Create account

replied 2114d
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 2114d
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 2114d
In my unhumble opinion, calls to change the POW or decrease block times are attempts to infiltrate BCH & damage it from the inside.
replied 2114d
That's Coretard level retardation.
replied 2114d
I don't necessarily think that's your motivation, but I think that's the origin of the arguments.
replied 2114d
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 2114d
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 2114d
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 2114d
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 2114d
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.