(snip)
(snip)
It's the same concept at the basis of PoW: Working must be hard, checking must be easy. And stay easy.
So what is your point here? Do you assert that farmers in Africa are able to run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet client for BTC are fully able to, but are utterly unable to do so for BCH?
Again! Simplifying things down to 1/0, "fully able"/"utterly unable" is quite below you. It's a matter of degrees. Come on.
I am not a farmer and don't live in Africa, but running a "fully-validating, non-mining wallet client" is possible for me on the BTC chain, albeit not always comfortable bandwidth-wise. It would be nearly impossible for me to do the same on the BCH chain, if the miners would get their shit together and stick to the big blocks they loved so much, rather than jumping wildly from one size to the other.
Today, the BCH chain is less resource intensive than is the BTC chain. Of course, I expect this will change with increasing use of BCH in commerce. Nevertheless, it has been shown that today's typical home computer on a typical home broadband connection can handle about 100 tx/s before bogging down - several times more than that with fixes to the broken multithreading model in today's core-derived clients. And 100 tx/s is well below the current 8MB BCH blocksize.
Let's keep this discussion as it is for now and give it a few months, will we? LN is coming.
Which, I expect, will do very little to solve the congestion problem. But OK.
(Hint: a "fully-validating, non-mining wallet client" is what the rest of the world calls a full node.)
Hint: when Satoshi said 'node', he was referring to a
mining fully-validating client. Except for when he qualified it explicitly as non-mining. IOW, the coarsening of the language -- by people who should really know better -- has resulted in increased ambiguity.
Poll
