during the massive increase in traffic during december, btc should have just increased blocksize by 20-50% and then easily reduce it later. but they didnt. because blockstream is owned by kikes.
wheras bch is retarded since if you have too large blocks, orphans become ever increasing and so you have to wait longer and longer to confirm a tx is legitimate. it also means syncing becomes far longer. orphan rate on btc is already at 1%. on bch it will become something insane.
tl;dr BTC is owned/controlled by kikes through blockstream BCH is supported by retards that dont understand the tech
btc didn't increase block size to create pressure for segwit adoption which otherwise people would have been reluctant it being new and not fully trusted. they made a financial incentive with cheaper transactions. this was a medium-long term play that hurt the userbase short term. however this didn't go well with a lot of users. bch is just a fucking shitcoin that goes against the nakamoto consensus time and time again. it's gonna fork itself to death hopefully.
Jose Smith
no but because they didnt increase the blocksize just temporarily, the image of bitcoin is now tarnished for years to come. >segwit adoption at the time, coinbase (where majority of tx. where coming from) didnt even support segwit despite it being out for months before. so i suppose they are partially to blame. but for blockstream to bank everything on trying to bluff coinbase into accepting segwit was retarded.
and it failed..
Luke Miller
yeah in my opinion there should have been 1 hard fork that made the block size adaptive without further hard forks and introduced segwit with a proper new opcode and not a fucking soft fork. if the majority would have went with that scenario bch wouldn't exist the userbase would have been happy the miners would have made a lot less tho.
Alexander Anderson
The S2X hardfork last year changed who would have rights to the repo and it was agreed upon behind closed doors by the miners and service providers it was shady and bullshit
nobody was using segwit or tx batching or any of the methods to efficiently write onto the chain doing that isn't sustainable long term because the total amount of blockspace is limited
I agree with the hard limit for now, we don't want a free for all on chain with "NYA" signers in control of the repo
Nathaniel Rodriguez
segwit was a good softfork upgrade the developments are coming together the LN is being built, there's wasabi wallet coinjoin protocol, there's new types of multisig wallets, and I'm sure a ton of other things those are just the ones I've played with in the past month
Evan Green
>segwit was a good softfork upgrade it shouldn't have been a soft fork, because it created a lot of uncertainty in the community. the anyone can spend fud has some basis but of course an unknown opcode would have had the same result. but if majority of the miners signaled implementation of a new opcode before it's been in widespread use there would be no room for any uncertainty. and the blocksize adjustment needed a hard fork anyhow, so it's not like they would only do it for one thing.
i agree with the shady part i couldn't believe a closed group of people can hijack this.
Adrian Jenkins
You dont just tempirarily hardfork a coin with 100+bil$ mcap...it's dangerous...btc is anti hf and thats a good thing. I think hf is okay only in a extreme emergency case. Exchange finaly implemented segwit (if you dont use a segwit adress you are a literal brainlet), transaction batching and now fees are nice and low again. Once exchanges move to liquid the main chain will be eaven cheaper
Isaiah Peterson
who said temporarily fork? once you fork to adjustable block size the miners can increase it on demand. i would have altered the protocol a bit further, where chain length is measured in megabytes but of course empty blocks don't count. of course this would have needed testing before implementation.
Zachary Perez
You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Only headers are initially sent to validate blocks, and the header will be the same size in both BTC and BCH, except BCH can scale to global use.
You should research more, and try to use your fucking brain too.
