"So the next thing I want to talk about is the interesting fact that Satoshi Nakomoto is a Bcash maximalist."Since Satoshi Nakomoto's intent of the system was to remove trusting banking cartels, and I've just shown you how Bcash returns to another Banking cartel model, this would be inverted to reality.It also doesn't matter, as basing your opinion on somebody else's approval is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.
"I actually believe in the original vision"
All Bcash fans should build an idol of Craig Wright in their backyard and pray to it 6 times a day, so that they ensure they do not stray from the 'original vision'. This appeal to authority is getting ridiculous!
"That everything that we actually need was literally already there from the beginning and the only problem were the limits"
This sentence even sounds like a religious text. The only problem is it is disconnected from reality. For example, if SHA-256 is practically broken, and the cryptocurrency were to only be using SHA-256 at that time, the cryptocurrency would lose all its value.
"The only problem was the maximum block size, the maximum script size and things like that. Those are the things we have to solve. We need to get rid of the limits"
Please see my earlier post about "Tragedy of the Commons". Bcash has been doing this for some time now, and the market simply doesn't like your ideas.
"So let's briefly consider how Bcash is going to destroy BTC. BTC is going to zero. Why is BTC going to zero? Because they throttled their chain, they don't understand the nature of the economics of the system that they hijacked."
No individual or group either 'throttled the chain' or 'hijacked' the system. The Bitcoin network use simply grew to a point whereby constraints already defined in the system came into effect. This created a temporary period whereby the fees became high, as the network participants hadn't previously been under any competitive stimuli to seriously compete on transaction fees. This reality forced the market participants to innovate on transaction efficiency, and the mempool is now empty again.Some of the market participants (Big bloated exchanges) didn't like the fact that they had to 'pull their finger out of their a**e' and actually innovate. However, the market has clearly chosen what it prefers.
Certain miners also didn't like this, because it encourages transaction efficiency, and they think short term. They would prefer an increase to the block size, because it would appear to lead to a linear profit increase on transaction fees. Whereas, if the market is enticed to increase efficiency through lightning and transaction batching, many people can be transacted to in any 1 given transaction.
"BTC is going to zero because no one is going to pay high fees. No one is going to pay high fees because they don't have to."
I have no idea why you would pay high fees on the Bitcoin network these days. I calculated the fee percentage of a transaction I made on the Bitcoin network recently, and it was roughly 0.000 000 048%. In theory, this could of been either a domestic or an international transaction (Bitcoin doesn't care). No traditional bank can compete with this.
"Bitcoin is not more secure than holding your money in the central bank, if you control the central bank, OK. If you control what other people do, you know, the existing system is just fine for the existing elites, alright."
Bitcoin gives the ability to remove custodianship with electronic money, and removes the fallibility factor of somebody being in control of the money supply. Therefore, on the provision that the user takes the adequate security precautions, holding Bitcoin is more secure than bank account custodianship.If Bcash were to gain popular use, big miners would knock out small 'long tail' miners which ensure the market cannot be coerced. Once the small miners are knocked out, the market can be coerced.
"Small block Bitcoin is the stupidest thing I've heard in my life. It's a stupid idea because there's not enough room for people to use it. No one's going to pay high fees, it's just not going to work. So what's going to happen long term is, as the inflation of Bitcoin levels off, the only way it can survive with strong security is for the fees to increase which people aren't going to pay. So there's going to be an upper limit on the level of security on Bitcoin at some point."
This assumes 1 person transacting per transaction. Technologies like Lightning enable potentially thousands of transactions for any given 1 Bitcoin transaction. This enables the Bitcoin fee to be divided among many participants and over many transactions. This is how scaling works. Simply increasing the block size, so that mega mining cartels can form, is called 'down scaling' or 'reverse scaling'.
"They're all going to zero / BTC is going to zero"
True zero is difficult to accomplish in currencies. The Roman Denarius is still valuable today despite the Roman Empire dying close to 2,000 years ago.
