lol

oh, so much fud

atleast try to be accurate if your going to spread fud

bitcoin cash is a bilateral split (true altcoin creation)

the other guys above are listing clients that did not want bilateral splits. even gmax admitted the list refused a bilateral split.



the list of clients do work on bitcoin mainnet but with functionality/features which core refuse to implement

..

the flagging of segwit is pretty much over. but the utility of segwit has not even started.
even the pools on litecoin are not using segwit keypairs, yet they were all dramatised as being all for segwit... funny that!

the only reason the segwit flagging jumped from 35%-80-95% is the (near/possible) promise of 2mb base block in the next 3 months.
not because people suddenly adored the idea of segwit miraculously.

anyway lets see what happens in the next few months and find out what other promises are retracted and dont become forfilled

bitcoin cash made it clear they are doing a bilateral split (altcoin). unlike elements:segwit which is trying to take over bitcoin, changing everything from the keypairs, block template design, network topology and everything else..

so why all the drama about bitcoincash..

litecoin dont even come with their own raw / from scratch code for litecoin. its a direct copy of core...electrum and other bitcoin based software

how is litecoin any different then the drama of the bch altcoin. or any other altcoin like clams

seems people are just over dramatising things.

yes i expect my post to get deleted because some people dont like to be hit with the logic stick...

i think the OP is on about the point that a coin is a physical metal object.

and if we were to be more factually accurate at describing things, bitcoin is not accurate. just like wallet is not accurate.

EG a wallet stores money but a bitcoin wallet stores keys..
so a bitcoin wallet should be called a keyring for laymans more accurate description reasons

and bitcoin should if you are a sheep to core, eventually be called bitreserve because they hate bitcoin being used to buy things which people buy using coins in the real world (their bitcoin not for cups of coffee cry)

so although bitcoins name wont change as the op suggest. just ponder the idea if it had to change purely to be descriptively more accurate to the layman to understand how it works. what would you change it to.

---

for me it would be

bits - for the future common spendable value (100 sats) *
btc(BTC) - for the comparison of gbp(£) usd($)
bitreserve** - for protocol/code/software (because calling the software and the value the same thing gets confusing when using the term bitcoin for both)


* people dont say goldtonne or goldounce or goldgram. they just say gold and separately describe the measure (eg bitcoin is 1000000bits)
** if core gets its way and bloats up and continues stifling onchain capacity

its an altcoin
they announced publicly that they are going to do a transparent and direct bilateral split.

there are alteast 400 other altcoins which also retained part of bitcoins blockchain at a certain milestone/checkpoint. and then these altcoins also forked lite wallets too

so its the same drama as the other 400 altcoins.

correct

the august 1st USAF segwit (advocated by samson mow with his hat giveaway) - the actual hard fork pretending to be soft

the segwit2x(bip91) by gavin/garzic (bloq)

the segwit november 2016-2017 (bip9/141) by blockstream

are all linked

samson mow works for both BTCC and blockstream
segwit2x by bloq

and look who they are paid by
barry silbert of DCG.co

check out the portfolio http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b

they pretend to be opposition, they pretend to be hostile, but in the end its all just drama to confuse sheep to force through segwit.

...
what i found funny is from late 2015-mid 2017. core, wuille, gmax, luke Jr.. even with lots of drama, lots of paid for all inclusive vacations/table meetings. all the propaganda, all th rekt campaigns to attempt to make people hate gavin and others.. meaning 2 years and loads of money...

all it took was letting gavin and garzic make an implementation and within weeks changed the sheeps minds..
it was gavin and garzic that moved people into jumping for segwit.

just shows that gmaxwell and blockstream should just code something that actually showed more possibility of meeting community needs rather than fighting or throwing excuses why a possible baseblock change shouldnt happen

next time. gmax should just give the community what they want or atleast stop shouting empty promises that dont even have code to promise

its not printing more money.
its cutting a bank note into confetti to then make each scrap of paper sharable. in the hope that each scrap of paper pushes the value up

EG
imagine a $10 bank note buys 10 loaves of bread.

cut the $10 bank note up so 1000 people can have a 'bank note' instead of one person. and hope that each scrap of paper buys 1 loaf of bread. making if you selotape the scraps together... a whole bank note be valued at 1000 loaves of bread.

