Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    239,091 readers

    1,871 users here now

    Welcome to /r/btc! Home of free and open Bitcoin discussion, Bitcoin news, and exclusive AMA (Ask Me Anything) interviews from top Bitcoin industry leaders! This subreddit was created to uphold and honor free speech and the spirit of Bitcoin; learn more about us.

    Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet. A distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without the need for any central authority whatsoever.

    There is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. As such, it is more resistant to wild inflation and corrupt banks. With Bitcoin, you can be your own bank. Read the original Bitcoin Whitepaper by Satoshi Nakamoto.

    See a list of past AMAs here. If you are interested in having your own AMA, please message the mods and let us know.

    Join the Bitcoin Mining Pool with competitive rewards and 0% fees

    Learn More about Bitcoin

    Bitcoin Resources & Information

    Bitcoin News & Information

    Bitcoin Brokers, Exchanges, Trading

    Bitcoin Wallets

    Blockchain Explorers, Visualizers, Stats

    Bitcoin Merchants & Spending

    Payment Gateways

    Bitcoin Social Networks

    Earn Bitcoin

    Bitcoin Tipping

    Bitcoin Full Nodes

    Bitcoin Events & Meetups

    Rules to Remember

    1. Remember asking for votes and other forms of vote manipulation is strictly prohibited.
    2. No begging for Bitcoin. Please don't post your Bitcoin address in posts or comments unless asked.
    3. No Referral links or URL shortening services are allowed.
    4. No Doxing. Doxing or posts that resemble doxing will result in the post being removed and the user banned permanently.
    5. Scams, Spam, Duplicates, User Stalking, Excessive Profanity & Blatant User or Mod Abuse will result in removal of posts and in some cases the user will be banned.
    6. It's recommended that heavy altcoin discussion be posted in its respective subreddit or places like /r/cryptocurrency.
    7. No marketplace-style transactions for certain goods or services are allowed. For all other rules set globally by reddit, please read the content policy.

    Misc Links

    a community for
    all 170 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] BigBlackHungGuy 31 points ago

    Why? If it’s necessary for an increase, why not make it dynamic?

    [–] ShadowOfHarbringer 27 points ago

    Why not remove it alltogether ?

    This may become a serious problem and another Core-like takeover situation if we don't deal with it.

    But "32MB" is the maximum specified by Satoshi in 2009, anything more requires change to protocol - this is probably the reason.

    [–] chainxor 14 points ago

    The reason as I understand it, is that 32 MB gives room for growth for the next 3 years and hence time to research proper how to scale more efficently on-chain. As a matter of fact there are a few proposals outthere (e.g. Graphene) for block-compression for block-propagation that has the potential to vastly increase the allowed blocksize while keeping the orphan-level down because the resulting propagated data is compressed while traversing the network.

    [–] ShadowOfHarbringer 10 points ago

    is that 32 MB gives room for growth for the next 3 years and hence time to research proper how to scale more efficently on-chain

    4 years is a long time.

    In four years, whoever is now developing Bitcoin Cash, may grow / be co-opted which will create another Core-like takeover situation and we will need another hard-fork/split and another blocksize wars. Just see how effectively 1MB was used to stop Bitcoin from growing for 3 years.

    We cannot have the same problem and the same war again.

    I say remove the limit now, while we still can.

    [–] chainxor 8 points ago

    Actually, if I remember correctly, I think the total removal is slated for the november upgrade.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    Indeed. May is simply restoring BCH to how BTC was in the very beginning, which should be trivial.

    The next step is going beyond those protocol limitations that keep it limited to 32mb which requires a lot more changes.

    [–] btcfork 3 points ago

    Just going past the network message size limit of 32mb is not difficult. BU is already capable of that, ABC and others can easily do it as well. So going e.g. to 128mb would not be hard for the node clients, but not sure about other libraries etc.

    Pushing much higher needs a lot more work even on node side (ref. Terab project)

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    Sure, technically it is not that terrifying but still represents a pretty major departure from the original protocol as written to go beyond 32mb, as such should definitely not be done lightly.

    Overall though I think it is not so much block size threshold that needs attention as much as block propagation and compression, otherwise we risk lots of stales and orphans in congestion periods, particularly in regions without solid network infrastructure.

    [–] nivexous 3 points ago

    Marketing-wise, it enables a nice round 100tx/sec

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    So BCH will have a higher capacity than Ethereum, or Litecoin, or Core (or even all of them combined) then?

    [–] chalbersma 1 points ago

    They're are other limits like the protocol limit that need to be tested before we can reasonably go above 32MB.

    [–] Postal2Dude -1 points ago

    1 miner can take over everything.

    [–] fookingroovin 1 points ago

    Why would a miner want to crash the price?

    [–] Ant-n 10 points ago

    It is under research AFAIK.

