Bitcoin network on the brink of second capacity upgrade

On August 1st, 2017, the Bitcoin network experienced an upgrade which saw the maximum capacity throughput multiplied by 8. Bitcoin Core developers’ resistance to upgrade their own software, meant that the majority of nodes did not receive the luxuries now enjoyed by the Bitcoin Cash community – namely, instant transactions, sub-cent fees, and a bigger pipeline. Their stance also created a polarity, which meant that the upgraded nodes were forced to re-stablish an entire eco-system.

The mere fact that in under one year, Bitcoin Cash has managed to establish itself on territory lost by Core, is very, very telling. Make no mistake it was from the ground up – Merchants, payment processors, exchanges, a new ticker, a new address format, some new development teams… The political climate was toxic, but as the movement to re-enable Bitcoin as Cash once again drew momentum, it became unstoppable.

The two biggest commerce based entities in the space – BitPay and Coinbase, have already integrated Bitcoin Cash (BCH) within their systems, and full integration is almost complete. A wave of app explosions has caused speculators to take sharp notice.

Applications that tie into the Bitcoin blockchain can realistically only take off the ground in a low-fee environment. Satoshi Nakamoto had created a profound technology, that invited developers all around the world to create applications in a permissionless environment. Fees were always meant to stay small. With tiny fees, comes the incentive to create and innovate, freely.

Satoshi once said “the fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.”

Bitcoin was supposed to be a self-sustaining system. Free of dictatorial influence. It was almost complete – except for one aspect that required human intervention. – That was, raising the maximum blocksize (a capacity variable). Satoshi’s mistake was adding that one element of ‘trust’ in what was supposed to be inherently a trustless system. He trusted that humans would be incentivised to increase the capacity, in the best interests of the system, and themselves. What he did not anticipate was a corporate takeover.

So when he left an instruction to raise the blocksize “in versions way ahead” as he put it, Blockstream aligned Core developers chose to ignore it, and instead worked towards a second layer solution, which they hoped would turn profitable.

With Bitcoin Cash, effectively being the legitimate upgrade to Bitcoin, a revitalised eco-system of developers, merchants, businesses and enthusiasts have swarmed right back to the home, where most crypto purists, always wished it did.

So which BCH, Bitcoin has the express back on the rail, and on May 15, another major upgrade takes place, to yet again, increase the maximum transaction throughput, but also, to re-activate smart scripting capabilities that were in the original Satoshi codebase, but have laid dormant since… The upcoming hardfork is this time non political for BCH, which means there’ll be no coin-split.

On May 15, Bitcoin BCH becomes many things that Ethereum dreamed to be. While important scripting capabilities that work with strings and arithmetic operations are being reactivated, there’s still a few more that remain outstanding, which the community can look to re-enable in another future hard-fork.

What we do know is that the app-explosion that has materialised on the BCH blockchain is only going to become more acute, given the additional smart scripting options developers are provided.

Incredibly, in less than one year, we already have an incentive based content network like yours.org, a social platform: memo.cash, the SMS based CoinText, the tap’n’go HandCash, tipping bots, point of sale apps.

One keen redditor even noted how simple it would be to utilise the memo.cash platform to build a un-censorable file sharing capability.

When you have a coin, that can, and is allowed to grow, the sky’s the limit. And the market is beginning to realise this. Bring on May 15.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (segwit) Chain are Referred to as BTC coins. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is today the only Bitcoin implementation that follows Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper for Peer to Peer Electronic Cash. Bitcoin BCH is the only major public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin as fast, frictionless, electronic cash.

2 digital assets are set to sky-rocket

“Utility” and “Scarcity” do wonders for value. It is the formula of these two fundamental attributes of “Value” that fashion incredible opportunities for investors.

There are two digital assets out there today, that scream the loudest. Namely, Monero (XMR) and BitcoinCash (BCH).

Why Monero?

Where do I begin – the reasons are countless. First and foremost it is today the most private crypto-currency  in the space, second to none. Not only has the FBI flagged and named Monero as a concern for their chain analysis tools (which cannot decipher XMR transactions), but many ransomware attacks are now utilising Monero also. This may not come across in positive light, but it does highlight the fungible and private nature of the asset – which is important for money. Even ransomware attacks that use Bitcoin, are found to ‘shapeshift’ their revenue into Monero to avoid detection. Recently, Matt Suiche, founder of Dubai-based security firm Comae Technologies stated that Monero “is one of the favourites, if not the favourite” for ransomware, in an interview for Bloomberg.

I’ve been an avid supporter of Monero, and its development team for its unwavering dedication to fungibility and privacy. I’ve in the past praised leadership decisions which I noted to be a bar above most other dev teams in the crypto space, and in mid August 2017, I wrote a piece titled “Monero’s best market performance is yet to come” for CoinGeek which ended up being the most popular article on the site – by far at the time. Sure enough, a week after the release of that very article, the price had tripled independently of BTC movements.

The very reasons discussed in that article, stand today. Specifically, Monero’s supply curve this year continues to take a significant turn, with the supply tangent being even more pronounced than Bitcoin’s. The green line in the chart below shows today’s date.

Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket
Source: reddit link

Given that Monero’s aggressive mint rate in the early days, it is actually surprising to take note of its performance. It begs the question, if Monero can perform so well with such inflation, how much better will it do, with a somewhat more mature market, and far less emission rate over the next couple of years?

Monero recently created ripples within its community after a ‘contentious’ hard fork last weekend birthed a number of side projects – most of which are operating on the legacy chain. There were two prime reasons for the fork, the first was to increase privacy ‘even more’ by increasing the ring size to 7. This obscures transaction outputs in a pool of 7 outputs, and adds to a sender’s plausible deniability.

The second change was a rather contentious change to the proof of work algorithm. This has caused a wild stir in the community, which has led to another forking-crisis. It should be stated however, that the price impact on Monero itself has been minimal, if apparent at all. The stability of price following the split in chain, has re-assured investors.

So why did the proof of work need changing? Though my personal attitude leans towards a pro-free market, I cannot deny that a core tenet of Monero philosophy is – CPU/GPU mining.  This has been made clear by Monero devs since its inception.

