This is only true as long as Bitcoin is worth more. But with it becoming more unusable, while other coins are growing in popularity, this will change and Bitcoin won't have any use case left.
> The small transaction issue may be overcome by something like the Lightning Network, but in the short term, you can just use other cryptocurrencies with lower fees or other features that are important to you.
The Lightning Network has too many problems to solve Bitcoin's scaling issues by itself. Including:
1. No decentralized routing 2. Hubs need to bind up large amount of capital 3. Nodes need to constantly be online and monitor the state to prevent fraud 4. It is heavily dependent on the network effect: for it to be useful the ones you want to transact with needs to be there. Kind of a chicken and egg problem. And why use it as long as other cryptocurrencies fulfill the users need, with a better user experience than LN would provide as well. 5. Settlements do not work reliably with full blocks (or they need to pay huge premiums)
LN might have a usecase for providing microtransactions, such as paying for every X second of a video or similar, but it will not solve Bitcoin's scaling problems.
I understand that miners can choose to leave Bitcoin, and this is largely dependent on price, but historically, Bitcoin provides the most security, so it is the safest crypto for storing a large amount of value.
Monero is the only real cryptocurrency because it does not have a public ledger. Monero is fungible, meaning you cannot tell two coins apart, which is an essential property of money.
This is a very real issue most people into Bitcoin does not seem to care about. Anyone you transact with can gain insight into your personal finances which at best informs your friends of how rich/poor you are and at worst making you a robbery target.
Sincerely, someone that isn't involved in all of this.
To view your statement in a different light.. maybe people don't care for it trying to succeed based on another coin's name, rather than trying to stand on it's own merits. Bitcoin Gold (for all it's problems) doesn't try to insist it's the real Bitcoin. And 90% of the coins out there were confident enough in their tech to not prefix "Bitcoin" to their name.
You may disagree that it's the real Bitcoin, but it's undoubtedly open to interpretation, and some of its advocates calling it that doesn't justify mislabeling it as bcash.
Where in the original white-paper is the emergency difficulty adjustment?
https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-cash-difficulty-adjust...
> peer-to-peer
If you don't run a node, or you can't run a node because of resource requirements, you're not a peer.
And because the people who run nodes know this, they reject your proposals that reduce bitcoin network security.
>>If you don't run a node, or you can't run a node because of resource requirements, you're not a peer.
We had this discussion before:
It really isn't open to interpretation. And that is why people have been disparagingly calling it a different name; because the insistence that it's "the real Bitcoin" lessens it's credibility.
Why is Bitcoin Gold not the real Bitcoin? It's got a more ASIC-resistant proof of work, that's surely also in line with Satoshi's original vision? IMO, that's a much better reason, if adherence to the original whitepaper is what we're measuring by, since it reduces mining centralization. (Heck, if BCH adopted an ASCI-resistant PoW, I'll view in a new light!).
But you have to let things evolve. Software is rarely perfect out of the gate. Massive p2p software in particular is such a very new thing, there's going to be all kinds of bugs and dead ends. There may be ways to optimize and polish those dead ends to make them the best they can be, but it won't change the fundamentals of them.
And there's tons of levers and settings inside bitcoin. I don't think they're all set right (BCH's new difficulty algorithm seems like an interesting idea, in fact). But one thing that seems to be clear across the biggest coins... a worldwide distributed blockchain ledger just takes too darn long to handle p2p payments worldwide at a reasonable KiB/s. Even ETH, as fast as it is, was brought down by cryptokitties.
The coin that succeeds is going to have to solve that in some fashion. And running all the world's transactions through every node, upping the blocksize as needed, isn't going to solve the problem.
The small transaction issue may be overcome by something like the Lightning Network, but in the short term, you can just use other cryptocurrencies with lower fees or other features that are important to you.