//EDIT:  Changed my mind, my reply to this belongs here, as do any other posts regarding this matter.  His posts were deleted to get this thread back to the original topic, not to have a discussion about him or forum moderation policy.  This thread is about PoW and the chances or possibilities of centralisation.  That's what needs to be discussed in here.

I'm pretty sure you're having a discussion with one of his alts right now.  Maybe in Anonymint's head it's not inconceivable for one of his fans to feel the urge to go to every thread he posted in (and those are just some of them) before he was banned and provide a link to where the posts have been archived.  But back here in the real world, most people would view that as rather suspicious, to say the least.  No one has a greater desire for that unhinged screed to be read than Anonymint himself.  Talk about a turd that won't flush.

So we're just supposed to pretend this isn't yet another one of your accounts and you aren't talking about yourself in the third person right now?

Okay, sure.  


//EDIT:  and no one cares about your proxies either

Many will argue that it makes far more more sense now.    

It was less of a "discussion" and more of a diatribe anyway.  Plus, readers should still be able to gain sufficient context from the segments of insanity that remain in quotes.



You know what else is antithetical to crpyto and our movement?  Theft at the protocol level.  No amount of calling it a "donation" changes the fact that people have ownership over the funds in their SegWit addresses and they aren't going to relinquish that ownership by following a chain where the funds have been taken.  If you think advocating theft is congruent with our movement, you need to find another movement.

Partly because it's a healthy step towards settling the civil war, which would probably still be raging if we'd tried to keep everyone together on the same chain.  But also because it removes a large proportion of the guesswork from the equation.  There were so many times during previous debates about scaling where people had loads of theories and educated guesses about what might unfold with each proposal, but without any real, quantifiable evidence to support their claims.  But now that we allow these different ideas to actually play out in the market, it removes most of that ambiguity.  We can now observe and measure the progress of each chain as things develop and evolve.  Then, as time goes on, from those results we can draw more substantiative conclusions about which solution turned out to be least centralised, which chain offered the cheapest fees, which one supported the most transaction volume, etc.  We won't have to make assumptions anymore, as we'll have the evidence to prove it.  

From a scientific standpoint, empirical is always preferable to theoretical.  And remember that, despite crypto being a multi-billion dollar industry, technically, this is all still experimental.

Then you'd think the free market would have already found a Bitcoin that works like that by now?  I mean, it's had plenty of time.  The option has been there for a while.  I'm pretty sure it's been well publicised.  But the market hasn't found a Bitcoin without a restriction on the blockweight.  Yeah, it's a real mystery...    

You seem to be running into the same dilemma others are having, in that they have a preconceived notion in their mind about what would be "better", but the market seems to have an entirely different notion. 

We could keep talking about what a free market might find in a world where everyone agreed with your stance, but it's probably more realistic to look at what the free market already did find.  And then chose.  Past tense.  Bit late to change it now.

If you made a client, I don't get to tell you what you can or can't code.  It's your code.  If the community then freely chooses to adopt that code, it has the potential to become OUR network.  If a majority of network participants (both users and miners) agree with it, that's what Bitcoin would then become.  However, the community chose Core's code.  It is OUR network and OUR network chose Lightning.  If you can't respect that choice, you clearly don't respect OUR network, so what are you even still doing here?  Other than making a complete nuisance of yourself, that is?  Why do you still want to be a part of something you're clearly so disillusioned with?  



I agree the community would be better without the REKT campaigns against alternative clients.  I wish people were more mature about these things.  But the simple fact is, I don't get to dictate how they should behave, as much as I might personally find it objectionable.  It's just one of those things we have to deal with as best we can.  All we can do it point out how childish that sort of behaviour is and hope people don't pay it more attention than it deserves.  Much like I'm pointing out how childish your behaviour is and how much of a hypocrite you are by doing exactly the same thing they were doing.  Twisting the narrative, spreading FUD, manipulating things and taking them out of context to make them sound more sinister than they are.  You're doing everything they did, short of impersonating Satoshi to discredit the particular client you dislike.  

If you have a legitimate complaint about Lightning, I'd love to hear it.  But so far, all you've managed to present is either a gross lack of comprehension on your part, or a deliberate attempt to deceive.  



