On Bitcoin Cash supporters' belief that Bitcoin Cash is more "P2P" than Bitcoin

[Wind_FURY]

I am asking nicely.

What is the debate that Bitcoin Cash supporters have that makes it technically correct when they say that "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin" because it is more "peer to peer and closer to electronic cash"?

I believe the community should internalize this topic more, especially the newbies.

[Baofeng]

I think that Bitcoin Cash supporters argument could be that First, Bitcoin P2P scheme was no longer applicable because of the 'high transaction" fee. However, we've now enjoying very low fees and fast confirmation times because of Segwit, even 1 sat/byte will immediately confirmed in minutes. So that argument is debunked already.

Second, Bitcoin of today is more of a Store of Value (SoV), no longer the true vision of Satoshi. This argument is open for debate as Bitcoin can be used as SoV or even as a currency (specially today when the price is 'stable') imho.

[talkbitcoin]

BCH dudes are always full of it. but apart from that i have not heard this statement and it doesn't make any sense calling it more p2p than bitcoin!

what i have heard is that they call it more "digital cash" than bitcoin which is different and the whole thing is because it has lower fees which makes sense. but only if you ignore the fact that it is not used that is why it has lower fees (ie. empty blocks).

[talkbitcoin]

#	BCH	BTC
1	Low transaction fees	Low cost to run full nodes
2	On-chain scaling	Off-chain scaling
3	Satoshi Vision	Move on from Satoshi Vision
4	More P2P because there are many clients	More P2P because there are many full nodes Even though there's more client option for BTC

1. when you speak of fees you shouldn't only consider the fees that are paid. but instead you should talk about how much of block space is used compared to the fees. with bitcoin the blocks are full, even if you increase the block size to 32 MB the blocks will be full even if it means miners spamming it. but with BCH the blocks are empty even if they were 0.5 MB they would still be empty. you can't charge a high fee while blocks are empty and you can even call 1 s/b a huge fee!

2. Wrong. bitcoin has on-chain scaling. ever since August 2017 we are having 4 MB blocks and also there is nothing stopping us from increasing it further with other implementations. all you can say is that BCH only has on chain scaling while bitcoin has both on-chain and off-chain scaling.

3. this is simply nonsense used by BCH campaign to advertise it as a coin that people should buy so they can pump it. nothing more

4. being p2p is determined based on peers not how many different implementations there are. not to mention that BCH clients aren't really different implementations. they are the same, in same language and everything only have different names.

[Red-Apple]

speaking of "satoshi vision", the main characteristic that Satoshi introduced was decentralization and the consensus based currency. which BCH broke easily when they disregarded consensus and also when they centralized it with their mining power...

[Marcel555]

There has been many disagreements between BTC enthusiasts and BCHs'.
I remember Butcojn cash holders once argued that BCH was having a better ROI than BTC and that ran for months.

Whichever side of the divide you are on determines how you see the facts and opinions.
Sitting in the fence allows you see everything clearer.

[beeelzebub]

Actually bitcoin cash is just an altocoin like many others. Bitcoin is a bitcoin. So i don't find a sense comparing them. You can compare bitcoin cash with other altcoins.

[clrpod]

Bitcoin cash can't be considered the real bitcoin simply because it's not, but it is closer to what some people consider to be the vision of btc due to the lower fees. But each have their own advantages, I think the argument is similar to those arguing crypto vs fiat - I think it's a pointless debate because both can work together and people can just choose what's right for them.

[Jash1989]

It is pretty remarkable to see that the BCH rise is also pulling the entire market with it. I thought this hard fork news would stop affecting the price yesterday night, but it is still going.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe not one gave a compelling post because either, not one has understood what I was querying, or not one of who replied technically understands how Bitcoin works when sending a transaction.

Maybe to begin, we should ask "is Bitcoin technically peer to peer when sending a payment?".

[BitcoinHodler]

Maybe to begin, we should ask "is Bitcoin technically peer to peer when sending a payment?".

peer to peer means when you want to send something to someone else you don't need a third party in the middle to send. like a server to connect to, a payment processor to go through,... there are only peers that are "equal" on this network and when you send a transaction you send it to these peers. and as long as there is no restrictions on who can become  a "peer" on this network it will remain that way.

but if there is a restriction of who can become a peer (like masternodes) then it is not peer to peer, it is peer to a server (the master node) then to another peer.

[piebeyb]

BCH is bitcoin cash and BTC is Bitcoin, if the BCH value is the same as BTC now if the BCH miner has more and more diffs, one more thing what if a lot of spam transactions on BCH will also make BCH transaction fees expensive too, so it's the same thing, I still see it as an ordinary debate they should be able to support each other, correct if wrong

[btyco]

One of the factors holding back bitcoin is the transaction times and the fees, bitcoin cash is supposed to resolve those issues. However, it will never overtake the original bitcoin so stick with btc

[sinkfish]

One of the factors holding back bitcoin is the transaction times and the fees, bitcoin cash is supposed to resolve those issues. However, it will never overtake the original bitcoin so stick with btc

BCH is strongly backed by miner. though the number is small. i think it people will start appreciate BCH if BCH got around 10-20% market capture.

