I can't make up my mind on Bitcoin Cash \ stacker news ~bitcoin

167 sats \ 18 comments \ @0xBTC 22 Jan bitcoin

For some reason, I keep coming back to BCH. It seems like it is such a good idea, and I am not sure the main arguments as to why increasing the block size was such a big deal. I get that the increase in block size is less secure, but are there any other arguments that were a big deal in 2017?

I briefly read that SegWit was a hot topic at the time, but I do not understand why. The articles I am reading are rather unclear and am finding it hard digging through all of the Reddit posts.

Anyone deep into the argument back then?

view all related items

131 sats \ 8 replies \ @siggy47 22 Jan

Segwit was seen as a compromise, separating transaction data from signature data. Large blocks would have hurt decentralization. By now few of us plebs could afford to run our own nodes. BlackRock and Fidelity would run all the nodes eventually.

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @0xBTC OP 22 Jan

yeah but in theory, can't they just spin up a bunch of nodes anyway (given their unlimited money)

10 sats \ 6 replies \ @siggy47 22 Jan

They can't stop any one of us from running our nodes.

21 sats \ 5 replies \ @0xBTC OP 22 Jan

yeah but if the nodes are easy to run, what is stopping them from running a bunch of nodes and 50% attacking the blockchain?

121 sats \ 4 replies \ @siggy47 22 Jan

Check out the cost of running a 51% attack(50% ain't good enough), not to mention the "killing the golden goose"issue: as they spend the money, bitcoin's price would plummet. Makes no economic sense.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xBTC OP 22 Jan

ah I see, you would need the ASIC miners to perform the attack, not just nodes. I am not sure why that went over my head.

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 22 Jan

You need 51% of the hash rate

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xBTC OP 22 Jan

I see. When it comes to BCH, is it more vulnerable to this kind of attack because of the increased block size? Does it require better hardware with the larger block size?

view replies

117 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 22 Jan

... read more

67 sats \ 0 replies \ @OneOneSeven 22 Jan

Yeah this should be required reading

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @harrr 23 Jan

The "blocksize wars" were really about power, not block size. The big blockers spread lies and spammed transactions to drive up cost and their narrative. They wanted to gain control of the network, forget the "technical" argument. They went to the miners in China, lied to them, and then the miners thought that they could control bitcoins future. We showed them they can't (UASF).

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @03479d0ee6 22 Jan

I wasnt in bitcoin at the time but from my understanding the block increase wasn't the main issue. It was how to do it, the big blockers wanted to increase the block size without major consensus, segwit was a solution that was more conservative bc it as a soft fork and it would increase the block space, and it would fix a bug. The war was more about control and consensus. Now my thoughts, segwit soft fork was made in a shaddy way, using no one can spend OP. It should have been an hard fork with consensus imo. Block size increase, I call BS on that we can't increase bc of nodes, segwit increased the blocksize and there was no issue, ofc we shouldn't double it yolo style, but a small increase every year or so if blocks were full would be fine. I also call BS on "security budget", not even going into this. I also call BS on never hard fork. (wtf?). BCH has some virtues in the sense that they didn't added complexity, it's clean, but they dont have LN which is very cool and solved immediate transactions.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Anonymous_Hodler 22 Jan

In addition, I will alsso add the famous saylor quote : « there is no second best »

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Anonymous_Hodler 22 Jan

Hello there, From my understanding security is a major point but also you want to consider the $$$ factor. Increasing the block size decreases the blockspace scarcity and therefor the subsidy / tx for the miners. The idea of increasing the block size was to lower the fees for transactioners. But in a near future, these fees will be what « pays » the miners. Segwit was a way to decrease the « weight » of a transaction, allowing fees to be a little cheaper. Two options : one led to a hard fork, the other one to a soft fork. The difference : one implied to chanfe satoshi nakamoto principles, not the other one…

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xBTC OP 22 Jan

when you say a near future, when? I have heard this before but when will that be the case?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @harrr 23 Jan

It already happened several times that transaction fees were higher than the block reward. It has already started.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Anonymous_Hodler 22 Jan

Well that s when game theory kicks in… when the FOMO makes you acts irrationnal… If i wait another week maybe it s going to be too late to catch up… that s why i think HongKong is moving hard lately, they are urging to launch their etf because every day that pass, their money is flying away from the country. My hope is dubai, and EAU to pitch in soon. Them being aftaid of their fund to thaw if they wait too long… as well as countries to realize that the US could default soon and jump from their bonds to btc