This is the best, and in my opinion, only use case for Ethereum
Agreed. And there are loads of hi-speed, low-cost "coins".
Like all entrenched systems, the only way beyond them is to circumvent them. Circumventing the financial system is what bitcoin did.
So no, you can't solve it, but you don't need to.
Keeping blocks artificially limited at 1mb doesn't make it more decentralized, it actually makes it more centralized, since barely anyone in the world can use the network or pay the fees when a bunch of people are using it at the same time.
Can you point me to any evidence of it not having 100% uptime since the fork? Or have you fell for another lie just like "one node taking down the lightning network"
Blockspace is scarce and valuable, and that's the way it has to be to be decentralised. And yes they can use it, on the layer 2 lightning network. It works great, I use it all the time, for pennies in fees even when there's a mempool queue.
In any case, BCH simply works 100% of the time, it's instant, extremely reliable and cheap to use, and it's actually being used as cash in the real world (unlike BTC). That's the most important thing in my opinion.
> it's actually being used as cash in the real world (unlike BTC)
Simply not true, on both counts. Sorry.
And after the fork BTC still makes you overpay ridiculous fees and the network is almost always extremely slow (except when no one is using it of course). Paying more than the 1c it was designed for is basically the norm now. That's why people like you try to gaslight everyone else into believing in the mythical LN that solves everything (allegedly, but not really).
Here's the proof:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees...
See how it never even gets close to 0 even after the fork? Now compare with BCH.
That is not true by any meaningful use of the word "decentralization". The LN system is markedly worse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbD0kiTddEs
>If you're a sockpuppet then nobody is buying it sorry, your coin is dead.
If you are concerned about sock-puppet shills, don't be: I have never owned BCH, BTC or any other bitcoin variant and I will attest to the parent comment's arguments. As a bitcoin outsider, it's pretty clear to me that the path BTC took has irreversibly doomed cryptocurrency. If you are a bitcoiner, your coin is dead also.
Bitcoin is the bigger scam. The problem with bitcoiners not taking the BCH/XT fork isn't that the block sizes aren't large enough. It's that the remaining bitcoin community is dedicated to never make a hard fork again. This is not sustainable in the long-run.
Good cryptocurrencies (like cryptonote, zerocoin, etc.) regularly agree on reasonable compromises to improve the security and efficiency of the network (including changes in block size, etc.). With BTC, reasonable discussion has gone out of the window. It completely defies satoshi's original intention. Your community is no longer a good steward of the network. You are just bagholders trying to protect your investements.
Ah, you've got shitcoins to hawk.
The Cryptonote[2] and Zerocoin[3] whitepapers were published back in 2013/2014 and made some pretty important security improvements to the bitcoin network. I suggest giving them a read. Many of the systems that were once designed for Bitcoin, such as P2Pool now work on projects like cryptonote[4]. We have also designed a proof-of-work system that is completely CPU-bound (you can mine it on your home computer as satoshi intended)[5].
Also, the cryptonote/zerocoin-derived cryptocurrencies are hardly shitcoins seeing as they have effectively displaced Bitcoin's original use-case as of this year.
[0] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CryptoNote
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerocoin_protocol
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20190214045623/https://cryptonot...
[3] https://spar.isi.jhu.edu/~mgreen/ZerocoinOakland.pdf
No business wants to use a volatile asset that loses its value when a person or institution refunds and immediately sells hundreds of thousands of Bitcoin(s) and takes the whole market down with it for payments at scale in the long term.
We have given it years for them to mature and none of them have the safety / security or standardisation compliance required to be credible enough for regular businesses to being using it and I'm sorry it is not early days.
I would say a cryptocurrency / blockchain project that aids or is faster than the current system, complies with regulations, has a trusted and centralized stablecoin on the network like (USDC) and is able to scale whilst allowing cheap payments will also be able to compete with the Visa-Mastercard duopoly.
That is, the ISO 20020 standard and compliant cryptocurrencies which are highly likely to be used for payments (with USDC) in the long term.
DAI is doing pretty well.
A separate network is not Bitcoin. And Bitcoin doesn't require intermediaries. The only network that fits Bitcoin's definition is BCH.
Dude, you need to chill, you ruined BTC for everyone and now you are hostage to your own failed investment. Remember it was supposed to be cash. Accept your loss and stop lying to people, BTC doesn't work as cash, and neither does LN. Find something else to do with your life.
BCH is not as scam, it's cash, it's advertised as cash, and has always worked perfectly as cash.
BTC and LN are false advertisement.
A thought on how to do it.
1. Create a stable coin
2. Create a credit card that uses this token
3. Tie using it to some reward, supercharge it with VC if you have to
4. Release a QR payment component where vendors don't have to pay to receive payment, get rewards and payees earn double rewards
5. Integrate that bad boy far and wide
Worth noting that Stripe, Shopify and Square are also well placed to use a similar strategy
Don't worry, Visa and probably Mastercard already have a crypto department. They've been digging into blockchain (and buying startups) for a while now.
Why does it have to be a blockchain instead of a government-mandated nonprofit (e.g. FedNow) to operate it? Wouldn't that have more oversight and less chances of massive fraud?
I’m highly doubtful that FedNow will be able to compete in terms of innovative new features. Say what you will about blockchain, there’s a lot of builders out there aggressively churning out new tech without anyone’s permission.
Both Bitcoin, and Ethereum have both proven that they are unsuitable for payments. Both with their demonstrably slow, expensive and unscalable layer 1 and their ducktaped contraptions of their non standard layer 2 solutions.
I can only see a few cryptocurrencies that are suitable for the payments use-case which the ones considered for this are part of the ISO 20020 standard.
Harder to imagine any L1 blockchain ever being able to reach the throughput needed without dramatic trade-offs in decentralization, censorship-resistance and security. At that point you might wonder how it would be any different than a centralized Visa or Mastercard network.