The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

User avatar
butterfly
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

Postby butterfly » Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:13 pm

That's a shame!

We need segwit2x! We need improvements.
Cryptocurrency portfolio (our free crypto project)
User avatar
Steve Sokolowski
Posts: 2016
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:27 pm
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

Postby Steve Sokolowski » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:42 am

micca410evo wrote:
Steve Sokolowski wrote:
I think the answer to your question has already been settled. The future is a world where there are a large number of coins, and there are auto-exchanging wallets. If we could afford a money transmission license, we could make a huge killing on being able to accept any coin as payment and transmit it to the merchant in a different coin.

Our evaluation took a long time, in part, because of the Core. We see the Core as the greatest threat to the industry's growth right now, because they are preventing the immediate expansion of capacity that we and others need to conduct business. I don't care whatsoever about what their grand vision is for the long-term future with bitcoin storing value or whatever. All people who use the network care about is whether they can use the network. Litecoin allows us to do that, which is why we conduct all our business in litecoins now.

Coinbase's addition of ETH and LTC was what made it viable for us to expand because we knew our business model would be affordable. Incidentally, it also guaranteed a multi-coin world because of how it is exposing everyday users to the improved fees and transaction times on those other networks.


So we come to the conclusion that other layers like ETH and LTC are inevitable for 2nd/3rd layer solutions, that is the reason i put a lot of faith in some of the altcoins. But what would BCH mean for BTC and/or the cryptocurrency world, rather than an intermediate solution?

You state that Core is a threat, but that would be the same like i would call your lawyer a threat to my mining hobby, that was unable to expand or run stable for months, but no i didn't, i'm fulfilled with patience in this upcoming technology and i'm pleased with your service. Instead of kicking against everything, most of the people around here try to help and support you guys, since you guys are doing a good job, because the service you guys setup and maintain.

If you don't care about the long-term, what do you even care for than? Is it the money? Would you be better off without crypto's, the internet or mobile phones? I guess i care about the long-term because it brings me a lot more fulfillment in life than the mindset of quick money and/or what comes in short time, it is at least 50% about the path towards the goal right, not the goal itself what brings prosperity; and of course i would be lying if i wasn't in for the money also, but i'm pleased to tell you my biggest concern wasn't money at all, but having something on my hands and fill my daytime with something i like and that is technology and raise my fist against the banking industry and current systems.

The major reason i'm against BCH and it's support is because of the mutiny, where and why did they stop and try reaching consensus with BTC to get a decent solution for scaling issues? If they ever take over it could be worth it, but with my knowledge and understanding of crypto's, i think they tried to attack BTC and are wasting energy in this way, the only thing it could help is to restart the conversation about scaling (but imo this isn't the reason why they started BCH). But still it is more of a personal war about future scaling solutions or a way to make money or power, what is both wrong.


I would offer a few thoughts on this.

First, I'd argue that the lawyer was a threat to our business, or at least I definitely saw it that way. He was unqualified and wasted months of time. We eventually had to set November 17 as a date where if we couldn't find a lawyer, we were going to shut down, because we figured that we wouldn't be able to get answers to those questions. Fortunately, we were able to find a different lawyer who was knowledgeable. Thus, I don't think the issue of the lawyer is relevant to this discussion.

Second, the simple truth is that the Core's plan is ludicrous. It's bizarre. It isn't logical. It makes sense that some people argue that Segwit is an improvement for a number of reasons. But it is simply nonsensical that any rational person can suggest that 1MB blocks are sufficient for the Core's Lightning Network, now or in the future. The arguments the Core are using, like that nodes can't run with larger blocks, are patently false. The ETH network has a larger blockchain and we have about four copies running, one of which we use for managing personal money on a standard desktop.

Third, the Core consists largely of evil, malicious people. I'm not going to review their behavior again, but these are the type of people who I would never be friends with, hire, or want to associate with in any way. They are not fit to be leaders and I do not support them because I see the way they behave as shameful.

Finally, I haven't heard a convincing argument as to why altcoins are insufficient for solving the problem, and that's the largest reason why I stopped caring about what happens to Bitcoin's Core chain. We can simply ignore them, because a cheaper and more capable solution exists, and that's what we're doing.

Return to “Prohashing Blog”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests