That's exactly what they pointlessly tried to do. And they still don't understand that they've failed to do that at scale.
The lightning network alone already routes more payments every minute than BCH can do all day. If they ever experienced any real popularity like BTC did back in 2017, they'd suffer the same fate, no matter how large their blocksize is.
Meanwhile, having a large blocksize restricts everyday plebs from running a node. Hardware costs go sky high pretty quickly as you raise that particular number. That means very few nodes on BCH exist (comparitively) and if bitcoiners wanted to, we could redirect a few nodes of our own and 51% attack BCH quite easily. It has been done several times.
So ultimately keeping payments on-chain is a security issue. The final boss for bitcoin is state attack, and that would be like handing them a leash around our necks.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
so thinking about it a bit more I now see that both BTC and BCH can't or won't follow the original whitepaper(even if the reason is valid, like hardware/bandwidth limitations), and I always have seen lightning as insecure for peer to peer with uptimes normal people can have, and it gets worse with its centralization growing.
I really don't see much of a path forward against a state attack if BTC/BCH can't handle enough volume and lightning(or whatever alternative) is hosted on centralized servers more and more.
Idk, maybe I'm just blackpilled today