Nope. Still nonsensical. Every last bit, in fact.

So if somebody wants to act as a node and they're not mining, a centralized authority should be able to shut them down? Funny how no other coin does this.

This was a great success.

https://news.bitcoin.com/stress-test-big-blocks-bch-network-confirms-2m-transactions-in-24-hours/


Bye trolls

I would suggest that any of my crypto family hodl ing ONLY BTC diversify a little into BCH.  Only 8.5% of portfolio would protect your net IF, IF there is a flipp a ning. 

Price and Hash can move overnight.

Adoption can happen very fast too. (Aka end of 2017)

With BCH demonstrating their scale ability, there is no stopping adoption of BCH

Even the confirmation from Lightning group this weekend they said Lightning alone can NOT handle the scale.

It looks like BCH can be Cash AND Store of value.  BTC, only a store of value.

Those are reasons I diversify.  (And I speculate CSW is just creating fork FUD to create buying opportunity)

Guys
Good luck.

23Tx/s for a +20Mb block ? That's ridiculous.
I can understand they don't speak so much about this.

OK , i have been looking into all the recent split/fork talk.
I have tried to look at what both sides are trying to do/say.

IMO, we need to slow down. I dont want to see a split/fork.
More testing before making major changes like CTOR. (and def no algo changes or switch to any form of pos)
No need for 128mb blocks yet either.
I'd say, wait till mid 2019 sometime after all BCH dev teams and other devs have TESTED and the community+miners know what the new tech is for.

We dont need smart contratcs like ETH ..
We must all focus on making a true P2P digital cash system and keep it simple and robust then see what we can build around it.

While the devs are doing their thing...the rest of us must focus on building an economy around BCH.

Lots of hard work for all ahead for all if we want BCH to be p2p digital cash.

The 128MB limit on SV is going to work a lot like BU's emergent consensus. A miner has an option to set both the maximum they are willing to mine and the maximum they are willing to accept without orphaning it. If the majority of the miners don't want 128MB blocks at this time, then what their hash votes, goes. This is unlike the ABC hardfork, which will basically force miners to order the transactions in the blocks canonically, or be orphaned off, even if the majority of miners don't want to order canonically at this time.

ABC is forcing the fork with their versioning item they added.  So if you are running ABC now then it will not work when the newer version comes out causing people to need to upgrade to the new software with ctor and all the other untested features no one asked for.

     I think ABC has proven themselves to not be professional software devs with this behaviours