Thanks for adding nuance. Back then, during the debate, Lightning Network was pretty universally referred to as a sidechain as opposed to a "second layer" or "off chain."
Blockstream was heavily lobbying for small blocks, iirc. It's been years since I read about Epsteins involvement, but I'm sure you'll find it if you want dig.
Bitcoin Cash (aka just the original Bitcoin as it was designed by Satoshi) has transactions that are instant and fees that are pennies or less without needing another layer.
The block size of Bitcoin Cash makes running a node increasingly difficult due to the IBD. Given the same number of blocks, BCH would require approximately 16-32x as much hard drive space, which would also make it incredibly time consuming in areas of low bandwidth, which would de-incentivize node running and therefore, decentralization.
Satoshi discovered a wonderful thing, but he is not the end all, be all regarding Bitcoin. He made many mistakes along the way and with the help of other freedom-minded cypherpunks, was able to solve a lot of problems.
I'm not talking about miners. I'm talking about nodes. I'm also referring to internet bandwidth. There are still issues in non-first world countries.
You're free to run whichever version of Bitcoin that you want, but it's clear where developers see the most utility in the present and foreseeable future. There is a reason The Blocksize Wars ended the way they did.
I also don't see any large banks, hedge funds, or intelligent investors placing their bets with Bitcoin Cash. There is good reason for that too.
There is a reason The Blocksize Wars ended the way they did.
To impose a degree of centralization onto a previously decentralized network
I also don't see any large banks, hedge funds, or intelligent investors placing their bets with Bitcoin Cash.
Let's acknowledge that the point of Bitcoin was to destroy those institutions. They're just embracing the coin with the largest market cap. If Bitcoin weren't hijacked, they would be embracing pure, decentralized, big-blocked Bitcoin.
It was obvious back then that the shady team were the small blockers. The Big Blockers were definitely more liberty focused. As someone who has followed bitcoin since 2010, I can say that those in favor of layer 2 scaling are not the same liberty-loving breed as the OG's.
I'm not recommending that any reader should buy Bitcoin Cash. I'm saying that without a propaganda campaign that changed bitcoin, there'd have been no need to create Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin, however. It's just a copy of what Bitcoin was supposed to be.
You're telling me that in 2024, the average consumer electronic device can't handle downloading and processing more than 1MB of data every 10 minutes? That is less than a floppy disk and the average YouTube video takes more bandwidth.
And running a node does fuck all for the network if it's not contributing hashrate. The only reason to run a node without mining is if you run a business where verifying transactions is mission critical. The average person does NOT need to run their own node. This is part of the small-blocker narrative that makes absolutely no sense when you think about it.
I believe the Epstein connection was to Joichi Ito who created DCI, which was involved with helping Bitcoin Foundation when they were low on funds.
Not sure he is tied to Litecoin, but that does not mean Lighting Network itself is not yet another controlled operation. Long back when litecoin was all the rage on social media, it seemed like there was a suspicious concerted push. I wont be surprised if some links to the Cabal get exposed at some point.
Litecoin and lightning network are not related. Litecoin is basically a clone of BTC with more supply and faster blocks. LN is a secondary network layer that runs on top of BTC (I think LTC gets used to test out new ideas before implementing them in BTC, so it has its own version of LN).
Thanks for adding nuance. Back then, during the debate, Lightning Network was pretty universally referred to as a sidechain as opposed to a "second layer" or "off chain."
Blockstream was heavily lobbying for small blocks, iirc. It's been years since I read about Epsteins involvement, but I'm sure you'll find it if you want dig.
Bitcoin Cash (aka just the original Bitcoin as it was designed by Satoshi) has transactions that are instant and fees that are pennies or less without needing another layer.
The block size of Bitcoin Cash makes running a node increasingly difficult due to the IBD. Given the same number of blocks, BCH would require approximately 16-32x as much hard drive space, which would also make it incredibly time consuming in areas of low bandwidth, which would de-incentivize node running and therefore, decentralization.
Satoshi discovered a wonderful thing, but he is not the end all, be all regarding Bitcoin. He made many mistakes along the way and with the help of other freedom-minded cypherpunks, was able to solve a lot of problems.
Hard drives have fallen in cost substantially since segwit and will continue to fall into the future. Really not an issue for any serious miner.
I'm not talking about miners. I'm talking about nodes. I'm also referring to internet bandwidth. There are still issues in non-first world countries.
You're free to run whichever version of Bitcoin that you want, but it's clear where developers see the most utility in the present and foreseeable future. There is a reason The Blocksize Wars ended the way they did.
I also don't see any large banks, hedge funds, or intelligent investors placing their bets with Bitcoin Cash. There is good reason for that too.
To impose a degree of centralization onto a previously decentralized network
Let's acknowledge that the point of Bitcoin was to destroy those institutions. They're just embracing the coin with the largest market cap. If Bitcoin weren't hijacked, they would be embracing pure, decentralized, big-blocked Bitcoin.
It was obvious back then that the shady team were the small blockers. The Big Blockers were definitely more liberty focused. As someone who has followed bitcoin since 2010, I can say that those in favor of layer 2 scaling are not the same liberty-loving breed as the OG's.
I'm not recommending that any reader should buy Bitcoin Cash. I'm saying that without a propaganda campaign that changed bitcoin, there'd have been no need to create Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin, however. It's just a copy of what Bitcoin was supposed to be.
Here's a random article about it that even mentions Epstein's name for anyone following along. No idea how accurate it is. https://medium.com/coinmonks/lightning-network-the-trojan-horse-of-the-crypt-industry-f26e3cc8cd46
You're telling me that in 2024, the average consumer electronic device can't handle downloading and processing more than 1MB of data every 10 minutes? That is less than a floppy disk and the average YouTube video takes more bandwidth.
And running a node does fuck all for the network if it's not contributing hashrate. The only reason to run a node without mining is if you run a business where verifying transactions is mission critical. The average person does NOT need to run their own node. This is part of the small-blocker narrative that makes absolutely no sense when you think about it.
I believe the Epstein connection was to Joichi Ito who created DCI, which was involved with helping Bitcoin Foundation when they were low on funds.
Not sure he is tied to Litecoin, but that does not mean Lighting Network itself is not yet another controlled operation. Long back when litecoin was all the rage on social media, it seemed like there was a suspicious concerted push. I wont be surprised if some links to the Cabal get exposed at some point.
Litecoin and lightning network are not related. Litecoin is basically a clone of BTC with more supply and faster blocks. LN is a secondary network layer that runs on top of BTC (I think LTC gets used to test out new ideas before implementing them in BTC, so it has its own version of LN).
Ah, thanks for the clarification.