So what were the changes that killed off Bitmain’s ASICs?

Specifically, two functions in the CryptoNight algorithm.

Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket

The nature of these modifications mean that it’ll be even easier to further tweak the algorithm in future. I believe this is mightily important, as a precedent has now been set, and the team needs to continuously tweak the PoW algorithm to maintain its ASIC resistance. This is the path chosen.

At some point Monero devs may find an organic way to continuously change the mining algorithm at set block heights… This would be somewhat akin in style to their clever ‘adaptable blocksize’ technology. But an organic algorithm of this nature could also be gamed by a clever ASIC manufacturer since, the algorithm would inherently reveal the details of future changes. With some clever cryptography, this can be made more obscure, but requires significant work and testing.

The free market choice for those not opposed to ASIC mining remains on the legacy fork.

But with scalability improvements on the horizon, and more privacy enhancements to come later this year, Monero’s developers maintain a stronghold to steer the ship into successful territory.

What about Bitcoin Cash?

One of the things that first attracted me to Monero aside from its fungible/privacy properties, was its adaptable blocksize. BTC shot itself in the foot, and Bitcoin Cash has resurrected a fallen giant. BCH holds a roadmap for continuous on-chain scalability – and this trait is of unconditional importance. For mainstream ecommerce and merchant adoption, volatile fees are a death trap. Fees need to be low, and they need to be consistently low.

In 2017, Bitcoin Core lost swathes of territory and it remains the only year in which Bitcoin merchant adoption actually went backwards. Numerous key entities such as Steam and Fiverr dropped support.

This is where Bitcoin Cash has done something that is absolutely unprecedented in the crypto space. It has successfully managed to re-engage all the big players within less than one year of forking. Former Core Developer (and pro big blocks) Mike Hearn recently made the following comment regarding Bitcoin Cash (while referencing his BitcoinXT client):

“the sort of split BCH did is incredibly costly. You need new wallets, exchanges have to list the new currency, you need new miners, you need to build a new p2p network with a new set of nodes, new development team, new merchants and payment processors (or convert the existing ones) etc. You basically start over from scratch except for the open source code.” – Mike Hearn

Incredibly Bitcoin Cash has managed to do all of the above, as well as regain an abundance of BTC lost territory. Even Hearn, then later admits “The speed with which Bitcoin Cash has recovered infrastructure and rebuilt community is impressive.”

What does this have to do with the success of BCH? – EVERYTHING. Utility and adoption are key – something that the Monero community is well aware of also.

With Coinbase and BitPay featuring full integration, and Bitcoin Cash forum r/btc very recently overtaking the subscriber count of r/litecoin, the pendelum is in full swing.

What’s the outlook on price?

The entire crypto market is today pegged to the price of BTC. I’ve written about the Gartner hype cycle before and its fractal recurrence, and there is no doubt now that this pattern is consistently recurring. Until when? That’s anybody’s guess… Crypto adoption is STILL young, and STILL has a very long way to go. So let’s look at the charts from previous all-time highs.

Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket
November 6 – 2010
Source: coindesk.com
Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket
June 9 – 2011
Source: coindesk.com
Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket
April 9 – 2013
Source: coindesk.com
Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket
December 4 – 2013
Source: coindesk.com
Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket
December 16 – 2017
Source: coindesk.com

Though timelines are skewed (ie the bigger the bubble, the bigger the time frame), it is undeniable that each successive cycle, not only repeats a very similar pattern, but it also dwarfs the previous.

With Bitcoin Cash’s massive inroads into adoption, and repossession of lost BTC ground, the next hype cycle, may very well see it catapult into uncharted territory.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit-Coin BTC (inaccurately called Bitcoin Legacy or Core by many) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

source: https://coingeek.com/two-digital-assets-that-are-set-to-sky-rocket/

2 digital assets are set to sky-rocket

“Utility” and “Scarcity” do wonders for value. It is the formula of these two fundamental attributes of “Value” that fashion incredible opportunities for investors.

There are two digital assets out there today, that scream the loudest. Namely, Monero (XMR) and BitcoinCash (BCH).

Why Monero?

Where do I begin – the reasons are countless. First and foremost it is today the most private crypto-currency  in the space, second to none. Not only has the FBI flagged and named Monero as a concern for their chain analysis tools (which cannot decipher XMR transactions), but many ransomware attacks are now utilising Monero also. This may not come across in positive light, but it does highlight the fungible and private nature of the asset – which is important for money. Even ransomware attacks that use Bitcoin, are found to ‘shapeshift’ their revenue into Monero to avoid detection. Recently, Matt Suiche, founder of Dubai-based security firm Comae Technologies stated that Monero “is one of the favourites, if not the favourite” for ransomware, in an interview for Bloomberg.

I’ve been an avid supporter of Monero, and its development team for its unwavering dedication to fungibility and privacy. I’ve in the past praised leadership decisions which I noted to be a bar above most other dev teams in the crypto space, and in mid August 2017, I wrote a piece titled “Monero’s best market performance is yet to come” for CoinGeek which ended up being the most popular article on the site – by far at the time. Sure enough, a week after the release of that very article, the price had tripled independently of BTC movements.

The very reasons discussed in that article, stand today. Specifically, Monero’s supply curve this year continues to take a significant turn, with the supply tangent being even more pronounced than Bitcoin’s. The green line in the chart below shows today’s date.

Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket
Source: reddit link

Given that Monero’s aggressive mint rate in the early days, it is actually surprising to take note of its performance. It begs the question, if Monero can perform so well with such inflation, how much better will it do, with a somewhat more mature market, and far less emission rate over the next couple of years?

Monero recently created ripples within its community after a ‘contentious’ hard fork last weekend birthed a number of side projects – most of which are operating on the legacy chain. There were two prime reasons for the fork, the first was to increase privacy ‘even more’ by increasing the ring size to 7. This obscures transaction outputs in a pool of 7 outputs, and adds to a sender’s plausible deniability.

