You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: I think the btc fee plan might backfire and BCC will be king in 2018.
Criticizing bitcoin? Yes I get it. Hailing bitcoin cash? no. Increasing block size is not a sustainable solution. Every time more users join the network, bcash will have to increase the block size even more. This leads to centralization of the network, and is not what we wanted when we entered the world of crypto.
And 7 transactions per second is a sustainable solution. $50 transaction fees and a 200K backlog does not bode well for Bitcoin.
I just posted a rant about Bitpay not working with Exodus wallets. Basically, I have to transfer my BTC from Exodus to Electrum ($50 cost) before I can send it out over the BitPay network (yet another transaction fee).
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@sirstacksalot/bitcoin-payment-protocol-sucks-for-us-exodus-users
I hope BCH stomps the SH#*# out of BTC for that reason alone!
I find this reason odd. We still see a storage and computing power increase each year. Saying that increasing the block size will centralize Bitcoin Cash is a bit disingenuous when we can now put 256 GB of storage space on a micro SD card and a 4 TB HDD is only $100 USD on Amazon.
I agree that some people will leave the network due to their storage space issues but many people would also use the increased value of their Bitcoin Cash to buy more storage space to continue as a node.
After reading the white paper and understanding cryptography behind Bitcoin back in 2015 I jumped on board. I did so because I saw the technology removing fiat money and killing fractional reserve lending. The way Bitcoin Core has progressed in the past year it looks more like Bitcoin is becoming a tool for the central banks.
That is not what I signed up for when I entered the world of cryptocurrency.
So you reject Satoshi Nakamotos design then? That's fine with me, he's not a deity after all. Let's find out in the market place what actually works best.
Just remember; few years ago we didn't have SHA256 ASICS, fiber, SSDs, more than 4 gig RAM in personal computers, multi-core cpus, laptops that didn't overheat as dust built up inside them, broadband, dial up modems, advanced gpus made specifically for gaming.
The longer into the future we go, the more common all of the most advanced tech we have right now will likely become.
True, but the whole concept of Proof of work is outdated, unpractical and bad for the environment. Look at steem, scales multitude of times more than proof of work coins without breaking a sweat.
Well, sort of. It does still have many costs baked in, such as inflation and issues relating to PoS. I think that more than PoW vs PoS it's the other parameters that are more important and which give good transaction speed etc.
PoW has a hidden benefit in the way that it works though as compared to PoS, although not as much compared to this "Proof of Brain" as they call it that Steem has.
PoW (as does "PoB" in a sense) creates a lot of noise (figure of speech) which acts as a vortex around the blockchain, sucking in spectators and capital. That capital helps build the industry and incentivize new development. PoS has a harder time doing this, at least initially and especially did so pre the ico-craze. (Hence why most people initially rejected it as a ponzi scheme)
You can think of it a little bit like gambling. Half the fun of a one armed bandit is actually pulling the level/hitting the buttons manually, hearing the sounds it makes and waiting for the result. That's why people feel in control and want to play it over and over. If they had much less control and feedback, they would not be as engaged and not bet as much or as many times. It would be comparatively boring and less taxing for the brain to predict the end result.
So yes, PoS doesn't put in as much work, but with Bitcoin PoW is like a game - where miners "mined the gold coins" and got rewards in a lottery - and is also accessible without engaging in DPoS politics.
I agree with you!Merry Christmas!:)