| > You may disagree that it's the real Bitcoin, but it's undoubtedly open to interpretation 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. |