Hacker News Reader

Comment by jpatokal | Hacker News Reader

It's also a vote of confidence. Many people, including me, assumed that Bitcoin Cash would rapidly become worthless and sold it off immediately. Having the largest Bitcoin exchange in the world support it means it may actually hang around for a while.

View on HN

If I may ask... Why did you have this assumption? I'm asking you specifically because like you said many sold their Bitcoin Cash.

I suspect those who didn't were mostly the ones with deeper insight of the underlying technology. When the fork occurred full blocks had already been a problem for well over a year. Segwit was not the solution and overcomplicated the blockchain. This is not debatable anymore. Bitcoin Cash abolished this "overengineering" and simply increased the block size. Disabled RBF making 0-confirmations a thing again. And lastly just recently fixed the DAA. Many think that Bitcoin Cash is closer to the original whitepaper by Satoshi. I'd argue that is true.

Currently the Bitcoin has had 100k+ unconfirmed transactions for weeks... and a ever growing mempool. You cannot transact or move your coins confidently without paying large fees. 500 satoshis/byte or about 30 dollars. The original vision is completely destroyed. Sentences like "store of value" are now the term used to describe Bitcoin. Very far from what the Bitcoin used to be. https://bitcoin.org/en/ is little more but a lie now.

Increasing the block size doesn't seem to me like a long-term solution for Bitcoin's scalability problem. From the tone of your post though, it seems like you're mind is unlikely to be changed about Bitcoin Cash.

Well. Satoshi even suggested that to scale bigger blocks would be required. In fact before the 1MiB limit was introduced there was no limit. Believe it or not.

I know this is not a valid reason to say that increasing the block size is the only solution. Of course there are other solutions. One is segwit... but that has not solved anything at all. The thing is that increasing the block size would fix Bitcoin's problem right now. Compare segwit implementation with increasing the block size. Segwit is a very complex implementation and frankly I would call it over-engineered. Worst. It hasn't done ANYTHING for Bitcoin. Currently the Bitcoin has had 100k+ unconfirmed transactions for weeks... and a ever growing mempool. You cannot transact or move your coins confidently without paying large fees. 500 satoshis/byte or about 30 dollars. The original vision is completely destroyed. Sentences like "store of value" are now the term used to describe Bitcoin. Very far from what the Bitcoin used to be.

Can you elaborate on why you think that increasing the block size doesn't seem like a solution for scaling?

For the same reason we do not make bigger cars when we want to go to space.

That is not a good comparison to the situation. Cars and outer space have nothing to do with each other at all. Whereas the number of transactions is directly impacted by the available size on the block that they consume.

Forking anything is hard and forking Bitcoin is designed to be particularly difficult, so regardless of technical merit, the odds were stacked against BCH being able to supplant BTC.

To me it seems much more likely that another, unrelated cryptocurrency will eventually fulfill the role BTC was originally intended for.

Turns out it wasn't. Bitcoin Cash was created and now has the same properties Bitcoin had years ago. Fast peer-to-peer transactions. Low processing fees. Its price also seems to suggest that the fork was a success. I think people will soon realise this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com