Bottom line is, there is no conceivable way to have one client actively enforcing a 4mb blockweight and another client actively enforcing a different blocksize on the same chain.  So... you can either cry like an infant with your conspiracy theories about dictatorships, or you can accept the fact that the two ideas are not compatible and a fork was inevitable.  There is no magical alternative that would have made this turn out any other way.  If there had been a way to prevent the fork and keep everyone on the same chain, we would probably still be in a heated deadlock where no one agreed on anything.  Is that what you want?  Are you some sort of sado-masochist?  Forks might not be a perfect solution, but anything is better than the quagmire we were stuck in before.

So there was a fork.  At the time of the fork, the BTC chain had the clear economic majority and clear hashrate superiority.  It's irrelevant who you blame for it.  It's irrelevant how you think it happened.  It's irrelevant if you don't think it was fair.  It doesn't change anything.  That's what happened.  We're at a different point in time now, so it's too late to change what has already occurred.  Fixating on your warped interpretation on the past doesn't change the facts of the present.  You are clearly not going to get whatever it is you think you want (and honestly I can't even tell what that is anymore).  Consensus chose Lightning, which you clearly don't like, but now you're just going to have to live with that.  You CAN choose what software to use, but your choice might put you on an incompatible fork because that's how consensus works.  

Seriously, what is it you want?  For everyone to play happy families and magically agree 24/7/365?  Do you want a time machine to go back and watch it unfold exactly the same way again because your insane theories are totally meaningless and wouldn't have any bearing at all over what happened?  Do you want us to un-fork and somehow merge the two chains back together?  Or, more realistically, do you simply want to lash out at Lightning as you clearly don't approve of it?  Are you still upset that more people didn't agree with your way of thinking and you don't like your views being represented by an altcoin?  Do you think your incessant tirades are going to convince Core to change their process?  Speaking of which:



It's called "peer-reviewed code".  Funnily enough, that means people get to review it before it gets merged.  

Go ahead and launch a client where it hasn't been thoroughly reviewed.  See how long it survives with all the bugs and security flaws you inevitably missed because no one checked it first.

It's like that for a good reason.  It's not their fault that the people who take the time to check the code happen to agree on the general direction.  It's also not their fault that the users then appear to agree with that direction, partly because people appreciate the thorough review process.  It might surprise you to learn that people find it reassuring that it's not easy to launch any untested code on layer 0 that could potentially cause problems.  Layer 0 provides the foundations for what we're now building upon, so it has to be secure and strictly vetted.  It's not a damned conspiracy.  Take off the tinfoil hat already.

What bugs have you fixed in BCH then?  I assume you've had loads of code merged into their clients if it's so easy to do in what I assume must be an ultra-accepting hippy commune, at least in comparison to Core's supposed fascist police state?  



Lightning has at least three separate dev teams.  Thus not centralised.



Only in your warped perception.  The way things are, if you can't respect this chain's decision, fork off to altcoinland.  The devs can only propose the roadmap.  The users chose the roadmap.  Get a clue.

That looks like a pretty accurate assessment.  It's like there's a kind of "feedback loop" where it's all too easy to reinforce your own beliefs and not consider what's actually happening in the world around you.  For some, it seems there's no way back to reality.  They try to paint naturally occurring events as some big conspiracy or deliberate act of collusion.  But all they're going to do is isolate themselves with such paranoid delusions.

I was initially skeptical of the scaling roadmap, but I now see the wisdom in it.  I think we're on the path to success.  Let the detractors complain about it if they like.  They're free to choose another path, or even more than one path if they like.  The best part about disagreements in crypto is that you can keep coins on multiple chains if there's an impasse that results in a fork.  You aren't restricted to binary choices here.  You can hedge your bets and store value on any number of forks or other blockchains.

Everyone can pursue the ideals they think are best to achieve scaling.  Time will tell which one turns out to be most successful in achieving that goal.  But I think with all the great ideas in the pipeline like atomic swaps, Schnorr Sigs, MAST, AMP Payments and probably loads of others, it certainly appears as though this chain has a bright future.  And if it turns out I'm wrong, I've still got some fork coins on other chains.

You can run whatever code you like, follow whatever chain you like, create your own chain if that's what you want to do.  Total freedom.  The only catch is you don't get to dictate what code other people run or create, which sounds an awful lot like what you're trying to do here.  Stop telling people what they're not allowed to code.  I made the same arguments when some people here on these boards did their "REKT" idiocy with other alternative clients, so congratulations on becoming the very thing you claim to hate.  You're officially "one of them" now.  You are trying to use the exact same "REKT" methodology to attack Lightning.

