- 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.
Preventing them to the point of making them too hard to implement reliably - at least, as of now. If the emergency situation grants hurrying to hardfork a blocksize change, why not fix transaction malleability first?
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.
Less interesting, but isn't the point about functionality rather than academic interest?
- 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.
Offhand innuendo, pff. The attitude behind this reply is one of the reasons I got tired of replying. I am referring to the number of active developers (not just the ones with commit rights!). The fact that one client is more popular on the main bitcoin fork doesn't mean it's controlled by a cartel. Open source development and free client choice produced this result.
Their coders are clueless.
Again, simply false.
To me, the mess they made with the fork and the EDA is the mark of incompetence. If it weren't for some of the Core developers, I imagine they would still be there trying to figure out "why the hell doesn't it work, hurr durr?"
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.
Another prime example of offhand innuendo in my probably biased opinion - and, most importantly, factually incorrect for all I know. Nearly all miners for BCH are in China. Jihan is a Chinese citizen who no doubt is scared shitless of the Gubment and its appendices (like PBOC). Jihan can shut off the whole merry-go-round at the touch of a button - by just restraining his support (like "miner hardware shall only be paid in BCH from now on") or by whispering a few nice words to select clients (big miners). All it takes is the Party to make him an offer he can't refuse.
to gain control.
What exactly do you mean by this?
I mean taking control of Bitcoin by replacing it with Bcash. By doing so, developers would be under Jihan's, Ver's (and PBOC's) thumb. Censorship can happen. Moderate (or unreasonable!) inflation can be programmed as a "fair reward" for miners (most likely friends of the Party), who would become something like a miniature Central Bank, with similar privileges and arbitrary power. Anything can be perpetrated easily, if full nodes become so few as to be irrelevant.
- 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.
It hasn't been demonstrated to
my satisfaction, though. Some things show their value only when they are sorely missed. Full nodes are one of these things IMO.
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.
Depends how much they're holding, and how much they care about rules that preserve the system their wealth depends upon.
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.
Right, they do too.
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 an average 'home computer' on an average '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.
My bandwidth can't. Even in "civilized" nations, some areas can't devote all that bandwidth to a single household - if such significant bandwidth is there in the first place.
"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?
See the point above, before "merchants".
- More adoption will come when we have a scalable system. Big blocks aren't scalable.
Big blocks -- by definition -- are scalable.
The number of bytes per se is scalable, of course. It's the
resulting solution that doesn't scale well.
Yeah. We've already discussed these very points, have we not? Why you continue to ignore my replies is beyond my ken.
Not ignoring, but I feel stuck in a loop and it's bad for my health!
Poll
