There are currently competing visions for the Bitcoin Cash development road map. Some argue that we do not need to raise block size because the demand (transaction volume) is not there yet. Others want to raise it well ahead of demand.
If we can show the world two things; First Bitcoin Cash can handle all the transactions you can throw at us. Second, 0-conf ( a.k.a. instant transactions ) are safe and secure, then we have a competitive advantage that no other blockchain can match. In fact we have a competitive advantage that no other payment method can match. When the world understands these two things it will be ready to adopt Bitcoin on a global scale.
We will have demonstrated that Bitcoin Cash is ready for global commerce and that massively scaled businesses can safely invest in the platform. Bitcoin Cash is the ONLY blockchain that is embracing a scaling plan that can work and work NOW. It is the fast, instant and global cash solution that Bitcoin was always meant to be.
By restricting the transaction volume to what we can allegedly 'safely' handle now we are sending a message to the world that we do not have confidence in our network. We are saying that we do not have confidence in the ability of miners, who are the pillar of our network, to respond to demand. That we do not have confidence in Nakamoto consensus to solve the problem of disparate capability. Our job is not to restrict miners but to support and enable them in their role as a critical foundation in a global cash system.
We must take the opportunity to show business what Bitcoin is capable of and to do that we MUST allow our miners to rise to the challenge and motivate them to take charge of this most critical moment in Bitcoin's evolution.
That is all...
 

$14.00
$6.10

Reviews
18 of 18 reviewers say it's worth paying for

0 of 18 reviewers say it's not worth paying for
Comments
  spent 10.0¢
I'd like more discussion on this "disparate capabilities" angle... if ophaning of blocks that are too big etc deals with this then we should remove cap now... if not (competitive advantage in orphan race for bigger miners and therefore mining centralization...as an argument I've seen pop up)... then we need to discuss acceptable limits and to what extent to we cater to the lowest denominators? If there are good reasons to have a limit now then they must hold true into the future and visa versa. Waiting for better paralellisation just shifts the arms race to later for better paralellisation and hardware capabilities
0.0¢
   6mo ago
10.0¢
  spent 10.0¢
It's great the ecosystem has teams like ABC who actually produce code that will allow miners to mine larger blocks.
0.0¢
   6mo ago
10.0¢
  spent 10.0¢
Thank you for the motivation. I believe more importantly, people are waiting for your release candidate and testnet, would you like to give a statement for that?

It is also important that we show businesses and miners that we can produce results as per the plan.
0.0¢
   6mo ago
10.0¢
  earned 0.0¢
beta, release candidate... whatever you want to call it, has been out for a week. We have two testnets up and running and a 3rd on the way.
0.0¢
   6mo ago
  spent 10.0¢
Hi @Shadders I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. You helped me see things from a new point of view, which is always a good thing, but now through my digging a new question has come up that I was hoping you could help me with. It's been described to me that if we go to 128mb, a chain split might happen where we have a majority and minority chain. The miners who can't handle the larger blocks will continue to mine the chain with smaller blocks, earning coinbase rewards on that chain, while those who can mine the larger blocks will be adding blocks to that chain. Then if I create a tx, it might get confirmed on one block and not the other in the next block and therefore we will now have 2 separate ledgers. Is this something that users need to be concerned about? Or how do you see this resolving itself? Thanks again.
0.0¢
   6mo ago
10.0¢