You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: "SegNot2X" - Mark My Words, The "2x" of SegWit2x Will Not Happen
Bitcoin Cash is made to cover what Segwit2x should have done. If it's ever gonna be introduced Bitcoin, will Bitcoin Cash then be obsulute? I personally think most Bitcoin users will switch to Bitcoin Cash on long term because transactions still are, and gonna be more, expensive. We've all seen how much effort the segwit did cost and Bitcoin Cash is, in some kind of matter, better prepared for the future. One thing we know all; only time will tell the thruth!
One interesting phenomenon, however, is that sometimes the technologically inferior option wins. A well-known example is VHS over Beta, although it was at least cheaper so maybe more economical:
"Betamax is, in theory, a superior recording format over VHS due to resolution (250 lines vs. 240 lines), slightly superior sound, and a more stable image; Betamax recorders were also of higher quality construction. But these differences were negligible to consumers, and thus did not justify either the extra cost of a Betamax VCR"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war#Outcome
The market sometimes (usually?) acts irrationally, and people do not have perfect information.
It's anyone's guess as to who wins.
Good example, but the key phrase is: these differences were negligible to consumers
The Tx fees, lack of privacy features, no InstantSend functions, toxic/hostile dev communities.... these things matter when you step out of the early adopters market.
InstantSend? I assume you're talking about lightning network. Opposition to SegWit is not the same as opposition to LN. One can recognize that SegWit is an over-engineered disaster that will unfold in slow motion, and oppose it for that reason, while being supportive of LN and other layer2 solutions. SegWit is not the only way to fix transaction malleability, it's just an over-engineered softfork solution that should never have been created in the first place - a malleability fix can be implemented much more cleanly while generating less technical debt, if done via hardfork. It's the obvious solution, unless perhaps one has ulterior motives and wants the main chain to become too expensive for general use, effectively forcing the users to use LN out of necessity. If you extrapolate, you realize that (assuming BTC is not eclipsed by superior technology) with no block-size increase fees will eventually rise to a level where they would simply become uneconomical for transactions whose values have less than 4-5 figures - think $50 or $100 for an on-chain tx. At this point, LN becomes useless to most, because who would pay a fee of $50 to place (part of?) their paycheck into an LN channel? But it's OK, companies shall be born (or perhaps they already have been) and will establish themselves as a trusted third party that aggregates funds from multiple users, combines them, and opens a single communal channel to be shared by the users whose funds are locked in it - but the users would have to trust this 3rd party. I'm not sure what such companies will be called in the future, but I do believe we have a word for companies that provide services of this nature today... It's on the tip of my tongue, but I can't for the life of me remember exactly what it is.
I (and afaik most of the rest of us big-blockers) do not oppose layer2 scaling solutions, but I do think they need compete with on-chain scaling organically - as opposed to the deliberate crippling of the main chain that stems from an outright refusal by the Core Devs to remove the 1MB block-size limit (which was not in Bitcoin originally, and added later as a temporary anti-spam protection measure) that we've been living with.
@nullc will tell you that Bitcoin has always been limited to 1MB, but his explanation will be completely ludicrous. He will cite that big blocks were disabled from day 1 (there was a soft limit to blocksize of 750k from day 1) because blocks larger than that would crash bitcoind. He literally insists that a bug (this bug caused a chain split in 2013)in one of the libraries Satoshi used in the original software (the berkeleydb library, IIRC) was actually an intended feature.
The folks behind the divide and conquer assault on the Bitcoin community are attempting to quite literally rewrite history. I'm sure they would edit the whitepaper - if they thought they would have a chance at getting away with it.
A surprising number of people believe that one of Bitcoin's core rules imposed by Satoshi was a 1MB block size, thanks to the hard work of Blockstream Core's propaganda machine and their armies of trolls. The propaganda machine also did a good job of convincing a large number of people that a hard fork was SO dangerous that one simply could never be attempted. I'm glad our Chinese brethren called out their bullshit the way they did with UAHF.
I expect for the next 3 months there will continue to be 2 incompatible BTC chains (unless the gods bless us by granting flippening before then), but in the end one will emerge victorious.
The thing is we already have Dash with 1.3 second transaction (I didn't use a stop watch but they were fast). We don't even need lightning network and the fees are fraction of Bitcoin (and that's when people are paying X10 for 1.3 seconds instad of 3 minutes.
NEM(XEM) can also do 1 minutes transactions that are easy as using E-Mail that cost almost nothing.
Bottom line is that BTC is Internet Explorer, BCH is Microsoft Edge. One is better but there are even better options. The New coin Monaco(MCO) is also pretty promising. They have a future that Bitcoin doesn't have. Check them out and let me know what you think.
Yes, that's why I didn't cut that phrase out of context.
People want Bitcoin to do too much. It's a digital reserve and large-payment mover, like gold. It's not a credit card. People shouldn't be sending sub ~$30 transactions.