"I will be giving a talk at #ScalingBitcoin on how a block size increase up to 3600x the present size and a change of proof-of-work can be achieved with a fully backwards compatible soft-fork—old clients see all transactions and valid SHA256 block headers."

Sounds interesting, but I don't see how this translates as a threat to BCH.

Core has already shown an incredible irrational resistance to scaling on-chain. The ugly hack of adopting SegWit as a so-called 'soft fork' has proven to have been the mechanism by which new security vulnerabilities have been introduced to BTC - will this 'soft fork' be any different? Lastly, experience with other chains has already conclusively demonstrated the folly of jettisoning $Billions of USD worth of dedicated security appliances.

While the capacity increase is attractive, this looks to be facing at least a trifecta of real implementation problems.

I must admit that as far as technical details, I am quivering with antici...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...pation.

Small minds discuss people.


Indeed it is. I find this disappointing. However, popularity is not a proper basis for determination of superiority. And popularity metrics can turn on a dime. I am confident this trend will turn. If your only concrete aspect you wish to discuss is popularity, I guess I'm done with this branch of this conversation.


It most certainly has not proven so. In the last test of BTC's scaling properties -- 4q17-Jan18 -- BTC failed miserably.

No. The amount of centralization of non-mining validators is completely orthogonal to the amount of centralization of miners. The two metrics have nothing to do with each other. And to repeat (I sound like a broken record, but you keep missing this reiterated point), NON-MINING VALIDATORS HAVE NO POWER ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK.


As stated above, No. Not yes. As for your 'then': Merchants are likely to themselves benefit from running non-mining validators. This allows them to transact trustlessly, and to monitor for double-spends. Users? Meh. Either way, NON-MINING VALIDATORS HAVE NO POWER ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK.


Again, no. As for your dependent clause, no again. It is not worse, but it is also not better. For the only entities that have any power upon the Bitcoin network -- i.e., the miners -- are almost fully interconnected, and therefore have no need for non-mining entities to relay anything on their behalf.

Yeah, well...

Most 'merkins think they 'know' what a US dollar is, but in reality, they have no clue.

One among many.

(...not much of a save there...)


No shit.


If Lukejr... If Back... If Vays...

Funny how you feel you need to trot out personalities - rather than discuss concrete aspects of the chains and the implementations built thereupon.

edit:spelling

I will just point out here that merely a single use of BCH for merely a single purpose makes your blanket statement perfectly and completely false.

Are you shamelessly lying, or just willfully ignorant, nutildah?

::sigh::

No, the statements are not in opposition. You still seem to be under the delusion that centralization of non-mining validators (which you persist in mistakenly calling 'nodes') matters. As I have already explained to you (repeatedly...), the count of non-mining validators HAS NO EFFECT UPON THE NETWORK.

So yes - very few non-mining validators would be relative centralization of non-mining validators, but no - this condition does not matter to the network.

Hmm. Seems the 'serious bear case' being discussed is taking 6 years (instead of 2 years) to get to $100K/BTC. In my book, that's not particularly bearish.

Merited for lulzy nick.

If you think that those factors were any more than silly slideshows, you have not been focusing on the core.

Since 2009 January 03.


Presumably for decades, if not centuries. Join us on this journey of discovery.

Please do not invoke Metcalfe's Law if you do not even know what it is.

knock yourself out. I'm not interested.

The mind reels at the irony.

comprehend moar. bloviate less.

oh.... and: usernamechecksout

I'll admit, I am conflicted.

I worry about one entity holding that much value.

OTOH, it reassures me that Bitmain has such a large commitment.

I know the local narrative is that Bitmain shit the bed on this. I can see several ways, however, that this works out well for my position - in working out well for Bitmain. Time will tell.

Meh. I'm merely somewhat behind the head of the thread. Traveling, with not much time to stay abreast.

Disappointed re: the drop in BTC value. Though I've been buying, so I have more net BTC.

Even more disappointed re: the drop in BCH value. Though I've been buying, so I have more net BCH.

For the foreseeable future, I have sufficient personal liquidity, so I can wait for the inevitable sky-high valuation.

IOW: Bitcoin user hodler not affected.

Volatility is my friend. Every round of priceDownUp puts another bit of BTC and BCH in my pocket. As long as the long term trend remains up (long term as in 4-year cycle), I am a happy camper.

I think you need to think about what you are asking. How could 'the decentralized part' have 'very few nodes'? By definition, very few nodes would be rather centralized.


No. Not at all.


With this, I would agree with you. But this is not a consequence of anything in your hypothetical, it is a matter of philosophy.

Good thing that the permissionless design of Bitcoin ensures that all that want to are able to operate a non-mining validator.