[talkbitcoin]

One of the factors holding back bitcoin is the transaction times and the fees, bitcoin cash is supposed to resolve those issues. However, it will never overtake the original bitcoin so stick with btc

BCH is strongly backed by miner. though the number is small. i think it people will start appreciate BCH if BCH got around 10-20% market capture.

it is backed by A miner not miners and also miners never back anything apart from their profit. if there is profit to be made elsewhere they quickly switch to it. example of it is the early days of BCH fork where they created the incentive for miners to mine it with manipulating the difficulty, and miners started mining BCH temporarily before coming back to the more profitable coin to mine: bitcoin.

[franky1]

personally i am not team CORE or team CASH.
my funds and care/concern are in the network of bitcoin that uses BTC
(my distain for TEAM core, but my LOVE of network bitcoin(btc, as visioned 2009-2013))
(^ just for clarity ^)

firstly to address the elephant in the room. onchain/ofchain
CORE want offchain..
but LN is not a bitcoin protocol nor is it a bitcoin network, nor is it a blockchain network.
LN is a separate network that any chainhash can link into it as long as that coin is LN compatible
LN was not made to be bitcoin compatible and sole feature of.. bitcoin was made to be LN compatible. so were other coins

now thats said
standing back and looking at the big picture it seems team core want to limit bitcoin and promote the separate network LN
standing back and looking at the big picture it seems team cash want to grow cash and promote cash

here is the techy stuff
LN due to factories and routing is not peer-to peer.. but is:
sender to pool to factory by channel by channel by channel to factory to pool to recipient

blockchain is closer as the sender identifies the recipient. but needs to be done via block inclusion.. so is
sender pool recipient

if a LN route node is not online, or in manual mode(not autopilot(*autopilot is risky*)) while asleep. payments are not made
also payments are not guaranteed. solid. definite finalised, they are just IOU/promises that are signed. (unconfirmed)
with onchain. if the fee aint right or the pool is doing preferred transaction choosing/exclusion. again no guarantee

to ensure a complete settled and immutible funds only the destination can use
blockchain coins (both btc and bch) are peer-pool-peer
LN is peer pool factory peer route peer factory pool peer

but both settling real immutible funds via onchain direct or LN. transactions need to be accepted by a pool before its actually guaranteed the recipients real funds guaranteed.

to answer the OP question in short

peer-pool-peer for both btc and bch

[LeGaulois]

@Baofeng
There is no statistic showing Bitcoin is more used as an SOV than currency. It can be an evidence to us, but the evidence doesn't matter, facts matter. Also, BCash is more used as SOV comparing to BTC), nobody really uses BCash other than people on trading exchanges.

@Wind_FURY
If Bcash is more a P2P currency than Bitcoin and closer to digital currency, it doesn't make it the real Bitcoin. If Bitcoin isn't perfect, Bcash is surely not a contender to take the place of THE real Bitcoin. The history is written on tablets. The Satoshi's vision, the one the majority didn't read about.... If Bcash is following the original vision, it stays a fork of Bitcoin and will never be the real one.

[dothebeats]

Each side always has their own biased opinions regarding the matter: which coin fulfills Satoshi's vision for an electronic P2P cash, which coin stuck to the original intended use-case of bitcoin etc.. it just goes on. Both of them technically fulfills being a currency and a store of value IMO, and the end-user still decides which coin they would like to use. Inclining more to 'Satoshi's vision' doesn't make a coin the "true" bitcoin, especially if the coin is a fork of the original coin that was created since this whole system started (that's just all my opinion).

1. when you speak of fees you shouldn't only consider the fees that are paid. but instead you should talk about how much of block space is used compared to the fees. with bitcoin the blocks are full, even if you increase the block size to 32 MB the blocks will be full even if it means miners spamming it. but with BCH the blocks are empty even if they were 0.5 MB they would still be empty. you can't charge a high fee while blocks are empty and you can even call 1 s/b a huge fee!

Ahh no, there are cases in which blocks only contain a single transaction (coinbase transaction), see this block for instance. Miners can mine empty blocks if they so do wish, so the assertion that bitcoin blocks are always full doesn't ring true.

[franky1]

as for other posters who over inflate and over promote
BTC is not full
BTC is not empty
BTC is not full or empty due to sgwit technology adding capacity or any other false PR of spinning "segwit is great"
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/avg-block-size

infact btc is less full due to LESS transactions (less utility=lss people using the network)
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions-per-block

...
bch is not empty
bch is not full
those who screamed gigablocks by midnight coz gigabytes were wrong


ever since 2009-2013 bitcoin was statistically able to do 2100tx a block (3.5tx/s) (hindsight of LevelDB bug)
but if at 1mb allowed 7tx/s which even satoshi mentioned 7tx/s back in 2009-10

yet we see less than 2000 as the average... and dont try spinning it into "segwit is great" as less people using a network is bad.

all that can be said is the troops of people shouting "if you dont like it F**K off... got their wish. people have moved away from using bitcoin. the number of transactions went down. fee's though are higher than they were in 2015(when all the promises of innovation and scaling and upgrade drama started due to fees)

[LeGaulois]

@Franky1

You are showing the number of transactions per block to say we have less utility but why not consider the number of confirmed transactions per day instead https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all
It gives a better overview and another scenario, I don't see less transactions with (excluding 2017)