Segwit failed because most bitmain miner with ASICBOOST patented advantage don't want to give up such advantage. Then comes the NYA which is done close door without most aggreement, and such failed. So BCH born, maintaining the old codebase that can still benefits from ASICBOOST. The point of cryptocurrency is not just about having fast transaction, any company can do that, but most importantly DECENTRALISATION, which is a matter as the main BLOCKCHAIN grows exponentially with blocksize, and if the rate of blockchain size is not taken care of carefully, in long term, normal users wouldn't be able to host the node as the blockchain size growth rate excceed their capable level, that supports decentralisation, thus making the whole blockchain in the hand of big player, which does not help decentralisation at all. If SEGWIT were able to be implemented, none of this would have happened. And even with segwit, blockchain size scalibility still will become issue and sidechain is only expected sooner or later. As for the fee, the fee "may" be expensive, but such thing can be overcome by maintaining the channel open long enough until one feels so to close the channel.
Above are some brief explanation for understanding (consider it biased and simplified), BTC or BCH is up to your own research and judgement.
Search tip: (for the sake of neutrality, avoided mentioning of particular people, and rather focuses on solution)
Segwit (Currently halfway through implementation, still lack of support from certain exchanges, with reason speculated as you go deeper into the research and investigation)
ASICBOOST (a particular patented, as in "only I can use and others cannot" situation, technology that created advantage for particular miner)
New York Agreement (also known as Segwit 2x) (fail)
Bitcoin Cash Fork (occured and running)
Bitcoin Lightning Network (testing stage, coming soon)
There might be mistakes, and argument welcomed.
This is simply not true; what was needed in order to activate SegWit was always a promise of a block size increase. This was clear already from the roundtable agreement on 2016-02-21. In general, the miners see very little benefit from SegWit, but they do understand that the block size needs to be increased.
If ASICBOOST was the reason why 75% of the miners rejected SegWit at some point, then mining is already far too centralized, and Bitcoin is fucked up beyond any reason, come SegWit or not.
The narrative that "bigger blocks causes centralization" is also simply not true. The current capacity restriction causes centralization, stops people from storing Bitcoins in their own wallets, and is generally strangling Bitcoin as a decentralized peer-to-peer network.
It is probably true that, left completely unchecked, the block chain would grow exponentially. It's not at all true that the blockchain grows exponentially with blocksize. It's not important that ordinary users run their own nodes. Most ordinary users (certainly including me) has probably already paid enough in transaction fees to cover hardware and bandwidth costs for running a full node with 8 MB blocks for several years.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit