Bitcoin Forum

Craig Wright is back with his Bitcoin SV fork, and is showing strenght thus far with the amount of hashrate that is going to support the Bitcoin SV fork.

Apparently Roger Ver and Jihan Wu aren't supporting it, hence why the "hash wars" terms. With Jihan's empire against Craig Wright's 70% current hashrate it's going to be interesting.

The reason I ask about BTC price is because if Jihan wants to ensure CSW doesn't win, he may be forced to allocate BTC hashrate into this developing clusterfuck in BCash.

Will this be a non event or speculators will try to get some BTC out of it from noobs that fall into it?

in the long run it will not matter at all because miners will always mine what is most profitable and bitcoin will remain that. similar to bitcoin-cash shenanigans we can expect a lot of chaos in bitcoin when they steal hashrate by making their chain more profitable to mine at first but in the end miners will come back to bitcoin. and as a result there won't be any bitcoin price change.


by the way, how do you know the following. SV chain has not started yet, has it?

This is funny. Bitcoin Cash is a parody of itself. Roger Ver and the Bitcoin Cash community said that, nodes do not matter, and the miners decide. Well the miners have decided. Bitcoin SV will be the real Bitcoin Cash! Hahahaha.

What now? Will they say that non-mining nodes matter, and that users should decide? Or that Bitcoin SV is an attack? 8)


Good, more opportunity for honest Bitcoin miners.


Bitcoin does not care. 8)

Damn,bitcoin cash doesn't look like a functioning coin to me.It looks like a private company,in which 2-3 shareholders are fighting against each other for a bigger piece of the pie,and it's all about money. ;D
I feel sorry about all the bitcoin cash supporters outthere.They were manipulated to think that BCH is the real bitcoin.How sad.
Anyway,there won't be any impact over the Bitcoin Core price.

bitcoin speculators have never shown any interest in mining and hashrate so far. they didn't even care about the bitcoin cash itself and the hashrate that it stole from bitcoin. so I don't see why they should care about fork of fork of bitcoin and what that does!

it is funny that I all I can think of is all these empty blocks :D
so far we have 32 MB block space for BCH that is 99% empty and now when it forks to a new coin we will have 2 set of empty blocks that nobody uses at all... it is like an abandoned house of horror....

When I got the notification about the impending Bitcoin cash fork, I was just wondering what they have turn the entire fork opportunity into and in a short while, that same fork would also be made to go through another fork. The point is, they have turn everything into a joke.

I am now surprise that Roger Ver is now against the fork of his promoted Bitcoin cash despite his very potent stand when it was against bitcoin last year and the reason his simple because his influence would be diluted and the argument would then change from BCH being the real bitcoin or the forked BCH is the real bitcoin. Its obvious they have lost their ideology along the way.

On its influence on bitcoin, I think bitcoin has moved on to have an independent run away from forks and counter forks that have pervaded the entire industry in the last one year.

It's nice to see Roger Ver getting a taste of his own medicine. Thankfully neither him or CSW can have much influence on Bitcoin, that's been shown before. Bitcoin price won't be changed because of this, even if a few miners move away they'll come back because bitcoin will be the coin to prevail in the long term. I don't think anyone will be speaking about bitcoin SV in a years time, just like the only time people speak about bitcoin cash is when crap like this comes up.

I'm not sure why it would impact the price much. When BCH pumped a couple weeks ago, the rest of the market didn't follow. So I don't expect the rest of the market to follow what it does here either.

If Jihan pulls hash power away from Bitcoin, it won't matter. It didn't matter when the original BCH fork happened, and price doesn't follow hash power anyway.

when it comes to speculation sometimes you have to see what majority of people think will happen. it may sound weird but that is what drives the market most of the times!

for example in this case BitcoinSV is such an irrelevant fork that people weren't paying attention to it that much except for the BCH communities for obvious reasons. which makes believe that no matter what mess they create for themselves it won't affect bitcoin.
and lets not forget that almost all of BCH hashrate is controlled by the same people and they won't let it go anywhere else.

Its all about money.The whole thing feels staged for more profits. BCC has gained over 30% in the last few weeks, however, I reckon the current shenanigans won't impact Bitcoin prices much. Between both SV and ABC, hash power seems to favor SV. Watching to see how the whole thing develops.

I do actually have the same views too when it regards to this BCH fork drama as of now it do really acts like a private company.I don't really care on what those people are trying to prove out.
Momentarily it did able to affect bitcoins price as of this moment if we try to check it out but It wont really be permanent at all.

Faketoshi is a big problem for the crypto world, I just hope he stays with his altcoins (Bitcoin SV) and forgets bitcoin


The market is that will decide what will be better, in my opinion this was the worst decision that faketoshi, jihan Wu and Roger Ver made, because this decision will only make altcoin cash disappear, so far altcoin cash did not disappear because they were united . see that altcoin ABC has the price of 0.04 BTC and altcoin SV has the price of 0.035 BTC, in the next days these altcoins are going to fall of price


he will not do it, in the last day I hears rumors that he had been removed from leading the bitmain, today I read this news:

Bitcoin Mining Firm Bitmain Confirms Board Shakeup, Denies Jihan Wu is Out as Chair (https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-mining-firm-bitmain-confirms-board-shakeup-denies-jihan-wu-is-out-as-chair/)

this shows that there are internal problems in Bitmain

You can already check the intention of the miners on the coin dance website just liek you could check it for segwit activation, bcash fork and other shenanigans:

https://cash.coin.dance/blocks#blockDetailsForChainSplit

For this, you must understand what every pool is and what they are supporting. See this pic:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dr6_Uv_UcAAmcYk.jpg:large


You may to check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACEUOCoVvmw

This might be a good opportunity to pick cheap coins again if deluded noobs start selling BTC and buying whatever shitcoin that comes out of this.

It's just a smokescreen attempt to make him appear less relevant because of their IPO filling. Bitmain's extreme bias towards BCash might turn out to be a problem, and then mainly Jihan with how he is the public face of Bitmain, and this could very well be a convenient way to tackle any potential doubts on the side of the regulators.

Don't forget that Jihan has to ask for board approval to use Bitmain resources to stock up on BCash, and that approval was given to him more than once if you look at their accumulation history. In other words, this is just standard media circus.

