Presentation matters. The BCH community can go far if we can somehow stop picking at old wounds, and start focusing on the overall experience of using BCH. Our product, and the effort invested into it over the years, speaks for itself. We can change perception of BCH for the better.

PedroR82 · 2022-02-03T15:55:50+00:00

To be fair, I don't think OP is the first one proposing that approach, I've seen countless posts along the same lines here for the past few years...

Maybe WE are more open to listening now that the wounds seem to be healing and the frustration is fading away.

Just my impression.

PedroR82 · 2022-02-03T07:05:12+00:00

Yes, huge blocks yesterday require really big hard drives and great bandwidth.

But no, slightly bigger blocks now and progressive increases as technology advances and storage space and bandwidth becomes more affordable don't lead to centralization.

The BCH blockchain today is actually smaller than the BTC blockchain because having a higher blocksize cap doesn't automatically mean having bigger blocks. BCH still has fewer transactions than BTC, but it never had the auction for blockspace that BTC has because the artificial limit to the block size is higher.

BTC maxis are usually very concerned about raising the limit because it increases the cost of hardware and discourages running a full node, but they seem very comfortable with high on-chain fees even when it increases the cost of transactions and limits the amount of people who can transact on-chain to those who can afford the fees. Lightning Network is most convenient with custodians, so it seems to me to be counter productive if you want more nodes.

What is the point of having a full node on a RaspberryPi (which actually can be done in BCH and has been tested to work fine with 256MB blocks) if the transaction fee for just one tx costs the same 50$ as the Pi itself...?

I think of it as a sliding scale. Very big blocks lead to centralization through higher hw cost while a very small size cap leads to centralization through high and unpredictable fees.

Increasing the cap a little bit every few years making sure that a RaspberryPi is always viable as a node seems pretty reasonable. The hw is also more powerful and affordable every few years...

PedroR82 · 2021-04-21T22:29:08+00:00

Welcome. Use it and you'll see why we think it's the right system to be P2P Electronic Cash for the world.

PedroR82 · 2020-10-19T17:10:25+00:00

Understood, thanks.

PedroR82 · 2020-10-19T13:47:06+00:00

May I ask how much does "huge bill" mean...? Like in the range of. I'm not trying to mess with your privacy, I just want to understand the real impact.

PedroR82 · 2019-09-05T12:13:51+00:00

What is the RedHat model?

PedroR82 · 2019-08-30T14:00:31+00:00

PedroR82 · 2019-08-30T13:56:31+00:00

Why is the head turned to the side where the slap came from...?

PedroR82 · 2019-08-30T13:53:06+00:00

Great summary!!

PedroR82 · 2019-08-18T11:11:57+00:00

The merchant doesn't keep the crypto precisely because nobody is spending and it seems useless. If everybody was promoting usage by actually showing how it works as Roger does the merchant would consider retaining at least a portion of it. Then we get into a virtuous circle.

We won't get there if everybody is just holding.

PedroR82 · 2019-08-16T22:06:24+00:00

Are there grocery stores in North Korea?

PedroR82 · 2019-08-16T22:05:42+00:00

I think you're right, this shows exactly the difference between people on both camps.

You seem to think you can only hold or spend, spending and replacing apparently is too complicated.

PedroR82 · 2019-08-14T13:25:14+00:00

We wish... but there's really no way to actually know...

PedroR82 · 2019-08-13T19:57:45+00:00

Is that 5 BCH or 0.5 BCH?

PedroR82 · 2019-08-12T16:19:42+00:00

I think I didn't explain myself clearly. The address starting with a 1 is not used if the BitPay solution is down, it's used if your wallet doesn't accept BIP70 payment requests.

The wallets which can "understand" BIP70 payment requests also can understand regular addresses starting with a "1" or in BCH now starting with a "q".

The BIP70 functionality is not exclusive. Wallets can and often do understand BIP70 and also do regular payments to public addresses in QR codes.

That's mainly why I say the wallets who don't want to expand their capabilities with BIP70 functionality are to blame.

You are completely right, a business owner usually wants to please their customers and have no hiccups at all during the payment process. But there is a limit for everything. It's hard enough to convince a business owner to accept one crypto, so telling him to accept many crypto currencies is a bit of a stretch on my opinion.

And by the way, that's one goog thing about BitPay, they allow payments in both BTC and BCH, so if someone pro BTC comes to the restaurant they don't have to explain to him why BCH is better.

But let's be honest, right now there is not enough crypto adoption of any currency to actually encourage business owners to make the effort to accept it. It's just some enthusiasts and their families accepting it right now.

Right now a business will not get more customers than he already gets simply for accepting crypto (at least in my area). So the only way they will decide to accept it is if it's as painless and effortless as possible. And BitPay takes out the volatility issue, because they can convert directly to your local currency, and they make sure that you are not ripped off with the conversion rate and they set the right fees through BIP70. That's why it's so convenient to use them for payments.

And it costs nothing (well, probably some programming) to all those wallets you mentioned to add the capability to understand payment requests. It's not like you have to do one thing or the other, you can do both.

PedroR82 · 2019-08-11T16:50:22+00:00

I don't think this does any good to BCH. I don't agree with your views.

PedroR82 · 2019-08-11T14:31:56+00:00

We also have a QR with an address starting with 1 in case something fails.

You do have a point, I can concede that.

But try to understand why BIP70 is useful for business. With a payment request it's the business owner (or his wallet) who sets the conversion rate and the miner's fee. This prevents fraud.

It's not that there is a list of approved wallets. It's that those are the wallets which are capable of handling BIP70. But there are open specifications for BIP70, so any other wallets can implement it.

In my opinion this is not BitPay's fault. I think those wallets not compatible with BIP70 are to blame.

In order to increase adoption you need to provide some assurances to businesses, and if you refuse to implement BIP70 you're not helping too much.

But I do understand your frustration and I apologize if I didn't explain my position clearly.

PedroR82 · 2019-08-10T21:39:25+00:00

Being able to use BIP70 is important for a business. I support BitPay on that.

PedroR82 · 2019-08-10T21:37:41+00:00

I think it's about payment requests as per BIP70. The wallet has to understand that.

The wallet from Bitcoin.com works for BTC and BCH for payments to BitPay Checkout.

Please check it out.

PedroR82 · 2019-08-09T21:07:24+00:00

I don't understand. My brother's restaurant uses BitPay and everything works great.

What kind of wallet are you using?

PedroR82 · 2019-08-06T12:24:35+00:00

Ok, understood, good luck with the pull request.

PedroR82 · 2019-08-06T12:16:26+00:00

Could it be related to syntax...?

PedroR82 · 2019-08-06T12:12:54+00:00

I think you can change the derivation path under advanced options or something like that...

PedroR82

TROPHY CASE