afraid of tokens being implemented… 😅 probably because I want to understand the implications/drawbacks more.
1. complexity 2. tokens take up space, which hinders scaling 3. tokens proposals often have strange, even more scaling-impeding stuff attached to them that poisons the well #3 is not a problem with cashtokens. #2 is arguable, but the use of tokens to carry localized state around for covenants, and its ability to greatly enhance flexibility of BCH outputs (every token output is also a BCH output) outweighs them. #1 is an unavoidable problem that will just have to be swallowed, i think I've done enough to prevent bloat from getting into cashtokens...
I appreciate that breakdown! sounds like complexity and scaling are the main concerns (from a dev perspective). I’m curious, when the community upgrades/hardforks can the previous version potentially live on trading at a lower price?
it's possible , such an event is generally known as a split, and brings great anguish for both UX and reputation to both the host and perpetrator. we cannot stop them from happening per se, but we do go through great trouble both technically and socially to make sure they don't happen on a regular basis, especially after 2020.
I'll add another one. Compatibility. BCH is so far away from BTC now. While some might celebrate it, it actually hinder effects. Supporting BCH now is not just "running another node". It's getting as hard to support BCH than to support a brand new non-btc based crypto.
I made a video on how guys like me make profit even getting it at $1000 cost averaging, these prices won't last and we are exiting the btc split ATH starting a new cycle where those stacking even at these rates will make profit
nobody's touching the block header or coinbase TXes, the network message format remains the same too — the upgrade is like enabling another opcode, one that chews the whole TX to decide whether it's valid or not... still all tx-local
You are underestimating what is required to support BCH.
please tell, we don't get enough feedback from miners imo
sounds like there isn’t anything different about scheduled upgrades vs other types of forks (like traumautic ones in the past). I was hoping there was 🙁
the difference is the community upheaval, the social layer not the technical one
Scheduled upgrades make sure any contentious implementations are hashed out and discussed long before it goes live. This drastically reduces the chance of a fork. Either everyone is in consensus, and it goes through. Or it isn't, and it doesn't.
Обсуждают сегодня