If there is no implementation of a block size increase that was supposed to go ahead in a few days, why is BTG still hard forking on their own? I mean the fork is backed by a Hong Kong-based ASIC mining company, I guess you needn't look any further. But still, without the scheduled block size increase (the latter half of the "New York Agreement"), what is BTG forking
against?
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.htmlIt's funny to me that the philosophical underpinnings of BTG are to make bitcoin (even though its no longer bitcoin, its Bitcoin Gold) more ASIC-resistant are backed by an ASIC manufacturer.
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-gold-release-cryptocurrency-sunday/And I also wonder if Vorhees was pressured by Garzik and his other peers into acting right instead of constantly bitching about transaction fees. I guess if he really believed in what he's been tweeting recently, he woulda left the Core team. But that would be leaving behind too much power and influence for the great unknown (ala Roger Ver), and he can't have that, now can he....
Personally I think transaction fees are a bit high -- but nowhere near the >$10 cost that Vorhees claimed they are. I'm all for an increase from 1 MB to 2 MB blocks, however you have to keep in mind that the BTC blockchain is already >140 GB in size, so who actually has the space and time to run a full node? Not many. Certainly not the average citizen.
Maybe keeping blocks at 1 MB is the best move after all. Let the forks keep coming and failing. They will simply be remembered as failed altcoins that tried to cash in on the good name of bitcoin.
Its evident there's enough space in the industry for multiple coins to be employed and there doesn't have to "be only one."
