Bitcoin Cash gives me the heebie-jeebies.
The BTC vs. BCH debate, or war, seems a bit childish on the surface. The tribalism is fierce. But, maybe, it's not irrational, as incentives may be doing what incentives do…incentivizing behavior. Berkshire Hatheway VP Charlie Munger once said, "Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome"? Irony alert: Munger is a leading Bitcoin hater, while Bershire Hatheway has a huge stake (incentive) in the banking business to fight Bitcoin. Charlie was right with his quote.
BCHers herald transactions that are fast-and-cheap, transactions that are in alignment with Satoshi Nakamoto's vision. No doubt, Bitcoin Cash is faster (or at least less jammed-up) than Bitcoin. So, in this sense, I cannot disagree with the BCH crowd. But, BCH may have simpler incentives powering it, namely hopes that it overtakes Bitcoin BTC as the "real" Bitcoin. This is clearly monetary incentives at their purist…folks wanna get that money.
My heebie-jeebies doesn't even come from the money quest, though. This is, after all, that quest that drives the free market where competition pushes us all to constantly improve. In this way, a BCT vs. BCH war in the wild would truly reckon which is better. The stronger would survive and we'd all be better for it. Rather, my heebie-jeebies comes from some actions from the BCH landscape.
First, the concept of larger block sizes just doesn't seem to pass the sniff test. It does seem to be a temporary fix, but long term? If Bitcoin plays out the way we hope and transactions continue to grow, is increasing the block size forever really possible and practical? Is the BCH community's faith in greater Moore's Law and faster data transmission that strong? How big is still "okay" and does it even remotely efficient for each node to download and maintain the entire blockchain? How does that align to Satoshi's initial vision of decentralization? Where is the small player's role in big blocks and big blockchain? My gut tells me that bigger blocks is a temporary makeover to a deeper wound that needs to be healed in a more real manner. The makeover makes things look better, but the problem remains.
Secondly, the surprise assault that BCH waged on BCT back in November also smelled like old fish. The "flippening" attempt came on in an all-to-sudden manner that it's hard to NOT think it was coordinated. I realize there are conspiracy theories regarding this, but I've not delved into them (I'm not a conspiracy theory person at all). It still seems very questionable, and returning to incentives and from what I understand, Jihan Wu and his operation have much to gain by a BCH run-up, even more of a BCH overtaking of BCT. Again, rather than garnering tricks and strategies, and if BCH is truly better, allow it to prove itself and to play itself out in the wild.
Third, the BCH "leadership" comes across as sketchy, at best, if not down right scammy. Roger Ver, the point-man for BCH, would do well to sharpen his professional image. His website at bitcoin.com also seems to purposely trying to trick or lure people to BCH as being the "original" bitcoin. Maybe he truly believes that, and that's fine. To his credit, the website does have discussion of differences with BCT, though understandably slanted (incentives!). Again, if BCH is better, what's the problem with getting the info out there openly? To be fair, many in the Bitcoin BTC community are little better. A quick look at /r/Bitcoin shows how juvenile the community can be. If nothing else, BCHers might do well to rebrand their product with a cleaner, more professional image.
In sum, the root premise behind BCH, bigger blocks, seems a temp fix, and actions and leaders of BCH just give the scent of scamminess, pickled in a jar.
Originally published on http://satoshitimes.wikidot.com
May 12, 2018
LINK: http://satoshitimes.wikidot.com/blog:24
Although dated, this is being posted here on the Hive blockchain so that it's archived.