I think it's a matter of timing. Maybe BTC has enough of a head start on exchanges and active wallets that it has a little bit of head-room, but if they don't do something about the block size and transaction fees pretty quickly, they'll go the way of Netscape.
That is good article. It made some points that I hadn't really thought of, but I think it was written before the BCH fork, so most of those apply to BCH, too. I'm left with the question, without Segwit2x, what does BTC offer that BCH doesn't? The only thing I can think of is wider adoption.
Then again, as a financial product, maybe its resistance to block chain economic changes could even be seen as a feature. BTC has survived 8 years of widespread predictions of its demise, so I wouldn't want to bet the bank against it.
I think the argument coming from the BTC camp is that just increasing the the blocksize leads us down the path of centralization since the bigger the blocks get the bigger the mining operation has to be to handle the network, which means organizations with deep pockets, which means all we have in the end is Visa or something similar to what we have already. Which defeats the purpose of Bitcoin to begin with right?
I think it's a matter of timing. Maybe BTC has enough of a head start on exchanges and active wallets that it has a little bit of head-room, but if they don't do something about the block size and transaction fees pretty quickly, they'll go the way of Netscape.
This is interesting - Bitcoin Classic to Cease Code Support In Wake of 2x Suspension, from the Bitcoin Classic Release Manager:
Interesting, it's definitely worth diversifying a little into each I suppose because this guy has an interesting take on it too... https://thesaifhouse.wordpress.com/2017/05/19/economics-of-bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network/
That is good article. It made some points that I hadn't really thought of, but I think it was written before the BCH fork, so most of those apply to BCH, too. I'm left with the question, without Segwit2x, what does BTC offer that BCH doesn't? The only thing I can think of is wider adoption.
Then again, as a financial product, maybe its resistance to block chain economic changes could even be seen as a feature. BTC has survived 8 years of widespread predictions of its demise, so I wouldn't want to bet the bank against it.
I think the argument coming from the BTC camp is that just increasing the the blocksize leads us down the path of centralization since the bigger the blocks get the bigger the mining operation has to be to handle the network, which means organizations with deep pockets, which means all we have in the end is Visa or something similar to what we have already. Which defeats the purpose of Bitcoin to begin with right?