Bitcoin cash is a scam, so it's not surprising to see them list other scams. I hope that bitcoin goes back to a few hundred dollars in order to purge the market of weak crypto-currencies.
One delightful thing about cryptocurrency is everybody thinks their coin is the good one and all the others are “shitcoins”. With slightly more introspection, they might realize that their chosen coin is just as scammy as the rest.
>HN is getting full of people with some serious chips on their shoulder. Any article with the words "cryptocurrency", "Bitcoin", or "Ethereum" in it will be flooded with, to be blunt, a bunch of garbage posts. Not a good insightful, intellectual discussion. Just people with massive chips on their shoulders flooding the comments with noise.
When one side says the other is a scam but goes to enormous lengths to stop technical discussions while saying that throughput below a 144p YouTube video is too much data, people should start to question whether they are being fed propaganda.
That's a gross simplification of the issue. The problem with large block sizes isn't with bandwidth, it's with the storage requirements of running a full node, and the time it takes to bring up a full new node.
And none of these limits have been tested or examined by those who oppose it. The claim is, it seems, that the current limit is perfect.
Or that hard forks are "too dangerous", despite coins like Ehereum, Monero and Bitcoin Cash proving that to be false again and again. And Bitcoin also had an emergency hard fork fix (which never split the chain) when they fixed the recent infinite inflation bug. Oh and they've had a hard fork once before too.
Also with storage being so cheap it's not a valid argument. Time to propagate blocks between miners is the biggest, with initial sync coming in at a distant second.
People say this stuff as some sort of FUD theoretical, but who out there is actually having problems with a reasonable computer or internet connection? A $35 raspberry pi is overkill, this is not a real problem.