The second change was a rather contentious change to the proof of work algorithm. This has caused a wild stir in the community, which has led to another forking-crisis. It should be stated however, that the price impact on Monero itself has been minimal, if apparent at all. The stability of price following the split in chain, has re-assured investors.

So why did the proof of work need changing? Though my personal attitude leans towards a pro-free market, I cannot deny that a core tenet of Monero philosophy is – CPU/GPU mining.  This has been made clear by Monero devs since its inception.

So what were the changes that killed off Bitmain’s ASICs?

Specifically, two functions in the CryptoNight algorithm.

Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket

The nature of these modifications mean that it’ll be even easier to further tweak the algorithm in future. I believe this is mightily important, as a precedent has now been set, and the team needs to continuously tweak the PoW algorithm to maintain its ASIC resistance. This is the path chosen.

At some point Monero devs may find an organic way to continuously change the mining algorithm at set block heights… This would be somewhat akin in style to their clever ‘adaptable blocksize’ technology. But an organic algorithm of this nature could also be gamed by a clever ASIC manufacturer since, the algorithm would inherently reveal the details of future changes. With some clever cryptography, this can be made more obscure, but requires significant work and testing.

The free market choice for those not opposed to ASIC mining remains on the legacy fork.

But with scalability improvements on the horizon, and more privacy enhancements to come later this year, Monero’s developers maintain a stronghold to steer the ship into successful territory.

What about Bitcoin Cash?

One of the things that first attracted me to Monero aside from its fungible/privacy properties, was its adaptable blocksize. BTC shot itself in the foot, and Bitcoin Cash has resurrected a fallen giant. BCH holds a roadmap for continuous on-chain scalability – and this trait is of unconditional importance. For mainstream ecommerce and merchant adoption, volatile fees are a death trap. Fees need to be low, and they need to be consistently low.

In 2017, Bitcoin Core lost swathes of territory and it remains the only year in which Bitcoin merchant adoption actually went backwards. Numerous key entities such as Steam and Fiverr dropped support.

This is where Bitcoin Cash has done something that is absolutely unprecedented in the crypto space. It has successfully managed to re-engage all the big players within less than one year of forking. Former Core Developer (and pro big blocks) Mike Hearn recently made the following comment regarding Bitcoin Cash (while referencing his BitcoinXT client):

“the sort of split BCH did is incredibly costly. You need new wallets, exchanges have to list the new currency, you need new miners, you need to build a new p2p network with a new set of nodes, new development team, new merchants and payment processors (or convert the existing ones) etc. You basically start over from scratch except for the open source code.” – Mike Hearn

Incredibly Bitcoin Cash has managed to do all of the above, as well as regain an abundance of BTC lost territory. Even Hearn, then later admits “The speed with which Bitcoin Cash has recovered infrastructure and rebuilt community is impressive.”

What does this have to do with the success of BCH? – EVERYTHING. Utility and adoption are key – something that the Monero community is well aware of also.

With Coinbase and BitPay featuring full integration, and Bitcoin Cash forum r/btc very recently overtaking the subscriber count of r/litecoin, the pendelum is in full swing.

What’s the outlook on price?

The entire crypto market is today pegged to the price of BTC. I’ve written about the Gartner hype cycle before and its fractal recurrence, and there is no doubt now that this pattern is consistently recurring. Until when? That’s anybody’s guess… Crypto adoption is STILL young, and STILL has a very long way to go. So let’s look at the charts from previous all-time highs.

Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket
November 6 – 2010
Source: coindesk.com
Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket
June 9 – 2011
Source: coindesk.com
Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket
April 9 – 2013
Source: coindesk.com
Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket
December 4 – 2013
Source: coindesk.com
Two Digital Assets that are set to Sky-rocket
December 16 – 2017
Source: coindesk.com

Though timelines are skewed (ie the bigger the bubble, the bigger the time frame), it is undeniable that each successive cycle, not only repeats a very similar pattern, but it also dwarfs the previous.

With Bitcoin Cash’s massive inroads into adoption, and repossession of lost BTC ground, the next hype cycle, may very well see it catapult into uncharted territory.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit-Coin BTC (inaccurately called Bitcoin Legacy or Core by many) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

The “Selfish Mining” saga continues

The concept of a selfish miner ‘attack’, all started with a paper by Cornell University researchers Ittay Eyal and Emin Gun Sirer, titled “Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable”.

The idea on the surface seems to make sense. A “selfish miner” who discovers a block, can choose to keep the discovered block a secret. By not propagating the block, the miner keeps a local copy of the forked chain. All other nodes on the network, continue to mine on the public chain, while the selfish miner, continues to mine on its private branch. If the selfish miner discovers more blocks, then it develops a longer lead over the public chain. Eventually the public chain (which has more hash power behind it) catches up to the private chain, the private chain can immediately time its release of the private blocks to the public (having the longest proof of work).

Selfish mining

The method is designed to force opposition miners (honest miners), to waste computations on a chain branch that is destined to not become a part of the blockchain record. “Selfish Miners” do this by selectively revealing their mined blocks that invalidate opposition (public) mined blocks.

It does beg the question however, if Selfish Mining is really a thing, can’t all miners adopt the strategy? Wouldn’t all miners adopt the strategy in this case? Indeed, if all miners follow the algorithm as set out in the paper, then any perceived advantageous benefit is lost.

Since the release of the paper in 2013, the “Selfish Mining” saga has gone through endless debate cycles, and particularly, only recently has flared up once again.

Dr Craig Wright in particular has been loud in his criticism of Selfish mining, dubbing it a fallacy. Does the criticism hold water? In a medium post, Wright went into detail on his position.

Wright states that selfish mining “relies on the relative percentage of blocks earned by a particular miner. It does not consider the number of blocks to unit time”. Also “their state model is based on a fixed average that does not account for orphans or the simple notion of revenue per unit time”. A simple, assessment of the paper leads us to categorically state that this assessment is correct. An interesting point also noted by Dr Wright is that “profit is the additional reward for earning and at a certain point, more revenue leads to lower profit levels”. Simply put, more revenue does not necessarily equate to more profit, and that an equilibrium exists where the best profit for investment can be attained. But how does it change the course of the study?