Freedom means the users on this network are free to disagree with you.  And clearly they do.  None of your manipulation and propaganda is going to suddenly make them think you've got the right idea.

If you think freedom means you get to tell developers they shouldn't develop Lightning, you are against freedom.
If you think freedom means you get to tell users they shouldn't run the code that enables Lightning, you are against freedom.
If you think freedom means you get to tell miners what chain they point their hashpower at, you are against freedom.

None of that is your decision.  None of it.  The stuff you can make decisions over is:

• Your private keys (and corresponding wealth)
• Which software you choose to run
• The chain, or chains, you wish to transact on
• Whether you run a full node and influence the rules enforced on your chain, or just rely on SPV

Again, I will make the same arguments to defend alternative clients who propose changes to this chain.  You've seen me do it.  I defended XT.  I defended BU.  And I'd do it again.  Alternative clients are not an attack on this chain.  They are not a hostile takeover.  Not a power grab.  My stance doesn't change on this.  I support decentralised development.  I welcome competition from alternative clients because I believe it has the potential to make Bitcoin stronger.  But you have now taken on the role of the "REKT" attacker, using whatever lies and deception you can in an attempt to derail a project you've clearly taken a disliking to.  You're now arguing that Core are the attack, the hostile takeover, the power grab, etc.  Your hypocrisy is shameful. 



If you want your code added to Core, they can follow whatever submission process they want.  You don't get to decide what goes into their client.  If you want to code your own thing, go ahead, make absolutely anything you want to.  You have every right to do so.  See how the market reacts.  But you then need to accept that people might well tell you your idea would be better suited as an altcoin.  If your idea isn't compatible with what the users want the code to do, why should they accept it?  You can't force them to like your changes, they're free to run whatever code they want.  If they don't want to run the code you want them to run, too bad.  Your totalitarianism is impotent here.  And you can't blame the developers if the users don't like your idea either.  

Whine about it all you want, but every single person on the network gets to make their own decision about what they choose to run.  The users on this network are freely choosing the chain with SegWit and Lightning enabled.  

Apparently, this all boils down to the fact that you are bitter and resentful that your vision isn't being accepted by the users.  So in response, you troll the community with this pathetic nonsense about developers being in control and stifling innovation.  But anyone with even the faintest understanding of how Bitcoin works will know you're talking absolute bollocks.  It's just getting sad now.  



No thanks, reddit is a cesspool.  I was under the assumption that's where you were getting your mindless drivel from.

If Bitcoin were closed source and we had no other choice but to run their code, you might possibly have a point.  But since that isn't even close to how Bitcoin works, you just sound like a raving lunatic who has no idea what freedom means.  Their code means nothing unless people choose to run it.  That's why it's fine for them to code what they want.  If the users don't like what they code, no one will run it.  Is there any way that will ever sink in to your impenetrable skull?  It's the people who run the code who make the decisions, not the people who made the code.  The devs are listening to the community and what they're hearing is the community's support for their ideas.

I can quite happily say that all the BCH dev teams are free to code and create whatever they want, as I'm sure you are.  So why are you totally incapable of extending that same common courtesy to developers on the other side of the fork?  Is it just the ideological differences?  Or is it possibly because you're so broken in the head that you can't even see the double-standard anymore?  



In fairness, I do recall that one.  We discussed it when I was promoting a proposal for dynamic blockweight adjustments and I actually thought your fee priority mechanism was a decent idea.  However, I also recall that, even then, you were so belligerent that you couldn't accept the part of the dynamic adjustments that involved the maximum blockweight potentially decreasing if there wasn't sufficient demand, even if that meant alienating people who could potentially support the proposal.  You just wanted perpetual increases and weren't remotely open to compromise or reason (like a totalitarian, one might say).  I think that's yet another one of the occasions where I lost some respect for you.  And ever since, our encounters have only lead to more of that respect being eroded away because you became more and more of an extremist.  And now that I think you've attained BoJo-grade levels of shitweaselry, that respect is now long gone.

