BTC vs BTH shitpost

in #bitcoin2 years ago

I just finished watching

And what a shitshow this is. The real conclusion should be to just go full monero...

Before continuing let me briefly state that I am not directly involved in either btc or bth. I am holding both, but witch a clear preference towards btc. Below my criticisms for both

bitcoin-vs-bitcoin-cash-696x449.jpeg
source

BCH

Blocksize is not the solution. It is a quick fix to increase the network capacity but not much more. Mass adoption will not happen on that or the network will become very centralised because ordinary users will no longer be able to personally verify transactions. And that in my opinion is one crucial aspect lost by BCH.

The level of innovation in BCH is rather low. Essentially they just change ONE number. What BCH does much better seems to be just advertising.

Which leads me to my biggest complaint. bitcoin.com is the 'official' website for BCash. Sorry to say but this seems to be a scam to me. Who is the real bitcoin? Common logic tells that when you fork of and change something you take a new name? It does not matter if you think you are following the 'true' vision of Satoshi and are the real bitcoin. Its not you to decide that and the investors have spoken quite clearly what they think is the real bitcoin. BTC has a more than ten times larger marketcap...

BTC

BTC is the place where the real innovation happens. Lightning offers a much better route to achieve proper scaling and the developer community is very active. But in the end the project cannot succeed when BTC cannot be used as an everyday currency. And some of the hardcore BTC supporters seem to actually think that is is good when bitcoin is not being used by businesses. What a twisted logic. BTC as a store of value is okay, but we need to make it into a working medium of exchange as well! And when the devs dont believe in this then things are not looking good for bitcoin.

All in all a sad show, no winner in this debate to be found.

I hope nobody will comment how steem is better than both and will one day replace bitcoin, but with HF20 these people suddenly seem so silent?

Sort:  

Of course steem is better ;) Except for the inflation rate

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

I was following the show for a longer time, but gave it completely up. I believe this conflict (and the capacity crisis) has set the whole crypto space some 5-6 years back.

I had great enthusiasm about this project, I was pushing Bitcoin as a means of payment, as a better alternative to other kinds of digital payments. On our fundraising fleemarkets I had posters saying that we accepted Bitcoins. I paid my son bitcoins every time he went out with garbage or did other housework.

But no, then I was told that Bitcoin is not meant to be used as a means of payment. It was a huge slap in the face. The reliability went down the drain and transaction costs went up through the ceiling. One of the cornerstones of Bitcoin is that it's decentralized - but is that true? Ultimately, the miners decide what transactions go in and what doesn't, and miners have the theoretical possibility to change the rules - it wouldn't matter if the miners really were decentralized, but centralization seems to be inevitable with any PoW-coin. And still is seems like the maintainers of the bitcoin core github repo are those who really define the protocol.

There was the big schism and great propaganda war. People started getting more important than facts and logic - the discussion was dominated by ad-hominem attacks and ad-vercundiam-arguments.

First one of the biggest arguments against raising the block size limit was "a hard-fork is unsafe, we risk to split the chain if not everyone manage to update in time". Then, over some few weeks only, the same folks that
had supported this argument turned around 180 degrees and said that we need to force through SegWit through a "user activated soft fork", that would have been bound to cause a chain fork!

SegWit was a hack specifically designed to work around some design issues and problems with Bitcoin without the need for a hard fork. I had the feeling that nobody was much against SegWit in the start (miners: "we're ok with SegWit as long as we also get a regular doubling of the block size"), all until the bigblocker fraction started drumming up hate against SegWit. Indeed, most of the problems SegWit is trying to solve was actually solved in the Bitcoin Cash fork.

I still think Bitcoin Cash was a disaster. It was pretty obvious that it would become just an altcoin, and from a technical point of view it wouldn't be much better than Bitcoin. Can Bitcoin do anything that cannot be done better by some altcoin? No. Also, with most of the bigblockers supporting the Bitcoin Cash project, there wasn't much pressure on the "2X"-part of SegWit2X anymore. Actually, quite some bigblockers wanted it to fail, as it would make it more likely that Bitcoin Cash would succeed. SegWit2X wasn't a good compromise, after all the main purpose of SegWit was to fix things without the need of a hardfork, what's the use of first pulling in such a complex patch and then anyway do a hard fork right afterwards? Still, it was a compromise, and a compromise was needed - hence, I was a big supporter of SegWit2X.

Bitcoin Cash was no scam and is no scam, and Bitcoin.com has a history that is much longer than Bitcoin Cash. However, it's clear that Bitcoin is the big winner and Bitcoin Cash is the loser. The vision of the Bitcoin Cash supporters was that Bitcoin would be strangled due to the capacity cliff, while Bitcoin Cash then would become the real bitcoin. Some of them still hope for this. It ain't going to happen. The probability that another altcoin will become the new king is much higher than that Bitcoin Cash will become the new Bitcoin.

We haven't seen much capacity problems lately - why? The biggest reason is that most of the users aren't holding the bitcoin themselves, they have them on the bigger exchanges. Most of the exchanges have off-chain internal transactions, and most of the exchanges collect lots of withdrawals into one big transaction, saving lots of blockspace that way. I guess soon transactions between the biggest exchanges will also go off-chain. Just like IPv4 still can scale thanks to NAT, Bitcoin can scale as long as people keep their coins on the exchanges rather than in their own wallets ... but if people do that, is it really better than banking? (and with IPv4, peer-to-peer is efficiently broken as everybody is using NAT).

I very much agree with your comment. Exchanges are not much better than banks. But at least I can choose to not use them. On the other hand digital dollars can only be held by banks with no option for private storage.

I am not as pessimistic on PoW. Miners, Developers, Nodes and Users all have their share in the decision making process. I really like the analogy by Andreas:

BTC as a store of value is okay, but we need to make it into a working medium of exchange as well!

Stop dreaming of mass traditional market adoption. It's not gonna happen. BTC is not trying to convert the old world to crypto, it is creating new worlds people are free to join. It doesn't need the whole old world adopting it, just enough to reach critical mass.

Posted using Partiko Android

I agree that crypto may not gain mass adoption, but I think the realistic market share has not been reached yet, and there is a lot of potential for growth left. But that cannot be reached with 1mb blocks.

This is why lightning is extremely important.

Hi @frdem3dot0!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 2.804 which ranks you at #11894 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 477 contributions, your post is ranked at #322.

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • Only a few people are following you, try to convince more people with good work.
  • You have already convinced some users to vote for your post, keep trying!
  • Try to improve on your user engagement! The more interesting interaction in the comments of your post, the better!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

Sneaky-Ninja-Throwing-Coin 125px.jpg
Defended (25.79%)
Summoned by @frdem3dot0
Sneaky Ninja supports @youarehope and @tarc with a percentage of all bids.
Everything You Need To Know About Sneaky Ninja


woosh

You got a 21.51% upvote from @minnowvotes courtesy of @frdem3dot0!