> BCH has to build its ecosystem up from scratch like any other altcoin.

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.

Please study the technology before making such claims. SegWit quadruples capacity, and lowers fees-- in fact the lower fees is one of the objections that resulted in BCH. The only reason there is any congestion on BTC is that the creators of BCH -- the "big blockers" have been spamming the network-- to drive up fees. If you have a significant portion of the mining hash power you can spam BTC with transactions to drive up fees and make a profit.

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.

>SegWit quadruples capacity

Not according to this: https://segwit.org/is-segwit-a-block-size-increase-705df6a87...

Can you address it? Thanks.

> It's not core that wants high fees-- why would they?

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6uw5kf/why_does_core_r...

Segwit is not necessary for Lightning Network. It's a false dichotomy: on-chain scaling does not preclude off-chain scaling (which is what LN is).

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.

> Now it appears much of the Core team has no intention of honoring the 2x part

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!

I tried being as neutral as possible but you're right that my language implies that they signed it. I should've worded that differently. However, I still wouldn't let them off the hook entirely: intentionally blocking nodes signaling Segwit2x in 0.15 is definitely a political move. There are clear sides that are forming; and I don't mean to make any value judgment here on which side is "in the right." I'm simply trying to explain the volatility of the current situation and the various points of contention between the groups that are forming.

> intentionally blocking nodes signaling Segwit2x in 0.15 is definitely a political move

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.

That's technically correct (the best kind of correct!) but there was no need to block them now when those nodes are still compatible and in line with the consensus rules of the core code.

As long as there exists one node which still connects to both types, there won't be a partition now.

But that was not the argument with which this feature was justified.

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.

It is exactly the argument that was used. I don't know where you are getting your information, but I would seriously question the veracity of whatever source you are using.

You can read it yourself here:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982

Can you elaborate? What kind of partition are you referring to? Thanks.

A partition of the connectivity graph. Imagine we have two Bitcoin Core nodes connected by an intermediate Segwit2X [sic] node:

    1X(a)  -----  2X  -----  1X(b)

When the 2x node starts relaying post-fork blocks, it is seen as misbehaving by the 1x peers and dropped by both of its neighbors. The unattended consequence is that 1x(a) is no longer connected to 1x(b). If the mining network is only connected to one of these partitioned networks, then it is possible that the other will not hear of new blocks. The bitcoin nodes will have a different view of the network simply because they are not connected to each other. Worse there might be a few miners on the less hashrate side that still move the network forward a few blocks. If this situation persists, e.g. because network operators are asleep at the wheel, it could be exploited by selectively connecting and broadcasting double-spends to the two networks.

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.

Thanks, that was very helpful. This issue did not occur to me.

Dating back to the days of satoshi, the consensus would reject blocks that did not fit its rules. That way some node can't just make up its own rules.

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.

I see. Thanks. Need to read more about this.

Segwit enables 4MB blocks so all this talk about "1mb blocks" is kinda silly. If you don't understand the technology and block weight don't try to make claims.

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.

>If you don't understand the technology and block weight don't try to make claims.

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.

Lightning Network wants non-full blocks to work properly. It needs to be able to settle reliably in the future, full blocks destroys the predictability.

Also LN does not need a malleability fix to work, it just makes the implementation easier.

Flextrans will provide the capability of Lightning Network on Bitcoin Cash as well.

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.

No it won't. FlexTrans is ... lets just say it's not fully baked yet.

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.)

I imagine it has something to do with availability at exchanges from day one of launch.