Why did it fail?

[Anonymous No.57564477]

[Anonymous No.57564512]

>>57564477
Remember, it was not just about block size, it was about SF vs HF.
Ethereum is 2nd mcp - guess what, it upgrades via HFs.
SFs make everything more complicated and hamper technical evolution for no good reason.
"Thou shall not HF" is the dumbest dogma in crypto.
Software is supposed to be upgraded.
Nodes are like Linux kernel, you're supposed to upgrade them.

>BIP-62 malfixes
>CSFS
>cat&split
>full flexible covenants through TX introspection opcodes (May '22)
>int64 ScripVM ops (May '22)
>unlimited unconfirmed chains
>consensus-enforced native tokens (May '23, with dedicated set of introspection opcodes) that can interact with covenants
>keep/pass around contract state and make L1 DeFi happen
>P2SH32 to solve the collision problem
>adaptive blocksize limit in May '24
>in '18 recursive covenants with CSFS+CAT&SPLIT, today just using introspection
>already have the primitives to implement whatever L2s are wanted, but there's no need for that, better to have more volume on L1 so fee volume will add up
>next up: UTXO commitments to solve IBD.

Imagine 2033 BCH at $200k, PoW worth $210k/block, blocks filled with 190 MB, and fee/TX still cheap at 6 cents.
190 MB is at the limit of current tech (due to orphan rates, when it comes to general non-mining nodes it has been proven a RPi can keep up with 256 MB blocks)

Lastly, for all the maxis, newbs, and reddit tourists: BCH shares the same tokenomics (and tx history until 2017) as BTC, so it can be an effective store of value AND a functional currency.
Any rational person can see that BCH is the better Bitcoin, and the market eventually will too.

[Anonymous No.57564519]

nothing failed, this is all part of the plan. the flippening is programmed in

[Anonymous No.57564526]

>>57564512
Like clockwork
>he comes in with the copypasta spam
I’m beginning to think the BCH shilling is just one guy whose bags are in the red

[Anonymous No.57564538]

Basically it’s obsolete because Bitcoin is going to get faster, plus there’s already Litecoin and Monero. Essentially,
>token not needed

[Anonymous No.57564544]

>>57564526
It's good pasta

[Anonymous No.57564590]

>>57564538
>BCH is obsolete because it's faster than BTC and BTC is going to get faster
uh huh
and how is BTC going to get faster?
If LTC, BCH, and XMR are already faster than BTC why does BTC need to get faster?

[Anonymous No.57564597]

>>57564526
It’s communist asians behind the bch shilling

[Anonymous No.57564614]

>>57564590
BSV is the layer 1 for bitcoin, segwit broke the chain of signatures that made bitcoin bitcoin. BSV has the longest chain of validated signatures

[Anonymous No.57564637]

>>57564526
and I’m beginning to think the BCH fudding is just one guy whose afraid of the flippening

[Anonymous No.57564645]

it's a scam

[Anonymous No.57564649]

>>57564512
>so it can be an effective store of value AND a functional currency.
Being transactional medium adds nothing to a SoV, BCH is a hardcore shitcoin that lacks network effect, no coiner will switch as why would they, and no SoV buyer will bother with the shitchain with lower network effect

[Anonymous No.57564675]

>>57564649
Being a transactional medium doesn't need to add anything to being a SoV.
It's more convenient.

[Anonymous No.57564694]

>>57564675
crypto is so retarded dude even btc doesn't have network effect its just a speculative ponzi scheme that rich boys jerk each other off in a circle with you really think some dumbass internet money is going to replace gold lmao this is why you're a dumbass you believe every little thing that makes you feel good

[Anonymous No.57564704]

>>57564649
Bitcoin (ticker: BCH) can support the entire range of transactions from $0.01 up to millions of dollars at low fees, while BTC can only support a limited range of transactions starting at $100+ due to fees being regularly $5+. BCH is useful both to spend (any size) and save, while BTC is only useful to spend (moderate - large transactions) and save (moderate - large amounts). Therefore, individuals that balance their accounts between BTC and BCH will increasingly find that they have no need for BTC and transferring back and forward to BCH is an expensive hassle that adds no extra utility compared to just holding and spending everything in BCH.

[Anonymous No.57564705]

>>57564675
>he admits that it will never pump
>oh yeah I’m in it for the fundamentarinos
Kek

[Anonymous No.57564706]

>>57564477
test

[Anonymous No.57564712]

>>57564705
Where did I admit that?
I said it can be both a SoV and a useful means exchange.

[Anonymous No.57564718]

>>57564519
nobody cares about bcash. it could actually be better than bitcoin in every which way and it would still go to zero against bitcoin.

do you know why?

