Segwit is not going to activate on BCH because the BCH proponents are ideologically opposed to Segwit.
Additionally, almost no businesses are taking payment in BCH. BCH has to build its ecosystem up from scratch like any other altcoin. I think it has similar chances of "overtaking Bitcoin" as, for example, Litecoin.
EDIT: I don't know why the BCH price has gone up so much. It's almost certainly in even more of a bubble than BTC is currently in.
Perhaps, but BTC is throwing its ecosystem away with a core team that is committed to congestion and high fees. Bitcoin Cash already has the customer side of the customer-vendor double-sided marketplace handled as well as Bitcoin does because they have approximately the same distribution among bitcoin owners.
It isn't the same hurdle as litecoin--half of the chicken and egg problem is already solved. Because of the fees, and the damper they will place on sales, there's an incentive to switch to boot.
It's not core that wants high fees-- why would they?
Most people don't know of BCH and since it was done in such a half assed manner most wallets don't really support it yet.
Not according to this: https://segwit.org/is-segwit-a-block-size-increase-705df6a87...
Can you address it? Thanks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6uw5kf/why_does_core_r...
Bitcoin with Segwit will prioritize off-chain scaling (hence the 1MB blocksize limit and the current moves to prevent increasing it to 2mb), while Bitcoin Cash wants to enable on-chain scaling as the mainstay; but by no means are they mutually exclusive.
The Segwit activation raises new questions and concerns: the agreement to proceed with Segwit was a compromise known as Segwit2x (Segwit + 2mb blocks). Now it appears much of the Core team has no intention of honoring the 2x part (see core software 0.15 changelog: it will block any nodes signaling for segwit2x). Yet the 2x part is locked in - meaning we are currently headed towards a hard fork.
It's not a case of "not honouring" the 2x part; no members of the core team were part of the NYA.
You can't come up with an agreement and then accuse people who didn't sign it of failing to honour your agreement!
This is incorrect. There was a straightforward technical reason given in the pull request -- not enacting this change would likely partition the bitcoin network when the split happens. A network partition could be a drastic event that if exploited would result in much lost money and bankruptcy.
It wasn't "we can forgo replay protection with this" but (among others) "we are even helping the hardforking side, during the BCH hardfork many BCH nodes connected to BTC nodes and couldn't propagate their transactions".
But as long as the hardfork hasn't happened, there is no reason to do this. This just makes signalling even less useful than it already is because nodes will be encouraged to lie about their intentions.
You can read it yourself here:
1X(a) ----- 2X ----- 1X(b)
To prevent this from happening the Bitcoin Core team added code to 0.15 and higher that will per-emptively disconnect peers that advertise themselves as Segwit2x. Therefore a 0.15 node will only connect to peers that will relay good blocks from its perspective, and it is much less likely that such a network partition would occur. As long as there exists some nodes that don't auto-disconnect (e.g. old bitcoin nodes) then the Bitcoin Core 0.15+ and the Segwit2x networks will remain connected until the fork occurs.
Rather than join a P2P network of nodes with wrong rules Core added code to not connect to nodes that give you blocks that violate consensus.
It's not controversial but the anti-core forces have nothing of substance so they make up drama.
LN can work without segwit but it works much better with segwit and segwit enables a lot of other things like side chains and shorr signatures etc.
No there was no agreement called Segwit2X. The BCH people agreed segwit2x but the developers weren't even invited.
To call something a compromise or an agreement when one side was never even invited is disingenuous at best.
But this kind of misrepresentation has been going on for years and is the primary basis of attack against core-- because there are no technical arguments against core.
Then just correct me graciously. These are all things I've read from public figures in the Bitcoin community so I'm not "making claims" and this stuff is certainly not readily available information.
Also LN does not need a malleability fix to work, it just makes the implementation easier.
The only point for BCH is that transaction congestion won't force people to use layer 2 settlement layers, as there is a philosophy of an onchain scaling solution as well where transactions will remain cheap.
The block reward will still be supplanted by transaction fees in this solution, eventually. Whether with blocks being extremely large, or with a few halvings later.
Flextrans wouldn't be implemented solely for the lightning network. It would just be possible to do that as well.
edit: annnnnd a downvote without even a rebuttal, reminds me of a bitcoin reddit. a little disheartening.
Also the people creating congestion on BTC are the people who made BCH-- there is no natural congestion on BTC. Segwit quadruples capacity and lowers fees-- I expect we will quickly see segwit transactions be super cheap while the Jihan spam attack drives up non-segwit transactions making it really obvious that this is, in fact a spam attack (it's already obvious if you understand things well enough to look at the blocks yourself. Jihan is including his low fee spam transactions in his own blocks even though it otherwise wouldn't be economical to do so.)
%98 of BCH is mined by one entity.
They wanted their own bitcoin and they have it now and they are pumping it, but they don't have a decent development team and their motives are not good.