Protocol development does not bring adoption. change my mind.
Poor protocols often underpin popular services. Always burns 'em in the end.
but a ‘good’ protocol is good enough. I think businesses value stability and network effect over protocol perfection.
I agree with you. Protocol development is necessary for security and scaling, but it doesn't bring any adoption. What Bitcoin Cash needs currently is more adoption, more people willing
| to use it as money (including holding it).
yes, but I hear people talk about scaling like it’s a pressing and imminent problem, like 2015. Is BCH not sufficiently scalable for the time being?
The reason I heard from Amaury and others is that big changes - such as dynamic block size - have to be implemented early because protocol ossifies with time, like BTC did. I don't
| disagree with that, although I would like to see stability in the near future (we really need that).
Likewise, security. LTC survives with minimal, if any, protocol development.
Recent events have hurt BCH. To blame it all on a ‘bad actor’ is too simplistic.
Excellent challenge ! Thank you.
Tell that to all the people
who adopted BCH
because of Memo.Cash and Read.Cash and now Member.Cash,
a protocol development no one else dared.
Technically correct - the best kind of correct! ;)
But here i am specifically referring to BCH base level protocol itself. Building protocols on top of that e.g. memo protocol
Another excellent question to explore,
but any direct answers may be much less obvious.
Such a question is well worth investigating.
History has answers buried somewhere...
| definitely *does* bring adoption.
Ethereum became big because of smart contract capabilities
Ethereum became big because of things built *using* its smart contract capabilities. Past a particular point, protocol development seems to offer only diminishing returns.
We don't have those capabilities even if someone wants to build it. You can't do governance token here for example or anything complicated
‘Don't go chasing waterfalls...’
..is it worth *competing* with ETH on this? ETH cannot compete [currently] with BCH on micropayments. Play to our strengths...?
..besides, there’s a limit to what smart contract capability can achieve without compromising speed. Might not a layer 2/side chain achieve more (than even ETH) in this regard?
I'm actually thinking about a layer 2 for smart contracts which doesn't require protocol change. It's a very interesting idea but too expensive to implement here.
Yes you have good points. I think about it a lot that what are BCH strengths that can amplify users utility more than just payment. I think SLP and NFTs are the answer.
But BCH protocol limit possibilities a lot. Many ideas which leads to community votes doing something (managing the supply, algo, etc) are kinda impossible.
On a side note, i seem to remember we debated something similar here a year ago, except from opposite positions. Mine was 'BCH needs to pursue this [smart tokenisation etc]' and yours
| was 'It's a distraction, Ethereum is way a head in that '.
Hahaha was it? I think it was before DeFi change my mind. I just think if you can't compete with that you will be removed. People put their money were highest utility is.
I sent for an order without enough gwei, I’m
screwed.
Hype does....either through lies or truth.
You both are fucking idiots that do not understand how to expand the network,
Oh please oh wise one who is so learned in the ways of expansion, how may we so increase the value of our bags?
Lol, sorry, for being rude earlier.
