Quote from: Ibian on May 07, 2018, 01:30:40 AM

Quote from: Derpinheimer2 on May 07, 2018, 01:27:29 AM

Quote from: Ibian on May 07, 2018, 01:22:27 AM

Quote from: BobLawblaw on May 07, 2018, 01:20:48 AM

Quote from: Ivor Biggun on May 07, 2018, 12:04:19 AM

Quote from: rafanadal on May 06, 2018, 11:59:52 PM

Why is btrash doing so well ?

Probably because of the upcoming fork.
...

Quote

Proponents are looking forward to a 32 MB block size increase and op-code additions that could bring ethereum-like characteristics to the BCH network.

Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ.

The cancer that is BCash cannot die soon enough, along with Roger Ver.

Bigger blocks is a good thing. The problem is that they are being deceptive cunts. If we had chosen big blocks and they had chosen segwit, we would still think the same thing about them, and for the same reason. And be applauding ourselves for making the correct choice.

It's the people, not the tech.

Bigger blocks are a bandaid. I was all for 2x when we needed the capacity. It is not a scaling solution. Its for people who spend 10 minutes researching crypto and think they're geniuses.

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

Here is my 2 satoshi for what it's worth:

Block size, if handled correctly, will end up having nothing to do with scaling and everything to do with regulating compensation for miners. If miners are not being given enough incentive to provide sufficient security to the blockchain than blocks are too big, if the opposite is the case than blocks are too small. Scaling will have to come from second layer solutions. Some transactions will always need to be on chain, the value that people place on putting transactions on chain needs to be enough to compensate the miners, and in the absence of the ability to regulate demand, the only alternative is to regulate the supply of on chain space inorder to increase its price to the level necessary to accomplish this.