My take on BCH, 1x, 2x et.al

[jubalix]

TL:DR HODL.

BTC, failed to 2x or commit to scale onchain solutions.

I had a brief exchange conversation one of the core devs

essentially he corrected me as to the demand side and supply side of scaling.

That said he conceded there would be a case for scaling  a bit.

I went on and asked what functions would he suggest or family of functions would likely offer the onchain scaling rate?

Stony silence. Maybe he did not read my question.

This puts me to....what I see as the core of the issue.

BTC needs a certain on chain capacity, its all well and good the LN will solve the high TX issues, but right now LN is no really a choice for most people.

In the interim there needs to be some scaling, and that scaling at a higher rate then went LN is widely used.

The failure to 2X or rather the 6 people saying NO, and they don't get to say no in general if people chose to run 2X, has rather caused the ossification of 1x to look more sure.

Now if they were to 2x, and beyond as needed, this would show good dev intent. As it is they have sacrificed a lot of capital and maybe the crow to BCH.

However until BCH adopts segwit and so can run LN, it remains hobbled.

It seems the nearest to best design will take that proportion of the market cap all other things being equal.

It seems prudent to treat splits as an insurance policy and hold equal amount on both splits. This is increasingly true, if those chains split again.

So in short HODL

[1715479726]

1715479726

[1715479726]

1715479726

[1715479726]

1715479726

[Herbert2020]

the thing about scaling is that SegWit this increase the capacity it is just that not that many are using SegWit transactions so the effects were not palpable. if you check the block sizes we already had bigger than 1 MB blocks. i think the record was 1.7 MB so far.

the way i see it, LN is not supposed to be considered a scaling solution, at least not directly. it should be more of an indirect solution for scaling. LN removes the load of the transactions on chain so there are less "traffic". for example if you want to make deposits in your exchange account, your gambling account,... over and over, you choose LN and go off chain. that way a lot of transactions will get out and reduce the pressure on network.

with that said bitcoin does not need scaling right away. if bitcoin continued like normal without BCH difficulty manipulation and all the spam attacks against bitcoin, then fees would have never risen and mempool transactions would have never exceeded 10K, specially with SegWit now active. and it would have remain like this as SegWit is used more.

The failure to 2X or rather the 6 people saying NO, and they don't get to say no in general if people chose to run 2X, has rather caused the ossification of 1x to look more sure.

it wasn't just those 6 people saying no. it was all the NO2X crap that has been going on. SegWit2x would have led to a split or at least death of core and a crash of price nonetheless. even if temporarily.

However until BCH adopts segwit and so can run LN, it remains hobbled.

LN does not "need" SegWit!

So in short HODL

better say, HODL bitcoin, buy BCH, enjoy the pump, dump it before it is too late, buy bitcoin, HODL, enjoy the rally and come back of money+profit to bitcoin.

[jubalix]

the thing about scaling is that SegWit this increase the capacity it is just that not that many are using SegWit transactions so the effects were not palpable. if you check the block sizes we already had bigger than 1 MB blocks. i think the record was 1.7 MB so far.

the way i see it, LN is not supposed to be considered a scaling solution, at least not directly. it should be more of an indirect solution for scaling. LN removes the load of the transactions on chain so there are less "traffic". for example if you want to make deposits in your exchange account, your gambling account,... over and over, you choose LN and go off chain. that way a lot of transactions will get out and reduce the pressure on network.

with that said bitcoin does not need scaling right away. if bitcoin continued like normal without BCH difficulty manipulation and all the spam attacks against bitcoin, then fees would have never risen and mempool transactions would have never exceeded 10K, specially with SegWit now active. and it would have remain like this as SegWit is used more.

The failure to 2X or rather the 6 people saying NO, and they don't get to say no in general if people chose to run 2X, has rather caused the ossification of 1x to look more sure.

it wasn't just those 6 people saying no. it was all the NO2X crap that has been going on. SegWit2x would have led to a split or at least death of core and a crash of price nonetheless. even if temporarily.

However until BCH adopts segwit and so can run LN, it remains hobbled.

LN does not "need" SegWit!

So in short HODL

better say, HODL bitcoin, buy BCH, enjoy the pump, dump it before it is too late, buy bitcoin, HODL, enjoy the rally and come back of money+profit to bitcoin.

Fair points

What i mean is BCH should implement LN.

I'm not sure I would buy more BCH, than I have BTC....its too risky, you just don't know which way this will play out.

[gentlemand]

However until BCH adopts segwit and so can run LN, it remains hobbled.

Ain't never gonna happen. BCH has shocking myopia long term.

There wouldn't be a short term BTC scaling issue if the creators of BCH weren't going all out to rape Bitcoin by spamming the shit out of it. Witness the immediate cessation when the fork happened on August 1st.