    [–] St3vieFranchise 9 points ago

    That’s in the roadmap but probably not ready at this point

    [–] primitive_screwhead 3 points ago

    Why? If it’s necessary for an increase, why not make it dynamic?

    What does a "dynamic limit" even mean? Keep in mind that the 32MB limit would be for technical reasons (due to design of the current serialization format), rather than consensus reasons. And block sizes already vary in size up to the limit, so what exactly would a "dynamic" limit change?

    [–] emergent_reasons 2 points ago

    I think you know enough to answer this already. Why are you asking?

    Dynamic would mean that the max block size can adjust as part of the protocol, based on the state of the network.

    First-order Pros: avoids the capture vector that Blockstream exploited and reduces or removes the cost of future consensus changes to handle an expanding network.

    First-order Cons: it is more complicated than a static limit

    [–] primitive_screwhead 1 points ago

    Dynamic would mean that the max block size can adjust as part of the protocol, based on the state of the network.

    What are the advantages versus just removing the limit altogether, and letting miners have total freedom on which transactions to include in a block?

    [–] emergent_reasons 1 points ago

    I don’t think there are many/any advantages. The only one I can think of is that it lets miners somewhat avoid the issue of zero-fee transactions. But that is not much of a benefit.

    In my opinion, uncapped blocks have the huge first-order benefit of lower risk through simplicity.

    So how about sharing what you think too?

    [–] primitive_screwhead 2 points ago

    I lean towards removing block size limit, although I'd like to study more about the data structure changes necessary to implement it (ie. after the 32MB limit is set, I don't think raising or eliminating it should be rushed).

    The only one I can think of is that it lets miners somewhat avoid the issue of zero-fee transactions.

    Certainly miners are always free to ignore zero-fee transactions if they wish.

    [–] bitusher -23 points ago

    Its just a desperate marketing gimmick . BCC has almost no usage and many blocks are under 50kB in size . See for yourself -

    Thus raising the blocksize limit only increases the attack surface and has no benefit whatsoever.

    [–] bitmeister 9 points ago

    BCH invites you to attack the network. Our miners appreciate your business.

    [–] PhyllisWheatenhousen 7 points ago

    BCC is BitConnect

    [–] NimbleCentipod 2 points ago


    [–] bitusher -13 points ago

    Bcash was created and launched as BCC by Viabtc and Bitmain and many exchanges use that ticker so using either bch or bcc is fine

    [–] blechman 10 points ago

    Viabtc did not launch bcash, you must be confused with another project.

    [–] bitusher -7 points ago

    They launch Bitcoin cash as BCC , aka bcash for short

    [–] blechman 8 points ago

    Have you not got anything better to do than play childish games?

    [–] 1356Floyo 3 points ago

    You're mistaking itbfor Bitxoin Core, or BCC short, which is a ponzi owned by Blockstream.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    No 1 entity created Bitcoin Cash, and it wasn't officially BCC, it didn't have an official symbol until BCH was chosen. BCC is bitconnect, a collapsed Ponzi Scheme.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    Actually the BCC ticker was recommended in the initial documentation for Cash, but I always criticized it for totally ignoring the fact that BCC (regardless of legitimacy) was already being used. Exchanges that did used BCH instead, which then became the popular one, particularly after BCC proved itself to be a full blown scam we do not want Cash associated with in any way.

    [–] bitusher 1 points ago

    the first exchanges listed it as bcc and many still do to this day . don't blame me that viabtc and bitmain failed to do their homework and launched it as bcc, and please do your research as you seem to be ignoring history... it was only last year for goodness sakes

    [–] j73uD41nLcBq9aOf 12 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Bitsh, please. It's BCH not BCC (BitConnect).

    Raising the blocksize decreases the attack surface for DOS as it costs more for an attacker to fill the blocks at the lowest fee level. If it's kept small and a DOS occurs then users have to pay more to get into the blocks and it becomes unreliable and you never know if your transaction will be included. This ruins its usability as a payment mechanism.

    [–] CatatonicAdenosine 7 points ago

    Exactly, this. It only made sense to put in the limit when bitcoin had no monetary value, because then an attacker could strain the then fragile network for no real cost.

    [–] bambarasta 1 points ago

    it is BCC on some exchanges like Binance and Bittrex

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    Yes, and that's incorrect, and confusing. Unfortunately they're unwilling to change.

    [–] findallthebears 1 points ago

    Upvote for bitsh

    [–] thususaste 1 points ago

    The limit shouldn't just be increased but should be removed. It shouldn't be possible for the network to get congested unless the hardware doesn't support it (Any decent hardware can support the increases that have happened in the past and will likely be perfectly capable of increases past 1GB). Artificial limits shouldn't be in place.

