— SteemCN

sirstacksalot (63) · 7 years ago

I prefer BCH much more than BTC and I hope it will soon dethrone King Bitcoin as the principal crypto currency.

Over the weekend, I made 2 purchases, one with BTC and one with BCH. The Bitcoin transaction cost me $40.00+ in transaction fees and took 6 hours for confirmation. The BCH transaction cost me $0.03.

Enuff said.

$10.12

oscarblue04 (38) · 7 years ago

Given enough time, BCH will have the same issue with blockk sizes filling up. Added to this, if you know how blockchains work well enough you will know that bigger block sizes lead to centralization with the people with the most powerful computer nodes having more control. BCH really did take the easier way out by increasing the block size. Look into segwit and segwit wallets, this should help you out with the transactions. Food for thought.

$3.26

5 votes

tobixen (62) · 7 years ago (edited)

Given enough time, BCH will have the same issue with block sizes filling up.

The hard coded block size limit is 32 MB in Bitcoin Cash. This may prove to be an issue at some point in the future - and exponential growth of the block chain may indeed become an issue. At the other hand, given enough time, there are lots of optimizations on the BCH roadmap reducing the implact of bigger blocks - and if Lightning really does prove to work out, there is no problem to roll it out on Bitcoin Cash, too.

$0.93

tonnypedersen (36) · 7 years ago

what a pile of bullcrap.

$0.00

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6yofsq/blocksize_would_need_to_become_555_mb_in_size_for/

razorshaman (29) · 7 years ago

$0.00

oscarblue04 (38) · 7 years ago

hahaha. Ignorance really is bliss. whatever makes you sleep at night my friend.

$0.00

leprechaun (56) · 7 years ago (edited)

I am not even going to try to move my remaining BTC. I fear the last amounts of BTC that I have will become dust and will one day just be a way to get airdrops for new altcoins.

I wonder if these BCH lows are more sustainable being caused by real selling of BCH on to the market..

$3.22

tobixen (62) · 7 years ago

In general, if you have lots of "dust" in one wallet, it may be smart to try to consolidate it into one UTXO - that is, send everything in the wallet to yourself with the lowest possible fee.

If the wallet does not support transactions with artificially low transaction fees and RBF, it may be smart to export the wallet seed (or private keys) into a wallet supporting it, i.e. electrum. Try to send with 72 satoshi/byte in transaction fee - there is a non-zero chance that the transaction will go through during the weekend or the next.

You will not lose the "airdrop"-quality of bitcoins even if you have stuck unconfirmed transactions.

$2.64

leprechaun (56) · 7 years ago

Yes, but fees are falling now. I think bitcoiners are more accepting of altcoins now. We can use the bitcoin blockchain for buying houses and new cars.

$0.13

dandays (67) · 7 years ago (edited)

They Both as in, together eat away at central banking’s authority, right?
Cool, just checkin. 😉

$2.44

tobixen (62) · 7 years ago (edited)

Given enough time, BCH will have the same issue with block sizes filling up.

The hard coded block size limit is 32 MB in Bitcoin Cash. This may prove to be an issue at some point in the future - and exponential growth of the block chain may indeed become an issue. At the other hand, given enough time, there are lots of optimizations on the BCH roadmap making the implact of bigger blocks - and if Lightning really does prove to work out, there is no problem to roll it out on Bitcoin Cash, too.

edit: sorry, this reply ended up on the wrong place in the thread. Will try to repost it.

$0.99

dandays (67) · 7 years ago (edited)

Feel free to accidentally upvote me any time, looks just like a real one! Haha. Stop by, you might like what you see.

$0.00

cryptonfused (46) · 7 years ago

Right ✔

$0.00

hdjames8 (32) · 7 years ago

the problem with bitcoin-core is that it doesnt want to solve its problems. Raising the block size is something they could do at any moment... If they wanted to still go with lightning network, they could do both... But they dont.

