Quote from: squatter on June 30, 2018, 03:21:13 PM

Quote from: Zin-Zang on June 30, 2018, 03:17:59 AM

Sorry but from a technical standpoint ,
if the 32MB is a security problem, but can only be exploited if 32 mb blocks are created,
A hard fork dropping BCH back down to 8MB limit would circumvent the problem.

Actually, only a soft fork is required, since lowering the block size limit doesn't remove or relax consensus rules. All that would be required is 51% hash power support, and then users would follow the forked chain by default.

Quote from: Zin-Zang

This is not intended toward you, so don't take it that way, but soft forks are for pussies.
Soft forks require over 90% to agree to be safe, Hard forks require only ~55% to agree to be safe and the code enforces the change.

If overnight 60% of segwit-core decided to dump segwit and return to pre-segwit,
they could with a soft fork split the network and anyone that joined them would be able to steal all coins stored in segwit address on their soft fork,
since without the soft fork enforcement, all segwit funds become an anyone can spent, if block stream had hard forked to segwit ,
then the above would be impossible , but as it is one day may pose a serious threat , if the miners lose too much revenue to LN.

The problem is more philosophical: big blocks = BCH's raison d'être. If it turns out big blocks are unsafe, and block size must be lowered to just 2x that of Bitcoin, why does it even exist? What's the point?

Quote from: Zin-Zang

The point is :
Example:
When you put gas in your car , do you put just enough gas to make it home and then back to the Gas station (segwit-core)
or
do you fill up the gas tank so you have the ability to travel longer and visit more places without worry, before needing a refill. (bitcoin cash)

In other words:
if you install the future capacity needs now why limit it, so when you do need the larger capacity ,
no one has to fight over upgrading , like what happen with bitcoin for ~2 years where the capacity problem was left broken
and fees reaching so high it began decreasing merchant adoption instead of increasing it.

FYI:
So far 32mb has not yet been proven unsafe, (we only have a theory of some anonymous person without proof)
and they were running at 8mb before that
so segwit-core is ~1.7mb max, so they are almost ~5X larger onchain even if they drop back down to 8mb.
*32mb is the current max capacity size, as 8MB used to be Bitcoin Cash Max size,
however they only make blocks large enough to hold the data as such, (right now their average block size is less than 100KB: https://blockdozer.com/blocks)
the bitcoin cash blockchain is actually smaller than segwit-core blockchain at the present time.*

FYI2: The Main Point behind all of it is that corrupt individuals can't take advantage of a limited onchain blocksize to drive the transactions fees sky high to the point people start using the competition. Example: I moved exclusively to ltc and doge when btc was charging even over $10 much less when it was $50 to send a penny worth.
Insanely high transaction fees destroy any use of a coin as a currency and the bitcoin cash supporters fork to end the fees so high it was making sure no one would use it.

Segwit-Core fees are still all over the place , today less than 83 cents on average and last week over $6 on average,
business people like consistent reliable performance, the above fluctuations make it intolerable to that mindset.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#3m