Yes, that is exactly what they are saying. On /r/btc there's a bunch of people complaining about Craig Wright's hashrate, they are claiming that miners do not matter if the rest of the community don't follow them. Just a couple of months ago during the SegWit2x nonsense, they were saying how miners were showing their strength by having  like, what was it, something really high I forgot, maybe 80% of hashrate was showing intention of SegWit2x support... the tides have turned, now they are suffering from a hashrate troll.

CSW claims he will take BTC next year when he kills BCash and his SV fork takes over. He also said in 2019 "LTC will die" as well as other PoW coins. I don't know about weak alktcoins but him taking over BTC is obviously nonsense.

Is this the very first true mining war?

It could well be. I guess the effect could be to scare the holders of other pow coins, even though these circumstances are uniquely toxic.

The most depressing thing about it will be the feed this csw psycho's ego will get if he gets somewhere.

The most likely crossover from BCH affecting BTC like this is from sales of BTC into the market by long term holders to fund hashing on this fork, so as to decide the path.    So that volatility has exceeded the boundaries in crypto between different blockchains, wonder if anyone saw that coming especially.  The tail is wagging the dog  ???  Is this a proper breakout for BTC from its sideways crab movement, or will it revert in a few days after this moment passes.
   I would guess it counts, volume on the day should show significance also

His time will run out when nChain's financial resources are exhausted, because once CSW can't fund money hungry miners who don't mind fucking up another chain, they'll move back to BTC because it's more profitable to mine.

The funny thing here is that both nChain and CoinGeek depend on Bitmain because that's where they bought their gear from. It will be interesting to see if Jihan ends up blocking them from buying gear in the future.

If I was an investor I wouldn't even think about touching any of this garbage, but then again, this space is all about reckless investments so I'm not surprised that others don't give a shizzle. All that matters are cold hard profits.

Plus Roger Ver might use the "hash war" to be his convenient exit from Bitcoin Cash, and come back to Bitcoin. We should open a poll, "will you welcome Roger Ver back with open arms?". Haha.


It will work on newbies today, but memefied tomorrow. 8)

So how exactly does Craig Wright intend to destroy the ABC chain by orphaning a bunch of blocks? Because since BCH unlike BTC has the improved difficulty retarget algo and its chain won't grind to a halt when the hash power drops, eventually the difficulty would decrease and the lower hashrate would return to 10 minute block times.

If he wants to destroy or hurt ABC, then he would have to orphan a bunch of blocks or mine empty blocks. However most exchanges will see this and halt deposit or just increase the confirmation limit higher. Basically Bitfinex I think now has 30 confirmations needed for deposit creditation.

So if he wants to do this, it would get very very expensive and most likely not do much.

based on his history of lies and deceit, all the threats that he has made so far have been empty. but some believed it and some miners even showed their support for his crappy fork. so here we are...

ABC has far more economic support, and I suspect that enough hashrate will be moved to BCH-ABC at the critical time. It's most likely IMO that this will be resolved in ABC's favor within 48 hours.

I will be a bit surprised if SV wins, though it's not impossible. If SV wins, I suppose it'll be only after at least some weeks of war. This'd be the most funny and damaging for BCH, though I find CSW too distasteful to exactly hope for a SV win. It'd be especially funny if one side wins due to economic support despite losing on hashrate, which is possible.

I don't see much impact to BTC of losing 5-10% hashrate in this scuffle, especially since the Bitcoin difficulty adjustment is conveniently going to happen in ~1.5 days. I also don't see much fundamental reason for the BCH outcome to affect BTC's price, though who knows short-term: IMO the recent BTC crash was set off by Jihan trying to make some point (made possible due to low exchange depths/volumes).

For anyone who hasn't looked. It's worthwhile following his twitter. He seems a little psychotic lately and has a huge vendetta with bitcoin. He's claiming responsibility for the latest crash and says he'll push bitcoin down to $1000 or less. If he keeps this up he's going to have a lot of enemies and with the amount of people he's claiming to have screwed out of a lot of money. He should be keeping himself hidden for some time.

Agree with @theymos here, the assumed hash rate drop in BTC won't significantly affect BTC. Miner will always mine the most profitable coins in the long run.

The BTC price drop at the moment is not because of this drama. Technical analysis has predicted this event will eventually happen since the 6K support line has been tested multiple times before it finally breaks. And now, BTC is in the process of testing the 5K support line.

It will most probably be a non-event. The smart money is in bitcoin right now. If Jihan wants to allocate his hash powers towards ABC and what not to kill CSW's new coin or at least show people that CSW is not the king of bitcoin cash forks or whatever than he will have to lose some money.

His hash power will be used towards some needless useless coin whereas it could make money in bitcoin. So as usual they will have to keep on hashing at bitcoin to make money, they can use that money to beat SV coin with volumes higher. That way he will both make money and still keep SV at bay.

If he is stupid enough to change his hashing power from bitcoin to his own coin than he will be very upset about the amount of money he is losing and in business making money is the only important thing.

I just realized Poloniex has set up BTCABC and BTCSV tickers:

https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_bchabc

https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_bchsv

We can now watch the show unfold. So far BCHABC is winning.

BCHABC: 0.05107443
BCHSV: 0.02050000


The actual fireworks should start a couple hours from now. Can't wait to find out what happens.

I know people might not like this exactly but one person selling into the market even if it does drop the prices is not an overall negative.   His threat of pushing the price anywhere shouldnt really be that important when its just a temporary change in supply, I dont know how other big players might trade this but often a spike in shorts or whatever is used to flip a quick profit as they can buy up that BTC until shorts close out at the higher price.  This guy might have alot of BTC compared to many people but he isnt bigger then the overall market.

The only way its going to matter is if BTC was already due to revise this price area and he triggered that, in that case it was going to happen anyway.  I also predict the price might resolve upwards, checking the 6100 area before markets decide enmass on a direction up or down.    Maybe the 15th is the peak of uncertainty in price, I'm not clear on the timetable for this being resolved exactly but the market often surprises

It seems CSW is threatening with class action lawsuits as well as mining empty blocks to stop BCHABC supporters (including traders trying to exchange BCHSV for BCHABC, exchanges that support it and whatnot) and he claims Jihan Wu allocating hashrate from BTC to BCHABC is breaking a contract and will have legal consequences. Of course, this sounds like nonsense to me. Which jurisdictions have laws forcing miners to mine a particular coin, or I am missing something here?

