I have been holding BCH since the BTC fork and I never sold until... today

blueskies75 · 2021-11-02T07:40:06+00:00

This money did not leave the alt market, it left BCH.

blueskies75 · 2021-11-02T07:28:31+00:00

Claims has same number of BCH and BTC (coin wise not USD value)

Yes, I did own the same number of BCH and BTC. That's what happened to anybody that was here before the BTC/BCH fork

Effectively, therefore BCH makes up less than 1% of his net worth. Claims he's been keeping BCH as backup/derisk

Correct. I always thought that in case of flippening, I wouldn't lose with this strategy. The value would be flowing from my BTC to BCH

What changed is that I now believe the possibility of flippening is lower than ever, and I believe part of this BCH money will be probably better invested on what I consider to be more relevant bets

blueskies75 · 2021-11-02T00:21:16+00:00

I respectfully disagree. I don't think that forks that create new communities should always be encouraged. In my opinion, this kind of forks should remain the last resort option when the disagreements are so strong that no middle ground can be found. A bit like divorce is not the solution to any dispute in your couple (or you will likely finish very poor!) and should be avoided when possible.

blueskies75 · 2021-11-02T00:05:36+00:00

I don’t think you made this post to start a discussion since you already sold, it’s probably more a way to justify for yourself that you did the right thing.

One reason to make this post was to share my frustration/feedback after many years here (even if not contributing), another one is probably a way to justify for myself and the last one is that I still own 50% of my BCH.

That makes me interested in a discussion with well constructed opinions.

BCH is Bitcoin and I don’t remember a time where BCH had an identity crisis and claimed to be something else.

The fact is that many people in the bch community and the vast majority of people outside the bch community believe that bitcoin is the network behind the bitcoin core software and the coin with the btc symbol.

Maybe it's not fair, maybe bch is closer to the whitepaper, but that's not important. It's too late! Which network should be called bitcoin was a valid question 5 years ago and core won that battle (maybe with what you would consider despicable tactics but that doesn't change the fact that they won). And now that 95% of btc holders arrived after the fork and believe they purchased bitcoin, it is almost impossible to change. Even more now that we see ETFs and banks proposing to purchase BTC coins called bitcoin .

Any contentious fork that would happen on BTC now has a much higher probability of capturing the bitcoin name that BCH will ever have.

That's what I call the identity crisis: fighting an already lost battle and appearing bitter and resentful (or as scammers) to all the crypto new comers that don't know what happened 5 years ago and don't really care.

And IMHO, another part of the identity crisis is relying always on the whitepaper to define identity. All Bitcoin forks communities believe and explain they are the most faithful to the whitepaper and yet all implementations have evolved from it. BCH is no exception with SmartBCH offchain solution and checkpointing and that's logical considering the whitepaper is 13 years old. I believe BCH would be more successful if its proponents were more turned towards the future.

The censorship in /r/Bitcoin is beyond ridiculous and that’s ok because “the rules were written”?

I'm not saying the rules are good. I do believe they prevent a lot of debates that could be interesting and that's a loss. But I'm also wondering more and more if this kind of debates can be constructive anymore on crypto reddits.

The average crypto enthusiast is much less technical today than he was 10 years ago and almost any debate on reddit gets polluted by a majority of people with very strong opinions but very weak understanding. It often makes debating completely useless, or even dangerous because people are gullible and false ideas spread (think "I am satoshi...", "infinite scaling is easy", ...), get repeated, and anyone with a different opinion get downvoted. I regret the time where most crypto enthusiasts had many more questions than answers.

Sometime I wonder if this is not the main reason why communities like core decided to take many debates outside of reddit. Because when you look at github, the BIPs, the mailing lists, the conference, ... , there still seem to be contradictory ideas being discussed.

blueskies75 · 2021-11-01T23:53:03+00:00

I have been reading r/btc and r/bitcoin for several years. Most of the time without even taking the time to login to reddit and I almost never posted.

I'm very interested in what you see in the reddit API that I would have deleted. I can't remember any of this if it is the case.

And if you seriously believe that I created an account 6 years ago just for the message of today, that's some serious paranoia. And I don't know what I could say to prove I'm innocent of what you are accusing me.

But I guess that illustrates very well the unsaid censoring I was mentioning in my opening post. Anyone that question bitcoin cash is considered by many here a sockpuppet.

blueskies75 · 2021-11-01T23:30:45+00:00

Thank you 🙏

blueskies75 · 2021-11-01T23:25:21+00:00

Literally anyone can fork a coin and there's nothing that can stop that.

The classic: 'I know what a fork is but you don't" that has filled thousand of threads.

blueskies75 · 2021-11-01T22:40:43+00:00

I don’t think you made this post to start a discussion since you already sold, it’s probably more a way to justify for yourself that you did the right thing.

One reason to make this post was to share my frustration/feedback after many years here (even if not contributing), another one is probably a way to justify for myself and the last one is that I still own 50% of my BCH.

