Hello all,
This topic is to set apart Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash arguments. It is really quite a search to find arguments from both sides. The reason I want to urge Bitcoin Core supporters to give their argumentation is because for a lot of newcomers to the Crypto markets, it is nearly impossible to find the actual ''Why'' Bitcoin Cash should not be considered as an equal to Bitcoin. The debate or available information seems very one-sided in participation.
Personally I have been involved in crypto community since 2013 as a financial / business mind with anarcho-libertarian-decentralist views. However, I do not have an IT background, I am not a frequent Reddit or Bitcointalk user. I have relied mostly on Telegram, Bitcoin news websites and some Twitter as sources for the debate. If you disagree with my arguments about the lack of in depth arguments against Bitcoin Cash being debated publicly, I am likely using different channels, meaning, a lot of other people are likely getting only one-sided information.
The reason for the absence of in-depth arguments against Bitcoin Cash is because in my opinion, Bitcoin core does not engage in elaborate marketing to claim its validity, or disapprove Bitcoin Cash. Whilst Bitcoin cash seems to be focused on marketing their message ('Real bitcoin'.)
Roger Ver is hammering on this issue on Twitter. Whilst Bitcoin core seems to be continuing day-to-day affairs. I have not really seen a lot of mentions of Bitcoin Cash in Bitcoin core. Which in my opinion has led to a possible information crisis on what actual good arguments for- and against Bitcoin cash are. Or could be. Depending on your perspective.
A lot of Bitcoin core supporters are outraged with Bitcoin Cash claiming the name of Bitcoin. Therefore, I am under the impression most Bitcoin maximalists or supporters do not feel the need to debate Bitcoin cash? I would like to urge you to do so, as Bitcoin Cash is also very actively lobbying their arguments.
I will limit my post to naming 3 sources pro Bitcoin Cash, and 3 advocates pro Bitcoin Core.
Supporters of Bitcoin Cash:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvtAlmfYQI Rick Reacts: Evaluating the bitcoin cash / bitcoin core arguments past all the passion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvpD3iF9DCA Rick Reacts: Rick Falkvinge: Here's why I choose the Bitcoin Cash fork
https://twitter.com/rogerkverAdvocates of Bitcoin: https://twitter.com/maxkeiserhttps://twitter.com/aantonop (
https://www.youtube.com/user/aantonop)
https://twitter.com/TuurDemeesterHereby I have attached an example of a rebuttal, posted by myself against Bitcoin cash. The article is pro Bitcoin cash. Below are just my opinions, feel free to supplement, correct, comment, give your opinions. Be it either pro-Bitcoin or pro-Bitcoin Cash. Every opinion holds a truth.
Also I am curious, for all persons replying. What is the ratio of BTC to BCH you own. Myself I am 1:1. Simply because Bitcoin is much more expensive and the BCH I have received via chain split, plus it tends to correlate with the Bitcoin price.
I. Rebuttle of Bitcoin cash article https://news.bitcoin.com/12-reasons-bitcoin-cash-real-bitcoin/Rebuttle of above article:
Personally I favour bitcoin presently. Bitcoin is defined by consensus rules. So even if BCH was more technologically and philosophically better, it still isn't bitcoin. Bitcoins present release is backwards compatible with clients that haven't upgraded. BCH is not. Hence it's only on the philosophy side that someone can say that they feel BCH is more inline with their philosophy. But if we start with that then we're just getting to opinions and religion.
As for the article I'll give a comment on each point.
1 - Bitcoin had low fees as a result of not many people using it. At the end of the day it's decentralisation vs onchain scaling. People overwhelming are choosing that they prefer decentralisation. With trade volume, mining power, price, and number of transactions. The market is telling us that people prefer decentralisation over low fees. If people upgrade to Segwit, they can have low fees on chain. If they won't use Segwit then they should use BCH instead.
2 - Bitcoin is a reliable network. It's incredibly robust. Even when the memorypool was at 350k transactions, nothing happened. The world kept turning. Transactions were processed and the protocol worked exactly as it should have. BCH can organise a hardfork with a couple of weeks notice and almost no review except a small cabal. This is not robust.
3 - Yes it is a peer to peer electronic cash system. If you can't run a full node, is it really peer to peer? Not in my opinion. If I have to connect to a data centre and trust their data that's almost PayPal 2.0.
4 - Yes it was. But why have a blocksize increase when we have Segwit? That would be stupid. We have effective 2mb blocks or more if people use Segwit. Once we reach 95% Segwit adoption they will likely hard fork in Segwit at the same time as a block size increase. They also make the point that 1bg blocks run fine on a high end laptop. Yes. They do. But hardware has never been the issue, it's network speed which doesn't follow moores law.
5 - saying that bitcoin should allow instant transactions is the same as saying every transaction should be included in the next block. So what? Unlimited blocksize? Nothing would surprise me with BCH. Bitcoin transactions were never meant to be instant. It's only the proof of work that makes a transaction final. Even Satoshi said 3-6 confirms. If you want instant transactions you need offchain like LN.
6 - Short term. BCH has barely even doubled its transaction volume since it launched. That's even with Satoshi dive probably making up a huge %.
7 - yes, and it will. It's the same thing everyone in bitcoin believes. But thinking bitcoin is at that stage yet is just premature. We have another 10 years before we start banking the unbanked. Bitcoin is still a high risk investment. Banking poor people with a high risk investment is stupid. We should be focusing on letting them take advantage of infrastructure built on top of blockchain. Like imports and exports to poor countries.
8 - bitcoincore is not centralised at all. They have an open mailing list and anyone can submit a bip. I point to BCH hardforking with a couple weeks notice with barely reviewed code as an example of centralisation.
9 - The 55% statistic is very old. Fees are pretty low right now. If you put 10sat/byte it will confirm. Just not in the next block.
10 - censorship resistant? Haha. Yea when in a few years all nodes will be run in data centres that can be shit down with one letter from a judge. No home mining anymore. LN is trustless in design as a second layer. BCH onchain is barely decentralised once they up the blocksize enough and actually fill blocks. How can you worry about the centralisation of optional payment hubs when you have mining hubs?
11 - Segwit doesn't change anything about bitcoin being a chain of signatures. It's just segregated. It's a fix to the malleability bug. It's as cryptographically secure as it ever was and nobody ever presents evidence to
The contrary. The code was reviewed for 3 years before the fork.
12 - we have RSK on bitcoin. Which is way smarter
because it's on a sidechain. So it doesn't increase the attack surface on the main blockchain. Totally rubbish point. Rsk is smarter and safer that enabling a load of OP codes that were disabled for security.
Look at r/bitcoin and r/btc right this second. Zero mentions of bch or r/btc on r/bitcoin. Whereas there's 6 mentions of bitcoin or r/bitcoin or core on r/btc.
BCH has social media power because of people like Verr. All they do is moan instead of getting on with it.
I'm glad BCH exists because now we get to see what happens onchain if we get massive blocks. I hope they can somehow start to fill blocks with more than 50kb so we can see what happens with 300mb blocks etc. Even if that might take decades based on how slow transactions are currently growing.
BCH supporters have their hearts in the right place and their vision and opinion is valid. But it's not bitcoin, that's not even up for debate.
