Quote from: franky1 on November 30, 2022, 01:37:30 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 30, 2022, 12:19:32 PM

Quote from: franky1 on November 28, 2022, 08:11:40 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 28, 2022, 05:12:58 AM

Let's talk about how things generally are. Would it be wrong to say that an increase in block size = require more resources = centralizing?

The question can be answered simply, not your usual confusing posts designed to trick and gaslight everyone into questioning themselves. Because if bigger blocks was actually needed, then why didn't everyone start using BCash, the coin of which you supported, and which you also claimed to be "Bitcoin"?

Plus big blockers always avoid answering the question, "does ANYONE believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space"?

answer is NOPE!!

Thanks to the minimal block size increase of the Segwit soft fork.

But I'm asking about BCash's hard fork to 32MB block sizes. If we pretend that BCash does gain more demand for block space, and those blocks get filled with a minimum 10MB of data every block, you believe that it wouldn't increase bandwidth and hardware requirements = centralizing the network?

Quote

i supported progressing bitcoin [not to be confused with other promoted networks brand stealing the name] to allow more transactions on the bitcoin network. on the main net of bitcoin and not via some other crappy side network people want to push people onto and away from bitcoin

What implementations/proposals did you support?

Plus didn't you try to gaslight people into believing that Bitcoin and BCash "bilaterally split", and therefore according to you, BCash is not an altcoin?