but there are a couple of problems with that.
- BCH was created solely because their views (at least what they pretended) was that bitcoin should only be used on-chain and there should be nothing else. adding LN or something like LN with a different name would be proving their true reasons for creating BCH: taking over bitcoin
"Taking over" Bitcoin - or better: "achieve the leadership in the cryptocurrency sphere" is something I think every single altcoin community out there is pretending. And in our system, there are all the incentives for that.- BCH was created solely because their views (at least what they pretended) was that bitcoin should only be used on-chain and there should be nothing else. adding LN or something like LN with a different name would be proving their true reasons for creating BCH: taking over bitcoin
Now BCH is also an open source project, and if one community member decides to implement something like LN, then nobody can stop him. I am however not very interested in BCH (but I also don't feel hate against it, why hate an open source project, maybe with the exception of a "wiki gun" project or so?) and thus I don't know if the decision to implement LN is supported from their "core" development team. If they implemented a malleability fix, it's a clue that this may be the case.
Then I believe it would also prove that the Core developers of Bitcoin made the correct design decisions all along. The Bitcoin Cash community did not need to hard fork from the main chain. Bitcoin also does not urgently need bigger blocks now like many of them said 3 years ago.
That is where we differ, BTC does not need it any more (today) because many txs happens on other chains
BCH wants them all in the end, and in such a manner, that there is never such a congestion than we had in 2017 in BTC.
Bitcoin is about electronic financial solution, a system for electronic cash and of electronic store of value if you want to highlight that in a separate sentence...
Bitcoin is a medium for censorship resistance for me than a "financial solution" for an electronic cash system. It's not an insignificant consumer payments product, but an independent financial system that should be kept secure, efficient and decentralized.
If Bitcoin Cash wants to re-enable and add new OPcodes and increase to unlimited blocks, good. But leave Bitcoin alone. The Core developers have been doing a great job by being conservative and careful.
I do not want to do finger pointing.
As do I. I see both coins having their own merits. But with Bitcoin having more than Bitcoin Cash.
Quote
Yes core devs have done a good job at most of the time , that is not the issue. Core devs are doing a dev job, so what would anyone expect on top? Wanting to be business developers, requirement engineers, change managers or even operational risk managers?
I do not understand what you mean. Please explain.
Quote
No, I see now that these things will come to Bitcoin Cash in an industrial manner so that institutions (having exactly same setup internally to mitigate risks) will have only one option to move forward with crypto or none, because SEC will kill any other cryptos soon.
But you do not see how Bitcoin Cash is following Ethereum's path to node centralization, scaling their network down? How would that be good for censorship resistance?