I would've dug a 2MB fork with broad support just to prove it could be done, but as soon as it was in place it would be spammed again. The only way it's going to resolve is for the BCH crew to go broke or mad. They won't stop.

[panju1]

It seems the nearest to best design will take that proportion of the market cap all other things being equal.

It seems prudent to treat splits as an insurance policy and hold equal amount on both splits. This is increasingly true, if those chains split again.

Couldn't agree with it more. By holding all the different forks, you are essentially taking a neutral position. Let the market decide which branch is more valuable. You might be in the favour of big blocks or small blocks, but you shouldn't lose your money if the market decides the other fork is more valuable.

[gentlemand]

By holding all the different forks, you are essentially taking a neutral position. Let the market decide which branch is more valuable. You might be in the favour of big blocks or small blocks, but you shouldn't lose your money if the market decides the other fork is more valuable.

I don't think it's that straightforward. A few short months ago all there was was Bitcoin. By this time next year fuck knows how many there'll be.

Every offshoot that gains traction erodes Bitcoin and therefore crypto as a whole. There could come a point where the rest of the world regards the whole scene as a pathetic, squabbling, copy and pasting joke.

It's still in the phase where it has a lot to prove. It does itself no favours with the present shit show.

[alyssa85]

TL:DR HODL.

BTC, failed to 2x or commit to scale onchain solutions.

I had a brief exchange conversation one of the core devs

essentially he corrected me as to the demand side and supply side of scaling.

That said he conceded there would be a case for scaling  a bit.

I went on and asked what functions would he suggest or family of functions would likely offer the onchain scaling rate?

Stony silence. Maybe he did not read my question.

This puts me to....what I see as the core of the issue.

BTC needs a certain on chain capacity, its all well and good the LN will solve the high TX issues, but right now LN is no really a choice for most people.

In the interim there needs to be some scaling, and that scaling at a higher rate then went LN is widely used.

The failure to 2X or rather the 6 people saying NO, and they don't get to say no in general if people chose to run 2X, has rather caused the ossification of 1x to look more sure.

Now if they were to 2x, and beyond as needed, this would show good dev intent. As it is they have sacrificed a lot of capital and maybe the crow to BCH.

However until BCH adopts segwit and so can run LN, it remains hobbled.

It seems the nearest to best design will take that proportion of the market cap all other things being equal.

It seems prudent to treat splits as an insurance policy and hold equal amount on both splits. This is increasingly true, if those chains split again.

So in short HODL

The bit highlighted indicates that Bitcoin is never going to scale with the current developers in place.

Bitcoincash does have big blocks, but it isn't as good as some of the alts out there.

My take is that while BTC and BCH take massive lumps out of each other, an alt will sneak up and take the crown.

[fabiorem]

an alt will sneak up and take the crown.

Litecoin yes. 

Or Dash.

[tokeweed]

TL:DR HODL.

BTC, failed to 2x or commit to scale onchain solutions.

I had a brief exchange conversation one of the core devs

essentially he corrected me as to the demand side and supply side of scaling.

That said he conceded there would be a case for scaling  a bit.

I went on and asked what functions would he suggest or family of functions would likely offer the onchain scaling rate?

Stony silence. Maybe he did not read my question.

This puts me to....what I see as the core of the issue.

BTC needs a certain on chain capacity, its all well and good the LN will solve the high TX issues, but right now LN is no really a choice for most people.

In the interim there needs to be some scaling, and that scaling at a higher rate then went LN is widely used.

The failure to 2X or rather the 6 people saying NO, and they don't get to say no in general if people chose to run 2X, has rather caused the ossification of 1x to look more sure.

Now if they were to 2x, and beyond as needed, this would show good dev intent. As it is they have sacrificed a lot of capital and maybe the crow to BCH.

However until BCH adopts segwit and so can run LN, it remains hobbled.

It seems the nearest to best design will take that proportion of the market cap all other things being equal.

It seems prudent to treat splits as an insurance policy and hold equal amount on both splits. This is increasingly true, if those chains split again.

So in short HODL

The bit highlighted indicates that Bitcoin is never going to scale with the current developers in place.

Bitcoincash does have big blocks, but it isn't as good as some of the alts out there.

My take is that while BTC and BCH take massive lumps out of each other, an alt will sneak up and take the crown.

It would most likely be XMR imho.  It's just simply the best after Bitcoin.  Again that's imho.

And it's not about the current developers that BTC won't scale onchain.  Didn't it occur to you that if you want Bitcoin to scale, you would have to go offchain?

I really wish Bcash gets all the transaction volume and success BTC has just to see what kind of problems that chain goes thru just to prove Core's point.