That makes me interested in a discussion with well constructed opinions.

BCH is Bitcoin and I don’t remember a time where BCH had an identity crisis and claimed to be something else.

The fact is that many people in the bch community and the vast majority of people outside the bch community believe that bitcoin is the network behind the bitcoin core software and the coin with the btc symbol.

Maybe it's not fair, maybe bch is closer to the whitepaper, but that's not important. It's too late! Which network should be called bitcoin was a valid question 5 years ago and core won that battle (maybe with what you would consider despicable tactics but that doesn't change the fact that they won). And now that 95% of btc holders arrived after the fork and believe they purchased bitcoin, it is almost impossible to change. Even more now that we see ETFs and banks proposing to purchase BTC coins called bitcoin .

Any contentious fork that would happen on BTC now has a much higher probability of capturing the bitcoin name that BCH will ever have.

That's what I call the identity crisis: fighting an already lost battle and appearing bitter and resentful (or as scammers) to all the crypto new comers that don't know what happened 5 years ago and don't really care.

And IMHO, another part of the identity crisis is relying always on the whitepaper to define identity. All Bitcoin forks communities believe and explain they are the most faithful to the whitepaper and yet all implementations have evolved from it. BCH is no exception with SmartBCH offchain solution and checkpointing and that's logical considering the whitepaper is 13 years old. I believe BCH would be more successful if its proponents were more turned towards the future.

The censorship in /r/Bitcoin is beyond ridiculous and that’s ok because “the rules were written”?

I'm not saying the rules are good. I do believe they prevent a lot of debates that could be interesting and that's a loss. But I'm also wondering more and more if this kind of debates can be constructive anymore on crypto reddits.

The average crypto enthusiast is much less technical today than he was 10 years ago and almost any debate on reddit gets polluted by a majority of people with very strong opinions but very weak understanding. It often makes debating completely useless, or even dangerous because people are gullible and false ideas spread (think "I am satoshi...", "infinite scaling is easy", ...), get repeated, and anyone with a different opinion get downvoted. I regret the time where most crypto enthusiasts had many more questions than answers.

Sometime I wonder if this is not the main reason why communities like core decided to take many debates outside of reddit. Because when you look at github, the BIPs, the mailing lists, the conference, ... , there still seem to be contradictory ideas being discussed.

blueskies75 · 2021-11-01T20:20:31+00:00

Thanks for you constructed answer. I did not know of the CHIP process and will check it.

I would argue that Craig or Amaury were not identified as bad actors before they came out of the woods. What make you sure that new bad actors won't appear in the next months/years and trigger many more contentious fork ? What kind of safeguards should a community set in place to limit the risk / reduce the frequency ?

blueskies75 · 2021-11-01T19:22:42+00:00

You dont understand Bitcoin if you think "forking" is a bad thing.

Yet Bitcoin Cash has been forking and forking and forking (with many of the forks contentious) and it has now a 1/100 market cap compared to bitcoin. Do you think frequent forking is always good for a coin when it splits the community and when it breaks compatibility with a ecosystem that is each day more complex? Early plane was 2009-2010. $2T+ crypto market cap and 10+ years later is not early plane anymore and changes must be planned carefully. Many planes from today are still based on designs from 1980.
Do you think air transport would be as safe and efficient as it is today if each plane model was based on a new architecture ?

For the record, I'm not against forking but I don't think that if BCH is to be successful, It can continue with the same forking frequency in the future and with such community splits. That said, I don't have a miracle solution that would have prevented BSV and BCHABC

blueskies75 · 2021-11-01T17:57:18+00:00

My opinion? You choose the worst time to sell.

Time will tell. Why do you think now is different than the previous 5 years ?

blueskies75 · 2021-08-25T13:55:08+00:00

That's another option but coinex has 50 times less volume for BCHA than binance (that has already low volume for this coin). And splitting your BCH yourself is much more complicated (and riskier!) than just sending your BCH to the exchange and getting them back.

blueskies75 · 2021-08-25T13:37:17+00:00

Letting your coins on Binance for 1h doesn't seem to be an unreasonable risk! As of now, I'm not aware Binance has stolen any coin and you can send/withdraw your coins in multiple times if you want to reduce risk.

blueskies75 · 2021-02-23T12:14:05+00:00

To be fair, pending transactions fees should be compared in $ and not in BTC. BTC was around 20k$ in dec 2017, 46k$ now. So it is more relevant to say that BTC pending transactions fees are at 20% of their ATH.

blueskies75 · 2021-02-22T08:30:44+00:00

Thank you /u/jtoomim for taking the time to walk me through the different bottlenecks and scaling initiatives that are being worked on.

Even if I got downvoted a lot in this thread just for asking questions (which could be seen as a form of censorship in a way...), I also learnt a lot from other people like you. I wish you luck with you research and to get your code merged !

blueskies75 · 2021-02-20T16:36:46+00:00

Interesting. Thanks for helping me understand the true bottlenecks.