(which converting to old fiat value becomes $1000 value of whole bank note)

its the opposite of zimbabwe's inflation where one day 1 bank note of X ZD buys a loaf.. then later it requires printing millions of ZD to buy a single loaf.

ZD=inflation
dividing units of measure = deflation

but thats just visually. because the confetti analogy is a new twisted method of creating new 'smaller' bank notes.. so it gets confusing to people depending on which way you look at it

^ mindsets like this is where you give over your free will to dictators because you "trust" them purely because they MIGHT be better than a sheep.
its not about 'helping the poor' its about not letting certain cartel from restricting/ignoring/avoiding and prohibiting the poor from using it

dont be a fool.

first of all.. at code level there are no "21million coins"

its all based in satoshis as the units of measure

EG
125000000sats per block reward right now, which mathematically gets to be ~21 quadrillion units of measure once 'rewards' have gone through all thir halvings.

[certain cartel] have already been salivating at the idea of changing
125000000units of measure per block(at code level).. to become
125000000000units of measure per block reward.. to be stupidly compatible with the [certain cartel]:LN code - (research millisats)

so think long and hard about the effect it has
..( v their lame excuse v )
 the way the code has been written in satoshis.. there will be a issue in 8 halvings time not 29 more as some thought.
.) 1250000000
1.) 625000000
2.) 312500000
3.) 156250000
4.) 78125000
5.) 39062500
6.) 19531250
7.) 9765625
8.) 4882812.5
..

so something has to change to avoid rounding errors.. and then again in 12 halvings from now(if they went with the 1000 multiplication of units of measure) another alteration would be needed

12.) 305175.78125

some people think its good to add on more units of measure. but that just extends the 'reward' mining for a few years

changing the units of measure is something to think about when needed to change things in 32 years time+.. but doing it now and then keep doing it is just ruining some aspects of bitcoin that made it better than fiat.. just ends up being done just to let people be greedy rather than as a fix for an issue thats not an issue right now

..
in short
although the GUI will incorrectly pretend there are only 21mill bitcoins. the number of shareable units will carry on increasing


please note my post contents of the maths is correct but i had to remove some of the comments about a certain cartel to avoid censorship deletions of my posts, so i apologise that the context does not flow

from what i have read bitcoincash meant to be a bilateral split (an accepted and obvious altcoin)

so with that said. it just seems like drama

gmax loves to decline being part of any code when things go wrong, so why care.
its open source decentralised so anyone is free to copy and use it anyway.

i would laugh if they did put gmax's company name into the code...
but then ofcourse everyone would see gmax cry and scream to get it taken away because he does not want to be seen as part of their project.

gmax would scream blue murder that he does not endorse or promote the code. and would then scream to not trust the code anyway because in his eyes its not been peer reviewed by his company. nor is it gmax's code due to all the "551 files changed, 54096 insertions(+), 47943 deletions(-)" changes which makes it no longer his companies code.

.
in short gmax is creating drama where attributed or not gmax will complain either way

in very short
gmax is a drama queen

to gmax
how about stop being a corporate economist and go back to being a programmer.
how about actually work on a tx fee priority formulae, instead of shouting "just pay more" and then finding ways to bloat the blockchain with your "ct pedersen commitments"

and then
if you really wanna be anal about attributions then write cores 'copyrights' list with EVERY contributor. meaning comment every line of code with a tribute to who wrote it.