Blockstream wants bitcoin core to be broken so they have an excuse to centralize it through lightning hubs.

$4.82

lyfo (52) · 7 years ago

Correct and Ripple will now eat their lunch. Beware of Banker takeover.

$0.00

oscarblue04 (38) · 7 years ago (edited)

Its not decentralised, the banks can keep Ripple if it helps them sleep at night.

$0.00

lyfo (52) · 7 years ago

Do you mean you wouldn't mind if Ripple becomes the new Reserve Currency and The Gold to broken BTC's fools gold?

$0.00

oscarblue04 (38) · 7 years ago

I'm saying that I don't care what happens to Ripple as it is not a decentralised currency nor is it actually crypto currency. Its just another gimmick that they can get excited about. Ripple labs own about 80% odd and can place into the market whenever they like.

$0.00

razorshaman (29) · 7 years ago

Segwit 2x is a mojor challenge, politically (worth researching) and technically, not just as simple as changing "1" to "8" in the codebase, and 2x itself ain't good solution either (still back to the blocksize)

$0.00

oscarblue04 (38) · 7 years ago (edited)

Both of the solutions come with challengers that really need careful consideration.

$0.00

cryptonfused (46) · 7 years ago (edited)

Not a good argument. It's not about finding solutions, it's about agreeing to theses solutions (temporary and permanent). Take for example, segwit 2X fork which almost happened. It was simply an upgrade to 2mb while the lighting network is being worked on. This the community could not agree on. Now Bitcoin fees are extremely high while other blockchains are scaling nicely.

$3.98

geneeverett (61) · 7 years ago

Agreed! It was a huge fight over nothing. Would of been a short term solution till lightening

$0.00

tobixen (62) · 7 years ago (edited)

It was a huge fight over nothing.

It was a huge (and successful) resistance for nothing, I'd say.

With SegWit2X activated, we probably wouldn't have had such congestion issues on the blockchain. Probably the average transaction fees for sending bitcoins would still have been a bit too high for coffee-sized-transactions, but it's a great difference between "high" and "insanely high". Probably there would have been sufficient idle capacity that "stuck transactions" wouldn't have been a problem. There would have been enough on-chain capacity to allow for lightning channels to be established and closed. And the roadmap would still be the same, with Lightning hailed as the scaling solution. Bitcoin would probably have remained strong, dominating the total crypto market cap (today it's below 40%). Had SegWit2X become reality, Bitcoin Cash would have gained much less traction.

Flipsides? I see two:

The Bitcoin Core developers would have lost some power; a precedence would be created where the few persons with commit access to the github core repo would no longer have veto power over changes. I do tend to consider this as being a good thing, though the most important Bitcoin Core developers may disagree with me.
The "slippery slope"-effect, what to do when we're banging our head against the 2 MB block size ceiling again? The obvious answer is to increase the block size limit again, but I do tend to agree with the folks saying that gigabyte-sized blocks are dangerous.

$4.57

oscarblue04 (38) · 7 years ago (edited)

well written, good information. I recently posted a reply to someone who was complaining about the slow transaction fees, I asked him for the tx id, and what will i do with it, turns out they had no idea of the existance of the ledger and blockchain.info. I showed the details and the low fee they opted to pay. I didn't get as little as an upvote for providing some insight, but just more complaints about the fees in general. I am definately upvoting people with good information.

$0.13

geneeverett (61) · 7 years ago

Good points!

$0.00

doctorvee (49) · 7 years ago

I thought that Segwit 2X had already been passed. The lighting patch is still in test

I blogged about it earlier: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@doctorvee/successful-lightning-bitcoin-transaction-test

$0.00

littlejoeward (54) · 7 years ago

Segwit was pushed through but segwit 2x was not

$1.06

slapbox (52) · 7 years ago

If you're not 100% sure about Segwit2x, I don't understand why you are 100% sure about the misguided conclusions in your original comment.

$0.00