Another interesting statistic is the amount of nodes supporting SV:

https://image.ibb.co/bGOEPf/nodess.jpg

This will be a good experiment to see hashrate vs economic support. It all comes down to if CSW can afford mining an undervalued coin while mining empty blocks to clutter up ABC and cause reorg.

But what did Craig Wright really expect from this "hash war"? That he could win it? Declaring a hash war against Bitmain is like the most moronic thing he can do.

This is drama to attract attention, and liquidity for their exit scam.

I actually agree. I don't believe that he is behind the crash, I think it's just him trying to get some limelight as always. But if he is, or whoever is, if they're going to sell it might as well be sooner rather than later, that way the market is going to recover sooner. I do think the hash war has some time to run, unless CSW is clueless, he's claiming it will be over weeks, months or even years.

Anyone else gets an error here claiming that the site is not safe to visit?

https://www.cash.coin.dance/blocks

I reckon this is where people were getting screenshots like this:

https://www.trustnodes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/bch-bsv-chain-split-nov-16-18.png

And to update this... BSV is losing hashrate against ABC:

https://www.trustnodes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/bch-bsv-hash-nov-16-18.jpg


Craig Wright is back on twitter rambling about patents and how this is a marathon not a spring. ABC devs also doing shady things:

https://twitter.com/bsmith12251960/status/1063277772792102912

Battle of the shitcoins indeed.

@cellard look at the web addy you posted when you hover over it. seems to be a colon or something not a dot....?

but the screenshot is about right, they're 'behind'

The url was correct, but it seems that if you add "www" you get the "Your connection is not secure The owner of www.cash.coin.dance has configured their website improperly." message. Without www it should be working now:

https://cash.coin.dance/

And wow they are really behind now. And if im following correctly, ABC team did something to avoid reorg by addition of a very controversial checkpoint. So looks like we have 2 Bcashes now https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif

hover your mouse over the link you put, here:
there's a colon there between 'coin' and 'dance'. should be a full stop!

No. ABC redirected 4Ehash from BTC mining to Bitcoin Cash ABC mining in order to show mining strength. Thereby demonstrating the fact that non-mining, fully-validating clients (often mistakenly called 'full nodes') are irrelevant against the non-sybillable mining power.

It's so fun to watch this Hash war!

Keep on burning your cash and make me laugh!!!
https://s3.cointelegraph.com/storage/uploads/view/d4cfd76501f9d655a2d06b4cd6089419.png
( source  (https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitmex-analysts-both-camps-in-bch-hash-war-are-mining-at-major-loss))

Why is this fork thingy happening again?

I know nothing of what has been going on with the crypto market scenario for the past two months at least, so someone PLEASE explain, cause the internet is well ...being the internet.  :-\

I really need to catch up with things around here. And also fuck Craig Wright and Roger Ver and Jihan Wu(whoever the hell he is).

An assumption made by crypto holders is that miners will act in their own self interest and not risk the value of their equipment to try to attack the Blockchain of a coin they are mining, especially for a major (alt🧺) coin.

CW is suggesting this might not be a valid assumption. If BCH is effectively destroyed then I suspect there will be much less confidence in crypto including bitcoin. If BCH survives without a Blockchain related attack, additional confidence in crypto may be installed.

How is this even a hash war when both BAB and BSV will end up continuing on anyway?  I mean we've seen it all.  This is no different to the forks of the past...

And how can we even assure Ver and Wright aren't manipulating everything behind the scenes?

It began with a split on CSW and Calvin Ayre's roadmap conflicting with the plans Roger Ver and Jihan Wu had for BCash. As a result, we are watching an ego-trip of 2 wealthy sides that will end up bankrupt or lossing a ton of actual bitcoins in the process, which is good for Bitcoin.



Which broke some contracts as they used cloud mining of people into their shitcoin. There's a lot of people complaining about how they saw their hashrate mining BCHABC when they bought BTC hashrate.

This will not end well on both sides.

This is quite brilliant, it's intriguing the level of commitment both sides are putting in to this, at least from a financial point of view. You've got to think one will crack eventually, one thing Craig Wright was right about is that it's not good for bitcoin because eventually both sides will have to either sell bitcoin to fund this or move miners over.

Roger is all about his Bcash being the form of money that Bitcoin (according to him) isn't, and of course his precious merchant adoption. This drama doesn't yield anything other than losers, and for that reason pretty legit.

Craig Wright is a psychopath, someone who doesn't want to see anyone operating above him, because he is satoshi at the end of the day. He owns Bitcoin. He can't accept that Bitmain is the main reason Bcash has its current value.

If BCHSV ends up being supported by both nChain and CoinGeek, they will eventually start fighting as well, and from there it's just a matter of time before CoinGeek either goes back to ABC, or forks off to become a seperate coin.

Then I believe that it only illustrates that Bitcoin Cash ABC is so centralized that there are actors that have enough hash power to 51% attack it trivially.


Hahaha no. Everyone can now clearly see what "would have been" if the users did not fight back against the miners last year.

ABC already had a 4:1 advantage in so-called 'node' count. If so-called 'node' count actually mattered, they would not be willing to lose $450,000 per day on redirecting mining power from BTC to Bitcoin Cash ABC.

Well, it is now a good time for Roger to get a feel of what it is going to be like for his own useless forked coin that was never necessary in the first place. Everything was so glaring that increase in block size is never the solution and how long was he planning to keep increasing the block size anyway? Until it practically becomes centralized?
Just like someone rightly said, this is him getting a taste of his own medicine, just that in this case, it is a useless coin that no one cares about and I really will not see it impacting much on bitcoin itself anyway.

It showed that users mattered in Bitcoin during the proposed 2X hard fork by signers of NYA which had the biggest mechants and, I believe, by the people who controlled more than 50% of the hashing power. Bitcoin Cash does not have that philosophy.

But "losing $450,000 per day" is a dick measuring contest between two centralized parties for something that no one wants.

I still can't believe two sides of this war trying to win by no matter what the outcome would be. They are fine with losing millions of dollars on this war, they are fine with destroying life savings of many people, they are fine with almost any result except them losing.

Craig is really a crazy person and he should be really outed by the community, people giving him all the credit he has so far and letting him really do whatever he wants and still interviewing him and letting him speak on conferences and all that is really idiotic. This person is really a mental patient and he should be locked and reevaluated by a professional but here instead dude is a bitcoin billionaire with means to wage war against others and destroy the market we have been trying so hard to keep afloat.

