Quote from: Peter R on January 17, 2018, 08:27:17 AM

Quote from: oblox on January 17, 2018, 07:30:38 AM

Quote from: Peter R on January 17, 2018, 05:23:44 AM

Quote from: oblox on January 17, 2018, 05:16:49 AM

...but seriously, why would I use BCH over LTC? Because I don't want a coin with an option to use segwit? I'm trying to get the selling point of using BCH over something that already is established.

Since windjc asked me this exact question last week, I'll quote my response to him:

"I view money as a ledger. Or "money as memory," as per the work of Kocherlakota. From this viewpoint, it is the information encoded in the ledger about who owns which coins that is of value. The actual mechanism used to update that ledger is just a technical decision -- which is the best paper to write on? Which is the best pen?

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) share the same ledger up until August 1. At this point, the "ledger updating mechanisms" diverged (BCH allowed more information about the state of the ledger to be updated every ten minutes to facilitate growth).

Switching to LTC would be like ripping up the "ledger of money" because the pen we were using to update it ran out of ink. Instead, just get a better pen and keep updating the same ledger."

If the whole premise is toward the cash part, basically, fast, digital money, why does the length of the ledger have anything to do with anything. When I go to a store and buy something with cash, I don't care about the history or who owned it prior to me spending it. I just want something that the merchant will take and be on my way as quickly as possible. Yes, transactional history is a major selling point of the blockchain (to be able to verify ownership and prevent double spends) but I fail to see why there is more value in a blockchain that is 2 years older. If you want fast cash, you use an alt with fast block confirms and low fees. BCH was created to try to solve a problem that it doesn't actual solve... you're not magically going to scale with 8MB blocks, fees aren't as cheap as other alts, and blocktimes are still 10 minutes (an on average target that was hardly followed given prior diff adjustments).

Bitcoin was designed to be a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system." When I read the white paper, I envisioned a better form of money for mankind, as we transition into the information age. BTC has given up on that vision in favor of a sort of "digital gold" designed to be held and not spent. That is not something I'm interested in. BCH is a return to the original vision for Bitcoin.

To me, for money to be truly better, it also needs to be easy and inexpensive to use (i.e., low fees and reliable confirmations -- what you call the "cash part") but that certainly isn't the _only_ requirement of better money. So really, your argument reads mostly as a straw-man because your starting point, that "the whole premise [of BCH] is toward the cash part," was false.

Quote

...you're not magically going to scale with 8MB blocks...

We're going to scale to gigabyte blocks and beyond. But it's not magic; it's really just routine engineering and bottleneck removal. We're well on our way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M

Quote

...fees aren't as cheap as other alts...

I'm not sure how the fee market will evolve (fees will be set by supply and demand in a free market) but I find it comforting that many small blockers say "BCH will fail because fees will fall too low and the blockchain will fill up with spam" while other small blockers say "BCH will fail at achieving it's goals of low fees because fees will go through the roof once transaction volume picks up."

Peter, no offense, but where did you get that "Fozzie Bear" accent? Wink