Other Coins - Price & Trading topic


Chris Pacia, lead backend developer at Open Bazaar debunks the idea that Bitcoin Cash can’t scale massively on-chain without centralization:


Excellent link @MerkleTree thank you!

Bitcoin Cash will win out, I don’t really have any doubt about that. It may just take a couple of years to bleed the value out of other projects (namely Bitcoin Legacy).

The fact that I think it will take that long just highlights how powerful contolling the narrative can be. I’m happy that I’ve had the opportunity to (knowingly :joy:) experience a censorship campaign pushing an agenda, it has been fascinating.


I heard about DADI, when guys were saing about some partnership with RaiBlocks. But than they found, that part of whitepapers is copy and paste from SONM:

There focus is more like decentralized servers or clouds.

EDIT: They deleted or edited almost all, but with some research you will find again.



Agreed. Faster, cheaper transactions with the hash power of Bitcoin miners will mean Bitcoin Cash sucks value out of Bitcoin Core and Litecoin. The bigger question for me is what happens when all the op codes that Core BTC devs disabled are re-enabled on BCH this year. That will make it possible to write smart contracts on BCH, and if ETH runs into scaling problems, I think BCH will also bleed value out of ETH.


Casper Hard Fork should give Ethereum a large-scale network scalability. Another reason why I think Ethereum may surpass BTC this year.


May I ask what makes you so certain the lightening network currently running in beta will fail?

Would you be kind of enough to tell me why Adreas Antonopoulous can be so wrong when he is probably the most respected figure in the crypto space? He explains LN in this latest podcast:

At the very least could you tell me your concerns with the LN?

The way I understand it, is that if the lightening network continues to grow, is successful and starts to be adopted, it will probably take value away from BCH. So I am obviously interested in your views because so far the more technical people have been on the LN / 2nd layer solution in the debate, but I regard most on this forum as being very understanding of the technicals, so would appreciate your views (with keeping the debate respectful - unlike what we see on r/bitcoin and r/btc) :slight_smile:

Also, have you seen this link that shows all the lightening network? It is growing very fast.




I think that most of coins based for paying is going to be fast and cheep. So it is about how long we will wait, before they make it.
With working LN there is not big reason for BTC loose some value, but more like small grove. It is still no.1 currency with most exchange pairs.
If anyone invested a lot in some currency, than they always think, that their coin will succeed, but if you are not checking daily all coins, it is very hard to say which one will be next no. 1.


It’s impossible to know which will succeed.

If lightning works well & is adopted by users & merchants, BTC is still in with a good chance of maintaining and possibly recovering its previous lead. But if people don’t use lightning, without a blocksize increase BTC is doomed for general use.

If BTC doesn’t maintain its lead, BCH and ETH are in great positions to take things forward.

My worry is that because any early adopters of Bitcoin as a currency have been burned by seeing their business models destroyed by high fees, few will be willing to trust that the same won’t happen with ETH or BCH in the future.

I feel that the long term winner is likely to be a technology that enables almost limitless scaling & manages to get some degree of mainstream adoption.

The SAFE network may be in with a chance of achieving this first given the slow pace of progress towards truly scalable & decentralised crypto currency, and SAFE’s appeal beyond crypto enthusiasts.

It’s certainly early days, and it’s exciting seeing this new technology sector emerge and develop, even if the tribalism between groups who have differing visions / understandings gets a bit annoying :smiley:


There are several challenges to the Lightning Network.

  • First, it requires 3 on-chain transactions to secure, open and close. Are people really going to pay $30-$60 in transaction fees to make micro transactions?
  • Second, Lightning takes fees away from miners, an economic disincentive and an impediment to increase the hash rate and therefore the security of the chain.
  • Third, Bitcoin (Cash) is a near complete graph. Propagation of transactions reaches all miners in 1.32 hops. 99.8% distribution in 2 seconds. Lightning is designed as a mesh, where propagation has to hop from node to node. It won’t compete with a near complete graph.

