I'm not a BCH fan but I have bought enough to hedge my Bitcoin, as I have no idea what the future of the two will be. Will be interesting to see what happens to BCH if Bitcoin solves the high fees and slow transaction time problems. I'm surprised they are taking so long, giving their rivals a boost.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
good, never keep eggs in one basket
True. While bitcoin cna scale there too much politics going on there. Altcoins haveway better chances for new tech :) But i still believe in bitcoins
True, I am working on getting many eggs into many baskets. @kingscrown
Many baskets.... this is a good one. I like it!
Thanks, I came up with it all by myself. @onealfa
solid advice @kingscrown @duane.dos
BTC will solve the problems. It is just a matter of time.
BTC won't solve the problem. Segwit breaks security and the legal use case and Lightning is not peer to peer.
True, Bitshares and Steem are the only ones with all the checks. None of these coins can scale
Haha and Bernie Sanders and Haejin don’t exist.
Close your eyes and click on another post. It always helps for me.
On the serious note, that's an issue that will have to be solved with time. As a temporary solution, the interfaces could more carefully select what posts they display and how they display them. The information would remain available on the chain for anyone to access.
don't have to use segwit or lighting addresses if you don't want IMO
Not using segwit is impractical. If Lightning will be practical to avoid, that's what we don't know. They could make it that way, but we shouldn't need to trust that they will.
Using nonsegwit address are the reality at the moment unfortunately and compared to a bank transfer I still paid a lower fee and got a faster conformation time obviously for transferring value in the crypto space that is an eternity and expensive but until the exchanges upgrade we are stuck
That's not my point, although I will concur that segwit adoption has been slow. There have been good reasons for this however and maybe this can change soon. Hope it catches on fast, or that Bitcoin Cash does before/after that.
Roger ver, that you?
Good, now we know you're a troll.
Jimmy Song himself said it will be multi years for lightning to be implemented.
I listen to a lot of Jimmy's stuff on the World Crypto Network. I recall that there were multiple second level applications that were in the works. I will dig deeper into the timeline for implementation. There was a presentation somewhere that highlighted the impact secondary layer features to the overall network. I will post the key points if I'm able to find it.
Listen to his youtube stuff.. the new one is interesting where tone vays goes to say that bank controls are fine in bitcoin.. gota make a post about this..
When was this? Because it's already been more than 3 years. Not quite sure anymore when they first started working on it.
At 34:47 Jimmy Song answers when will lightning be implemented... This was last week...
Good catch. I missed that one.
Not sure if that's accurate anymore considering now they've at least published some demo stuff as opposed to before, but even if Lightning gets relesed and "works" in their own eyes, common use could certainly still be a few years down the road. (which by itself of course is not the main problem with Core anyways)
too right
This is why bcash is such a loser. You bcash bitches just spread fud and lies and quote people who don’t know jack shit.
Please do your research. Look up Jimmy Song, he is a Bitcoin dev. He is also pro Bitcoin.
Not so sure about that myself unless you have evidence. But he's less obviously hostile than some at least.
He's also a writer at Coindesk on the issue so he needs to at least keep some objectivity, although I would question to what degree he has really been successful in that regard in his journalism.
Jimmy Song is more concerned of the technology than politics to be honest. But they are so biased towards the old blockchain 1.0 that they don't really care or just turn a blind eye to the community. With all these forks coming from everywhere, you gota think there has to be something wrong. It makes me think that even if it's really true and I think it is, that the bank has taken over, Jimmy will still be carrying the Bitcoin Core flag. Tone Vays don't care, as long as his Bitcoin is still there.
Thing is if they were really concerned with the old Bitcoin, they would be more concerned with the main chain. Which I'm not so sure that Jimmy is. Still, the more that can discuss without trolling, outright lying and smears the better.
Side note. Banks (any third parties, even sidechains or second layer applications) taking over is a risk that would be lessened by everyone running a single full, mining, node themselves. But the thing is this can't be done reliably so far. There's no way to check for identity without introducing gatekeepers and compromising privacy. Hence Satoshis choice to let miners specialize and have their long term incentives align by becoming invested in the system is still the best. (If a takeover happens, or if the developers simply don't make the right choices, a fork is of coruse always possible)
Unless they give cheap and widespread access to the main chain again so that a large number of small transactions can take place there, they have not even come close to solving the issue unfortunately.
This is about more than "merely" bringing down the fees at some point, even if that's a huge part of what makes Bitcoin Cash Bitcoin as per Satoshis writings, including the whitepaper. The debate has been censored on social media platforms and that's why the younger generation BTC speculators don't understand what the disagreement is about. This is about preserving the Bitcoin ("the blockchain") design (which includes on chain scaling through increased block size) in its complete and fundamental structure.
Got it. Thanks for the response.
Core has answered with a solution! Is it enough idk:) https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@sames/bitcoin-newest-scaling-method-adding-bech32-plus-others
It's not. While it might help to bring down the fees and be easier to adopt than segwit, it will not undo the current technical issues brought on by mismanagement of the blocksize. It will also not undo segwit or any of the other changes made.
Its good alternatives and can improve technical difficulties, and yes i do believe in a small block increase but not bch thinking that big block solve all.
I suggest you read my post
Sure. I'll have a look at it later. My opinion is not that big blocks solve everything either. As a matter of fact I've yet to come across a Bitcoin Cash user who thinks that's all there is too it.
Really? All the bcash supporters i find all say big block are the only solution.
They solve a lot, that's for sure. They solve the immediate issue with fees as well as the clogging of the main chain, which in a sense can be seen as analogous to "censorship" or "monopolization" of the network. But they don't safeguard against future social issues amongst developers, nor does it go far enough alone in restoring the features found in the original Bitcoin.
So even if Legacy found a way to implement Lightning in a manner that most Cash users would agree with, it still wouldn't make Bitcoin Cash as such a redundant implementation.
Unless they can find an alternative for segwit that fixes malbilty issue the lightning network can't be used or they add segwit then that another story....
Did you buy into all the other Bitcoin forks?
The other forks are 99% scams or just jokes created by Bitcoin Core/Legacy supporters. Satoshi was very clear when defining Bitcoin and explaining how it was intended to scale.