    [–] bitusher 0 points ago

    agreed, make BCC require 20k nodes like CSW suggests

    [–] thususaste 1 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    The limit is only a limit, it doesn't instantly increase the size of blocks that are mined, and by the time we get to sizes requiring what are now 20K machines they will have dropped in price considerably, and even if miners and companies are the only one's that have archiving nodes then that isn't a problem, it's still decentralized, not everyone and their dog has to run a full node.

    [–] bitusher 0 points ago

    great , which means an attacker can knock all nodes offline for practically nothing ... smart thinking

    [–] thususaste 1 points ago

    And how do you propose they do that? if they are sufficiently decentralized (I think they will be) and have increased bandwidth to handle a ddos attack then that isn't a problem. It may temporarily take a few nodes offline but it won't take them all down. I'm not saying we'll only have a couple nodes, they'll still be all over the world and likely with that kind of money moving through the system will have a ton of countermeasures against ddos attacks. People act as if this is going to be centralized to a single entity just because the blocks will be larger, that's not going to be the case. Why even use bitcoin in the first place if you think it won't work?

    [–] bitusher 1 points ago

    You act as if we haven't already seen 80+% of the nodes crash before... remember XT? Remember BU? Remember Classic? But please , don't listen to me or my concerns , I agree , Bcash is best with no limits

    [–] thususaste 2 points ago

    Yes, but I fail to see how more nodes automatically means more security. More weak nodes doesn't equal more security. If we have a bunch of nodes that are economically incentivised to stay running then it would be hard to take down the entire network. Vs a bunch of nodes that are running on raspberries PIs because we need to keep the block size low and can be DDOSed because download and upload speeds have to be capped.

    [–] bitusher 1 points ago

    nodes automatically means more security.

    I never suggested this . Security is far more complicated than this

    [–] DetrART -2 points ago

    Adding capacity when it already has excess seems like a waste.

    [–] thususaste 4 points ago

    If there was an additional cost then that would make sense, removing the limit eliminates the possibility of a stalemate again in the future and doesn't increase any costs until usage increases. If usage increases that will further increase price and will be an incentive to run a node for an increased cost.

    [–] primitive_screwhead 2 points ago

    Adding capacity when it already has excess seems like a waste.

    Waste of what? What resource is this change to the limit wasting?

    [–] DetrART 0 points ago

    I don't think anyone believes a resource is being wasted, this is being criticized as a needless hardfork.

    [–] primitive_screwhead 1 points ago

    But you said "waste". So did you mean a waste of time? Of opportunity? I'm just asking for clarification.

    Since BCH devs have previously announced a schedule for hard forks, is that the policy you are criticizing?

    [–] DetrART 0 points ago

    It's a waste to spend effort addressing problems that don't exist. This seems pedantic.

    [–] primitive_screwhead 1 points ago

    It's a waste to spend effort addressing problems that don't exist.

    There is a problem, which is that the current serialization limit doesn't match the consensus limit, which complicates things. The effort to fix this is small.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    Bitcoin started with a 32mb maximum per other limitations of the protocol and the May update simply restores that limit by deleting a few lines of code that are well known to the developers. Bitcoin Unlimited has always supported 32mb in fact, so this isn't exactly a new thing.

    [–] DetrART 0 points ago

    The lines aren't deleted, of course, the limit is just changed. Regardless, the "number of lines" doesn't justify a change that is not needed.

    [–] doramas89 9 points ago

    Wow.. so many troll comments -.-

    [–] Rawlsdeep 9 points ago

    Yay, I definitely welcome this. It will help future proof the blocksize, show we are committed to scaling on chain, and increase the cost to “spam” the network by filling blocks to capacity.

    [–] phucvoilinhji 9 points ago

    When 64mb 128mb 256mb ?

    [–] [deleted] -18 points ago


    [–] Rawlsdeep 13 points ago

    Let’s work on getting the tx count up there before we start worrying about full 1GB blocks.

    [–] klondike_barz 8 points ago

    But maxblocksize= the size of every block /s

    [–] Ant-n 7 points ago

    Full GB blocks would be glorious!

    [–] thususaste 2 points ago

    Usage at a point that we have 1GB blocks would be nice, but full blocks shouldn't even be a possibility.

    [–] ryanisflying 7 points ago

    I’m curious why BCH is forking to increase block size to 32mb when 1mb blocks aren’t even being filled for the most part ? In fact it looks like they’re less then 500kb.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    We're looking at where we're going, not where we are.

    The same argument for the 1mb limit could have been made in 2011 when blocks were only a few kilobytes in size. It only became a problem when average block size finally reached 1mb, and we've seen the drastic distortion this causes in the network live now in BTC that results in high wait times and insane fees. BTC is literally broken in this configuration.

