Announced? Not that I can see. Article is bereft of supporting evidence.

Learned a valuable lesson long ago. Having a lot of stock in the company for which you work is putting too many eggs in one basket. Double jeopardy.

Of course if you're bound by golden handcuffs...









As opposed to the leather covered ones, of course.

I think I heard that Rick was late to the party.

He must have had help in this exist scam. Perhaps it was coordinated at some point behind the scenes. I think so, at least.

Yes, ABC with the first Bitcoin Cash client. Indeed, for the most critical period in the Bitcoin Cash history (other than the genesis block, of course), ABC was the only available client. As such, it enjoys incumbency status.

We'll see what happens by mid-November.

Hmm. Seems redundant.

I guess not everyone awards merit based upon entertainment value?

haha. "artificially". Great narrative, that.

Facepalm.

BitcoinABC is but one of many clients for accessing the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.

Are you new here?

Now you are spotting crazy talk, too. It is impossible to 'throw somebody out' of a permissionless, uncensorable system. Impossible.

Nope. Still nonsensical. Every last bit, in fact.

All the usual places. Here's one: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/cash/#24h


If you are unaware of them, you just have not been paying attention. Though I rather suspect you are just boorishly making a rhetorical opening.

For one, the ability of the miners to revert to the old definition of a segwit tx as its original (some would say true) definition as an anyonecanspend tx. This ability of miners to claim what some think as funds that many erroneously believe to be sent to specific parties as funds that the miners can pocket themselves was newly introduced into Bitcoin by the ill-considered so-called 'soft fork' employed for activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. No matter what some arbitrarily-large cabal of miners were able to do previously, they were utterly unable to claim coins of others to themselves. This power is the direct and sole result of the segwit soft fork.

And no. Lack of capitalization upon a security vulnerability does not invalidate the vulnerability.

I really don't give a damn about your opinion of CSW.

I guess my point of confusion was unclear. Allow me to be very specific: What do you mean by "put Bitcoin Cash in the save zone"?

WTF? I know you've been around the block a few times, but you're spouting crazy talk anyhow.

As long as you possess the private key, you can freely transfer whatever coins are bound to that address. You may need to import said keys to another client that supports the chain you are desiring to use, but it is certainly within your power to spend any and all coins to which you own the keys.

So you advocate a permissioned, censorable Bitcoin? Interesting. In some morbid sort of way.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm not even sure the outcome means anything.

I must admit some puzzlement, however, as to what you mean by "put Bitcoin Cash in the save zone". Care to elucidate?

I don't really see how having an anointed gatekeeper for thought leadership on who may or may not be satoshi is goodness. Be it Theymos or anyone else.

So much for that Corean 'buhbut BCH is centralized' canard.

'splain yourself. I'm making bank in $USD terms and in BTC terms. You makka no sense!


Irrelevant to your above claim.

You mean I'm entitled to renumeration? I'm offering vroom a 10% finder's fee.

I find it quite amusing as well. Even though a significant portion of my wealth hangs in the balance. Gallows humor?

Ah, well. It will be settled in the fashion of Bitcoin:
"They vote with their CPU proof-of-worker, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
 - Bitcoin whitepaper, S Nakamoto