Ryan X Charles implemented a version of Lightning on yours.org. The site now uses Bitcoin Cash, so he’s been able to make a direct comparison. Here’s what he has to say:


His arguments in written form can be found here:

May I ask in turn what you have against scaling on-chain with bigger blocks? Why complicate things when the simple solution works as evidenced by low fees and fast confirmations on BCH, especially as the common argument that this leads to less decentralization doesn’t seem to be correct?


Lightning and the other tech coming out of the BTC space makes more sense to me personally for several reasons.

Can’t just keep making blocks bigger and bigger as adoption increases. That’s both unsustainable and just kinda lazy :stuck_out_tongue:

A healthy solution employs multiple tactics together to receive multiple benefits. In terms of the LN:

No ofc not and you know that :stuck_out_tongue: there’s so many solutions for this even right now, and also in the pipeline. Allowing transactions to flow through a lightning channel instead of directly on a chain is huge and that itself lowers fees ($30-$60 is already long gone today, and decreasing each day) by lowering tx competition / clogging. There’s even swaps where ppl can pay BTC LN fees in LTC or ETH to reduce the tx cost insanely, until the benefits of LN & other things reduce BTC tx fees to be competitive.

(That’s literally like 3 LN answers. I bet in even a month there will be more. So much innovation here. Can’t imagine replacing so much innovation with just 2mb blocks etc :anger: )


Sorry, I don’t understand why. It was working really well until the 1MB limit was imposed. Then we saw BTC market dominance drop sharply. Coincidence?

You still need to make on-chain transactions to open and close channels. The cost of those has fallen recently, because transaction volumes on BTC have themselves fallen. Not a healthy trend.

I was actually on the fence about this until I heard, of all people, David Irvine get asked the question. Apologies if I put words in his mouth, but he said something like “I don’t like magic numbers”. In other words, no developers, no matter how smart, are smart enough to decide on what is the optimum block size. So let’s not have a centrally planned (magic) number and just let the market (miners) decide without all the unnecessary complication of unproven off-chain solutions that destroy the economic incentives to mine blocks.


I hope it can be both.

If lightning networks become useful, Bitcoin cash & others should adopt them. Combined with lower fees they should be even more useful than on Bitcoin.

If however they are not adopted, Bitcoin cash has done the sensible thing & removed the stupidly low blocksize limit that needlessly made transactions very expensive & destroyed early crypto adoption for transactional use.

I can see why people want on and off chain solutions, but what I don’t understand is accepting terrible performance now because on chain scaling may not be sufficient for all future scaling.


I would sell all my BCH for more MaidSafeCoin and ETH if LN was implemented on Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin is a (near) complete graph. Almost all mining nodes (the only nodes that count), connect to all other mining nodes. Each node is a average of 1.32 hops away from every other node. This make for highly efficient propagation. LN is a mesh network. That means you either have to solve the horribly complicated Traveling Salesman problem to make routing efficient, or you create massive centralized hubs that many other nodes connect to. Not exactly the decentralized network LN is supposed to promote, in fact the very opposite.


I haven’t dug into Lightning Network myself so don’t have a view, but I read this yesterday which seems to point out some fairly big drawbacks with LN:


This is where your BCH argument breaks down, I feel, because BCH has hard limits that are decided on by miners just like BTC. It’s 8mb. Magic


Lightening Network=Corrupt banking cartels (running nodes), Know-your-customer BS, transactions off the block chain (an anathema to bitcoin), potential for censorship, etc.


It’s not. 8MB (soon to be 32MB) is the maximum block size. Those aren’t magic numbers. Miners decide on the block size within those limits and when/if blocks start to fill up, the cap is raised again. 1TB blocks are going to be tested this year. The market decides on the optimal block size in BCH.


I think you failing to understand that anyone will be able to run a LN node and the node itself will not know who sent the transaction or where it is going. LN is using Onion Routing which is used by Tor and the nodes will not have control over the transactions.