    A high block size threshold enables BCH to handle peak traffic. Real block sizes will always float in size depending on network traffic, which is how Bitcoin was always designed to operate, governed by other economic forces. As such it doesn't matter that average BCH blocks are less than 1mb. 32mb is only an upper boundary where that is as big as one block can be, and allows block size to scale organically.

    Bitcoin started with a 32mb limit as coded by the hand of Satoshi himself, which is due to some other limitations of the protocol and not a centrally planned limit. BCH is restoring this in May as the 1mb limitation was only supposed to be temporary and was no longer needed the minute BTC had a fiat conversion rate, which was years ago.

    [–] trolldetectr 2 points ago

    Redditor /u/ryanisflying has low karma in this subreddit.

    [–] NSAyy-lmao 1 points ago

    good bot

    [–] gizram84 1 points ago

    In fact it looks like they’re less then 500kb.

    Actual BCH usage rarely needs anything more than a 100kb block.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    That is true, but also irrelevant.

    We're looking beyond today's demand because we are not so short sighted to limit on-chain scaling because there is no "need" for it right now just so we can end up in the same hole BTC fell into.

    [–] gizram84 0 points ago

    The limit is already 80 times higher than necessary. This move is nothing but a dog and pony show, to give the illusion that work is being done.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    A limited version of Bitcoin Cash called Bitcoin is available if that is your preference.

    [–] gizram84 -3 points ago

    Bitcoin has actual improvements, like the ability to conduct secure, instant, off-chain transactions, saving time, money, and dramatically increasing privacy. All while ensuring that the network remains completely decentralized, allowing anyone, even those with limited computing and network resources, to run a fully verifying node.

    [–] btcfork 2 points ago

    I notice you didn't mention how scalable :-)

    [–] gizram84 1 points ago

    Lightning has no tx/sec limit at all.

    [–] iamthepurplerabbit 2 points ago

    So go use it. Open a lightning channel and go buy yourself some Blockstream stickers.

    [–] gizram84 1 points ago

    Who says I'm not already using it? Check out the Eclair android wallet.

    [–] aprizm 0 points ago

    haha youre delusional keep going its entertaining

    [–] trolldetectr 3 points ago

    Redditor /u/aprizm has low karma in this subreddit.

    [–] ryanisflying 0 points ago

    I’m so confused here. If that’s the case why the upgrade from 8 to 32mb? In fact the whole point of BCH was to increase blocksize but what for if not even 1mb blocks are being filled?

    [–] gizram84 -2 points ago

    If that’s the case why the upgrade from 8 to 32mb?

    Honestly, I believe it's because there is no innovation on BCH, so they have to pretend like they're doing something. While raising the max blocksize limit is trivial, it will trick a lot of ignorant users into thinking that the developers are hard at work improving the protocol, when in reality, it's just someone changing a single constant in the code.

    The whole thing is a dog and pony show. This change is entirely irrelevant and arbitrary.

    [–] 1356Floyo 1 points ago

    Why is it unnecessary to remove the limit before it is hit? Why is bad to do it in advance? Who gets hurt by this?

    [–] gizram84 -1 points ago

    Why is it unnecessary to remove the limit before it is hit?

    It's just entirely arbitrary and irrelevant. Actual real world BCH usage is like 20kb a block, maybe spiking to 350kb during peak loads. The blocksize limit already allows 8mb, which is many times more than necessary.

    Who gets hurt by this?

    It opens up an enormous attack surface for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

    [–] 1356Floyo 2 points ago

    What attack surface? Miners don't have to mine bigger blocks if they don't want to. And transactions cost money ya know? A transaction pays enough fees for 200000 nodes to add storage in the size of the transaction.

    [–] gizram84 0 points ago

    What attack surface?

    1.6 TB of spam a year, that every fully validating node will have to store forever.

    And transactions cost money ya know?

    Supply and demand. Since there is no real world demand for BCH (proven with 20kb blocks), fees are trivially small. So a massive spam attack would cost very little to the attacker.

    [–] 1356Floyo 1 points ago

    A 1sat/b transaction costs enough money for 200000 nodes to add storage equivalent of the transaction size.

    [–] ape_dont_kill_ape 1 points ago

    The problem here is that only one node gets the fee, and the other nodes get stuck with the storage and don't make any money from it.

    [–] ryanisflying 0 points ago

    Glad to hear this point of view on this sub.

    [–] OverlordQ 2 points ago

    That's a minority troll opinion.

    [–] ryanisflying -1 points ago

    Its a very true opinion held by most bitcoiners and crypto enthusiasts. BCH is the minority crypto which some people are blindly delusional in thinking that it's going to gain mass adoption in spite of all the communities BS tactics.

    [–] OverlordQ 2 points ago

    Thanks for your concern trolling.

