//BTC vs BCH // A debate in pointlessness..
I have read a post today from @transisto about the debate between Tone Vays (all i can say about this guy is, UGH) and Roger Ver.
Now before i can say anything i need to emphasize that i am not a an expert when discussing code nor do i pay attention to all the hype around hard or soft forks on either blockchain. I simply do not care about the small changes they make.
What i do care about is the final product.
When all is said and done what are we left with. And with BCH and BTC its never much.
Now i am of a very unpopular opinion that BTC and BCH as BTC 2.0 do not have the potential to be any of the things both Vays or Ver claim relating to store of value and being a "Hard currency".
Now lets take a look at some functions of money.
A medium of exchange, store of value, A measure of value.
A medium of exchange can be anything between two people, or a group of people. But when you are discussing Crypto, people rightfully so, are looking for a globally accepted medium of exchange that will both be decentralized and be free from complete governmental control.
Bitcoin fails here on many points.
Firstly the inherent volatility means that there is no way any sensible business will use it as a medium of exchange. If a store let you buy some socks over the internet with BTC then they would need to instantly exchange that BTC for USD due to volatility because you cannot run a business based on speculation. After fees, time to receive the USD from BTC, means this is a complete waste of time and USD is superior here in every way. It is acting as a measure of value instead of BTC.
They cant even give their workers pay in BTC because of that inherent volatility and would need to tie BTC wages to USD values which again begs the question: "Why not just pay them in USD?"
Maybe this changes in the future, but another reason why it can never act as a medium of exchange based on the inherent values we look in cryptocurrencies is because BTC and its clones have a built in centralization trend and lead to a position where the control over the network can fall into the hands of a group that have no obligation to the network user, while on the other hand fiat backed by "the power of the government", has a government liable to the people, to a degree, depending on the level of democracy.
Another reason why BTC might not have a future is the inherent danger of government control. Just taking a look at the Chinese bitcoin farms and you need not look any further. Do we really want a global currency that could potentially fall under control of a communist government or could be affected to an alarming degree? The dangers are there.
Bitcoin right now is just a speculative investment. It is nothing more and nothing less then that and neither do i believe it can ever become more then that.
It boggles my mind that anyone would use BTC as anything more then a speculative investment. It has no other use that gives it advantage over other altcoins.
Technologically is magnitudes behind many altcoins, it offers no value to the user in comparison to other crypto, it solves no problems better then other altcoins, it cant be used to store value, its a poor way to complete transactions which is why i dont know of anyone that doesnt use LTC, ETH, or some other big alt coin to make transactions rather then BTC. It has a max of 7tx/s while STEEM can do a max 100k tx/s according to some info i ran across, and a 20 minute wait time on average to process a transaction while STEEM does it in 2 sec and EOS has subsecond transfers.....
BTC is inferior in absolutely every way to hundreds of other altcoin projects and the only reason its this big is because of its brand, age and stupidity of markets..
When your only basis for future success is being "currently bigger then rest" rather then competing with others in the market in technological advancement, you cant expect a bright future. This is true for every business in the world. Its true here as well.
We need BTC and its clones to fail and their bubble to pop so we have a redistribution of wealth to valid crypto projects with an actual future of being a decentralized global currency.
So to the question of BTC or BCH.... Neither.
I won't argue what makes a coin a Store of Value. There are too many school of thought for that. I won't argue whether use=value. Much of fiat is speculative as well but not as much as crypto.
Speculation gives many things value. Pure usage doesn't mean value.
Now why pay in btc/crypto instead of USD? Well the same way someone people get paid in stocks. Not everyone will accept it. But just search it and you will find people getting a certain % on the wages as btc. The more bitcoin increase in value the more people want. The more bitcoin grows the more is stabilizes.
Nothing in this world is pure anything, but Bitcoin is the most decentralized by far. The Miners are kept in check by the full nodes/users. Dev keep in check in miner while miner threaten to weaken there works. User keep in check of dev by seeing what gets added or anything. It not prefect some side are more powerful than other at other times.
China pool are dominant that true but not mining.Pools don't equal miners. Alot of of mining has been moving out. Bitcoin has also become more greener. Bitcoin natural incentives protects to a degree. Certain upgrade to bitcoin pool will give more power to miners without affecting their profits in pools. What makes a non communist country better? US has been shoving it $ down others throats. Bitcoin naturally moves to the place of best mining. China mining influence has been dramatically going down along with Bitmain.
What makes you say that bitcoin is obsolete?