Craig Wright said on a recent interview that he is ready to dump money into his shitcoin at a loss until 2026 or so.

And as far as Craig Wright being a billionaire, I really doubt it, he is the conman to play the role of the leader and Calvin Ayre is the the actual billionaire... if we are to believe that as well. A lot of trolls these days call themselves billionaire, like that Richard Heart guy, but they've got a couple million at best.

Craig recently said he moved $100 million worth of paper Gold internationally for under 25GBP in fees to point out that Gold transfers aren't expensive, which is crazy if you think about it. How delusional is this dude? Wealthy individuals are out to NOT make it seem like they are filthy rich, while those with a big mouth who don't have much are busy making themselves look like a billionaire. Tells you enough.

You know what rappers and social media stars do? Start up so called fake beefs to boost their popularity, which if you think about it, might be the case here as well. ::)

He did? Why is he in crypto then? Why did he (LOLOLOL!!!!) invent Bitcoin? Why does he care so much about BCH if transacting outside of crypto is sooo super perfect? Just stick with your paper gold or VISA cards Mr. Craig  >:(

That's certainly bullshit, too, you can hardly do an international wire for 25GBP

Just ask Iran, when Germany refused to let them withdraw $300mm Euros. Or ask Venezuela when they tried to get their gold from the UK recently. That is the power of blockchain, not transferring some virtual gold tokens inside a closed loop system.

Did he? Then he does not "get" Bitcoin. Private key ownership has proven to be one of the most inviolable property rights in history. Bitcoin is not just "a method" for sending and receiving value over the wire.

it seems like he is trying so hard to convince the world that he has enough money/power to crash the bitcoin price while pump the shitcoin he created (BSV) and the worst part of all of this is that the market is (for some weird reason) answering positively to his attempts of crashing bitcoin price!!!

While the hash war is probably responsible for around $15 million in sold Bitcoin over the last week, that shouldn’t be enough to effect the market so dramatically. I think we’re just seeing the end of the bubble coming back to reality. This needed to happen and once the remaining speculators are flushed out of the market, we can begin the ride back up to new highs.

Who really cares about the effect that is going to be having on bitcoin price, because one thing I believe is that most people really do not even get to find bitcoincash to be a thing in the first place, except some flimsy excuse for a forked coin and like Wind_Fury said, bitcoincash is basically just a parody of itself and now miners have decided. One thing I see is that one way or the other, the breeze is gradually blowing the fowl's buttocks to the public no matter how it tries to get it covered. Shit coin that is just trying to manage to live on the glory of a bitcoin fork is all I see bitcoin cash as.

that's my take as well. the bcash drama and associated supply may have catalyzed the selloff, but it just triggered a move that was waiting to happen. i was in denial about it for a while, but BTC needs a good old fashioned capitulation to flush out the weak hands. just like old times. :)

$3000 looks juicy---i believe masterluc is eyeing that area too.

At what point do you guys think the miners side of bitcoin.com the team that involves jihan wu and roger ver would say "this is enough we are not making any profit" and stop selling and let the other guy try to win them over hash by spending money.

The miners have advantage that they are capable of using their own hash powers to mine the coins in order to lead the war however Craig has money that he uses to get hash powers as well.

So on one side we see miners who already have hash but on the other side we see a man who is BUYING hash, either Craig will start to not spend as much money as he is right now or the miners will have to stop mining coins that is not making them any money (even losing them money). This is not a war between craig vs bitcoin.com, this is a war between capital money vs investment, which one will go out first.

Under normal conditions I would agree with you, but with all the negative sentiment out there, plus paper thin orderbooks, and prices close to support levels, it is very well possible.

You don't know how much BTC Craig and Calvin sold. A couple of thousands on different exchanges or OTC desks, using different names or child companies? Then stop loss selling kicks in? I have no doubt that is possible.

With ABC's checkpointing, what's the point anymore? They are now two independent chains. If there was shadow mining going on it, the point is moot.

If mining is already there with costs of 6 million a day collectively then 15m being flushed by Craig and his backers is not a considerable amount but with news and I believe this holiday season has some effect in consensus selling, it caused doubts to then slip past support it seems.  Attempting to brute force the market into doing anything will be like pushing on string so is unlikely to work out as intended long term.  

I think crypto reacts badly to leverage and we've had a little too much of that, unwinding those expectations of immediate returns and then getting sellers at any cost because they must repay the money that isnt theres is unfortunately not going to look pretty on any chart


If he intended to show off then just show the entire slip.  The fees could be zero and it could still be costly if they are charging on the spread or storage fees or lending out his gold perhaps.   Also that value is held centrally perhaps even as a fractional reserve, is it ETF or ETN debt note.  Maybe he will be switching to XRP then

Well I think rather war between some parties for bitcoin and price etc., we must think about the solution. How to promote bitcoin in market and how to grab more investors here, this must be our mission.

the biggest thing that the 2x shenanigans proved was that everyone who is involved in bitcoin (users, nodes, miners, businesses,...) care too much about bitcoin and they don't want to destroy it by splitting it into two because of some nonsense argument, and ruin it forever.

in comparison you can see nobody cares about BCash so they easily split it into two and ruin it even more that it already is.

A small update on the losses for both team during this hash wars :
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dsjc6O-XgAE97QF.jpg:large

I don't understand why they keep wasting money and energy....

Because they do not have the "users matter" ethos. For them, running a non-mining node is useless for the network because it's the miners that "rule" the network.

I believe there are some Bitcoin Cash ABC people debating "but we have more nodes than SV" in Reddit. 8)

For me this is very clear: It's just an ego fight. They want to win, they don't want to end up as the guy that got defeated. And they want to own the BCH ticker on all exchanges, so it's a long term investment for them. They think that they will get their money back if their project (which they are vested in since they hold a lot of these respective tokens) ends up the one that survives and gets to keep the BCH ticker and network effect.

Of course long term the will just lose money as they will not be able to defeat BTC.

The best thing would be that both BCH coins crash and go bankrupt.

What I even loved more about the whole thing is the fact that the punk himself, which in this case referring to Roger, had a taste of his own medicine and that is something I was actually hoping will end up happening right from time and getting him even more screwed.

