SegWit was a softfork that resulted in bcash hard fork a couple of weeks in advance.

History sometimes is more complex than we think.

The bcash hard fork happened mainly over SegWit ("ugly code that introduces technical debt and encourages non monetary uses" which sounds familiar if you ask me ) and not like most think solely over blocksize. Although bcash came with 8M blocks from the beginning if I remember correctly that got later increased to 32M, when BSV forked to get their infinite blocksizes.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Yeah its the same picture

this is still the blocksize war

we fucked up and nobody knows what to do about it apparently

you can start by not calling it bcash

Are youb saying Bitcoin maxis (Knotzis) are now in their own camp "bcash" and should fork or that they should switch to bcash (BCH) as it is more aligned with their values?

I don't use that term in a derogatory way. Just like I don't think Zcash and Dash are bad names.

it has ABLA now. it starts at 32 MB and can double only once per year if blocks are full the whole time. then if they are not full it keeps decreasing until it reaches 32 MB again. if it hasn't increased in a very long time it's allowed to 4x in a year.

What is the current average blocksize? Did it get spamed to only become usable in data centres like Core people suggested?

no. BCH blocks are 32 mb right now and blocks are not full.

every maxipad is lying their face off about how difficult it is to run a node with 8 mb blocks, or even full blocks under the status quo. they are larping as rich patricians when they can't shell out for a stick of RAM and a SSD. meanwhile vitalik runs an eth node on a dell laptop. it's not that fucking hard.