[ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees

[Rapidement]

[1715051381]

1715051381

[1715051381]

1715051381

[1715051381]

1715051381

[hv_]

^
Nope - this is not the Segshit fanboy thread here..

[tekmobile]

^
Nope - this is not the Segshit fanboy thread here..

That's censorship your against that since you are always criticize r/Bitcoin for deleting off topic this is supposed to be a free discussion coin

[tomkat]

^
Nope - this is not the Segshit fanboy thread here..

That's censorship your against that since you are always criticize r/Bitcoin for deleting off topic this is supposed to be a free discussion coin

However, although LN may be relevant since it can be used in BCH eventually, Segwit is totally off-topic here, right?

[tekmobile]

^
Nope - this is not the Segshit fanboy thread here..

That's censorship your against that since you are always criticize r/Bitcoin for deleting off topic this is supposed to be a free discussion coin

However, although LN may be relevant since it can be used in BCH eventually, Segwit is totally off-topic here, right?

Lightning cannot be used on BCH in its current form though because when you forked you removed a bugfix to a long standing bug that is required to be fixed for LN to function

[hv_]

^
Nope - this is not the Segshit fanboy thread here..

That's censorship your against that since you are always criticize r/Bitcoin for deleting off topic this is supposed to be a free discussion coin

Funny - how did I 'delete' or 'censor' ?

And no - yours devs and others have shown, that you do not need Segshit for LN.

Keep it simple stupid

[tekmobile]

^
Nope - this is not the Segshit fanboy thread here..

That's censorship your against that since you are always criticize r/Bitcoin for deleting off topic this is supposed to be a free discussion coin

Funny - how did I 'delete' or 'censor' ?

And no - yours devs and others have shown, that you do not need Segshit for LN.

Keep it simple stupid

By telling something is not welcome if you had the power to delete you would but you don't so you have to do the next best thing

I never said you needed segwit for LN I said you need a bugfix because you removed the one segwit fixed the devs are welcome to try and fix this bug some other way if they wish and then yes LN will work without segwit but it's unlikely to happen.

If BCH did decide it needed LN then they will probably just merge the segwit code again as its already proven

[tomkat]

^
Nope - this is not the Segshit fanboy thread here..

That's censorship your against that since you are always criticize r/Bitcoin for deleting off topic this is supposed to be a free discussion coin

However, although LN may be relevant since it can be used in BCH eventually, Segwit is totally off-topic here, right?

Lightning cannot be used on BCH in its current form though because when you forked you removed a bugfix to a long standing bug that is required to be fixed for LN to function

You're twisting the discussion all the time. The above was about relevancy of LN (and Segwit) in BCH and not if LN can't be used now because of something.
BCH devs and community aren't against LN in BCH.
-LN can be eventually used in BCH after fixing malleability
-Segwit is irrelevant since it won't be implemented in BCH

Segwit isn't the only solution for LN, since malleability can be solved without Segwit.
Instead of just scraping the surface try to dig slightly deeper - see below for a start
https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/Malleability.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6ldjrd/transaction_malleability_solved_without_segwit/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/69s2wf/the_right_way_to_fix_transaction_malleability/

[hv_]

^
Nope - this is not the Segshit fanboy thread here..

That's censorship your against that since you are always criticize r/Bitcoin for deleting off topic this is supposed to be a free discussion coin

Funny - how did I 'delete' or 'censor' ?

And no - yours devs and others have shown, that you do not need Segshit for LN.

Keep it simple stupid

By telling something is not welcome if you had the power to delete you would but you don't so you have to do the next best thing

I never said you needed segwit for LN I said you need a bugfix because you removed the one segwit fixed the devs are welcome to try and fix this bug some other way if they wish and then yes LN will work without segwit but it's unlikely to happen.

If BCH did decide it needed LN then they will probably just merge the segwit code again as its already proven

Not so sure about how realistic these two things are - 1) I had the power to delete AND really execute this (I did not even report this post)

AND 2) Bitcoin Cash's protocol gets over-engineered for sake of dev-control - esp having 32MB on the road-map.

No - the protocol level must be as simple as possible to maximal-attrac solutions, ppl and devs on top and this means real decentralization, like elementary particles can be found anywhere in this universe and all other things are built on top of these. Only the inherent shape and basic physics are setting up the self-organizational structures - no other protocol (layer 1) devs needed.

[ANDREW 555]

Satoshi's Vision Conference in Tokyo, Japan (March 23)
https://coindar.org/en/event/bitcoin-cash-bch-satoshis-vision-conference-in-tokyo-japan-3450

[tekmobile]

^
Nope - this is not the Segshit fanboy thread here..

That's censorship your against that since you are always criticize r/Bitcoin for deleting off topic this is supposed to be a free discussion coin

However, although LN may be relevant since it can be used in BCH eventually, Segwit is totally off-topic here, right?

