As a new fork starting with the same full difficulty as the legacy chain, I think it's doing quite well to date. Am I deciding nothing bad can happen from now on based on three days history? Not at all. But I'm also not writing its obituary, especially considering it has experienced no real problems so far.

If I'm wrong, and you have specific incidents to demonstrate this, please educate me. I'm here to learn.

Just chiming in to say I've used Electron Cash several times now, and sent a transaction once. Worked every time. One time it did start up on the wrong block chain, but I just manually corrected it per:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6qyn18/electroncash_notice_how_to_select_bitcoincash/

Any work progressing on a functional Lightning Network for Bitcore?

Does anyone know the current status of the Direct Signup Program? If it's not on hold, how can I join? If it is on hold, is there any information on when and how it will resume?

Does anyone know where the project stands with respect to the distribution roadmap of Lumens outlined in the OP? Does the two existing Bitcoin Stellar Lumens airdrops mean all 20% earmarked for this purpose has already been distributed or is being distributed? What about the other segments of the distribution plan?

Never mind, just discovered the updated thread.

I'd like to know the answer to this too, but from my experience you won't get much in the way of actual explanation. Most that profess this position have simply bought the propaganda emanating from this censored forum and other censored venues like reddit.com/r/Bitcoin without evaluating what they read by applying their own critical thinking. I'm pretty happy about it, though. I'm waiting for this predicted dump to reach bottom so I can get my Bitcoin Cash at a bargain price.

Hmm. Have you tried installing regular Electrum (for legacy Bitcoin (BTC)) on another computer and putting in that seed to see if the correct BTC balance shows up? If it does, I'm out of my depth. I can only tell you my experience with Electron Cash worked without problems.

If you try that and you get a zero BTC balance, I think that implies you have the wrong seed, because the one you've been trying is likely empty.

You sound like you've made up your mind already so you definitely should sell as fast as you can. Bitcoin
Cash is only three days old, though, and seems to be doing pretty damned well IMO. It definitely has proven the Core/Blockstream narrative that a hard fork would cause mass disruption or the valuation to tank to be patently false.

Did your instance of Electron Cash start up on the right block chain? Follow this guide to be sure (as of this post the BCC block height is 478609 vs 478918 for BTC):

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6qyn18/electroncash_notice_how_to_select_bitcoincash/

Quite right. I suppose I wasn't considering the big picture.

Edit: I suppose the same logic means Ripple (and maybe Stellar Lumens) will have a difficult time with respect to merchant adoption.

Hear, hear.

If I'm saying anything a "shill" would, you haven't demonstrated it at all. But keep calling people names and ignoring what they're saying, the market will decide what works and what doesn't now that Bitcoin Cash exists.

As long as you hold your own private keys safely it shouldn't make a difference now that the chain fork is done. I'd just advise waiting for a lot of confirmations before completing a transaction if you're receiving Bitcoin Cash (BCC aka XBC/BCH) from someone you don't trust right now (probably at least 8 - 12 confirmations until Bitcoin Cash difficulty is completely settled; and since block times on Bitcoin Cash are still long, that takes a while).

I believe my statements are true, but I suppose truth is in the eye of the beholder. I've reference my sources. Where are yours? I am indeed a supporter of the original intent of Bitcoin, which I believe is currently embodied best by Bitcoin Cash.


So far I can't agree with your "common sense", but I'm willing to look at this research if you'll link some.


Actually, since there is an existing 32 MB limitation in the variable type, I would've been fine with removing the limit altogether. When Satoshi originally added the limit, average block sizes were hundreds of (even more than a thousand) times smaller than 1 MB. A limit only 32x larger would certainly have been no problem. Also, there are built-in incentives and limitations that would prevent miners from hurting their own returns by deploying block sizes they cannot economically handle. Trust the market and the original system design if lacking hard proof that it needs to be changed.


Since you repeatedly fail to substantiate any of your claims, I find what you're saying has no relevance to anything today.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory unless you can prove any of the transactions did not have a legitimate purpose (or completely lacked miners' fees). It makes far more sense to me to align incentives in the system such that so-called "spam attacks" are costly and ineffective, and thus irrelevant. Simply examine graphs of Bitcoin's transaction growth over it's ~8 year history. It was always bound to run into the 1 MB limit eventually, whether such "spam attacks" actually exist or not.

If SegWit is added to the legacy chain, Bitcoin Cash will be far closer to the original "Bitcoin" as laid out in the white paper. It's hardly misleading since the two issue from the same genesis block, share a transaction history, and since Bitcoin Cash changes almost no functional parameters while maintaining the project's original principles.


Claims that the project will lose network decentralization because of growing block chain demands that will definitely outstrip both technological progress and the increase in project support resulting from greater use, adoption and market cap is just speculation. Moreover, the project never promised decentralization for decentralization's sake, only "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" which exhibits a practical amount of decentralization. Bitcoin Cash simply hews back to the original plan, rather than going off on a severe tangent without ever establishing community consensus about new project priorities first. Also, removing the self-imposed and unnecessary 1 MB (or ~1.7 MB in the case of SegWit) transaction limitation does not preclude second-layer scaling nor technological improvements like sharding. It simply does not strangle a working system before other proven options are already available.

Lastly, it was always the original plan to remove the temporary block size limit. Bitcoin Cash is simply following through (finally).

It's too bad. Otherwise, the project really seems to be coming along.

Unless it's also Bcore or Segwitcoin for legacy Bitcoin, or Eclassic instead of Ethereum Classic, the new fork is called Bitcoin Cash not Bcash. Why are you so afraid of it that you have to denigrate it with a fake name?

You seem convinced it's a scam or untrustworthy. Be happy to see some reasons.

Anyone have information about merchant adoption of Byteball? Of Blackbytes?

Of course you're free to wait, but it's been running without problems now for three days. I've done several dozen transactions myself. All have confirmed without issue (I was running the latest Bitcoin ABC client).

EDIT: Oh, I forgot, also sent an Electron Cash transaction which also worked fine.