Sometimes, I keep asking how long he is going to keep fooling around before realizing he does not even have a chance. Like you said, BCH became practically dead to me right from the onset, and no matter how hard Roger tried to pump it to make it gain relevance, that only put it more in the shitcoin category. Even as it is now, it is pretty much overvalued. It should be less than 0.00000001 usd.

It's definitely an ego fight, but for the ABC camp there is so much at stake, that they can't do anything other than continue to waste money protecting their own chain. Let's be honest, the only reason BCH has value is because it's backed by Bitmain and Roger. In this case I would say 25% ego and 75% protection of economical incentives.

It all comes down to when the nChain and CoinGeek losers finally start to give up this nonsense battle. BCHSV isn't worth anything. It doesn't have any sort of network effect, economical adoption potential, has a horrible reputation, etc. In this case I would say it's 100% ego. CSW is the typical guy thinking like; If I go down, I'll take you down with me.

Jihan once accused CSW to be a blockstream spy, but it starts to look like he's a central bank spy more than anything. Where the heck did this asshole come from lol.

Because they can.  Why you think some people pay that bunch of guys drive cars in a circle and smash them?   People should do with they money as it pleases them. No one should dictate them.

Although, I believe Roger Ver has been getting an unfair amount of hate. His heart is in the right place, and we should never forget what he has done for Bitcoin.

But he did it to himself by spreading FUD and by promoting "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin", which by social consensus, isn't. He can argue that "Bitcoin Cash is also Bitcoin" though. Haha. 8)

At some point you have to put things on a balance and start questioning: Has Roger Ver done more bad than good at bitcoin after all of this?

He has caused a lot of losses directly or indirectly. By tricking people via bitcoin dot com that they were using Bitcoin but they were using BCash. By redirecting hashrate contracted via cloud mining on his pool into Bcash-ABC for the hashwars, and as a result, causing loses to Bitcoin loses as the price went down most likely helped by decrease of hashrate and dumping of coins to support his mining operation.

This compared to just talking about Bitcoin like he did early on, looks like he's doing more damage than good to me.

They have not seen anything yet. They are just going to end up as screwed up as any shit coin eventually. A waste of time, a waste of resources, a waste of space, those are pretty much the definition of shit coins. Roger really messed up right from time as a result of his own greed. He knew what was right, but he was looking forward to making more money, so I guess he is just so dumb enough not to have known that he does not have anything in this space.

I can imagine how real Satoshi will be laughing out hard right now, (if he is a single person anyway and if he is still alive), seeing all these things play out.

Then I looked at this in the bitcoin.com website,

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsthFFQWwAEreRV.jpg

I am back to "Roger Ver is scamming" again, and deserves much hate. Hahaha.

This is a very fraudulent attempt in marketing Bitcoin Cash ABC as the real Bitcoin for newbies.

Right when my opinion of him was changing after watching him and Charlie Lee debate about Lightning. Did you watch that video? It gave me the impression that Roger Ver is a fair man, but over-passionate.

so far based on what I have seen this was mainly a social media drama mainly on twitter and reddit instead of being an actual hash war. maybe there was some small scale war too but in an actual hash war one usually expects to see some 51% attacks on the weaker chain and considering they are both small and BSV has been much smaller we should have seen something and unless I missed it, there has been no attacks of any sort. which makes everything that was said by CSW, etc nonsense.

Yeah I think I did watch some of that Charlie Lee interview of Lightning Network. In which by the way he said that he would pay Charlie Lee a sum of money if LN had a number of stores by a period of time, and apparently there are already more than that number of stores out there so I wonder if he paid Charlie Lee.

Roger Ver has been scamming people by calling Bitcoin "Bitcoin Core" and redirecting people around in confusing ways on his website. He always talks about the whitepaper but he isn't respecting the actual only thing that matters: Accumulated proof of work is what dictates where consensus of what Bitcoin is is.

I understand Roger Ver's frustration on Core, and I do not believe Bitcoin Cash's path to scaling is necessarily "bad", there will always be trade-offs.

I believe he is a fair man, a passionate man, and fights for his beliefs. Those are admirable traits. But I do not agree in his methods in marketing Bitcoin Cash.

Plus this from a Bitcoin Unlimited developer,

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsynKBvW0AECVEw.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsypRjDWoAIwu8A.jpg

Hahahaha!

It is not just an "ego" fight at all. Ego definitely plays a big role and for someone like Craig it is definitely an ego thing which I can understand because he really thinks he is the person with Satoshi connection and he knows what he wants and so forth however in reality he probably has no clue what would Satoshi wanted. He is a prick and he wants to win, that side could be all ego.

Moreover for places like bitcoin.com and bitcoin cash original guys with bitmain and so forth it looks like it is more about money. They would have to give the reigns to Craig and would have to lose a lot of money, yeah they are losing money right now at these current rates but at least they did not lost the coin itself, that would have been a bigger loss for them. So right now they are losing a little compared to what they could have lost.

This hashwar is not yet finished hehehe. However both of them cannot mine forever at a loss and there will be more lawsuits thrown versus each other that will cost them more.

Who has more bitcoins to burn, Roger Ver or Craig Wright? The winner will be known before December 31, 2019, I reckon.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5ac386467a74af28008b4606-1136-568.jpg
Vitalik announcing the winner of the hashwar

A new lawsuit alleges that proponents of Bitcoin Cash ABC – one of two competing iterations of the bitcoin cash cryptocurrency that split off during a hard fork last month – illegally manipulated the market, damaging investors as a result.

Florida-based United Investment Corp. filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida claiming that Roger Ver, bitcoin.com, Bitmain and co-founder Jihan Wu, crypto exchange Kraken and founder Jesse Powell, and Bitcoin ABC developers Amaury Sechet, Shammah Chancellor and Jason Cox centralized bitcoin cash and manipulated the price during its contentious hard fork.

The suit claims that bitcoin.com and Bitmain (and their respective founders) “hijacked the [bitcoin cash] blockchain,” especially by dedicating mining power in theory assigned to mining the bitcoin blockchain to mining what was then referred to as the Bitcoin ABC chain.

In a separate statement sent to CoinDesk, UnitedCorp said the defendants perpetrated “a scheme of fraud” by colluding to control the network.

UnitedCorp claims that it “justifiably relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations by investing millions of dollars in development and deployment of infrastructure specifically for the mining of bitcoin cash,” and has suffered damages as a result.

Further, the suit claims that “Bitmain, Bitcoin.com, and Ver have been unjustly [enriched] by the conduct described above.”

