> Please unpack this statement. Which part of the Bitcoin system is functioning incorrectly?
The payment system part. One of the main reasons why Satoshi created Bitcoin in the first place. As someone who got into Bitcoin in early 2011 (but left when things got crazy around 2014), it's utterly laughable to me that Bitcoin now can't even be used as a payment system. And that the fees per transaction are roughly the same as international wire transfer fees.
The Bitcoin dev team well and good shot itself in the foot by refusing the raise the block size limit. The only good thing to come out of Bitcoin recently is the Bitcoin Cash fork, who showed that the sky doesn't fall when you raise the limit to a reasonable size, and that this does take care of the current scaling and fees issues (Bitcoin Cash transfers are both reasonably quick and affordable, like Bitcoin of old).
But isn't increasing the block size limit still just a temporary fix? Wouldn't Bitcoin Cash also be rendered useless as a payment system if it was handling a similar volume of transactions as bitcoin?
Arguably not. Based on testing, they're able to handle up to 25 tx/sec without any problems now, compared to Bitcoin struggling with only 5 to 10 tx/sec. And they have only a 8MB block limit currently, but are only using a small fraction of that on most blocks. And they have plenty of room to expand, given that a 10 terabyte hard drive is only a few hundred dollars now.
I'm still incredulous that Bitcoin has resisted changing to block size limit for so long, given that it was only a security measured Satoshi implemented a year into Bitcoin's life, not only kind of fundamental design feature. I rarely use Internet acronyms, but, smh....
Isn't 25 tx/sec extremely low for something aiming to be a global payment system? I am not bashing BCH...they tried -- it just seems like something not based off of BTC might be the answer.
Again, that's with only an 8MB block size. They're now doing research into 1 GB block size limits. Think about it, with 10 terabyte hard drive at $300, it's completely feasible to have 1GM blocks.
No. I'm not a BCH fan but it would be able to handle more transactions. It would still hit an upper bound, but it is higher than BTC, but lower than BTC lightning network. (It has some drawbacks too by not being on-chain).
I have also been in Bitcoin since early 2011. I once thought as you did until I realized that the most important part of Bitcoin is censorship resistance. It's not about storing your latte payment on the immutable ledger forever.
> Bitcoin now can't even be used as a payment system
What about the part where the blocks are full of tons of payments?
The fork drama proved the most important part of Bitcoin: it's immutability even in the face of great pressure to change.
If the Bitcoin Cash blocks get full, then we'll see how things go. Until then, there is no comparison.
The payment system part. One of the main reasons why Satoshi created Bitcoin in the first place. As someone who got into Bitcoin in early 2011 (but left when things got crazy around 2014), it's utterly laughable to me that Bitcoin now can't even be used as a payment system. And that the fees per transaction are roughly the same as international wire transfer fees.
The Bitcoin dev team well and good shot itself in the foot by refusing the raise the block size limit. The only good thing to come out of Bitcoin recently is the Bitcoin Cash fork, who showed that the sky doesn't fall when you raise the limit to a reasonable size, and that this does take care of the current scaling and fees issues (Bitcoin Cash transfers are both reasonably quick and affordable, like Bitcoin of old).