Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash (a programmers perspective on the scaling debate)

There's been this shift in the scaling debate since the failure of Segwit2X that has shifted blame toward bitcoin core and making an accusation that core members are potentially part of the Bilderberg group and intentionally slowing scaling to increase fees and maybe ultimately hurt bitcoin's chances at mass adoption.

I am actually somewhat friendly to this idea. If there's manipulation that establishment can do, they will probably try to do it. However there's some facts pointing in the other direction. It's quite possible that the fog of war has broken out in the bitcoin scaling debate. I will try to clear that fog so that you have a clear understanding of what's going on.

The below video by Andreas Antonopoulos explains quite clearly that just increasing the block size is a short term solution. The 8 MB block size will only be adequate until about next summer if bitcoin (or bitcoin cash) grows at the rate it's continuing to grow. Andreas says that in order to include all the unbanked in the world, petabyte blocks will be needed. This is many orders of magnitude above BCH's current block size.

There's a better solution, and that involves what's currently known as Lightning Network. It uses the blockchain like a court system for dispute resolution instead of submitting every single transaction to the block. It uses a series of game theoretical incentives to prevent cheating and at the same time increase privacy of transactions.

We have to be careful about how we do this because if we take the wrong path, we will end up with centralization again. If this happens, we will be little better off than if we had just switched banking institutions.

Donations (public bitcoin address):

3FwxQsa7gmQ7c1GXJyvDTqmT6CM3mMEgcv