Once again, Paashaas yields a glancing and ineffectual blow, completely devoid of any cogent rebuttal.

So...
Cryptocurrencies -- specifically the market for tx inclusion -- are the one and only special case where the laws of economics do not apply?

(As an aside, I'm quite sure that, when the producers shut off their alarm clock at oh-dark-thirty, and wearily drag themselves out of bed to face another long grim day of producing, that doing it for the benefit of the exalted consumers ain't first and foremost on their minds)

Butthurt segwit maximalists misdirect their ire when Bitcoin Cash is enjoying a period of appreciation. Very loudly and very emphatically. Lashing out -- however inappropriately and however impotently -- against what they perceive as the foil of their pain. I merely reply.

I'm actually always all over this place. However, the most persistent and egregious untruths that would go unchallenged without my retort are false assertions about Bitcoin Cash.

I think of it as a service.

Cheers!

Yet we have known since Adam Smith that the hidden hand of the marketplace will ensure that the optimal solution is arrived at by letting prices find their own equilibrium. This has been more formalized in more recent times in that the price and quantity of a good will be set at the point where the demand/price curve and the supply/price curve intersect. Further still, dead losses are incurred any time production quotas are enforced. Given this, why do you assert the utility of a production quota on transaction throughput? Why not trust miners to set the tx throughput supply to maximize profit under the demand and supply curves?

No. Once again, I did not insert BCH into discourse. I was merely replying to Torque's objectively flawed assertion.

Nothing.

If you control the keys (which, on a Trezor you do), your options are fully open. You don't need to make any decision until you first spend whatever coins are on addresses you hold on the 15th. This allows you to sit back and observe what happens with the fork, secure in knowing that you can pick one, the other, or both.

I rather think the 'new rules' fork chain will be near-immediately near-completely victorious. But that's just my expectation.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

I'm pert-near certain it wasn't.


Abso-frickin-lutely.


PorqueNoLosDos.png

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Interesting data indeed.

Interesting fine print, too:
"* Daily revenue estimated with CoinMarketCap reported 24 hour volume and fees listed on exchanges' websites"

I wonder how they determined how much of each exchange's daily volume to associate with that exchange's fee schedule tier?

True. OTOH, Bitcoin Cash is working spectacularly. So this point in your rebuttal is irrelevant.


ConfusedNickYoung.png Market cap is yuuuge in crypto. For you to make such a claim is quite simply astonishing.

Sure, some tokens game the market cap figures by only making a mere fraction of the total units available on the marketplace (I'm looking at you, Ripple). But many (i.e., most significant) coins can be meaningfully evaluated by market cap.

Are you trying to tell me that if BTCs market cap was $163 Million instead of $163 Billion, that would be substantially the same situation?

Or perhaps you think some shady and nefarious entity holds another 84M BCH, just awaiting the perfect chance to release them onto the marketplace?

Or that the vast majority of BCH was not awarded 1:1 to holders of BTC?

The second point in your rebuttal is irrelevant.


Argumentum ad hominum. Besides, see the preceding post.

Whatsit's argument is very weak!? Yours is comatose.

And that's OK.

You do you, man. Ain't nobody else able to do you for you.

I dunno. It's plausible. He's been verifiably been otherwise acting erratically over the last week.

Haha. So it is.

Hmm. Your cite:

"What is 'Pump And Dump'
Pump and dump is a scheme that attempts to boost the price of a stock through recommendations based on false, misleading or greatly exaggerated statements. The perpetrators of this scheme, who already have an established position in the company's stock, sell their positions after the hype has led to a higher share price. This practice is illegal based on securities law and can lead to heavy fines."

Nope. Not seeing it.

Haha. I finally watched this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=zSbPz4g9rZQ

Think what you will about Roger Ver. But he objectively wipes the floor with Blockstream 'Chief Strategery Officer' Samson Mow in this moderated one-on-one debate on Bitcoin scaling.

Yes, this debate is the source of the widely derided 'babies are dying' quote. Which is indeed kind of cringey. But he's been consistent for nearly a decade in getting publicly weepy-emotional over the pain that bad fiscal governance causes the most vulnerable. Can't fault him for that passion. What's more: objectively, it is an arguable point.

But that aside, it is quite breathtaking how one-sided this debate was. Either Mow is a mere empty suit, or BCH is clearly superior in its scaling approach by every measure. Likely both.

Makes a compelling case. Good to see all those points on a single sheet.

But what's with the trademarking of 'off-chain' and 'Second-layer'?

Oh, hell with it - they've inspired me to claim my own (unregistered) trademark - 'Flippening before halvening^[tm]' by jbreher / CC BY

You know what's funny about your declaration? If you accept that Bitcoin Cash has no intrinsc [sic] value or purpose whatsoever, you need to also accept that Bitcoin Segwit has no intrinsic value or purpose whatsoever.

And we all know how ludicrous that assertion is.