i would like to again question
@solex 's conclusion that increasing capacity is idle unless there is adoption growth.
quoting him from slack (03/02/19): "The major takeaway from the first year of BCH is that massive capacity does not encourage massive organic usage. They key is adoption and network effect growth. BCH had a block limit 500x demand when the fork happened. [...] Basic economics have not changed and it does not matter if BSV has capacity 5000x organic demand (wait - it probably _is_ right now), the requirement for adoption is No.1 priority, always was. The BU implementation already has more than enough capacity for BSV and BCH organic demand - years out from now."
is the above conclusion warranted? it appears to rest on the assumption that massive organic usage is of a certain kind. and indeed, there being huge unused capacity will make no difference to my deciding to use crypto to pay for the proverbial coffee (if such an option were even available). the question is whether we can assume that this is the only kind of massive organic usage there can be, or the one that will take up first. ten or five years ago, electronic payments were rudimentary and it looked like crypto could massively disrupt them. but banks, paypal, apple et alia got the message and improved their systems, and will continue competing, with the enormous inherent advantage that such payments are in native currency. and while there are still huge contingents of unbanked and un-credit carded for whom such services might not be immediately available, these are probably also the people less apt to deal with currency conversion. in short, alice-to-bob payments among some significant portion of the world's population may not be where massive adoption comes from at fist, if it ever does. and i don't see any empirical reason to believe token-style applications will take up the slack.
on the other hand we have the fidelity effect. for instance, large institutional usage within and among financial institutions, or monetized data-heavy web 3.0 applications, might take hold on a blockchain that provides both the requisite capacity and the security. no such blockchain exists now: BTC has security but no capacity, and BCH/BSV have capacity but no security, being currently at the mercy of BTC miners.
so the question is: how to increase security to attract such uses? short of mining, what's in our hands is to increase capacity, such that usecases become possible, providing a reason for the hashrate to move over. i think this is at least as plausible a view as
@solex's major takeaway above. and for that reason, I think it is a good idea to participate in the Scaling Test Network. thank you
@sickpig for setting up a node.
BU clients must remain competitive on capacity. while we can continue to hope for end-to-end-user transaction growth, we can't be sure that this is the way the crypto market will evolve.