Wright further states that the “very model used in selfish mining is itself flawed”. In particular, he raises the question of the Poisson distribution used which expresses the probability of a given number of events occurring in fixed intervals of time and independently of the time of the last event. The Poisson distribution only works if the model is independent and identically distributed. The selfish mining model however, is conditional, since the selfish miner reacts after the discovery of a block from the honest miner.

Case in point, this does throw into refute the mathematical model used in the paper.

What model should’ve been used? According to the medium post, an Erlang Distribution or Negative Binomial Distribution.

The below figure is from the 2013 paper by  “IttayEyal and Emin Gun Sirer”. It illustrates the revenue model according to pool size for the selfish miner.

Selfish mining

Source: Figure 2 – “Majority is not enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable

The above figure shows that a selfish miner commanding 25% of the network resources stands to gain a significant advantage by adopting the selfish mining strategy. However, according to Dr Wright, by taking account all factors that were not addressed in the paper, as well as using the appropriate model, the revenue graph takes a turn on its head. The new model is illustrated below:

Selfish mining

Source: Figure 1: Expected pool revenue for SM strategy –link

Interestingly in this model, at no point does the selfish miner get anywhere near the baseline of an honest miner. But Wright makes another interesting point here… that even when using the using the selfish mining strategy without addressing the flaws in the model, the gross return still falls short for anything under 50% of the hash power.

Ofcourse after 50% it doesn’t really matter, since at that point Bitcoin is effectively centralized in any case. But it’s an interesting point to posit. But the thing does become compounded when incorporating the additional block orphans which take a direct toll on profit, for which the calculations on the medium post showed stunning daily losses.

Dr Wright states that to correctly analyse things, a time censored Bayesian model would need to be created and that he will release the mathematics involved in all of this in the near future.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

source: https://coingeek.com/selfish-mining/

Moving to 2 decimal places is both logical and necessary

When it comes to ‘developments’, we so often talk about the code, or the eco-system, that we don’t see the very simple things right before our eyes, which could have significant impact.

Admittedly, when I first heard rumours of various people in the BCH community discussing the shift of standard from 1 BCH to 1000000.00 Bit, I was a little apprehensive.

We often get a little too comfortable with what we are used to, and the success of Bitcoin, has in general galvanised and conditioned us perceive “0.5412 BCH” as a completely ‘normal’ number. And within the Bitcoin community, it has certainly ‘become’ the ‘norm’. But step outside of our community and the number is confusing, strangely foreign, and unappealing.

Moving to 2 decimal places is both logical and necessary

Like Pavlov’s dog, many of us in the community who are apprehensive to change the standard suffer from a conditioned response. We see 0.5412 BCH and we salivate… because we know how many nice meals that can buy us from the uptown restaurant.

In business, adaptation and change are essential for survival. This isn’t to say BCH will die unless we change things – no. But the community’s attitude should never remain stagnant.

There’s an old parable describing a frog being boiled alive. The premise is that a frog will not notice the gradually heating conditions in its environment and will boil to death. In the corporate sector, many businesses fall to the same fate under similar conditions.

When Bitcoin first launched, it cost 10,000 Bitcoins to purchase the first pizza. Today that number would look inverted, as the zeros would be on the other end of the decimal point.

Humans like numbers to be whole, and if they’re not whole, most can appropriately deal with 2 decimal places.

Dr Craig Wright makes the observation by tweeting: “Bits is good. 100 Sats. A level people understand when comparing dollars and cents”.

Now that Bitcoin’s price has exploded, bringing the decimal place to ‘Bits’ (allowing 2 decimal places), is not only practical, but also necessary for further adoption.

In 2010 two pizzas cost 10,000 Bitcoins. That counting that in Sats would be ludicrous, as that number would be 10,000,000,000,000 Sats.

But two large pizzas today would cost 0.006554 BCH… or… 6554 Bits. One of these looks better than the other…

This sort of discussion isn’t new… Wallets such as Jonald Fyookball’s Electron Cash and Electrum already default to displaying Bitcoin values in mBCH/mBTC. This notation shifts the decimal place 2 steps down. However, mBCH is also a temporary measure. At some point, the community needs to adopt a new standard that is forward thinking.

The movement to a two decimal place standard is really just a matter of time. It’s something that was always bound to happen, and the sooner we do it, the better.

Not only does it do a power of good in the fight for global adoption, but it also pushes a psychological envelope further.

If the BCH price is assessed in Bits, then the price of a $10,000 coin becomes $0.01 per Bits. As in the case with Ripple, there is a tendency for some people to view small numbers as being “cheap”. It also accurately portrays the potential. After all, the idea is that at some point, $1 will equal 1 Bit… and that is actually a  1 million dollar Bitcoin.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

BTC market dominance drops to Ethereum’s All-Time-High

You read that right. BTC’s market dominance has for the first time ever, dropped to a level, to which an alt-coin once had.

BTC market dominance drops to Ethereum’s All-Time-High
Source: coinmarketcap.com (with overlay)

Unless something significantly changes, Bitcoin’s market cap will continue to fall against all alt coins. Ripple is already well over 50% of BTC’s own market cap in value, reaching a stunning $147 billion cap, and sits in second place, well ahead of Ethereum now.

At this rate, there is not much difference between BTC and Ripple, and a flippening is actually not that far off, should BTC continue to tumble downward in price.

Interestingly, Ripple’s success, directly correlates to BTC’s failure here.

BTC market dominance drops to Ethereum’s All-Time-High
Source: coinmarketcap.com (with overlay)

Quite literally, the moment BTC began its descent, was the moment Ripple began its steep climb. Also worthy of mention is that Bitcoin’s moment of descent correlates with the moment fees began to hit absurdly excessive figures ranging from $20 USD and upwards.

It reaffirms, that if you decrease utility, you will also decrease value. Bitcoin’s utility with its rising fees, has been decreasing more and more, as users look elsewhere. Roger Ver in particular has been loud in voicing this one particular concern over time: that the full blocks are directly responsible for Bitcoin’s lost market share. It’s true that correlation does not always equal causation, but when you have an abundance of indicators, it’s unwise not to pay attention.