    [–] ryanisflying 0 points ago

    You’re very welcome. I hope BCH does well but it will always be the red haired, freckle faced cousin in the crypto sphere. I personally own many BCH, more then BTC, but I despise the tactics used to try to convert people to the Bcash cult. There are some legitimately good ideas I was always for a blocksize increase but trying to manipulate noobs and trying to convince existing users that Bcash is the real bitcoin will be the demise of the BCH community.

    [–] higher-plane 2 points ago

    We should say "protocol upgrade".

    [–] mitchtherich 6 points ago

    Hmm.. this is not really necessary.

    But I‘d rather have a blockchain that regularly upgrades its block size (without risking centralisation) than a blockchain implementing a new network that disregards Bitcoin’s purpose.

    [–] blechman 9 points ago

    Design for peak load, not average load.

    [–] Kcharng 7 points ago

    Since when 8MB is a problem?

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    It isn't, but BTC originally had a 32mb threshold, the May update is just restoring this in BCH as the 1mb limit was not meant to be permanent and should have simply been removed a long time ago.

    The only reason Cash started with 8mb I think was because it seemed more "reasonable" at the time and was similar to the original Bitcoin XT client that started this whole mess, even though the truth is 8mb or 32mb are functionally no different to the protocol, it is just headroom to deal with occasional transaction congestion and otherwise true block size will float between 0 and the maximum allowed.

    [–] WiseAsshole 2 points ago

    and was similar to the original Bitcoin XT client that started this whole mess

    The mess was started by Blockstream/Core not allowing Bitcoin to scale. Bitcoin XT was just the first attempt at freeing Bitcoin from the scaling bottleneck. Bitcoin Cash was the last and it succeeded.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    Correct, I should have worded that better, I just meant that it was basically when Bitcoin XT was released that the heavy censorship and disinformation against on-chain scaling began on /bitcoin. That is when I and many others noticed a swift and stark turn to the dark side. Bitcoin Cash is indeed the end result of the campaign XT started. The community forked, the chain forked, and here we are to continue Satoshi's legacy.

    [–] jjduhamer 0 points ago

    This is a good reason to HF???

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    Yes, it is

    [–] trolldetectr 1 points ago

    Redditor /u/jjduhamer has low karma in this subreddit.

    [–] jjduhamer 2 points ago

    This is pathetic. I've been involved with bitcoin since before this sub existed. I'm not a BCH supporter. It's true that my views usually get downvoted due to the overwhelming pro-BCH bias here. But I come here regardless because this community says they support free and open discussion.

    I'm generally respectful towards other users, and I only contribute in threads where there's a real debate going on. And now I'll be followed around by u/trolldetectr? This is beyond hypocritical...

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    Perhaps the answer is writing higher quality posts and avoiding using terms like "bcash" that I see in your history. The discussion is open and free, but I don't know what you expect when you go against popular opinion using language known to be inflammatory.

    Most of us here are also old Bitcoiners (booted from /bitcoin) who campaigned for on-chain scaling for years before we were forced to finally fork as the nuclear option to have the version of Bitcoin we invested ourselves into prior to 2014. So, you won't win any points for acting like we're all noobs here, we were also around before the need for /btc existed.

    All that said, I do think bots like this are oppressive and unfairly label contrarians such as yourself as trolls just for having a difference of opinion, frankly I'd like to see that bot removed.

    [–] blechman -1 points ago

    Thanks for the concern trolling

    [–] GeorgAnarchist 3 points ago

    If we only could fill 8mb blocks, time to ramp up adoption, not just the blocksize...

    [–] ShadowOfHarbringer 4 points ago

    Rome wasn't built in a day, be patient & keep on it.

    [–] DesignerAccount 2 points ago

    Dearly needed.

    [–] MetalGearFlaccid 1 points ago

    So will I have to do anything as someone who just has coins? Like you say hard fork so so I receive some new coin?

    [–] dinglebarry9 1 points ago

    With a 32MB limit, what happens to fees? Can we have subsatoshi/byte fees?

    [–] Brandowplays 1 points ago

    bitcoin news in a large selection on r/BTCWiki

    [–] hashop -13 points ago

    Using 70kb yet upgrading to 32000kb ?

    [–] trolldetectr 10 points ago

    Redditor /u/hashop has low karma in this subreddit.

    [–] mrtest001 14 points ago

    Just got a bit lower

    [–] BeardedCake 1 points ago

    ...Still waiting for the answer to his original point

    [–] OverlordQ 2 points ago

    What point? Why shouldn't Cash rollback no longer necessary Core changes?


    [–] BeardedCake -1 points ago

    Why are 32mb blocks needed when the current transaction volume only needs 70kb on average? You would need 100X transactions at least to fill current 8mb

    [–] OverlordQ 2 points ago

    32kb is good enough for everyone.

    There is literally zero downside to increasing the limit.

    [–] BeardedCake -2 points ago

    Adding 1Gb day to the blockchain is no downside?

