If miners could dictate consensus, does that mean that the vast majority of miners today want BTC the way it is? Or maybe miners actually can't dictate consensus, they are slaves to the network of full nodes and UASF.
There is only one real Bitcoin, the rest are counterfeit the moment they copy the name and make their job into fudding BTC.
Bitcoin Cash along with VISA, Mastercard and Swift has solved the scaling problem by not being decentralised
Each post you make is a contribution to BCH miners. Thank you!
Bitcoin Cash along with VISA, Mastercard and Swift has solved the scaling problem by not being decentralised
BSV: Trust Craig S Wright the benevolent dictator
BCH: Trust Amaury Séchet the benevolent dictator
BTC: Don't trust - verify.
Nobody disputes that raising the block size lower fees. Those opposed to the idea argue that raising the block size makes an unacceptable tradeoff with the level of security and the degree of decentralization.
So when BCH has terabyte blocks and nobody can validate the chain anymore. Why use a blockchain and not a regular database, or why not switch to EOS like DPoS as PoW is meaningless in this "trust the miners" scenario.
The point of PoW coins is security with hashing power . BTC will solve this long term with high fees. BCH will solve this with many but low fee transactions. Same end result!
This confirms my previous post about BCH being for conspiracy theorists. BTC is about limiting blockchain growth to make full nodes and initial sync possible.
BCH is literally a coin created by the miners, for the miners. Lightning is a threat to miners (less onchain tx) and segwit reduces ASIC-boost which gives less money to Bitmain.
The added size of the blockchain after 10 years with full blocks:
BTC: 2 MB - 7 tx/s - 1.0 TB
BCH: 32 MB - 112 tx/s - 16.8 TB
BSV: 128 MB - 448 tx/s - 67.3 TB
VISA LEVEL: 485 MB - 1700 tx/s - 255 TB
A 2x block size increase is nothing compared to the scale of millions of transactions per second through the Lightning protocol.
Segwit transactions, transaction batching, schnorr signatures, inter-exchange sidechain settling, layer2 offchain payments There are many smart ways to optimize block space other than merely raising the block size.
BCH: "A protest movement based on various conspiracy theories, often revolving around the misconception that Core developers control Bitcoin and have been corrupted by Blockstream and/or other outside influences."
So how does twitter manage to store and process all this data?
Centralised database. Not as a distributed blockchain.
Satoshi didn't expect ASIC or pools. All nodes were miners in the beginning, the perfect decentralised PoW-system. Now with ASIC+pools you need to interpret miners as nodes in the WP.
A 51% miner can only double spend and censor their own transactions, but not break consensus or add invalid transactions as long as my validating node discard invalid blocks.
LOL, if you think BCH scaling will fail, why even bother using it?
It might scale but it will be heavily centralised and no longer trustless nor decentralised. By posting that inevitable end will come sooner rather than later.
Imagine Memo.Cash getting real adoption. And now multiply that 1000 times with of all other possible on-chain apps. The blockchain would need gigabyte blocks and I hope the promise of endless "fast and cheap tx" hold.
Miners create blocks and nodes validate consensus. Without nodes miners can do whatever. You need to run a validating node to protect against protocol changes and inflation attacks.
"Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism" - Satoshi Nakamoto
That aggregating mechanism is LN my friends.
Lightning Network is the true Peer-to-Peer electronic cash system as you connect to other nodes (P2P) to send payments. With Bitcoin on-chain you send your transaction to the P2P network but it's confirmed by miners.
