Quote from: Ibian on May 07, 2018, 07:55:23 AM

Quote from: infofront on May 07, 2018, 05:12:59 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.

Perhaps, but we do have better tech.

By what metric? Not interested in having that debate, but it needs to be backed up by something.

Regardless of that, if the tech were reversed we would be talking about how they overly complicated things. Humans feel first and then rationalize. Especially in this sort of tribal spat.

I'm not very interested in having that debate either. I'm really tired of all the bcash vs. bitcoin debates.

I will say that segwit is a safe and elegant way to scale without increasing centralization. A conservative blocksize increase is safe, but still a last resort measure, as it inherently increases centralization.

Decentralization is one of the most, or the most, important foundational principles of Bitcoin