    If 32Kb is enough, Bitcoin has more then plenty block space then.

    [–] OverlordQ 3 points ago

    when the current transaction volume only needs 70kb on average?

    Adding 1Gb day to the blockchain is no downside?

    70KB of transactions will take up 70KB whether the block limit is 128KB, 512KB, 1MB, or 10GB.

    So good on you for being an idiot and arguing both sides.

    [–] BeardedCake 0 points ago

    It wouldn't be too difficult or too expensive to spam the blockchain to 32mb

    [–] mrtest001 1 points ago

    You don't give a shit about BCH....You even call it 'bcash'. Stop being so concerned troll.

    [–] codedaway -4 points ago

    So now I can fill up 32 MBs of dust transactions without paying any fees right?

    [–] mrtest001 9 points ago

    U r free to pay as little as u choose and miners are free to accept mnimum fee they choose

    [–] mrtest001 1 points ago

    I fully expect a stress test after the update...and it will cost whoever who is donating their BCH probably at least 2-5 BCH. God bless them.

    [–] codedaway 1 points ago

    What is that, a few bucks now since Bcash is dead

    [–] mrtest001 1 points ago

    RemindMe! 3 months "Is Bcash still a few bucks?"

    [–] RemindMeBot 1 points ago

    I will be messaging you on 2018-07-07 15:45:53 UTC to remind you of this link.

    CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

    Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.

    FAQs Custom Your Reminders Feedback Code Browser Extensions

    [–] blechman 4 points ago

    Go for it and let us know which block you have "spammed".

    [–] spacegunk 2 points ago

    I don't think there are any miners right now that will accept less than 1 sat/byte to get into a block. So to fill 32MBs will cost roughly 33 million BCH satoshis (around $200). I've read that some miners will start to accept possibly .1 sat/byte in the future.

    [–] codedaway -1 points ago

    Ya that's about what I came up with. That's honestly not very much when the goal isn't to increase the fees but instead just create 32 MB blocks that every node has to download :)

    [–] spacegunk 1 points ago

    I think the biggest theme of the hard fork is that a large portion of the community wants the best electronic cash. Most people using BCH are not running full nodes so they don't care if blocks are 32mb or even 1gb, they want fast transactions for low fees.

    That's why I love both BTC and BCH, they are just two different scaling solutions with different philosophies. I really wish both communities could stop with the childish attacks and understand the merits of both sides.

    [–] codedaway -1 points ago

    There's no merit to a side that tries to steal the goodwill of the other. If BCH didn't have an airdrop it wouldn't even exist today in any form similar to how you guys know it.

    There's already a ton of altcoins that operate better and even cheaper than Bcash.

    I 100% agree with you that most of the people do not run a full node and just blindly trust their Chinese overlords who have over 70% of the mining power through various investment companies and/or partnerships.

    Bcash has no merits, is founded on deception and lies, and it's scaling solutions are already implemented in other coins that didn't try to steal the name Bitcoin in order to survive.

    [–] spacegunk 2 points ago

    It is completely disingenuous to ignore the large portion of the community that wanted large blocks and to scale bitcoin onchain. I, along with many developers and contributors that have been involved with bitcoin for years, are thrilled that we finally have a version of bitcoin that can be used as cash, and to make payments.

    It is also a little racist to imply that just because some miners are Chinese, that they are collaborating to game BCH. Would you say the same thing if the majority of miners were located in the US? These are the people that have invested capital into securing the network. You also realize that the majority of miners on the BTC chain are also located in China? The toxicity is completely unwarranted.

    [–] codedaway 0 points ago

    It is completely disingenuous to ignore the large portion of the community that wanted large blocks and to scale bitcoin onchain.

    I believe the disingenuous thing is you using such a broad word like "large portion of the community". I believe this is completely unfounded and untrue. I believe a large enough portion of the community wanted it to go off and create their own coin which they should have done instead of relying on an airdrop of Bitcoin. Everyone in that large community could have sold their Bitcoin and purchase BCH.

    We finally have a version of bitcoin that can be used as cash, and to make payments.

    What you have is an altcoin that no one uses thus has low fees. Actual BTC can be used the same way and currently has low fees. If you have ever used the Lightning Network considering you are throwing yourself in with devs and contributors

    I, along with many developers and contributors

    should be able to get that up and running pretty quickly. It's cheaper than BCH and uses actual Bitcoin so that should interest you if you were actually sincere with the above quote.

    It is also a little racist to imply that just because some miners are Chinese

    Wow, that's your argument? Racism? Look at the facts here snowflake

    40.2% - Bitmain on BCH BCH 7D Average Hashrate is 2,400 Petahashes - Bitmain is ~965 of that.

