin Cash Thread


Okay, just a quick pointer.

Your repeated reference to Cardano, which is always done maliciously and with no context to the actual conversation at hand, only serves to discredit you. In most cases, it shows that you’re responding irrationally, which really doesn’t help either of us.

Just as with most of our conversations, Cardano has absolutely no relevance. Nor should it.

Moving on…


No. It is very relevant to the way you think because you talk about people and not BCH. I used cardano as an example with the same mentality.

Also - answer this question for me:

Tell me how you expect BTC to on-board people onto the lightning network when on-chain scaling is at max 4MB ( with segwit )?

This is the major reason I decided why BCH has a chance.


The Bitcoin Lightning Network whitepaper also backs up how a block size increase will be necessary to make Bitcoin usable for the world.

If we presume that a decentralized payment network exists and one user will
make 3 blockchain transactions per year on average, Bitcoin will be able
to support over 35 million users with 1MB blocks in ideal circumstances
(assuming 2000 transactions/MB, or 500 bytes/Tx). This is quite limited,
and an increase of the block size may be necessary to support everyone in
the world using Bitcoin. A simple increase of the block size would be a hard
fork, meaning all nodes will need to update their wallets if they wish to
participate in the network with the larger blocks.
While it may appear as though this system will mitigate the block size
increases in the short term, if it achieves global scale, it will necessitate a
block size increase in the long term. Creating a credible tool to help prevent
blockchain spam designed to encourage transactions to timeout becomes
To mitigate timelock spam vulnerabilities, non-miner and miners’ consensus rules may also differ if the miners’ consensus rules are more restrictive.


Then we’ll cross that bridge when we get there. Even Satoshi was against increasing the block size if there wasn’t consensus. Less than 30% of the nodes signaled for a block size increase. Increasing it when it is not necessary only harms the decentralization of the network. We are nowhere near global use right now as less than 1% of the world population has ever used crypto in their lives. If there was a majority vote to increase the block size and Core decided to override that, then of course a hard fork would be justifiable, but when it was done with less than 30% support which was mostly miners, it is not.


Then we’ll cross that bridge when we get there

It’s extremely hard to hardfork bitcoin with majority consensus and if it did happen it’ll likely be too late with BTC fees being extremely high for a prolonged period of time.

I think a more likely scenario of big blocks winning would be BCH slowly being adopted instead of BTC, surpassing it’s market cap and people just generally shifting towards it. In that scenario BTC eventually forking to get bigger blocks would be useless as BCH would have already achieved more adoption as a world currency and would essentially become ‘Bitcoin’


Blockstream has a conflict of interest with scaling BTC.