Thread by @ColinTCrypto

Unpopular opinion:

From a technical standpoint, #BCH's CODEBASE is far superior than #BTC's— it’s just that it lost the ticker symbol & thus had to start over with network effect.

👇👇 thread 🧵👇👇

If #BTC had #BCH’s code, it would have stopped the need for many altcoins that blossomed in 2017/2018 due to BTC’s congestion.

BCH would run the Lightning Network far better than BTC ever could because LN runs *better* with non-full blocks.

2/

And there are much better solutions than Segwit. It’s really a bad solution for the problems it tries to “solve”.

Maxis claim destroying 0-conf was a feature. This was a lie to force adoption of layer 2 scaling while stunting layer 1 scaling.

3/

BTC Maxi's argument is that any scaling on the base layer sacrifices decentralization and that scaling via layers is the only way.

The correct answer is: BOTH can be done. Software can scale alongside technology growth AND layer 2 solutions can be implemented.

4/

Instead, layer 2 was forced to the detriment of adoption. See: 2018 altcoin boom during BTC congestion.

5/

Btw, this is not financial advice. I think there are many fast/cheap coins out there. I am simply stating that BCH codebase is superior to BTC's & given the ticker symbol of "BTC", the BCH codebase would have been more successful than BTC currently is in terms of price & adoption

Finally:

Segwit is a convoluted hack & technical debt. It wasn’t even originally intended as a scaling mechanism. There are far better ways to scale.

Lightning becomes increasingly centralized as it scales. It’s a forced scaling method by artificially capping blocks.

Poor.