The company claims similar damages from the role Bitcoin ABC developers played in setting up a checkpoint on the network, claiming that doing so “violated the ground rules of the network that other users had relied on and respected for years, and artificially pumped up the chain implementation with computer hashes to dominate the temporary software upgrade.”

This checkpoint also centralized the market, the suit claims.

In an email, Sechet told CoinDesk that Bitcoin ABC did not centralize the network, adding, “In fact I explained that the result of the actions being taken by various actors in the ecosystem would result in centralization.”

Finally, the suit alleges that Jesse Powell and Kraken impacted the price by designating the Bitcoin ABC chain as bitcoin cash, and granting it the “BCH” ticker.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/mining-firm-claims-bitcoin-abc-proponents-hijacked-bitcoin-cash

although I love to see what the result of it is but the lawsuit seems like pure bullshit. 90% of the things it mentions are not even illegal. for example the miners they own are theirs and they are free to do with them whatever they like. you can't sue someone for mining something they prefer. as for their pools, they weren't shady about what they are mining. it was clear what each of them support and if some miner wanted they could have left their pool and mined elsewhere.

the only thing that makes a little sense is the ticker thing which again is not exactly illegal according to the law since there is no standard for the tickers. calling some shitcoin BCH or BCHSV doesn't make a difference they are both still shitcoins that are abusing the name of a trusted cryptocurrency called "bitcoin". so if anything they are both criminals.

@Pursuer. It might be bullshit but it throws more unwanted obstacles on Roger and Jihan and it would cause them to spend more than they can afford in this hashwar.

What do you mean "his frustration with Core"? what frustration? Are you perhaps implying that Core can single-handedly solve Roger Ver's frustration by, singlehandedly, raising the blocksize to whatever the fuck would meet Roger Ver's demands? Something doesn't add on to me.

I believe Roger Ver still doesn't understand that Core cannot raise the blocksize. If they did agreed, it would just cause a clusterfuck similar to what we've seen with Bitcoin Cash, because even if Core agreed, there are big Bitcoin pockets that wouldn't, so as soon as the split happened, the dump wars would begin and it wouldn't be pretty.

At this point that's true, partly because Core mounted such strong arguments against a hard fork block size increase and because that contingent is so entrenched in the community now. And partly because hard forks get harder to pull off over time as stakeholders with differing interests develop.

Back in 2015, if Core had merged the code and not explicitly opposed it, I bet you'd find a lot less opposition than now.

eventually block size also has to increase unless the adoption stops here and doesn't grow any further. there is just so much you can do with soft forks such as SegWit and other proposals such as Schnorr and signature aggregation that it can offer for multisignatures to reduce their size but in the end it won't be enough in the long run.
and i don't think the developers were opposing block size increase, they were opposing increasing it right now without activating SegWit first and enabling LN to mature first.

I agree the Core developers aren't totally opposed to block size increases. But I also think the arguments from 2-3 years ago have really entrenched the "small blockers" and that complicates things politically. I think there is a significant portion of the community that would oppose a hard fork and would prefer to see fees rise......not necessarily a majority, but enough to make a hard fork very difficult to implement without causing a network split.

Eventually, maybe. But not because there's a small group in the commumity who wants to pressure the Core developers to do it now because "reasons".


Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.


I believe they were against the idea because bigger blocks are inherently centralizing. They were also against the idea of risking a network split. A hard fork also amputates the network of full nodes.

The elephant in the room was the possibility of a network split. In a truly decentralized network, a hard fork would be nearly impossible to coordinate without splitting the network. That's still the main danger today and it's why having any sense of urgency around increasing block size is an unacceptable position.

I think there is/was a general feeling that increasing block size = kicking the can down the road. It doesn't solve anything and puts the entire design at the mercy of technological improvements.

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

That's impressive. I'm all for different protocols having different approaches to scaling.

I do wonder how the mining incentives will play out long term. That's the main reason why I support smaller block sizes in Bitcoin: to produce higher fees that can eventually replace the block subsidy (for mining security). With unlimited block size, I feel the design is too dependent on either an endless stream of transaction demand or endless price rise.

Hahahaha! You posted that as if 64mb blocks was a regular thing in your network. Dogecoin, on average, processes more transactions than Bitcoin Cash SV, https://cash.coin.dance

That sounds massive, was there a special need for a 64mb block at that moment.     I realise everybody is competing with everyone else but I dont want to look negatively on any blockchain even if its forked from one I support.  As a sector overall, crypto has to advance as we all know big business just wants to centralise this whole idea and handle it all itself in house.   Only the competitive advancement by various protocols is likely to really find a solution that plain society really wants and values and is willing to pay for and invest in, otherwise I see all of us on every chain as not winning this likely long term

It would sound "massive", in a good way, only to the people who have not tried to research, and understand how inherently centralizing big blocks are. The big blockers will label it as "propaganda" on their convenience, and reply with propaganda of their own.

Newbies should not be trapped into their narrative.

I never assume at face value, just was interested to learn why and so on.   Markets are often ironic anyway, intended effects go a different way, best laid plans and all that.   I'm a big fan of natural dynamics and chaos theory and such like :p

The "why" is to show that they can make a 64mb block. That we already know, but does the Bitcoin Cash SV network have the demand to process that much transactions every block, everyday is the problem.

Plus if they can process that much, you have to ask how much that inherently scales their network in.

Not at all. And it wasn't "recently," it was once, ever.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9ymkiw/64mb_block_mined_on_sv/

Much like everything else that has to do with SV it was completely manipulated. The fastest average transactions per second SV has ever recorded was 3.34, and that was also only in 1 hour of 1 day.

https://bsvexplorer.io/blocks

Not to mention, the average block size for SV is currently about 10 KB.

https://bsvexplorer.io/tx-stats

The whole "appeal" of BCH was "bigger blocks," and did it catch on with the mainstream? No.

So yet another altcoin whose whole premise is "even bigger blocks" (supported by even bigger egos btw) is doomed to fail.

Nonsense. I posted it as if the network was capable of handling that much demand.

Fees would definitely rise, but I'm not sure that's a miserable failure.

The purpose of Segwit wasn't to increase tx/s capacity. The point was to establish a building block for exponential off-chain scaling. If you could have 480 tx/s with strong security incentives, without publishing most of them to the blockchain, wouldn't that be better?