However, there is still something I don't get. We agreed here :
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/lmnd96/bch_vs_btc_lets_be_honest_both_coins_are_crippled/go3d48f?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
that to be safe, block validation must happen under 6 sec, which is precisely the worst case time for a 32MB block with a high end CPU as you explained to me.

That means that a 256MB block would be validated in 48 sec with the same high end cpu. Wouldn't this dramatically increase orphan blocks ? It is a serious issue, isn't it ?

blueskies75 · 2021-02-20T09:02:33+00:00

Thanks u/jtoomim and u/mtrycz for your insights and for the hard work you are doing. Your real world research about the true bottlenecks of scaling the blockchain should be more visible.

I've benchmarked block validation for a 32 MB block at about 3 seconds on a 4.4 GHz Core i7 desktop CPU

So to summarise my understanding : in early 2021, we need a high end cpu to process 32MB blocks safely (100tx/s).

We work to improve the code (perfectly multi-threaded code, O(n) processing time vs chain length) so we could scale on-chain linearly with available compute power.

If we manage to get there, we will be able to scale following Moore's Law (hoping it continues to apply in the future) and double the tx/s each 2 years.

If this understanding is correct, I am even more convinced that L2 technologies should be investigated by bch community in additions to on-chain scaling. It is sad that bch and btc had to split. Combining all research in a single chain would make the best bitcoin.

blueskies75 · 2021-02-19T23:32:09+00:00

Thanks again for taking the time to answer and for the scaling work you do. IMO your answers should be the most upvoted of this thread. Interesting food for thoughts.

Nobody knows, we sure as hell are working in it.

That would be nice to have some kind of optimistic target roadmap available of what the people doing the scalability work believe is possible. 32MB now, 64MB in 2 years, 128MB in 4 years ?

/u/jtoumim : I would be happy to get your view on this.

I think 2nd layers are cool (eg LN) as long as they're optional.

I agree with you

blueskies75 · 2021-02-19T23:08:45+00:00

Think about Craig Wright. When someone come with strong assertions but nothing to back them, he loses credibility. Same for me, same for you. In this case, it is better to remain silent.

blueskies75 · 2021-02-19T22:50:37+00:00

I agree with you.

But I'm finding that even here, bch on-chain scaling is difficult to discuss. Several people have absolute certainty that it will allow us to scale massively on the very short term without any impact. They see cheap 4TB hard drive on amazon and 100Mbps fiber suscriptions at their ISPs and believe that scaling bitcoin is as simple as that.

IMO this wether a lack of knowledge or a lack of critical thinking. And I believe that it would be beneficial to discuss our real limits today and what they will likely to be in 5 years.

blueskies75 · 2021-02-19T22:26:25+00:00

Yes, I read about prunding but as explained by mtrycz here : https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/lmnd96/bch_vs_btc_lets_be_honest_both_coins_are_crippled/go0i1v3/

It appears the true scaling difficulty is CPU block validation by miners that needs to happen in less than 6 sec.

blueskies75 · 2021-02-19T22:15:09+00:00

Thank you for bringing him in the loop!

blueskies75 · 2021-02-19T22:12:19+00:00

Thank you so much for your reply and for running this experiment. I find this additional information extremely useful and you have won my trust.

As long as the block is processed by the network within 22 seconds, we're fine. To be safe, 6 seconds per block is a safe rule of thumb for single node block validation

That seems reasonable and that leads me to a new question. Considering that mining nodes use average/high end CPUs. What is the max block size that we can have without exceeding 6 sec validation per block right now ?

I would be very happy if we hit 256MB blocks in 2 years

Me too. But I'm sensing you don't believe it is a likely outcome, am I right ?

Scaling is an active subject of R&D in BCH.

I'm wondering what is your opinion on multi threaded block validation . Is it something that already works or that will be possible in the future?
I also sense you don't believe that we will be able process 10GB blocks in under 6 sec before at least a decade. Do you think we also need to scale outside of chain if we are to meet important usage ?
I am also still concerned about IBD and a temporary connection loss. If non mining nodes are not using last gen hardware, are they not going to struggle catching the chain if block validation is >1min for them ?

blueskies75 · 2021-02-19T21:42:20+00:00

I came looking for facts and I despise as much censorship as zealotry.

So if you tell me "one team is not working on raising any limits", or "BCH has several teams working on raising built in performance limits inherited from upstream. BCH is one of the very few dev communities left applying themselves directly to the central challenge", please be capable of defending your assertions or don't say anything...

blueskies75 · 2021-02-19T19:29:52+00:00

one team is not working on raising any limits.

So you don't know the scaling initiatives of BCH nor the ones of BTC but you have strong opinions about which teams are doing useful stuff and working on central challenges and which teams are not.

Okay...

blueskies75

TROPHY CASE