This isn’t just a “fee” problem. This is probably even more so, a usability issue. Disgruntled users were forced to wait, days and weeks, until their transactions would confirm. The network is so heavily congested it is unusable in its current state. The fear and panic among users who found their transactions stuck, has caused an exodus.

Ironically, it appears most users have found refuge in Ripple. Whether this refuge is temporary or long-term remains to be seen.

But I am most certain, that Ripple’s success, and although the company has scored some recent deals with some major Asian banks, it can be more attributed to BTC’s own failings.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true  Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

BitMex joins the list of exchanges and wallets that failed to supply customers with their BCH

Bitcoin Mercantile Exchange, or BitMex, is indeed one of the largest Bitcoin exchange websites handling over $1 billion dollars in trades every day. But on December 28, 2017, BitMex posted the following notice:

BitMEX completed the sale of all Bitcoin Cash (BCH) held on behalf of our users. Bitcoin Cash sale details:

  • The amount of Bitcoin Cash a user is entitled to is determined by their Margin Balance at 1 August 2017 13:17 UTC, a few seconds after block 478,588.
  • Bitcoin Cash to Bitcoin (XBT) Ratio: 1 BCH to 0.1707 XBT
  • Users’ BitMEX Bitcoin wallets will be credited with the amount of Bitcoin they are entitled to.

The Insurance Fund was credited with 120.5321631 XBT due to its holdings of Bitcoin Cash. source

The move was not exactly unexpected. On November 15, 2017, they had stated:

Users will not receive Bitcoin Cash, rather BitMEX will sell all users’ Bitcoin Cash, and credit their wallet with the Bitcoin proceeds. source

BitMex is not the only company that has taken this stance with Bitcoin Cash. Bitfinex for example, another major exchange, only credited their users with half of their due BCH balance. BitMex however, is one of the more extreme cases.

The unregulated nature of online exchanges, enables such entities to get away with practically almost anything.

The nature of BTC forks entitles every holder, of an equal amount in a forked coin. But exclusive ownership of coin, comes from ownership of the private key. Such exchanges do not provide users with their own wallet and key. Very few exchanges do… But in doing so, it gives control of funds, and any future forks to the customer directly.

After all, this was the whole point of Bitcoin – financial sovereignty.

Allowing a third party to have exclusive access to private keys (which should be yours), defeats the very purpose on which Bitcoin was founded upon.

It also opens up opportunities such as this- where a third party takes executive decisions on the movement and use of their customer’s funds.

As noted above, BitMex credited the BTC balance of their users by selling BCH at ratio of 0.1707. The obvious question here is, what if Bitcoin Cash ends up performing much higher? It has certainly gone well above 0.17 in fleeting moments. Alas, customers can withdraw their BTC, and buy BCH should they wish to… But users will lose a lot of traction in friction fees, moving and converting BTC.

Xapo wallet had also done something similar, forcing users to sell their entitled BCH for BTC…

A simple withdraw button could have been more than sufficient, so why the additional effort of going through pushing all that BCH to exchanges, converting, crediting users with BTC, and all the other hassles that goes with it? Questions remain.

In all, it leaves an unwanted after-taste. In this unregulated scene, users are given no option but to ‘trust’ that such a third party, acts in honesty of their announcements. Users have to ‘trust’ that their BCH was sold at a 0.17xx ratio. Users have to trust, that all BCH was sold.

Bitcoin isn’t about ‘trust’. This is why it is often referred to as ‘trustless’. An underlying tenet of the technology relies on never having to ‘trust’ a single entity.

There is very little most users can do about the ethical inner workings of a company within the crypto-sphere. But users should be far more cautious. And the onus is on the users to keep 3rd parties honest. Firstly, never leave your money on an exchange long term. Not only can such an entity get hacked, resulting in having your funds stolen (as evidenced already many times), but also, users are at the mercy of such entities when it comes to receiving the due coin from resulting forks. Secondly, users should own and hold their private key, in safe secure, and if necessary, encrypted space.

But I want to end on one glaring point that has come out on all this. If BitMex truly did sell all their customers BCH, and given that Xapo and others have done something similar, then the price of BCH today is very telling.

Today Bitcoin Cash has sustained incredible downward sell pressure, and has dealt with a barrage of negativity from Core aligned trolls, and outlets, only to surface unharmed, and positioned stronger than ever for what looks to be an exciting year ahead. The attacks have been met with unrelenting efforts from development teams, and an exploding eco-system seeking world-wide adoption.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true  Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

TX HighWay does well to illustrate the Bitcoin Cash Advantage

Little could I have imagined that a simple tweet I made on the 27th of October would snowball and become what is now known as the TX Highway – the BCH vs BTC live transaction visualizer.  www.txhighway.com

TX HighWay does well to illustrate the Bitcoin Cash Advantage

 

Blockstream’s business plan to profit off of side-chains is no conspiracy theory. CEO Adam Back has on numerous occasions openly stated that Blockstream plans to profit off of selling side-chains and dedicated hardware for off-chain solutions.

The tweet caught the eye, and the imagination of one individual, Corbin, writing under the alias maplesyrupsucker, who decided to turn the analogy into a virtual representation, with live transaction data feeding into the application, from both the BCH and BTC blockchains, represented by vehicles, roads, and signage.

Corbin contacted the Bitcoin Cash Fund, and worked directly with a back-end developer, Paul, working under the alias ‘porlyb’, to see the idea come to fruition.

Corbin explained that the app will remain under development for the foreseeable future. Ofcourse the challenge will be, once we have 1GB blocks… How to illustrate such a wide highway? I’m sure they’ll find a clever way…

But the real interesting point is that every vehicle represents a different transaction. The bigger the vehicle, the bigger the transaction.

Some interesting points are immediately observable. There are very little if any, small transactions on the BTC lane. On the other hand, BCH will feature many of these tiny vehicles, because it is economically viable to do so given the fees.

