It is still centralized right? [1] The whole thing is still implemented in ternary [2] for some reason right? Implemented by the people who rolled their own crypto, then when they - days later - were told it was obviously and trivially broken (collisions discovered via differential cryptanalysis) claimed they left it broken as some sort of copy protection mechanism? [3] And then pretended Microsoft was involved? [4]
The one of which Schneier wrote: “In 2017, leaving your crypto algorithm vulnerable to differential cryptanalysis is a rookie mistake. It says that no one of any calibre analyzed their system, and that the odds that their fix makes the system secure is low.”
That IOTA?
[1] https://medium.com/@ercwl/iota-is-centralized-6289246e7b4d
[2] https://hackernoon.com/why-i-find-iota-deeply-alarming-934f1...
[3] https://gist.github.com/Come-from-Beyond/a84ab8615aac13a4543...
[4] https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2017/12/12/iota-partnership-...
You can't transact in bitcoin, and nothing else has any acceptance ... That breaks cryptocurrency, so all one looks at is finding interesting toys.
So I guess I'm doing the same thing as all your posts you linked to, I'm saying "I'm excited, if 'the tangle' demonstrates that it can scale, I'd love to see that happen".
I would suggest nobody invest in any cryptocurrency. That said, having 50$ of play money in iota (and others) is both fun and interesting.
Technically
BTC and BCH share a near identical codebase, save for the recent junk BCH had to remove.
Larger BCH block size prevent transaction buildup that has caused the fees to go insane on the BTC side of the fence.
The new BCH difficulty adjustment protects it from would-be gaming/manipulation by miners.
Technical progress is actually happening with BCH.
Technical progress is currently vapourware with BTC.
Centralization
BCH has six distinct and separate development teams.
BTC has one gatekeeping development team aggressively blocking proposals that get in the way of selling second layer solutions.
Bitcoin Core trolls and bots are a common problem on reddit.
Adam Back (CEO of Blockstream) has admitted to hiring teams of people to control the narrative
Bitcoin Core has killed any practical use cases by refusing to scale and causing $50 fees.
Bitcoin Cash works today and puts the original vision back on track.
Can Bitcoin Cash really support that rate of transactions? How large would the blocks have to be?
Core propaganda will decry this as lunacy since people won't be able to run nodes on raspberry pi's anymore. The sad reality is you can buy the hardware required for the cost of a single BTC transaction.
BCH nodes/miners can increase to 32MB without a hard fork, it's just as a config setting.
GB blocks are possible today with today's hardware, though those won't be necessary for quite some time.
TB blocks are almost possible today, though a little further out in practice.
The vision (and current reality of BCH) is that every transaction should make it in to the next block for less than a penny.
Low/non-existent fees is the only way a meaningful global exchange system will emerge. Better to have everybody on the globe doing 5 transactions a day for dust than to have a few hodlers transact twice a year.
Its like a storm brewing.