I have always presumed jbreher is probably at least in the 4 digits BTC, maybe even in the (low) 5's.... Which is why I have always tried to understand why he decided to go the "wrong way" (Jihan/Ver) with so much at stake
I haven't worked out estimates of jbreher's (or anyone else's) stash, but the man strikes me as a rational thinker with much at stake since a long time. So I also tried to understand the reasons for his choice, and I asked him explicitly. Unfortunately, his explanations with regard to bigblockery/Verism etc. always came short. Disappointing underperformance for a good poster, accurate checker of facts, numerical literate such as he is.
What more reason do you need other than the fact that the current blocksize limitation is destroying the user experience thereby constraining adoption?
You seem to like BCH a lot, which IMO is not a rational strategy. This dissonance is unresolved as yet. A few reasons:
- BCH doesn't fix transaction malleabilty,
Transaction malleability is not a problem in practice. Any of its effects are easily mitigated.
FWIW, though, the majority opinion within the Bitcoin Cash community is that we will implement a malleability fix. When higher priority issues are in the rearview.
ruling out L2 solutions
No. While it is true that eliminating malleability
simplifies known L2 solutions, in no way
prevents them.
which are the scaling solution in the medium (possibly long) term.
Perhaps. Though I point out that any transaction on any known L2 is by definition not a Bitcoin transaction. Accordingly, less interesting.
Any L2 solution proven in practice -- including being free of negative side effects -- is likely to be picked up by the Bitcoin Cash chain.
- BCH is controlled by a cartel.
No more so than Bitcoin Segwit. Less so in fact. Six independent leading implementations of non-mining, fully validating wallets (often mis referred to as 'nodes') as opposed to Bitcoin Segwit's Core implementation's market dominance.
Their coders are clueless.
Again, simply false.
The cartel is likely under the heavy hand of PBOC.
Again, no more so than Bitcoin Segwit. The miner population is identical between the two chains.
They use guerrilla tactics (esp. transaction spam)
Well, here you have a point. We really don't know who 'they' is, but I must admit that it is likely that some bigblockers are creating multitudinous low-value transactions on the Bitcoin Segwit chain. Other explanations are also rational, though perhaps unlikely.
to gain control.
What exactly do you mean by this?
- Big blocks will stifle adoption.
If you believe that the measure of adoption is number of non-mining, fully-validating wallets, then you
may have a point. However, it has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that non-mining, fully-validating wallets have fuck-all to do with network health.
Further, I believe it likely that massive adoption will lead to huge numbers of nodes - naturally. Every common consumer has little reason to run such a non-mining, fully-validating wallet. You know who does? Merchants who have a need to verify that their purchasers are actually broadcasting valid transactions for the goods and services they are purchasing. More usable chain -> more users -> more incentive to take Bitcoin in commerce -> more merchants -> more need to verify transactions -> more validating wallets.
You know what really stifles adoption? A congested, expensive, time-wasting, unreliable Bitcoin Segwit.
Yes, that's the old "Raspberry pi in rural Afghanistan" argument. Even I, not in rural Afghanistan, would stop my own homespun node (not a pi though) if pressed by bandwidth and storage limits.
Testing has demonstrated that a typical 'home computer' on a typical 'domestic broadband' connection can handle up to 100 tx/s with no architectural changes to the satoshi client, and 500 tx/s merely by fixing that client's broken threading implementation.
"Be your own bank" implies the ability to run your own full verifying node.
Well, no. It most certainly does not. At least I can't see any prerequisite there. How do you figure?
- More adoption will come when we have a scalable system. Big blocks aren't scalable.
Big blocks -- by definition -- are scalable.
You know all these things already. You are too intelligent not to see the logical implications. So, my fuzzy inference is: you have other reasons. Not saying you are necessarily a paid shill, although it can't be ruled out. The "more reason" I was (and am) asking of you is an effective, documented rebuttal of my points or some subjective reason that goes beyond "I like big big big! Blocks big, me happy!" Something like "I was bitten by a small block when I was a child, try to understand my shock" would be a little better, but as you understand, still not quite satisfactory.
Yeah. We've already discussed these very points, have we not? Why you continue to ignore my replies is beyond my ken.
Poll