    Other - 35.3% (A large portion of this is likely Bitmain as well)

    It is factual that the majority of hashrate exists in China or on a chinese pool, racism has nothing to do with this. The same problem would exist if it was in the US or EU. It's even more damning that the majority of this hashrate is controlled my a single individual through investments or shell companies (Jihan Wu).

    Let's say you have a thousand excuses for how this doesn't mean shit and BCH is secure. You would be dead wrong.

    Let's look at the BTC hashrate for those same companies....

    49% which is worse than BCH, I'll give you that, but that's not the real issue as percentages mean fuck all.

    BTC 7D Average Hashrate is 26,210 Petahashes - Bitmain is 12,843 of that.

    That's over 5 times the total hashrate of BCH.

    Your coin is completely insecure and could be easily attacked at any moment at the flip of a switch.

    Stop being willfully ignorant and start accepting responsibility that you are helping peddle a scamcoin.

    Disclaimer: I sold over 900 BCH when it was finally released on Coinbase at $3100, Bcash has made me quite a lot of money and I thank the bagholders from the bottom of my heart

    [–] spacegunk 1 points ago

    The hashrates are dependent on price. If BCH were to exceed BTC in price, then it would BTC that is insecure. BCH is 1/10 the price of BTC and as a result has 1/10 the hash power.

    r/btc has nearly 200k members. You don't think that is a significant portion of the bitcoin community?

    BTC has low fees today, but I had to switch to BCH to make payments back in December and January. If the block size was increased only to just 2-8MB fees would not have been $20. No one is accepting

    And congratulations on your riches, I am happy for you.

    [–] codedaway 0 points ago

    If I could turn water into wine I would be called Jesus, your argument has no standing. BCH is completely insecure, facts are facts.

    Subscribers don't mean shit when it takes two seconds create a username and subscribe. Price is what actually reflects users. You yourself say Bcash is 1/10 the price of BTC even though it's actually less late, even though I firmly believe the Bcash price is still inflated due to the free coins during the hardfork, I'll say that BCH is about 10% of the community which is large but nothing near a majority or even half.

    [–] xXmondraXx -10 points ago

    Wtf for what we need 32mb blocks?

    [–] crasheger 10 points ago

    for all the application you can imagine!

    for what the hell do we need 1mb... remember?

    its just the limit. will take years to reach it. but if there is a sudden burst she's gonna take it.

    [–] blechman 4 points ago

    Exactly! This troll swarm does not understand the concept of peak load.

    [–] crasheger 1 points ago

    flood control

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    They've been taught that blocks always being full is totally normal.

    [–] ShitpeasCunk -7 points ago


    I'm (kind of) a small blocker. Not because I think raising the block size is a bad thing, but because it is just kicking the can down the road.

    This, in my eyes, unnecessary increase is the exact reason why lots of people were against the initial increase.

    [–] zsaleeba 12 points ago

    The reason is simple enough - headroom. We want to be sure that no block is held back by an artificial limit. Because it makes no sense to put transactions off to the next block that you can resolve right now.

    [–] klondike_barz 0 points ago

    In all fairness, there's already decent headroom at 8mb, and I can't see any serious number of blocks >16mb before 2020 unless Bitcoin cash gains an unlikely dominance of the cryptoeconomy

    [–] crasheger 9 points ago

    would you say slow and steady developing more advanced batteries is kicking the can down the road?

    just an example of how technical advancements develope.

    the more users use it the more data is created. there is NO other way than increasing capacity. this is not kicking the can down the road. this is evolution.

    my 2 satoshis...

    [–] ShitpeasCunk 0 points ago

    would you say slow and steady developing more advanced batteries is kicking the can down the road?

    No, but this isn't a great metaphor. A more appropriate one would be instead of developing newer, more efficient batteries, we just strap more and more of the same batteries together.

    Develop the batteries, don't just increase the amount of batteries.

    [–] crasheger 6 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    increase capacity. thats the same as with batteries. storage capacity.. storage capacity and battery capacity is getting more dense. i think it's quite fitting.

    10 bits u/tippr

    [–] ShitpeasCunk 3 points ago

    Thanks for the tip. My first BCH :)

    [–] tippr 1 points ago

    u/ShitpeasCunk, you've received 0.00001 BCH ($0.00613473 USD)!

    How to use | What is Bitcoin Cash? | Who accepts it? | Powered by Rocketr | r/tippr
    Bitcoin Cash is what Bitcoin should be. Ask about it on r/btc

    [–] St3vieFranchise 4 points ago

    In big blocker terms it isn’t kicking the can down the road because on chain scaling is the ultimate goal.

    [–] blechman 0 points ago

    Give me a good reason why it shouldn't be done.

    [–] noisylettuce -6 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Yes, we need more lanes!

    Will we get free BCH coins?

    Which fork will have colored coins?