or
how about realise that bitcoin should be owned by no single party/team

and stop trying to be a controlfreak, emphasis on control...though im sure your drama queen qualities will take issue with the freak mention

and to clarify and demystify the fud

A hard fork requires waiting for sufficient consensus.- true: with consensus the risks are minimal to nill
    Risk of catastrophic consensus failure - should be reworded: risk of failure without consensus
    An emergency hard fork that can achieve consensus can be deployed on a short time period if needed.importance is achieving consensus
    Orphan rate amplification, more reorgs and double-spends due to slower propagation speeds only if blocks increment to a large magnitude instead of small increments
    European/American pools at more of a disadvantage compared to the Chinese pools - then set up a pool in any 200 countries if america has issues
    "Congestion" concerns can be solved with mempool improvements including transaction eviction - but still doesnt solve the need for more capacity
    No amount of max block size would support all the world's future transactions on the main blockchain - no one needs world domination by midnight, chill!!
(various types of off-chain transactions are the only long-term solution) - nope offchain solutions are just the corporate desire to get back to 'managed funds'
    Fast block propagation is either not clearly viable, or (eg, IBLT) creates centralised controls.- it is viable if you think logically and rational, not exagerated and beyond rational

Damage to decentralization

    Larger blocks make full nodes more expensive to operate.- it is viable if you think logically and rational, not exagerated and beyond rational[/color]
    Therefore, larger blocks lead to less hashers running full nodes, - hashers dont even run nodes. unscrew a asic you wont find a hard drive
which leads to centralized entities having more power, which makes Bitcoin require more trust, which weakens Bitcoins value proposition. - pure fud
    Bitcoin is only useful if it is decentralized because centralization requires trust. Bitcoins value proposition is trustlessness. - which is why offchain is not the solution
    The larger the hash-rate a single miner controls, - hashrate and blocksize are 2 separate entities and have no impact on each other
the more centralized Bitcoin becomes and the more trust using Bitcoin requires. risk of centralisation is lower compared to centralising via offchain
    Running your own full node while mining rather than giving another entity the right to your hash-power decreases the hash-rate of large miners.
- asics(hashers) have been around for 4 years, and have not had a hard drive/node/blockchain in a "hasher" since..
Those who have hash-power are able to control their own hash power if and only if they run a full node. - again 4 years out of date fud.
    Less individuals who control hash-power will run full nodes if running one becomes more expensive[4]. - incremental growth naturally and logically and rationally is not a problem

---

if you see people cry about "gigabyte blocks" or "visa comparison" .. just tell them thats the 20+ year plan... not the 6 month-year plan. then tell them to stop scaring off small increments every 6 months-year purely because of pretending the 20 year goal has to happen now

20 years AGO people were using floppy disks only holding 1.4mb but physically larger than post-it notes, now its 256 GB the size of a fingernail
20 years AGO people were using 56k dial up... now its Fibre and 5G

so the future has much capability.. once you think logically instead of exagerating

remember what you say here. because with LN you have to join your funds with another party. and that other party can decide not to sign their half unless you pay X. they can blackmail you into wanting to exit the contract by you broadcasting a tx, which they can then broadcast their revoke and take it back (much like chargebacks). so dont think of LN as a solution, it is simply joint bank accounting where the other party can affect you..

plus the way the LN 'routes' are found via LN dns seeds means that in many cases the DNS owners will prefer to send peoples channels via the dns seed owners prefered hub to generate more fee's for that group.

LN is banking/paypal2.0 so please keep your mindset you hav in the quotation above and dont end up being like the other BScartel sheep hoping for LN to be the sole solution for bitcoin

get your mind out of "gigabytes by midnight"

we dont need to be 7billion people buying chewing gum by tomorrow.. bitcoin was suppose to have bumped up to 2mb by 2011 and then bumped up again a couple times more by now.

w also should not have got into the tx fee war which has pushed out the normal spending utility either. for the same reasons of the last paragraph i just mentioned.

yet even now even with segwit. all that is being promised is the same HOPE of 7tx/s as 8 years ago.(no progress at all)
scare stories of "gigabytes by midnight" are not used to prove 8mb is bad. but used to scare people into thinking anything above 1mb is bad... which is foolish and been debunked.