Bitcoin has one of the best teams in the world. It has fast txs the same way steem has faster tx. Steem scaling involves the witness having enough resources to run. Steem as a global currency mean your trusting people as your money. DPOS is great for apps. But as global currency without the least trust-it Bitcoin. Bitcoin chose it scaling method as the LN. BCH chose as onchains txs. By your logic BCH is great. BCH has more than 120 tps. And due to the scaling plan to remove the blocsize limit they can reach 7 million tps. https://www.bitcoinglobal.ca/altcoin/7-million-transactions-a-second-research-paper-declares-1tb-blocks-feasible/
BCH with it 0conf ideology won't even need to wait.
So I fail to see your ponit?
Onchain txs are easier to make scaling hence intimidate results.
While Bitcoin choose offchain tx in a way to keep miner align. Is it a good defense agaisnt miners-not alone. Even with a 51% attack if your using your own node-they can't hurt it. The only thing they can do is double spend there own tx.
LN can scale even more to million-billion tps-a big block increase will help .
It wait time can be less than seconds as well.
I fail to see your point.
I don't hate BCH forsay. It scaling plan does not interest me-It can work but I belie in offchain txs.
But I don't get your points. How is it inferior? Do you not like how BTC plans to scale? Ok-but saying it tech inferior is not ok. You can just say that BTC tech does not interest me.
The debate is not much over the tech but the name/people. Without it-the debate becomes what tech is ''better'' like any other coin.
But to be fair better tech doesn't also mean the winner. History has shown us this.
Claiming BTC isnt obsolete is like claiming floppy drive wasnt obsolete when CDs came into picture. Claiming CDs werent obsolete when DVDs came into picture. DVDs to Blueray. Blueray to access to all data through internet, and on and on it goes.
STEEM was made of an example so i can show on a familiar project how far we have come. STEEM has a different purpose and different use cases right now but im more then positive that STEEM could be used for day to day purchases far easily then BTC and far more efficiently. We want a decentralized global currency. STEEM can be that, BTC cannot.
STEEM by design has a decentralized trend embedded. Redistribution of wealth from the high SP holders to the low SP holders.
BTC on the other hand has a centralized trend. Centralization of mining and fee collection as well as non-existent distribution of wealth. BTC does not empower anyone in comparison to STEEM.
BTC and BCH, etc.... offer a basic use case like 100% of crypto. Send from A to B. Projects like STEEM on the other hand offer the same basic thing improved by a magnitude of a 1000 and additional real world use case..
People tend to think that STEEM is a daap building platform, or tie it into STEEMIT, and call it a "blogging token".. But the truth is that STEEM has as many use cases as we want it to have.
Claiming something will scale, is different from something currently showing the exact thing BTC or BCH want to succeed at.
BTC and BCH seem to be basing their success on their size and that fails almost always.
I expect a bubble. Once crypto goes mainstream projects will be weighed against each other based on merit, and it will be an almost instantaneous realization that there are far better alternatives to BTC.
What happens when BTC gets another ATH? Hits 100k or something and gets to a point where massive gains are no longer possible? You will have inferior tech with large market cap dominance and no real world use.
Bubble will pop and investors will look for something to make their money on once again, and that time they will look at merit and sustainability.
They were mostly made by the same company and at times the same manufacturers. They learned to upgrade and Bitcoin has been doing that. People saying Bitcoin isn't like the old bitcoin in 2009 are right-Bitcoin is upgrading to be better. So that one point that can be said to be iffy.
Steem as a global currency is ugh. Steem as a decentralized social network yes :) EOS as a decentralized Dapp? Cool 🤷♂️
DPOS is not a decentralized global currency. Global currency=Speed
Global currency=Security,use,trust. Bitcoin/Litecoin/BCH don't need trust while in DPOS you vote. You don't want a app platform to be the same as money. You want it to be different so no sign of failure. POS is brings a type of shareholders company. POW introduces many many layers of countering like how Global currency should be. BTC and BCH both have smart contracts and dapps. BTC has RSK and others. BCH has wormwhole and more. So they are not basic by the way...
I don't get this point:
Rewording might be little better. But BTC and BCH don't assume success by size.... They assume success by diff prop like other coins do as well...
A bubble popped and bitcoin cam on top. So your saying an even bigger one but where Bitcoin will fall based on inferior tech? 2017 was a weak time for bitcoin. But Bitcoin picked scaling and dapps methods now. Bitcoin is not inferior/obsolete tech but tech that you think is not good. And history showed that having better tech does not mean better. Your kidna saying the same points I countered before...
I agree lets the market decide.
I trying to change some of your view but not all. At least trying to make you understand that Bitcoin not obsolete tech and time for the free market to see what better.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
Congratulations @lordbutterfly! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCongratulations @lordbutterfly! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP