Crypto Press

Latest Crypto Discussions and Mining



On November 2nd, CoinGeek.com sponsored a Bitcoin BCH Miners Summit in Hong Kong where Bitcoin BCH miners were given the chance to network and learn why they need to choose Bitcoin SV.

7 thoughts on “Bitcoin BCH Miners Choice Summit Recap

  1. I want to add also, CSW talks a lot about he cares about Bitcoin, how ABC team are attacking it now, yet the very people that saved Bitcoin from Blockstream are the ABC guys and miners that started mining BCH first… CSW did nothing but talk and get angry, where was his millionaire tough guy back then? So, I think CSW is full of shit, I see him now as an opportunist.

    You can have miners being professional players, this is all fine, but you can not make the code development same way, as if you do, you centralised it, exact same way Bitcoin Core did it. There should be no such thing professional/corporate code and testing, especially when you claim how the base code should not change any more and be locked in (see this is another contradiction you made)

    Only think you should do is try to code the base layer to scale as best as it can, without breaking the P2P transaction nature, without breaking chain of digital signatures rule, without going off-chain, and COMPETE with which code is better, and not threaten to "kill" everyone because you can't get it your way.

  2. Well, one massive IF is that IF this base protocol is at the time PROVEN using actual usage (such as stress tests) that it has no problems scaling for the masses, and by this I mean, the current 32MB block size limit wasn't even met, this must not happen, we need to show the world that 32MB blocks can be full, that Bitcoin BCH can scale same way to 128MB and higher, even 1GB blocks.. BUT… not on the basis of promise, but on basis of existing proven facts.

    What is the point of raising the block size to 128MB with this Bitcoin SV protocol proposal for 15th Nov if no other optimisations are going to be made? There is no point… you can remove the block size fully, and it won't matter… I think the stress test has shown that MORE CODE OPTIMISATION is needed, so you can't just lock-in the code and leave it as is… you can only do that AFTER you have proven that code of your client can scale for the masses… and until you do that, you are just making empty promises.

    BCH community is sick of jack ass talks from CSW, he is acting like a statist, he is acting as a ruler, a typical greedy capitalist who wants to have things his way only… fuck that shit… this is what I have to say about that. CSW does not represent Bitcoin system and/or Bitcoin Cash, he can try to threaten others with this and that, he is only pushing people away this way… I would hope we all want a true P2P Digital Cash, that scales On-Chain for the masses… so if you want this, stop making threats and just fucking prove with your client that you can provide that, and not just talk… talk is cheap… what you do is what matters.

    Also I should add that CSW contradicts himself sometimes as well, on one hand he says how 51% attacks are not profitable and counter productive (which is probably why it doesn't happen, not on blockchains with large amount of hashing power anyway), then on the other hand he threatens to do exactly that, and how he is going to destroy everyone, and second thing, CSW also keeps insisting how we have to increase adoption a lot till next halving, while right now we can't scale more than some 24MB, so how can be get this mass adoption so quick, when the BCH network can't handle more than 24MB blocks, and if this was due to hardware and network limits, then there is no way that in that short time this tech will increase, so it means, only way to achieve such quick scalability is through optimising the code itself (creating multi-core code, using this Graphene optimisation etc)… don't you agree?

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.