Create account

replied 1670d
That's what you get when you have only 1-2% of the SHA256 network....SHA256 miners choose and secure BTC.
replied 1670d
If you only have a small group of miners on your network then one mining OP going down or going back to BTC means no or slow blocks on BCH.
replied 1670d
A better DAA can fix that. It is a control-engineering problem that is entirely solvable even in an environment such as this.
replied 1670d
Lipstick on a pig. BCH needs a POW algorithm change.
replied 1670d
I develop for a BCH fork (DeVault) and we use the LWMA algo.. It's worked out well for us and we experience much much larger variations in our hash rates due to being a micro-cap.
replied 1670d
We're still a sha256 coin though.. (LWMA is a difficulty algorithm)
replied 1670d
How would that not be vulnerable in the same way? You're trying to predict what people will do rather than solve the technical problem I think.
replied 1670d
The community is big enough to defend the network.

Having 1-2% of the total SHA256 hashrate is not a technical problem, but it's a huge systemic risk.
replied 1670d
In my unhumble opinion, calls to change the POW or decrease block times are attempts to infiltrate BCH & damage it from the inside.
replied 1670d
That's Coretard level retardation.
replied 1670d
I don't necessarily think that's your motivation, but I think that's the origin of the arguments.
replied 1670d
This kind of ignorance lead to the failure of BTC. Their propaganda was that "every attempt to rise the blocksize limit (direct on-chain capacity increase) is an attack on #Bitcoin".
replied 1670d
My, aren't you saucy today. Well, think what you wish. The block size limit was a hack to protect the fledgling network that was no longer necessary, so I never would argue to keep it.
replied 1670d
Please come back when you improved your reading comprehension. Most people believed that rising on-chain capacity is an attack. this is why we are on a minority fork with little hash.
replied 1670d
Ultimately, most of the big decisions from the original bitcoin were good. You still haven't explained how a different POW would prevent the same problems. I suspect you cannot.
replied 1670d
What same problems? it would instantly make the network a lot stronger and better proposition for investors/users. It would enable a positive feedback loop imo.
replied 1670d
No, it doesn't. What BCH needs is more adoption and price and hashrate will come with it.
replied 1670d
Clueless.
replied 1670d
BCH has so little hash behind it that it discourages adoption in itself.
replied 1670d
Meanwhile, I think it's apparent that the community is big enough to throw enough CPU/GPU miners behind a new algo to liberate and defend the network.
replied 1670d
Personally, I would deploy 192 cpu cores and/or 30 GPUs if it was changed.
replied 1670d
replied 1670d
Yes. That is one valid proposal :-)