Anyone who fails to grasp the technicalities of the blocksize debate can instantly, visually appreciate the difference.

The single lane (BTC) is heavily congested. The ‘Segwit’ cars are amusingly trying to get in-front. Some other interesting additions include the Lightning Network ‘rail’ that’s under construction, and the closed second lane representing the failure of the 2X blocksize increase (which was supposed to happen in November). Have the sound up and you’ll hear frustrated drivers beeping at one another.

TX HighWay does well to illustrate the Bitcoin Cash Advantage

 

Corbin says: “I mostly did front end html and CSS and sprites and audio and a bit of JS. Then porlyb tied in the Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash transactions and address monitoring.”

On further developments, he states “we’re hoping if we get enough donations we can turn this into something more fleshed out. Include toll roads. Go isometric”.

He wasn’t short on giving thanks to the Bitcoin Cash Fund either: “Just thought it might make a cool BCF proof of concept of community work. Without the BCF we wouldn’t have met and started this”.

Paul, who did the blockchain integration work magic (monitoring transactions and stats) stated “Bitcoin Cash is the Bitcoin I read and understood in the whitepaper. A peer-to-peer electronic cash system for everyone in the world, not some weird settlement layer thing where hodl, moon and lambos are said seriously by grown adults in business suits. BCF is a great community and are doing excellent things for Bitcoin Cash. TX Highway was the most fun i’ve had writing code before. Had a smile on my face most of the time and was even in tears laughing with some of the ideas Corbin and I were having.”

Paul, Corbin, excellent work. It brought a smile to my face.

Well I am certainly looking forward to many more exciting projects from these guys, and also the Bitcoin Cash Fund.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true  Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

Is Core laying the groundwork for a blocksize increase?

Where there’s smoke there’s fire. There’s been no official word from Core devs, but there have been undeniable signs brewing. An increase in Segwit1x (BTC) blocksize means a hard fork. The one thing that Core have often stated is a “dangerous” thing to do. For years, the community was told that hard forks were dangerous, and this was the reason Segwit was done as a ‘soft fork.’

Evidence: Peter Todd explaining why hard forks are dangerous in this piece titled: Soft forks are safer than hard forks.

Evidence 2: Core aligned Paul Sztorc wrote in detail how “a hard fork breaks Bitcoin’s contract, risks users funds, and puts developers in danger.”

There are countless many other sources with similar content, and Google is your friend if you feel the itch to do some digging. But of course, there were many on the big blocker camp that could see through the double speak and would question the rhetoric.

But is Core now about to do the unthinkable and do two things which they were not only particularly against, but also caused a major divide in the eco-system over? Some signs are pointing to yes.

Firstly, bitcoin.org and bitcointalk forum co-founder/owner “Cobra” has recently had a major turn in sentiment. Tweeting such things as:

Is Core laying the groundwork for a blocksize increase?

But also recently putting pen to paper on a Medium blog post titled, “Thoughts on Bitcoin as a settlement layer,” where he states:

It’s well known that block chains have terrible scaling attributes. You basically have two choices if you want to scale to millions of users; 1) you push everyone on to secondary or tertiary layers and have the base layer have a smaller block size and high transaction fees which allows you to have a decentralized and censorship resistant network at the base layer, or 2) you do *everything* on chain and have massive centralization and trust in miners, with very few people running full nodes.

Many people in the Bitcoin community advocate for the first choice, they say Bitcoin should remain as decentralized as possible at the base layer and “coffee transactions” should happen on the other layers. The Bitcoin Cash community goes to the other extreme and talk about things like 1GB block sizes. I’ve always preferred the first choice, but lately I’ve been starting to lose faith in it.

Almost reassuringly, Cobra concludes with, “We never have these discussions because everyone is so focused on attacking the Bitcoin Cash people for how stupid it is to have huge blocks, and how this will lead to centralization, but we don’t ever talk about how ‘layer 1 as a settlement layer’ will also lead to centralization in its own way.”

But do notice the very closing comment: “Transaction fees should always remain low enough such that ordinary users can use and access the block chain for medium to large purchases.” Notice, he never says “small” purchases. We will get back to that in a moment.

The thing with Cobra is that he still insists that Satoshi Nakamoto’s whitepaper should be re-written to accommodate the Blockstream narrative.

Is Core laying the groundwork for a blocksize increase?

Re-writing someone else’s academic paper is so unethical, it is immorality of the highest order in academia. This sort of speech, should be shut down immediately. I believe the tweet was calculated. I also believe the tweet was designed to measure the social response.

Cobra and Theymos are integral to the censorship and BTC narrative. Not only do they control the two biggest forums for Bitcoin, they also hold the most visited site. This is where the information war is won.

Never forget that Theymos famously once stated: “In particular, posts about anything especially emotionally-charged will be deleted unless they introduce some very substantial new ideas about the subject. This includes the max block size debate (any side) and /r/Bitcoin moderation.”

That was the beginning of the censorship campaign. That was also two years ago now. The blocksize was never allowed to be mentioned again. In particular, if you even suggested raising the blocksize, your post would get deleted, and some would get banned. If you were really unlucky, you’d get “shadowbanned” (only you can see anything you post).

Across Twitter and across forums now however, there’s been a change in tone. Various users, suggesting that a blocksize increase may be needed to save Bitcoin from $72 average fees as witnessed in block #500322, are now making their voices heard. The fact that campaigns suggesting these things in such circles is one thing, but the fact that these are actually being “allowed” and “discussed” is an altogether different thing. It is a significant departure of policy.

Heavily censored forum r/bitcoin has suddenly opened channels of discussion of the blocksize recently. The one thing they vowed to never discuss. In fact, a recent discussion on the forum suggested a mild blocksize increase, to keep the fees at $10-$20, the most upvoted comment—which was neither deleted nor censored—said, “I think the world is not black or white. It’s not 1MB decentralized or 1GB centralized.”