Lightning cannot be used on BCH in its current form though because when you forked you removed a bugfix to a long standing bug that is required to be fixed for LN to function

You're twisting the discussion all the time. The above was about relevancy of LN (and Segwit) in BCH and not if LN can't be used now because of something.
BCH devs and community aren't against LN in BCH.
-LN can be eventually used in BCH after fixing malleability
-Segwit is irrelevant since it won't be implemented in BCH

Segwit isn't the only solution for LN, since malleability can be solved without Segwit.
Instead of just scraping the surface try to dig slightly deeper - see below for a start
https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/Malleability.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6ldjrd/transaction_malleability_solved_without_segwit/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/69s2wf/the_right_way_to_fix_transaction_malleability/

This was all before BCH why wasn't this implemented before the launch when the fork was created then if it is so easy to do

[ConnectionSuccesful]

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BCHBTC/Ez9dpGYb-Black-Friday-Green-Bitcoin-Cash-Multiple-charts-24-7-stream/

Link to Trading view idea, BCH looks very healthy.
I remember this FUD on XRP before recent pump. We have exactly the same situation on BCH market right now.

[tomkat]

^
Nope - this is not the Segshit fanboy thread here..

That's censorship your against that since you are always criticize r/Bitcoin for deleting off topic this is supposed to be a free discussion coin

However, although LN may be relevant since it can be used in BCH eventually, Segwit is totally off-topic here, right?

Lightning cannot be used on BCH in its current form though because when you forked you removed a bugfix to a long standing bug that is required to be fixed for LN to function

You're twisting the discussion all the time. The above was about relevancy of LN (and Segwit) in BCH and not if LN can't be used now because of something.
BCH devs and community aren't against LN in BCH.
-LN can be eventually used in BCH after fixing malleability
-Segwit is irrelevant since it won't be implemented in BCH

Segwit isn't the only solution for LN, since malleability can be solved without Segwit.
Instead of just scraping the surface try to dig slightly deeper - see below for a start
https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/Malleability.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6ldjrd/transaction_malleability_solved_without_segwit/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/69s2wf/the_right_way_to_fix_transaction_malleability/

This was all before BCH why wasn't this implemented before the launch when the fork was created then if it is so easy to do

Because it's not needed now, and it's not the main focus of BCH development.
LN in BCH is just an optional feature that may be useful some day.

[Pumuckel21]

^
Nope - this is not the Segshit fanboy thread here..

That's censorship your against that since you are always criticize r/Bitcoin for deleting off topic this is supposed to be a free discussion coin

However, although LN may be relevant since it can be used in BCH eventually, Segwit is totally off-topic here, right?

Lightning cannot be used on BCH in its current form though because when you forked you removed a bugfix to a long standing bug that is required to be fixed for LN to function

Yeah but it feels like the lightning network is taking ages to be fully implemented into Btc. ANd to be honest why should you use bcash wenn tbtc gets Lighning network intergrated.

[bitcoinPsycho]

^
Nope - this is not the Segshit fanboy thread here..

That's censorship your against that since you are always criticize r/Bitcoin for deleting off topic this is supposed to be a free discussion coin

However, although LN may be relevant since it can be used in BCH eventually, Segwit is totally off-topic here, right?

Lightning cannot be used on BCH in its current form though because when you forked you removed a bugfix to a long standing bug that is required to be fixed for LN to function

Yeah but it feels like the lightning network is taking ages to be fully implemented into Btc. ANd to be honest why should you use bcash wenn tbtc gets Lighning network intergrated.

ironic how the one thing bch is against will be the thing that makes it (more) irrelevant

[Angel Di]

I wonder why big exchanges like Bittrex, Binance etc. don't have BCH trading pair against altcoins.

Here everything is very simple, the coin first appeared only recently and there passed not enough time. Therefore probably so far is of not enough interest and will have respectively small demand on couples. It will be possible in the future that that and is added. Now something to deny this ungrateful business and blind.

[bitcoinPsycho]

I wonder why big exchanges like Bittrex, Binance etc. don't have BCH trading pair against altcoins.

Here everything is very simple, the coin first appeared only recently and there passed not enough time. Therefore probably so far is of not enough interest and will have respectively small demand on couples. It will be possible in the future that that and is added. Now something to deny this ungrateful business and blind.

also a lot of bitcoin fans(including me) see bch as toxic

[hv_]

^ ironic how you cannot see like most all of the older Bitcoin supporters see BS and SW + LN toxic and spread out to other platforms. 

All efforts that dillute Bitcoin's inherent scarcity IS toxic by definition.

All space given to other coins by any means is such.


Bitcoin Cash will exactly fix that and yes, it must be kind of toxic i.o. to achieve that.

[lsd400]

This tweet make me wonder https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/963088730641911808 if BTC change PoW algorithm and let's say all miners switch to Bitcoin Cash would it handle well with same fee 1cent? I mean is BCH network ready for such situation?

[tekmobile]

This tweet make me wonder https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/963088730641911808 if BTC change PoW algorithm and let's say all miners switch to Bitcoin Cash would it handle well with same fee 1cent? I mean is BCH network ready for such situation?

It won't happen but if BTC did change it's PoW then no the current value could not support all the hashing power there is just not enough value there you will possibly find miners refusing to mine really low value transactions antpool and f2pool was doing that a bit back on BTC

f2pool even tweeted out that if you want them to mine your transaction then you need to pay a higher fee

A similar thing will most likely happen the miners may refuse any transaction below something like 10sat/B

You would probably find many miners quit and bitmain unable to sell new mining equipment