Create account

2370d
Cobra sums it up pretty good.
replied 2370d
"One side is advocating for 128MB blocks, another is pushing Canonical ordering and other unnecessary features to help make Graphene more efficient.
replied 2370d
It’s obvious both are cases of premature optimisation.
replied 2370d
Bitcoin Cash already has 32MB block size, which it can barely fill; its better to focus on adoption now and on UI/UX non-hard-fork improvements.
replied 2370d
These scheduled hard forks just turn into political playgrounds. Ultimately nobody really wins, we all lose.
replied 2370d
It undermines trust and faith in BCH to have these petty splits and arguments.
replied 2370d
It’s ABC vs nChain in November, but what about in May, will it be ABC vs XT/BU? It’s just completely senseless and stupid and will never end.
replied 2370d
The only reasonable thing to do in November is nothing, because it’s clear there’s not enough consensus between these different implementations and miners.
replied 2370d
Consensus will be reached at some later time, but for now, it’s too dangerous to hard fork in November: the consequences will be too damning for Bitcoin Cash for almost no reward.
replied 2370d
We have to ask ourselves, is it really worth tearing each other apart just for some unused op codes, canonical transaction ordering, and 128MB blocks,
replied 2370d
despite all these being things that can be implemented safely years from now when they’re actually needed?
replied 2370d
END MESSAGE