What’s happening now is that talk of blocksize is being permitted again. Talk of raising the blocksize is being permitted (even from notable Core members). This will be allowed in order to gain traction until there appears to be sufficient support. At which point CEO of Blockstream Adam Back may come out and tell the world something to the effect of “it appears that there is overwhelming support for a hard fork to increase the blockweight on Segwit (BTC)… although I may not agree that this is the best way forward, I will not however, stand against a consensus ruling.” Sure enough BTC will get the hard fork. In fact it is absolutely necessary for its own survival. $100 fees are not in any way, shape, or form, sustainable.

So what’s the problem? There is none. It’s great news that Core sentiment is changing…  It’s great that they now see hard forks, and blocksize increases as important steps to upgrades, scaling, and maintaining the survivability of BTC. It’s what big blockers have been trying to argue for years. The issue with this dilemma is that it could have all been avoided. If instead of being reactive, had they been a little more proactive and foreseen these troubles that many of us and, most notably, Mike Hearn, saw, Bitcoin may not have needed to split in the first place.

If the BTC hard fork does happen, it throws into question everything concerning the leadership and the credibility of Core, who by their own failure to see the chaos of $50 fees, are being forced to eat their own words.

There’s a consistent theme from the echo chamber however. Every voice requests a “mild” blocksize increase… one that would enable “medium to large” purchases as Cobra stated, and one that would keep fees between $10 and $20. This mild blocksize increase is exactly what Segwit2x would have provided… yet Core were passionately against any such thing. How times have changed – just a little over a month onwards. But the moderate fees are crucial to Blockstream’s business model.

In the interview below, CEO of Blockstream, Adam Back told Laura Shin, and the world, outright why this is the case. Blockstream’s business models must ensure Bitcoin has moderate fees. Not high enough to scare moderate users, but also not low enough to make the below business incentive, void.

Is Core laying the groundwork for a blocksize increase?

The above quote was so outlandish, that some Core aligned fans questioned its authenticity:

Is Core laying the groundwork for a blocksize increase?

Like Cobra, I’m also changing my tune. I wish BTC the best. My frustration will always come from the damage their firm stance has caused, in dividing the community unnecessarily. Bitcoin Cash will continue the big blocker roadmap. We have two competing ideologies. Off-chain every day transaction with a store of value base layer, versus, a frictionless, instant, simple one chain that does the job efficiently. One truth that is now undeniable, is that the main chain cannot be forever restricted to a static variable. Not for big blockers, and apparently not for small blockers either.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true  Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

BCH goes to orbit with 1000% return in 4 months

Bitcoin Cash continues to stir the market with incredible performance and returns on value.

BCH goes to orbit with 1000% return in 4 months
source: coinmarketcap.com

 

It seems it was just yesterday that Bitcoin Cash hard forked (upgraded the Bitcoin network) at Block height 478558. That was in July. After an immediate sell off by a large number of users who failed to see the value and early signs in the coin, Bitcoin Cash levelled out at just above $200 USD in August.

Today, at the time of writing, Bitcoin Cash rises above $2300 USD per coin.

What’s behind the surge?

Numerous factors. I can’t stress the amount of positive news, adoption, and development that has been happening, both behind the scenes and at the forefront of the eco-system.

Trying to sum up the recent wave of developments is mission impossible… (there is literally that much!) but here goes:

• gpuShack has openly stated they will adopt Bitcoin Cash as the primary form of payment.

• BitPay has fully adopted Bitcoin Cash.

• A VISA Bitcoin Cash Debit Card by Bitcoin.com announced coming soon.

• SFOX adopt Bitcoin Cash.

• Announcement of Bitcoin Cash Shuffle will bring privacy and fungibility to BCH.

• Blockchain.info supporting Bitcoin Cash.

• Bitcoin Cash now supported on ATMs including SatoshiPoint and Lamassu.

• Bitcoin.com CEO openly stating he’s sold majority of BTC for BCH.

• Bitcoin.com openly stating full support of Bitcoin Cash.

• Darknet Markets adopt Bitcoin Cash.

• SBI Group publicly backs Bitcoin Cash to be “used globally for daily payments”.

• ViaBTC reopens exchange to support BCH directly.

• Bitcoin.com wallet adds support to Bitcoin Cash.

• Scalability roadmap established by BCH developers.

o Re-enabling removed op_codes

o Bringing back “Colored Coins”.

o A 32MB maxblocksize hardfork in May, supporting 100+ TPS.

There many other points to list above. A wave of merchants are now onboard, and many more will be coming in 2018. Ofcourse, this is just the beginning. The traction that BCH now has, is undeniable, with strong support on all indicators (both financial and non).

But with the slew of good news for BCH, comes a wave of contrasting negative news for BTC on the other hand. The outrageously high fees per transaction has seen various commentators on social media begin to dub the legacy coin as “high fee coin”, or “BT-Fee”.

But the contrast in BTC and BCH brings one glaring point to the fore. The Core devs have failed. If lightning network truly was the solution which would have solved all scalability issues, then it is far too little and far too late. It should have been ready when the time was right. Every business person knows, and in any business, if your product does not meet the demand, you fall behind and wither. And if you fail to meet the timeline on a project, you get sacked. The profound adoption that BCH has seen recently is deserved, but it’s also a gauge on the failings of BTC. The Core devs have failed on several fronts. They’ve failed to galvanise a split community, they’ve failed to show any leadership, they’ve failed to scale, and they’ve failed to deliver a usable product when the timing was essential.

In business, solutions need to be proactively worked on. Not reactively. Not on promises of solutions that are out 18 months ahead…

BCH restores the faith of merchants, and the eco-system, that was failed by BTC developers. Community forums are again abuzz with development ideas, positive energy, and growing enthusiasm. Just like Bitcoin in 2012.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

Bitcoin.com to introduce a VISA Bitcoin Cash debit Card

Roger Ver, CEO of Bitcoin.com sent Bitcoin fans on social media into a frenzy when he tweeted that Bitcoin.com will soon be bringing in a VISA Bitcoin Cash debit card.

At the time of writing, Roger’s tweet received well over 4000 retweets.