knowing natural growth of incremental changes over time allows (obviously) natural growth and capability.. is how we should be thinking.
so please dont use extreme circumstances of small or large. and instead think of natural growth over time. then you will see there are no problems

too many people want to scream kill government tonight and get everyone over to bitcoin before sunrise.. which i facepalm.
we need to think grow naturally over time and let people freely move across while governments naturally fail their people and crumble ovr the next few years/decades.

yep. but allowing people an open option to move away from the dam(fiat) to dry land(bitcoin) while the dam exists...is the easier option..
 as oppose to throwing dynamite at the dam before the dry land can cope ..

let the dam crack and break all by itself over years to decades. rather than trying to break the dam tonight and then cry that bitcoin(dry land) cant cope because the infrastructure has not been built yet

many people think bitcoin has to within 2 years become the "gigabytes by midnight" concept of replacing all fiat/visa transactions of the world.
over throwing governments etc.

the reality should be that bitcoin should remain outside of government jurisdiction and be more of the 'travellers cheques' replacement. where anyone can access and use them in any country freely without all the tax government bureaucracy.

it doesnt require jumping to 7billion people storing their entire lifetimes wealth on bitcoin. but instead treated as a new separate currency working outside/alongside fiat as a optional choice. something that allows people to privately own without control and works across borders

to split the network is done by avoiding the consensus mechanism of 2 opposing rules
this is don by banning/ignoring/blacklisting the opposition nodes thus not even getting the oppositions data to orphan and thus strengthening the survival opposing rules without the consensus orphan drama causing issues.

its not simply having one network of opposing rules as that just going to cause orphan drama and services needing to wait further confirms to wait out the drama.

it actually needs the oppositions to avoid each other via banning nodes/blacklisting. which ethereum does by --oppose-dao-fork.
ethereum did not split simply by changing rules. they added in the -oppose-dao-fork code to discommunicate with opposing nodes

OP

your definition of 'miners' is inaccurate/non descript. miners are mainly just those that run ASICS.. asics dont have hard drives. asics dont collate the data, asics dont make transactions they just hash

people can be just 'miners' and not have any nodes or access to exchanges/services.

POOLS that collate the data into blocks are only part of the symbiotic relationship. pools dont need to run asics themselves they can just run a server and let miners(customers) use their server, where the pools takes a cut from the income from serving miners.

this does not mean pools cannot be miners or miners cannot be pools.
this does not mean that miners cannot be node users and node users cannot be miners.

but to presume that the definitions are automatically both(more than their singular real definition) is limited thinking.

once you grasp that "users" can also be a merchant, or and exchange, or a pool, or a miner. or even just a SPV running transaction spender(non-node) then it will make it easier to grasp the complexity of the network.

..
in short you cannot just have asics..
in short you cannot just have pools..
in short you cannot just have users..

..
but say the network was made up of two users, where one user was a pool, a merchant, a exchange and a asic farm.. EG BTCC.. then BTCC is then very centralised and has dominant control of what gets accepted into blocks(pool control) also sets the price of the rewards for the other user to buy at (exchange control) and the exchange rate of buying produce away from the exchange(merchant control)

by separating the 'task' / parts of the network it helps reduce the control BTCC(for this example) has on the network from the economics point of view.

..
as for the technical/ protocol point of view
by separating the 'task' / parts of the network it allows merchants exchanges and users to choose which blocks they accept, which the causes the pools to conform to the rules which the (non-pool nodes) have,
otherwise the rewards cannot be spent, because the pools non-conformity blocks are not recognised in the blockchain the exchanges/merchants decide as being valid.

anyone running software that blocks itself from the network is just creating themselves a small little island for themselves (an altcoin/private network)
the guys running software are not harming the network, they are just cutting themselves away from the network

a far simpler solution to blacklist all bitcoin nodes is just to not go look for bitcoin nodes via known bitcoin dns seeds and instead only accept connections from manually added nodes they do like

seems chicago has the best understanding of the reality of whats happening with all the drama right now.

that gif explains easily.
now people just need to get passed the drama and actually look at the future REALITY of ACTUAL growth expectations and solutions