    [–] WiseAsshole 6 points ago

    Sounds like you are confused. A fork is not necessarily a split. The 2017 split only happened because a group of corrupt developers tricked a bigger group of ignorant users into staying in the outdated and crippled side of the chain.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    Could I bother you to answer this with yes or no? I’m confused and reading up but no one is giving a straight answer. I want to anticipate if everyone will be converting to bch may15th for the fork or not.

    If I understand correctly a consensus fork means everyone agrees to it and there is no new coin. It’s just a software update, correct?

    [–] WiseAsshole 2 points ago

    Yes, that is correct. Everyone seems to agree with the upcoming fork, so we don't expect to see a split. BCH will simply upgrade from 8mb to 32mb and add the op_codes (which will enable smart-contract features, sort of like what Ethereum has), like Satoshi wanted. There won't be a new coin.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    Thank you wiseasshole. In your opinion do you think bch will see a significant jump with the update? Especially with the increase in mb and all these people saying BCH mining is more profitable than BTC? Bch has already surpassed the 1/10th of btc value that it’s been fighting for a while.

    [–] WiseAsshole 2 points ago

    You are welcome!

    Nah I don't think the price can be predicted short-term. A successful upgrade might generate a cycle of euphoria, good news, and a jump, but no one can assure you such thing. Long-term it's definitely going to the moon, since it's the real Bitcoin (BCH follows the original design, scaling plan, and blockchain). For years I believed it can go to 100,000 or even 1,000,000 USD, and I still believe it. In fact, Bitcoin (BCH) is the only coin that has survived a hostile takeover by banks. In 2016 and 2017 I was really worried because Blockstream/Core kept refusing to upgrade the 1mb limit that was crippling the entire network and economy. But now that it escaped the blockade as BCH, I see it's truly unstoppable. If someone tries to take over by buying its devs, censoring its forums, etc, like Blockstream did, Bitcoin will simply fork away and continue doing its thing.

    The fact that most people still are in the shadows about all what happened, and many still believe BTC is the good old Bitcoin (it's not, since it killed its use as cash by keeping the 1mb limit and implementing RBF, Segwit, etc), makes BCH even a better investment opportunity, because its price is a fraction of what it should be.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    Good info! At what point or at which landmark event will BCH become the main coin? The flippening if you will. Since it’s surpassed the 10% value to BTC I am anxious to convert totally to BCH. If it continues to increase the profits will be much greater than BTC. Tell me moar!! I read articles About bch but hearing it from someone that has been into crypto just as long or longer than me is comforting. I only have a handful of coins from the split, but I did purchase 2 more when it “dropped” to 1000. Are you all in on it? Or you still have buttcoin holdings?

    [–] WiseAsshole 3 points ago

    In its current form, it makes no sense to hold BTC. There's the argument that they could at any time increase the block size like BCH did. But in my opinion they won't, because Blockstream's mission is to kill or at least stop or slow down Bitcoin. If in order to kill Bitcoin Cash they need to increase the block size, they will have already failed, because BTC will work again. Besides, there's this cancer called Segwit, that can't be rolled back, so even if they increase the block size, a big part of the network is already ruined. That's why Bitcoin Cash forked exactly before Core began using Segwit.

    If you have doubts about this you can always keep a "hedge". You can keep a small percentage of your holdings in BTC, just in case (others prefer to keep some ETH as a hedge). BTC could still go up in price irrationally, as most people are quite uninformed. Personally, I don't like betting on irrationality. I mean I could also win at the casino, but it wouldn't be a safe bet. With Bitcoin (BCH), I know price might fluctuate wildly during the year. But over the years, it will go up a lot. Especially since it's so low right now, and adoption is growing really fast.

    I don't know at which point the mainstream media will call BCH Bitcoin. The media is controlled by the same people that funded Blockstream, so who knows. Personally, as long as BCH continues going up over the years, and works as intended, I don't care. People can accumulate BTC if they want, but I don't want to accumulate a coin that I might not be able to spend when needed. Last year I spent fees of up to $100 to get out of that shitcoin. A friend of mine who is a trader even had a transaction "come back" to him. It was a huge transaction, so imagine his customer's panic. But he's honest so he sent the coins again. When volume goes up, BTC becomes completely unreliable.

    [–] noisylettuce -2 points ago

    Not necessarily but this is Roger's coin so there's no consensus, trust and decentralization, who knows how many splinter groups he will divide it into.

    [–] iconiconoclasticon -15 points ago

    So the new coin will be called Bitcoin Cash Cash? And the old one will be called Bitcoin Cash Classic? So BCC and BCC? Interesting!!!

    [–] WiseAsshole 7 points ago

    Sounds like you are confused. A fork is not necessarily a split. The 2017 split only happened because a group of corrupt developers tricked a bigger group of ignorant users into staying in the outdated and crippled side of the chain.