Bitcoin Cash is re-enabling an eco-system BTC once had, that is now lost to excessive fees, network congestion, and unreliable confirmations. Some payments, never even end up confirming…

Interestingly, Bitcoin.com is picking things up where BitPay may have…

BitPay has for a while now offered BTC backed VISA Cards to customers, but lately, small purchases have become shockingly questionable. With BTC network fees now nearing an average $30 USD, one would have to think twice before making any sort of small payment. The only incentive right now in holding a BitPay of this nature is that BTC price is still on a big uptrend. For the moment, the hype cycle allows a user to potentially recover any lost gains on fees just with the rising price alone. The real question is, what happens when the market reaches the next stage of the cycle, and we enter a bear market…? Markets move in cycles, particularly Bitcoin, we know this. Sure – the trend is generally up, but we do also have winter periods… The question is what happens then, when a user is losing fees on both ends, the fees, and the dropping price? I dread to ponder.

Bitcoin.com has taken initiative here, and the magnitude of the response on social media is telling. There’s a huge business opportunity here, and Roger Ver’s company will be rewarded.

Question Time:

How does a VISA Bitcoin Cash debit card work?

Although Bitcoin.com has not made the details public, it is safe to assume that it would work no different to BitPay’s Bitcoin card. That is, a simple four step process. Like any debit or credit card, a customer makes the order and activates the card. Next you are able to load up your card with dollars using Bitcoin Cash. These can then be spent anywhere that accept VISA – which is quite literally, most places these days.

So the debit card pays in fiat… doesn’t that go against the Bitcoin Cash vision?

It does, but this is also a necessary transition period. Until the eco-system is mature enough, most merchants won’t want to, nor have the capacity or capability as yet to accept Bitcoin Cash payments. This issue isn’t exclusive to BCH, it affects all cryptos. The VISA Bitcoin Cash debit card enables any holder to pay almost any merchant, by providing a gateway to the fiat world. There is nothing unusual about; today, even with the more mature BTC crypto, many merchants, exchanges and the like, provide a layer to move between fiat and crypto. Only when one currency becomes the dominant, can such tools enable direct payment in their native currency (in this case BCH). Transitional periods require transitional changes. And this is absolutely a step in the right direction.

What does this mean?

Bitcoin Cash has recently been getting wave after wave of positive news. The SBI partnership with nChain to bring BCH to the mainstream, the recent CNBC segment highlighting Bitcoin Cash’s ambitions, and now Roger Ver’s own charge into enabling Bitcoin Cash payments to the mainstream world. Bitcoin Cash is on an undeniable trajectory of mass adoption. While BTC continues to gain on hype, BCH continues to build an incredible foundation, just waiting to catapult to greatness.

Eli Afram

@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true  Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

Bitcoin Cash will scale to be the global currency

The next hardfork for Bitcoin Cash will see a max block size of 32MB, which ends up supporting close to 100 transactions per second. By comparison, Bitcoin Core’s Segwit, can muster 2-3 transactions per second. The scalability roadmap is undeniable. The only deniability comes from those who are either compromised, or from those who are intentionally working to compromise others.

A 32MB max blocksize is one of many stopgaps in the roadmap to reach 1000, 10,000 and eventually 50,000 tps and more.

Often, I find myself debating some who like to falsely claim that “moore’s law doesn’t transcend to other things like bandwidth of communication speed”. Except that it very much does.

The only technology I can think of that doesn’t experience this extreme growth, is battery capacity. Mind you, even that has been increasing over time – just nowhere near as much. But for Bitcoin, batteries are irrelevant.

It’s true that Moore’s law talks specifically about processor speeds, and even more specifically about the number of transistors in a CPU. But the fundamental outlook being, that technology improves over time. It is for this reason, that Moore’s law is often cited for overall technological growth in disciplines related.

We know very well that Moore’s law is a reality. Ironically, when looking at something like HDD space, that grows even more so. This is a little less popularly known as Kryder’s Law.

Not long ago I tweeted the following an image of three graphs, illustrating how Moore’s law, increases over time, exponentially, supporting the BCH roadmap.

These are detailed below:

Source: Wikimedia Commons

First, we have Moore’s Law itself. 120 years of it in fact. Contrary to what some say, Moore’s law hasn’t stopped… The argument that physical limitations will be reached in time is also highly assumptive. If we’ve learnt one thing in the last century, is that technology always finds a way to break boundaries. We know for instance, that quantum computing is a possibility in the future – this alone reaffirms that new ways of doing things, do come into play. Technology evolves, and progresses.

Bitcoin Cash will scale to be the global currency
Source: Wikimedia Commons

The next point of contention looks at storage capacity. This is a non-issue. Some still found it worthwhile to point out that the graph ends at 2010, insinuating that I might be hiding something. Any research into this shows that this is still going up exponentially to this day, without any reason to believe it is slowing down. This growth is what we call Kryder’s law.

Bitcoin Cash will scale to be the global currency
Source: Nielson Norman Group

This leads us to the final point of contention. For years we heard the Core camp spout that bandwidth will not cope with future bigger blocks, and that blocks won’t propagate properly, and that we’ll get orphan blocks… well you get the picture.

The above is known as Nielsen’s law. Nielsen’s law states: “A high-end user’s connection speed grows by 50% per year.” Take out variance, and you have a very accurate measure there.

Today we have over a century worth of data, proving that technology scales, advances, and improves over time. To not at the least, move with Moore’s law, is to actually move backwards. The further technology moves, and one remains stationary, the further behind one is left.

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) embraces scalability, and it embraces technological growth. It doesn’t remain tied to an absolute position. To do so, is to remain in the dark ages.

The last 4 months for Bitcoin Cash have truly been phenomenal. Development has been far more energised in the last 4 months, than Core have been in the past 3 years. Businesses and merchants are being re-engaged, the ecosystem is exploding into growth. Volume and liquidity has been soaring on the charts, and the frightening thing is, this is just the beginning. With the plan to re-enable dormant op_codes, smart contract functionality is on the horizon again, in a very computationally flexible way. Bitcoin Cash can do what Ethereum does, without the scalability woes, and without the gas complexity. The future is bright for BCH, and I cannot wait for 2018.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.