Sorry. I shorthanded. I didn't mean segwit the incremental protocol change. I meant the current core protocol set. I subbed 'segwit' for Bitcoin Segwit. That blockchain is incapable of handling a mere fraction of that load.


Fair enough, but it is smoke and mirrors...


No. If it is not published to the blockchain, it is not a bitcoin transaction.

The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in?

But I believe the ABC, and SV developers are each doing good science experiments though. Keep it up.

This will never be a problem. BCH has trouble coming close to filling its blocks, there's no reason why SV wouldn't also.


You have a valid point here, I just don't care for the heavy-handed psy ops that leaders of alternative chains use in order to promote their own economic interests. Their main tactic seems to be introducing more confusion into an area that the general population already finds dauntingly confusing.

Well, we don't yet know if the system can handle that sort of sustained throughput. We do know that the next block was propagated about five minutes later (luck of the draw), and the system happily linked it to the >64MB block. So we have some preliminary evidence that it may. And we know that -- contrary to the claims of core -- nodes can indeed handle blocks larger than 4MB. That is, if the protocol supports it, and the implementation does not contain any self-imposed bottlenecks (such as a naive mutitasking model).

The probing at the limits has not come to a conclusion. More developments are expected.

BTC also had problems filling blocks. All the way up to the scaleapocalypse.

We know how this story ends.

These are not science experiment anymore than little kids doing slime tests on youtube channels. We know what they are aiming at and we have seen the path they want to take and we have known for a while that both ways are worthless and useless, that is why they are not going with these in the real bitcoin world.

It is just a way for the rich to grab more money while they can and nothing more, Roger Vers and Jihan Wu's and Craigh wrights are just trying to spend their money on these projects so they could later on collect more. If you spend 10 into something but take out 15 that is a good investment and that's all they are trying right now. Testing something that is already not wanted is not experiment or even liked. We all know eventually bitcoin cash and all its forks will be gone, its just matter of when.

Yeah but the difference is people actually use BTC for purposes other than coddling their own egos. Nobody wants yet another altcoin pretending to be BTC. Also, BTC survived pretty well for being in an apocalypse.

Yup - went from routine greater than 85% dominance down to less than a third. Such success.

I guess that's not an important distinction to me. The important thing is whether a protocol requires 3rd party trust. That's the point of Bitcoin. Whether transactions are published to the blockchain is more a question of distributed data storage, which can be a nice feature but isn't necessary for peer-to-peer cash transactions.

I think having the option to use different protocols with different security tradeoffs (at different costs) is great for users. Since LN is compatible with Bitcoin, users can decide for themselves when they need Bitcoin's security or transparency, or if it's really not necessary for their needs. And if you need the blockchain to arbitrate a channel dispute, it's there and parties can settle back to Bitcoin.

This just seems better to me. It creates incentives for users to not bloat the chain (causing higher latency and bandwidth costs) because they can transact more cheaply on LN. It enables cheap and instant transactions without compromising Bitcoin in any way.

Sure - options are good. But to force everything onto a side chain, by stifling the ability to transact freely onchain, is a net negative.

Ok.


Why was that? Because the normal average block size in SV is 10kb. Network stress tests?


It would be hard to assume that that would be so after just two consecutive blocks.


How can we know the network will not scale in unless we have a network that processes more than 4mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for a long time?


Ok, then we can agree that no developer is sure if on-chain scaling will not scale the network in.

It seems that this hash war had a detrimental effect on the entire market and it hasn't recovered properly yet. The sooner these shitcoins are removed from the market the better it will be for everyone.

Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I think the market was looking for any excuse to sell off. Supply doesn't appear out of nowhere, and Bitmain (let alone Craig Wright) didn't even own that much BTC heading into the crash according to published numbers.

Bcash and other shitcoins aren't going anywhere either. Their positions in the Top 10 or 20 may wax and wane, but they'll always be with us. Bitcoin investors are constantly looking for ways to invest their coins to increase their stash. Altcoin speculation has traditionally been the best route (although ASICminer shares had their day).

Yup. I would even like to think that we'll see more reasonably high ranked SHA-256 forks in the coming years, because ASIC manufactures have to sarisfy their shareholders and sell gear.

Bitcoin alone isn't enough. Bcash is the first attempt to boost sales, Bsv is another one, and it wouldn't even surprise me to see nChain and CoinGeek fork before the end of 2019 as well. It's all artificial demand they create.

The same basically applies to all the other POW coins. There is so much incentive to either launch or fork a coin, that we'll be seeing them for many more years to come. People better accept it.

They think there are only like 2000 coins because of Coinmarketcap, but I remember a statement that Binance had received listing requests of over 5000 coins/projects. Insane.

Compared to every other cryptocurrency ever, yes, its been a resounding success. No coin has ever come close to surpassing its market cap dominance or popularity. The rest of the world is still coming to terms with the idea of bitcoin and there are a bunch of ego-driven snobs doing everything they can do confuse them for their own personal gain.

Is market cap of all coins the "standard" used to measure "dominance"? I believe that's flawed because the market cap of many coins are not justifiable, because of very low liquidity. Plus most of the altcoins' market caps are based on speculation, not real value.

Bitcoin's value is also based on speculation, but you have a strong point about liquidity. If we want to talk about coins overtaking BTC, we need to talk about volume and liquidity. Market caps aren't meaningful if only an extremely tiny minority of market participants can exit at those prices.

I think we should expect dominance to continue falling over time regardless of any fundamentals. Due to altcoin proliferation and ridiculously large circulating supplies, the dominance factor can be heavily exaggerated by any bull run in the altcoin sector. Billions of XRP, XLM and USDT are totally skewing things, and that's just to name a few in the top 10 coins.

The point is that, if core had not intentionally crippled BTC's ability to scale on chain, due to their insane Raspberry Pi fetish, there would be no reason for 90% of these other coins to even gain a toehold.

i get why people think that---the narrative is somewhat intuitive if all the focus is on low fees and confirmation speed. but i just don't buy it, particularly because i've seen the cycles of greed play out in altcoin markets for years and years now. as long as bitcoin doesn't existentially fail (in which case the entire market will approach $0), there will always be interest in altcoins. they represent new features and innovations and more importantly (for the market) another chance to get rich quick because "they're cheap and bitcoin is so expensive". everybody wants to catch the next big thing. when i arrived in 2013, i immediately chased litecoin instead of bitcoin for the same reason. i hear it from noobs all the time.

all that is to say, there's nothing the core devs could do to prevent all the interest in altcoins. it's inevitable and largely based in greed-based speculation. different scaling mechanisms = only one subset of changes/features that altcoins offer to speculators. people also want privacy, dapp functionality, different consensus algorithms like POS or hybrid POS, DEX functionality, etc etc etc.