[Anonymous No.57564719]

>>57564706
pass
>>57564712
means *of* exchange

[Anonymous No.57564723]

>>57564704
listen up idiots

crypto is a scam bch is a stupid shitcoin that has less nodes than a retarded kid eating his favorite colored crayons you would have to be a total dumbass to use bch over bitcoin bch doesn't even support 10-bit addresses because that's way over their head btc has full support for lightning network and the segwit upgrade bch is for losers that don't do their own research

[Anonymous No.57564742]

>>57564718
This. I don’t think BCH baggies will ever get it

[Anonymous No.57564744]

>>57564649
Think about what you're saying. Why would an immovable SoV have a network effect? What exactly is the network doing? You need transactions in order to build up a network in the first place.
The reason why BTC has the value it has today is because of the early adopters actually using it to buy pizzas and drugs. If BTC popped into existence with high transaction fees from the beginning, it never would've caught on. BTC as it is today is Bitcoin in name only.

[Anonymous No.57564751]

>>57564718
if you didn't care about it you wouldn't be posting in this thread

[Anonymous No.57564790]

>>57564477
First bull run 10X
2nd bull run 22X
Now, 3d bull run?
I think 33X-44X
From $ 80 is 2,640-3,520 $

[Anonymous No.57564798]

>>57564512
>Any rational person can see that BCH is the better Bitcoin, and the market eventually will too.
The market has had 6 years to "figure it out" yet BCH has done nothing but bleed against BTC. What makes you think this will suddenly change?

[Anonymous No.57564812]

>>57564798
>because uh … because it just has to! Alright??

[Anonymous No.57564824]

>>57564742
they don't get the simple fact that almost nobody buys bitcoin for it's utility.

[Anonymous No.57564839]

>>57564824
Yes. People buy the coins that make money. Bitcoin makes money. Bitcoin Cash bleeds money: simple as

[Anonymous No.57564847]

>>57564824
maybe like 1 out of 100 and certainly not the people with real money. the poor ass larpers do try to buy coffee with bitcoin in el salvador with their custodial LN wallets. but that's about it.

that's not where the price discovery happens.

[Anonymous No.57564884]

>>57564798
Most its development has happened in the last 2 years.

[Anonymous No.57564930]

>>57564824
yeah that seems really sustainable congrats guys
especially when you have another Bitcoin that can do the same thing (nothing) but also has low fees and smart contracts

[Anonymous No.57565107]

>>57564884
they are doing two things 1 is lifting the script limits like the 201 non-push op and stuff, the other is making the block size adaptive.

those are both pretty ambitious forks.

[Anonymous No.57565126]

>>57564930
>that can do the same thing

no it can't. see the reason why bitcoin has value is that it's the one thing you can never make more of than preordained.

when you create a chain fork of it, you create something that does not share this property as there can literally be millions of forks.

[Anonymous No.57565178]

>>57565126
There is still a vacuum for digital cash that's actually usable. Bitcoin only has value today because the original idea of peer to peer electronic cash was a good one. It morphed into being a store of value over time because that's all it's actually good at. Bitcoiners abandoned the digital cash narrative out of necessity. It bitcoin actually worked as a currency, then maxis would be talking about how that's one of the good things about bitcoin. But since that's not the case, they do the opposite and argue that being unusable as a currency actually makes it better. The narrative just changes to be whatever is best for pumping your bags at the time.

[Anonymous No.57565215]

>>57565126
There will only ever be 21 million BTC and there will only ever be 21 million BCH
Now explain why BTC is better than BCH

[Anonymous No.57565274]

>>57565215
identity matters. there are already 3 bcash forks.

[Anonymous No.57565293]

>>57565178
>Bitcoin only has value today because the original idea of peer to peer electronic cash was a good one.

nobody seems to be caring about that one. the parts of the world that do need an alternative to their local shitcoin that is hyperinflating can't deal with the volatility.

we actually can make bitcoin work as p2p cash, it's just there is no demand for it. everyone that needs p2p cash uses usd on tron basically.

[Anonymous No.57565307]

>>57564751
i did think about leaving bitcoin and going over to bcash. bitcoin script is just way too inexpressive for my taste. but it's financial suicide.

[Anonymous No.57565446]

>>57565274
see
>>57554487

[Anonymous No.57565759]

>>57564477
>launched by faketoshi
>abandoned by faketoshi
It was never meant to succeed.

[Anonymous No.57565854]

>>57564590
> and how is BTC going to get faster?
We're going to fork it to increment the block size limit, we just need to decide on the name, been thinking about naming it "Green Bitcoin Cash Nakamoto Vision"

[Anonymous No.57566716]

>>57564744
The network of use as a Store of Value, low value transactions don't matter as they're low value, there's little demand for lower fees below $100/tx, excluding filthy poors from the holy ledger is a boon not a bane.
>>57564704
>utility
Shitcoiner.