[tossl568]

It has better scalability if you don't care about decentralisation whatsoever and that it's possible that everyone can store a copy of everyone's else's coffee transactions in perpetuity. It's not possible without huge, expensive to run servers, which is why nobody runs a BCH node. Uptime? By what metric? Bitcoin, the real one, has 100% uptime since the fork. The entire LN did not "go down the other day due to one bad node", that is not how it works at the most fundamental level. It simply did not happen. If you're a sockpuppet then nobody is buying it sorry, your coin is dead. And if you've actually fell for this narrative and actually hold BCH, then I am truly sorry and hope you realise you've fell for a scam before you lose any more money.

[cowtools]

>It has better scalability if you don't care about decentralisation whatsoever

That is not true by any meaningful use of the word "decentralization". The LN system is markedly worse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbD0kiTddEs

>If you're a sockpuppet then nobody is buying it sorry, your coin is dead.

If you are concerned about sock-puppet shills, don't be: I have never owned BCH, BTC or any other bitcoin variant and I will attest to the parent comment's arguments. As a bitcoin outsider, it's pretty clear to me that the path BTC took has irreversibly doomed cryptocurrency. If you are a bitcoiner, your coin is dead also.

Bitcoin is the bigger scam. The problem with bitcoiners not taking the BCH/XT fork isn't that the block sizes aren't large enough. It's that the remaining bitcoin community is dedicated to never make a hard fork again. This is not sustainable in the long-run.

Good cryptocurrencies (like cryptonote, zerocoin, etc.) regularly agree on reasonable compromises to improve the security and efficiency of the network (including changes in block size, etc.). With BTC, reasonable discussion has gone out of the window. It completely defies satoshi's original intention. Your community is no longer a good steward of the network. You are just bagholders trying to protect your investements.

[tossl568]

> Good cryptocurrencies (like cryptonote, zerocoin, etc.)

Ah, you've got shitcoins to hawk.

[cowtools]

Those are protocols, not necessarily cryptocurrencies[0][1]. They were originally designed as improvements to the bitcoin network, but that never came into fruition due to stubborn bitcoiners like you who refuse to improve the network.

The Cryptonote[2] and Zerocoin[3] whitepapers were published back in 2013/2014 and made some pretty important security improvements to the bitcoin network. I suggest giving them a read. Many of the systems that were once designed for Bitcoin, such as P2Pool now work on projects like cryptonote[4]. We have also designed a proof-of-work system that is completely CPU-bound (you can mine it on your home computer as satoshi intended)[5].

Also, the cryptonote/zerocoin-derived cryptocurrencies are hardly shitcoins seeing as they have effectively displaced Bitcoin's original use-case as of this year.

[0] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CryptoNote

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerocoin_protocol

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20190214045623/https://cryptonot...

[3] https://spar.isi.jhu.edu/~mgreen/ZerocoinOakland.pdf

[4] https://github.com/SChernykh/p2pool

[5] https://github.com/tevador/RandomX

[odrekf]

What you call "Bitcoin", is not Bitcoin by its own whitepaper. And it certainly DOESN'T have 100% uptime.

Keeping blocks artificially limited at 1mb doesn't make it more decentralized, it actually makes it more centralized, since barely anyone in the world can use the network or pay the fees when a bunch of people are using it at the same time.

[tossl568]

It's Bitcoin by every metric you can name: users, trust, fees, hashrate, price, market cap, security, exchange support, merchant acceptance, codebase quality, developer talent. Regardless of your subjective opinion of whether it's the same as it's own whitepaper based on whatever nonsense you've read from Roger Ver or whoever. BCH still has transaction mallebility because it was born out of greed of miners who did't want to activate segwit.

Can you point me to any evidence of it not having 100% uptime since the fork? Or have you fell for another lie just like "one node taking down the lightning network"

Blockspace is scarce and valuable, and that's the way it has to be to be decentralised. And yes they can use it, on the layer 2 lightning network. It works great, I use it all the time, for pennies in fees even when there's a mempool queue.

[odrekf]

Can you show me where in the whitepaper it mentions your metrics? I didn't see anything about say, price in there. I did see a lot of mentions about it being cash though (also cheap to use, beat credit cards, no intermediaries, etc). Also SPV wallets (point 8). Nothing about LN.

In any case, BCH simply works 100% of the time, it's instant, extremely reliable and cheap to use, and it's actually being used as cash in the real world (unlike BTC). That's the most important thing in my opinion.

[tossl568]

If you're going to take a group of scammer's twisted, false interpretation of a v0.0.1 Bitcoin whitepaper as the absolute final Gospel truth and something which you put faith in regarding your money then you're going to have a really bad time.

> it's actually being used as cash in the real world (unlike BTC)

Simply not true, on both counts. Sorry.

[odrekf]

So your only arguments are denials and ad hominems. Got it.

[tossl568]

Still waiting on that evidence that Bitcoin hasn't had 100% uptime since the fork and that one node took down the entire Lightning network. Come up with some evidence that BCH is being used anywhere while you're at it.