Once again deluded altcoiners think that "Core" is single handedly deciding when a hardfork happens in Bitcoin. When will you understand that even if Core was on board with whatever proposal to increase the blocksize (let's say, the 2x segwit thing back then) it would still have created a division in the community, thus 2 different competing altcoins, and as a result an overall loss of the network effect and thefore value of Bitcoin? (see, Bitcoin Cash ABC vs Bitcoin SV nonsense).

Massive whales would have dumped "CoreCoin" to keep the legacy chain going because there was no consensus.

There's no realistic way that i can think of, to hardfork Bitcoin, ever. And because of this it has value, if it was easy to hardfork, then imagine the clusterfuck (see altcoins)

Nonsense. Core drove division by their refusal to scale on chain, and by pushing their (maybe it will pay off some day in the future) segwit nonsense instead. In contrast to the abolition of the 250K soft cap and the 500K soft cap before then, which were both non-events.

Back in 2011, 'everybody knew' that we would just bump up the block size before blocks became persistently full. But no. Veer left -> ludicrous tx fees -> loss of dominance.

Yes, you're absolutely right -- the market cap can be easily manipulated. I'm a cryptocurrency writer and its my job to research coins that break into the top 100 by market cap. I'd say about half of the coins I've written about in the past 3 months are tokens that found a way to manipulate coinmarketcap.com into showing them bursting onto the scene with 300% gains over a 24 hours period. They're a dead giveaway because their volume is tiny compared to their neighbors in the ranking.

Take for example FREE Coin (https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/free-coin/).... It's value should be as close to zero as possible, but whenever it gets listed on a new exchange for 1 satoshi, some idiots (or else the pumpers) buy it to raise its average price... Pretty soon a meaningless token with a 10 trillion supply is sitting in the top 40 coins. CMC takes note of this and eventually excludes the new exchange from their averaging as such an exchange is considered an "outlier" compared to all the other prices. This has the effect of rightfully reducing the token from a top 40 to a top 800 coin.


Have you transacted in BTC lately? Median tx fees range from 5 to 8 cents. And what are you talking about, "loss of dominance"?? BTC has always been the most dominant crypto by a longshot. It rose in market cap dominance from 38% to 51% over the last year. Meanwhile BCH fell from 7% to 2.2%...

https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentage

Why do you insist on being wrong?

He's pointing to the fact that Bitcoin had dominance in the 80-95% range for years until it cratered ~ March 2017 and never really recovered. I think the drop can be generally attributed to the altcoin bubble and the launch of an unprecedented number of altcoins and ICO tokens. It's a stretch to blame it all on rising Bitcoin transaction fees, although I'm sure it played some role. Many altcoins were marketed as low-fee alternatives to BTC during the bubble.

Right, if you look at the chart I linked, the only category of coin gaining in the past 2 years is "Other," which signifies almost the entirety of the altcoin market (sans ETH, BCH and the handful of individualized others). There's been new coins coming on to the market ever since I've been here, but the fact is, BTC has remained far and away #1 the whole time. It's only gained worldwide popularity since then. Just because it equates for less of the total market cap space doesn't mean its utility has been diminished.

All other coins were inspired in their creation by bitcoin. Some are trying to do things bitcoin can't, others are simply riding the crypto wave. They are all dependent on the continued success of bitcoin, as BTC is the least risky investment of a high risk investment category.

Also, during late 2017 Ver was purposefully increasing the average transaction fee and spamming the network with transactions just so he could make the point of saying, "See? Bitcoin is too slow and expensive." After he ceased his manipulation, things went back to normal.

But the Core developers should not cripple decentralization, and the network's ability to scale out just because there are some groups in the community that want it to hard fork to bigger blocks. Core will not be pressured to do something because of the self-interest, and agendas of those groups.

Actual nonsense. "Core" is not some guy that can decide, it's a bunch of people. And once again, the outcome would have been a clusterfuck of competing coins, which would have lead to loss of dominance as well, but said loss of dominance was unavoidable anyway because of the altcoin speculative bubble. Everyone wanted to get in on "Bitcoin 2.0" and get that x1000 on their initial investment, which is the only reason shitcoins go up.

By the time the next huge bubble happens capacity will not be a problem and trying to spam the network by the usual suspects will put even more losses on them.

But nonetheless the #1 reason of why bitcoin is valuable is the fact that it is immutable or in any case extremely difficult to change. If this wasn't the case then anyone with some brain cells would have dumped already and bought gold. Luckily as we can see by your frustration and everyone else's frustration on why "Bitcoin doesn't do what I want it to do so Bitcoin is dead" it isn't the case.

even with LN or sidechains, funding and settlement = on-chain transactions. we'll eventually run into the same congestion and high fees with or without a concerted effort to spam the network. 

are you opposed to any future block size increase? i've got mixed feelings myself knowing how difficult it might be politically. i'm curious how others see the issue---assuming the technological (network latency/bandwidth) bottlenecks are overcome.

Big blockers also fail to explain why everyone has not started using the "Bitcoin with big blocks" after their chain-split. If "everyone knew back in 2011 that an increase in block size" was all that had to be done, then where is "everyone" now?

I'm not arguing anything like that. I think dominance is a silly metric for reasons already mentioned above. That's why there's no point saying, "It rose in market cap dominance from 38% to 51% over the last year." That's no more important than dominance falling because a thousand ICO tokens were launched. It's a totally distorted metric. It can move for reasons that are unrelated to actual demand or utility.

It's not that im opposed or not, is that I really doubt it can be done, at least done smoothly... every hardfork is going to be a bit of a clusterfuck situation unless it's an undeniable necessity. Some may argue that it's never really needed because as long as there's people willing to pay to transact, then things go on as usual. Others may argue this damages some of the economical incentives but im not so sure about that.

In any case, in order to fill the current block space worth of LN transactions, the usage of LN would be massive.

I think blocksize will eventually be raised, however it will probably happen when the situation requires a hardfork for other things as well... we'll see.