Quote from: bitserve on July 24, 2017, 01:36:20 PM

Quote from: jbreher on July 24, 2017, 06:17:08 AM

Quote from: bitserve on July 24, 2017, 12:43:30 AM

Quote from: jbreher on July 24, 2017, 12:29:05 AM

Because Bitcoin Cash has the transaction capacity required to support all the use cases that core threw overboard to sustain their Raspberry Pi fetish. More transaction capacity > more use cases > more utility > more use > more value > more demand > higher price > more mining support > more security. Virtuous circle.

edit: or to look at it another way:

BTC has up to this point worked pretty well as a store of value*. But let's face it, for the last year, BTC has sucked as a medium of exchange. Some other crypto is going to fill that role. So you've got a choice:
1) Allow Bitcoin Cash to flourish, and take the role of default medium of exchange crypto. For this, you will be admirably rewarded. For you are starting off with one free BCC for every BTC you own.
2) Kill BCC, and some other crypto (LTC perhaps? Dash, god** forbid?) takes the medium of exchange role. Leaving you -- the BTC holder -- with nothing to show for it.

*oh yeah - that asterisk. Frankly, I believe that BTC earned its status as store of value only because its previous exceptional performance (now abandoned) as a medium of exchange. There's a good chance that BTC's store of value properties will be eroded by another coin that works great as medium of exchange, while still working well as a store of value. If so, wouldn't it be a good idea to own that other crypto?

** it's just an expression.

Have you recently watched the mempool? Is almost empty. Yeah, block usage is still over a safe threshold but Segwit is going to be implemented very soon (now it is a certainty unlike years ago) and will help alleviate some. Also a blocksize increase to 2MB is on the works.

Bitcoin scaling has never had a better prospect than it has right now.

So what is the fucking need for "Bitcoin Cash" precisely right now? It's nonsense.

Maybe you don't believe the blocksize increase will happen? I hope it does, because:

- Even if not right now, we will need that blocksize increase sometime in the future.

- If that is what has been agreed to reach consensus, then it is time to deliver, or next time we need consensus noone will trust any "agreement".

- Miners have not only accepted to pass Segwit which was a majority community request but they have with 100% hashrate consensus. If they can do the 2MB increase HF with the same consensus there is not risk, so it is ok.

- Many of the people that were completely against BU (me included) was for the reason that BU is an aberration that, besides the buggy code, gives miners the right to increase/decrease blocksize at will. That's too much power for the already powerful miners. A fixed blocksize increase when (or better yet BEFORE) it is needed? FINE!.

Above all, and most importantly... If someday Bitcoin can be replaced for any other altcoin at will, our digital money fantasy castle will crumble.

Can't we all just work on making Bitcoin (the one and only) better instead of trying to fight against it?

P.S.: The way all this "scaling process" has developed makes me think we can, and in fact it is happening.

I agree with you that bitcoin is in a place that is much better than it has ever been (or at least close to that), and I agree with you that there is likely little to no reason for Bitcoin Cash, except as a possible experiential attempt find out whether forking off could cause important mass of others to follow (NOT too likely, like a snowball's chance in hell, but maybe enough to play around with, make some money for some disrupter folks and cause some confusion and FUD).

Your other discussion about some kind of supposed momentum for a 2mb hardfork or any kind of need for such seems to be based on pure wishes rather than any kind of technical justification - so in that regard, a 2mb hardfork seems pretty unlikely to take place in the coming couple of years, even though it will continue to be a reason to spread FUD and disgruntlement and whine and to even be a discussion point. But in the end there is far from any kind of close consensus on that particular topic, and likely even difficult to achieve greater than 50% consensus when push comes to shove... which is way to fucking low of a consensus point (even 80% is too low) to realistically play the non-consensus based hardfork card.