Bitcoin Forum

I believe Bitcoin Cash is a good "experiment" for scaling using bigger blocks, the same as my belief as Bitcoin is a good "experiment" on how to scale with a 2nd layer offchain network.

My debates with franky1 has opened my mind to their point of view. But why is it when the topic starts to sway on "why Bitcoin Cash does not need Roger Ver" the most ardent defenders of the coin stop debating?

Roger Ver has brought nothing but hate, misinformation, manipulation and confusion. Maybe the Bitcoin Cash community should move on and be better without him.

Well if this will be pursued I think this will all the more make the market of cryptocurrency a threat to the fiat currency and all the more it will receive backlashes and black proganda against it because it will become all the more competitive with the regulated currency.  I think before creating more currency i think it is best to find more improvements on how bitcoin or many popular cryptos will become more stable and more applicable for all.

The Bitcoin Cash community can`t move on without Rover Ver,because BCH will die without him.He is one of the biggest bitcoin cash holders and I assume that he invested a lot in BCH mining.
Bitcoin Cash was a good "experiment" ,but what is the final result of that experiment?
I think that the result is zero.The bigger blocks are useless.

bitcoin cash was not invented by ver.
much like bitcoin core was not invented by theymos

theymos is just the social drama leader of core by owning the forums and bitcoin.org
ver is just the social drama leader of cash by owning the forums and bitcoin.com

when it comes to development.
bitcoin core has the blockstream paid devs
bitcoin cash has the bloq paid devs

and it makes me laugh how all the finger pointing is directed at mouthpieces and not the code controllers.
bitcoin ecosystem is about code and rules followed using code. not social drama. so once you look passed the social drama of mouth pieces and concentrate on who is doing the coding. things become clearer

in the future we may well see that the bitcoin core network become part of a master chain for USA customers. we may see bitcoin cash as a masterchain of asia. that way its not a whole world population on one network but a multichain/sidechain style vision of co-operation.

and yes even visa do this. they have a USA network and a Euro network and another network for each major continent.

but what needs to happen first is for the community to stop with the social drama that does not impact the code, people need to stop ignoring the code changes that can adversely hinder/delay/cause friction to the community.

this does includ having the courage to step up and voice your concerns when devs are going the wrong path or a path that takes the longest route.
becasue if you do not challenge the devs, they wil just do what they want because they do not hear objections and thus treat it as community desiring what they do (to them ignorance is bliss)

so speak up against code changes for purposes that seem less about meeting community concerns and seems more about corporate adoption. do not be afraid of devs. do not let them control the code just because they have done the job forever.
after all some devs may retire, some may get bored and move onto other projects. so dont blindly idolise them and let them do as they please because they may not be around in a few years to undo any work they created now

in short
adam back did not code anything related to bitcoin in its 2008-2010 inception period
craig wright did not code anything related to bitcoin in its 2008-2010 inception period

theymos has not wrote code in a couple years
ver has not wrote code in a couple years

so dont start arguing about mouthpieces and concentrat on the code

an experiment is only good if the conditions are met. lets say I want to  test the temperature at which water starts to boil and I assume it is 80 degree Celsius, if I only increase the temperature up to 40 degrees that doesn't prove my experiment ever.

the "experiment" called bitcoin cash is the same. they say nodes will have no problem with bigger blocks and it currently has 32 MB blocks but only fills around 100 kB of them! it has to continue producing 32 MB blocks for at least 6 months and increase the total blockchain size first then be considered an experiment.

as for Ver, he is not the only menace in bitcoin. there are a lot of others on both sides....

But my do you support Roger Ver's actions in using bitcoin.com to confuse the users by manipulating the wording on the site and make them believe that "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin"?


We know who the Core developers are. Can you tell us who the Bitcoin Cash developers are? There are trolls saying that it has only one developer. Hahaha.


I agree. But don't you think Roger Ver should stop his propaganda?


Honestly, which network is better, BTC or BCH?

Bitcoin Cash is simply an unsuccessful attempt to make bitcoin faster. But at the same time I do not think that they can not coexist

in my opinion bitcoin and bitcoin cash can co-exist, and I have recently read that crypto investor Brian Kelly said it's highly recommended to have some Bitcoin cash in your crypto wallet. Although it lost 65% of his price.. but who knows)) i am sure that big investors know better than we do..

do you support theymos's actions using bitcoin.org to confuse the users by manipulating the wording on the site and make them believe that bitcoin core is bitcoin

go check it out
https://bitcoin.org/en/development

check out the readme it asks you to read
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/README.md


have a proper read of it.. everything is pointing to core as
"Bitcoin Core is the name of open source software which enables the use of this currency."
"Bitcoin Core is security software that helps protect assets worth billions of dollars, so every code change needs to be reviewed by experienced developers."

go on chck out that page. here is the link again
https://bitcoin.org/en/development
show me anywhere on that page that talks about alternate clients being the "security" of the network. then show me what that page considers as "security software that helps protect assets worth billions of dollars, so every code change needs to be reviewed by experienced developers."
WITHOUT it sounding like that they are "other projects"(subtly hinting they are not part of the bitcoin protocol improvement, security, upgrade project)


and also go check what developers are told to do.
are they told to launch their own software and let consensus play out.. or sumbit code to core..



