It has much, much better scalability and uptime. The other day the entire LN went down due to 1 bad node. That has never happened, and will never happen in the original Bitcoin design (ticker: BCH).
None of the mentioned coins / solutions: Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Lightning Network, Ethereum, Layer 2 solutions are even close to being a credible alternative to the Visa-Mastercard duopoly. (Also, Lightning is not Bitcoin)
No business wants to use a volatile asset that loses its value when a person or institution refunds and immediately sells hundreds of thousands of Bitcoin(s) and takes the whole market down with it for payments at scale in the long term.
We have given it years for them to mature and none of them have the safety / security or standardisation compliance required to be credible enough for regular businesses to being using it and I'm sorry it is not early days.
I would say a cryptocurrency / blockchain project that aids or is faster than the current system, complies with regulations, has a trusted and centralized stablecoin on the network like (USDC) and is able to scale whilst allowing cheap payments will also be able to compete with the Visa-Mastercard duopoly.
That is, the ISO 20020 standard and compliant cryptocurrencies which are highly likely to be used for payments (with USDC) in the long term.
Every lightning channel update is a valid Bitcoin transaction that can be broadcast at any time by either party for final settlement. Lightning is absolutely Bitcoin. You can use the lightning network as very cheap fiat rails if you don't want to deal with Bitcoin or it's volatility. Look at LN/Taro.
A layer on top of Bitcoin, which uses Bitcoin transactions that can be broadcast and finally settled at any time is definitely Bitcoin. You can say it fits your subjective definition of Bitcoin until you're blue in the face, nobody uses BCH except people who are scamming or have fell for the scam.
A layer on top of something is not something, it's something else.
Dude, you need to chill, you ruined BTC for everyone and now you are hostage to your own failed investment. Remember it was supposed to be cash. Accept your loss and stop lying to people, BTC doesn't work as cash, and neither does LN. Find something else to do with your life.
BCH is not as scam, it's cash, it's advertised as cash, and has always worked perfectly as cash.
It has better scalability if you don't care about decentralisation whatsoever and that it's possible that everyone can store a copy of everyone's else's coffee transactions in perpetuity. It's not possible without huge, expensive to run servers, which is why nobody runs a BCH node. Uptime? By what metric? Bitcoin, the real one, has 100% uptime since the fork. The entire LN did not "go down the other day due to one bad node", that is not how it works at the most fundamental level. It simply did not happen. If you're a sockpuppet then nobody is buying it sorry, your coin is dead. And if you've actually fell for this narrative and actually hold BCH, then I am truly sorry and hope you realise you've fell for a scam before you lose any more money.
>If you're a sockpuppet then nobody is buying it sorry, your coin is dead.
If you are concerned about sock-puppet shills, don't be: I have never owned BCH, BTC or any other bitcoin variant and I will attest to the parent comment's arguments. As a bitcoin outsider, it's pretty clear to me that the path BTC took has irreversibly doomed cryptocurrency. If you are a bitcoiner, your coin is dead also.
Bitcoin is the bigger scam. The problem with bitcoiners not taking the BCH/XT fork isn't that the block sizes aren't large enough. It's that the remaining bitcoin community is dedicated to never make a hard fork again. This is not sustainable in the long-run.
Good cryptocurrencies (like cryptonote, zerocoin, etc.) regularly agree on reasonable compromises to improve the security and efficiency of the network (including changes in block size, etc.). With BTC, reasonable discussion has gone out of the window. It completely defies satoshi's original intention. Your community is no longer a good steward of the network. You are just bagholders trying to protect your investements.
Those are protocols, not necessarily cryptocurrencies[0][1]. They were originally designed as improvements to the bitcoin network, but that never came into fruition due to stubborn bitcoiners like you who refuse to improve the network.
The Cryptonote[2] and Zerocoin[3] whitepapers were published back in 2013/2014 and made some pretty important security improvements to the bitcoin network. I suggest giving them a read. Many of the systems that were once designed for Bitcoin, such as P2Pool now work on projects like cryptonote[4]. We have also designed a proof-of-work system that is completely CPU-bound (you can mine it on your home computer as satoshi intended)[5].
Also, the cryptonote/zerocoin-derived cryptocurrencies are hardly shitcoins seeing as they have effectively displaced Bitcoin's original use-case as of this year.
What you call "Bitcoin", is not Bitcoin by its own whitepaper. And it certainly DOESN'T have 100% uptime.
Keeping blocks artificially limited at 1mb doesn't make it more decentralized, it actually makes it more centralized, since barely anyone in the world can use the network or pay the fees when a bunch of people are using it at the same time.
It's Bitcoin by every metric you can name: users, trust, fees, hashrate, price, market cap, security, exchange support, merchant acceptance, codebase quality, developer talent. Regardless of your subjective opinion of whether it's the same as it's own whitepaper based on whatever nonsense you've read from Roger Ver or whoever. BCH still has transaction mallebility because it was born out of greed of miners who did't want to activate segwit.
Can you point me to any evidence of it not having 100% uptime since the fork? Or have you fell for another lie just like "one node taking down the lightning network"
Blockspace is scarce and valuable, and that's the way it has to be to be decentralised. And yes they can use it, on the layer 2 lightning network. It works great, I use it all the time, for pennies in fees even when there's a mempool queue.
Can you show me where in the whitepaper it mentions your metrics? I didn't see anything about say, price in there. I did see a lot of mentions about it being cash though (also cheap to use, beat credit cards, no intermediaries, etc). Also SPV wallets (point 8). Nothing about LN.
In any case, BCH simply works 100% of the time, it's instant, extremely reliable and cheap to use, and it's actually being used as cash in the real world (unlike BTC). That's the most important thing in my opinion.
If you're going to take a group of scammer's twisted, false interpretation of a v0.0.1 Bitcoin whitepaper as the absolute final Gospel truth and something which you put faith in regarding your money then you're going to have a really bad time.
> it's actually being used as cash in the real world (unlike BTC)
Still waiting on that evidence that Bitcoin hasn't had 100% uptime since the fork and that one node took down the entire Lightning network. Come up with some evidence that BCH is being used anywhere while you're at it.
Why does it have to be since the fork? Do you just arbitrarily remove the part of its history that make your coin look like a complete scam? People had to wait days for their transactions, many ended up falling off of the mempool, effectively becoming reversed transactions. The fees were absolutely unpredictable, people had to pay $100-$200 just to move their coins.
And after the fork BTC still makes you overpay ridiculous fees and the network is almost always extremely slow (except when no one is using it of course). Paying more than the 1c it was designed for is basically the norm now. That's why people like you try to gaslight everyone else into believing in the mythical LN that solves everything (allegedly, but not really).