BLOQ, ive told you this before. i have even mentioned a couple names jgarzic and gavin A.. i have even questioned why your pointing fingers at ver when he hasnt even coded cash, and why your not even mentioning jgarzics name even after i have told you on many topics now exactly who is behind bitcoin cash, i even told you who paid BLOQ to create bitcoin cash. and why it was created.


its all drama. like the kardashians. everything ver has done theymos has done too. but dont you think theymos should stop his propaganda??


honestly. since 2013 core has lost its ideolisms. and i have not even bothered to shift my coins to give me any bitcoin cash though i know they pre-exist already. but i will say that in 10 months bitcoin cash has been accepted by many merchants and also priced itself higher than a few cents a coin so, if i was to base my opinion on the politics, they both have flaws and both dont have the ideolisms of pre 2013,

on other aspects like imagine in 10 years if a mining pools needed 2btc in tx fee's to cover costs once the reward:fee ratio flips. then
core would be 0.0005btc per tx on a full block (based on current proposed blocksize)
cash would be 0.00003bch per tx on a full block (based on current proposed blocksize)

I do not think it can co - exist because two forms can make users confused and difficult to make transactions.

You necro posted, congrats. haha

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash can be used to complement each other in a market that will be more active if both are in parallel and will attract much interest from investors and other interested people.

Funny , no one in the segwit-core community wanted Ver gone when he was supporting their coin.   ;)
ie: Labled Bitcoin Jesus

Ver is an individual free to choose whichever coin he wants to support, just as you are free to support whichever coin you like.

What burns many of you is the fact, that Ver is extremely good at supporting a coin.

FYI:
It won't be Ver that decides the fate of either bitcoins, but the ASIC miners, that will decide whether both or neither exist and they are the ones actually running the networks.

If you ask this question, then I ask you can father and son live together? There is a lot of money behind BCC, so I always think they can coexist.

In theory, both coins can co-exist, however the problem is that Roger Ver built his whole rhetoric on the opposition to Bitcoin, claiming that BCH is what Satoshi really meant as the future of it. In reality, the only thing BCH can boast is faster and cheaper transactions, which are made at a cost of higher centralization caused by the bigger block size. Moreover, if the Lightning technology is successful, the scalability problem for BTC will be non-existent.

Thank you for the explanation.  It really helps the ones who are interested in Learning about Bitcoins. Am interested in Learning about bitcoin and Crypto trading, So I think this forum would be a great resource for me.

I will agree with the guys! both coins are worthy of attention! they both develop very well in the crypto system! especially in October it is planned hard fork at bitcoin cash! This will give an additional impetus to growth and development! It is necessary to keep a part of investments in these two coins!

Yes, they can co-exist, but the real question is.... Why should they? When one of them completely meets the needs of the market, what is the point of having a competing currency that only acts to decrease use volume? I think in terms of cryptocurrency, sometimes competition is a bad thing, at least in the early stages as we are now because we need a single cryptocurrency to generate enough of a user base to bring it up to recognition for corporations. This is much more difficult when these users are split between BTC and BCH, even though absolutely nobody uses BCH for anything commercial.

Partly because it's a healthy step towards settling the civil war, which would probably still be raging if we'd tried to keep everyone together on the same chain.  But also because it removes a large proportion of the guesswork from the equation.  There were so many times during previous debates about scaling where people had loads of theories and educated guesses about what might unfold with each proposal, but without any real, quantifiable evidence to support their claims.  But now that we allow these different ideas to actually play out in the market, it removes most of that ambiguity.  We can now observe and measure the progress of each chain as things develop and evolve.  Then, as time goes on, from those results we can draw more substantiative conclusions about which solution turned out to be least centralised, which chain offered the cheapest fees, which one supported the most transaction volume, etc.  We won't have to make assumptions anymore, as we'll have the evidence to prove it.  

From a scientific standpoint, empirical is always preferable to theoretical.  And remember that, despite crypto being a multi-billion dollar industry, technically, this is all still experimental.

The whole "war" is there because the "mouthpieces" as franky1 called them, are doing what they can to keep it going. Personally, I don't like BCH because of what Roger is doing. This whole pompous drama, showing the finger because someone changed the name of his beloved crypto, calling BCH Bitcoin, saying that his currency is the "real" Bitcoin... I don;t know what his strategy is, but it's not working. He's not going to make people use his coin through deception and being arrogant.
Sure, the currencies can and most likely will coexist, but animosities and rivalry will remain.

I personally believe that there must still be one bitcoin. This is not normal when there are a lot of "other bitcoins".

I think that the opinion of one person has little effect on the reputation of the cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin Cash should be trusted by investors themselves, the more this trust - the more expensive the currency.

I seriously doubt it. since most of what they did was just social media drama and nonsense rather than an actual spam attack/stress testing the network. and this is already old and they have not done anything of significance since then. I still haven't figured out what their motivations were for this shenanigan but I honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn they were advertising bitcoin cash in this weird way.

I also believe that Bitcoin Cash can coexist with Bitcoin. Bitcoin's evaluation over the past half decade has made it a gold equivalent rather than a currency. The notion that Wall Street is developing Bitcoin's derivatives also shows that it is on track to become the first digital product in the world. Bitcoin has a smaller block size and higher transaction costs than Bitcoin Cash, making Bitcoin Cash more suitable as a payment option. So, assuming the Bitcoin Cash increase is due in part to the need for a more flexible digital payment mechanism, I think the world has enough room for both. "

To me, Bitcoin Cash seems to be an effective separation, its existence does not threaten Bitcoin nor does it need support from Bitcoin's remaining supporters. Now Bitcoin is offering it for free small block and Bitcoin big cash block which will reduce the long-running battles when both sides realize that they will not go anywhere, like Hoskinson did with Ethereum and Ethereum Classic.

The only thing BCH can boast about is faster and cheaper deals, which are made at a higher cost due to the larger block size. Yes, they can coexist, but the real question is ... When one of them perfectly meets the needs of the market, the point of having a competitive currency is only reduced. volume of use? This is much more difficult when these users are split between the MOF and the EB, although no one is using the EB for any trade.