Remember that I campaigned for larger blocksizes before your so-called "bilateral split" too.  The difference between us is that I'm prepared to back down and accept the community's decision on this.  Consensus is more important than any one person's ideals or ideas.  My proposal clearly lacked support.  Hardly anyone cared.  I have no shame in conceding that fact.  I don't have a problem with that, because we now have things being developed that will scale Bitcoin far more than my proposal ever could.  It was the right call.  And the simple fact is, that however good your fee priority mechanism, or your other ideas, might be, it doesn't even touch the sides compared to Lightning.  None of your minor tweaks and adjustments would create the potential to move the coins within any given channel an unlimited number of times with just two entries in the blockchain.  None of your ideas come close to achieving scaling in the sheer magnitude that Lightning potentially can.  Of course we don't know with absolute certainty how it's going to turn out and there are clearly some things to solve along the way, but everything I can see tells me we're on the right track.  

If you don't think we're on the right course, no one's forcing you to stick around.  That's not me being a totalitarian, it's just you pissing into the wind yet again.  Consensus made this decision, so either follow or don't.  Those are the options now, because that's just how Bitcoin works.  Again:

This.  Is.  How.  It.  Is.  

If that causes you frustration, feel free to take it out on me if you like, but don't blame the devs for merely giving people the choice.  And stop being so manipulative and tory-like with your rhetoric.  

I guess you must have missed it, so where's the reply to this part franky1?  

What's your proposal to fix everything?  

You're clearly all-knowing, so a reply from you must be worth the anticipation we're all feeling in waiting for a response on this question.  We eagerly await your wisdom and enlightenment.   



The totalitarian is the person insisting that developers shouldn't be coding what they want to code.  The totalitarian is the person telling people they shouldn't have a choice to use off-chain if they desire.  The totalitarian is the person who would demand that everyone else be willing to sacrifice the qualities they appreciate in Bitcoin for the sake of scaling.  The totalitarian is the one saying the market was wrong to choose this route and shouldn't have been permitted to do so.

I advocate freedom.  You evidently don't.  

Also, the developers haven't "stifled" Bitcoin.  You're simply too dense to grasp the wisdom of what users and miners have chosen.



And LN can cope with 32,000,000x or probably even more capacity without sudden fear of bottleneck.  AND without fear of adding all that extra data to the blockchain, meaning we can still have a decentralised layer 0.



While it's possible you might be exaggerating just a tiny bit, I honestly don't see what's wrong with atomic swaps being used to move funds to other blockchains if the transaction is for a smaller sum and the fess are lower that way.  In many ways that's preferable to staying off-chain.  I'm of the view that scaling could well take that form if that's how people freely choose to use LN.  It's just one of the many possibilities we can now explore.

Wow, so you're saying that if people transact with scammers, there's a chance they might get ripped off?  What a truly shocking revelation!  

I mean, you might have noticed how Karpeles, BitConnect, BFL, ICO scammers, etc didn't actually need to use Lightning to steal peoples' money?  So firstly, in what conceivable way is that an argument against Lightning?

Secondly, Lighting isn't a chequing account or a bank.  You are utterly incapable of understanding the meaning of words if you think it is.

And thirdly (the main point), your hypothetical scenario still makes no sense in the real world.  You don't appear to be grasping the timelock part correctly (or pretty much Lightning in its entirety for that matter).  CLTV means that if the transaction isn't signed by the recipient within a set time, the sender gets their coins back.  

It doesn't mean the customer's funds are "locked forever".  If that's what you think it means, you need to forget everything you think you know and start again from scratch.  You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.  But, chances are, you probably do know it doesn't mean what you've been saying and you're just spreading FUD to make newbies think it's something bad.  That's seemingly just the kind of person you are.  Deceitful.

And the customer would still be incredibly unwise to spend from an older state, regardless of how much money is in the channel.  The funds are not "in limbo", either.  What drugs are you even on?  Try learning something for once, rather that just shouting "BANKS BANKS BANKS" like a total buffoon.  

I hear the PM needs a new Foreign Secretary, I think you'd make a great replacement for that bumbling imbecile Boris.  I read all your posts in his voice now.  You're pretty much on par with his level of dishonest propaganda.  All you need now is a bus:





It's called beta software.  No one is under any illusion about the fact it's not ready for mainstream usage yet, you contemptible, manipulative little weasel.  No responsible developer would encourage people to throw large sums of money at something that's still in development, so stop trying to twist decency on their part into something sinister.  You are a total and utter disgrace.  Is there nothing you won't try to distort or pervert with your insidious rhetoric?

Again, none of the wasted keystrokes you've expended here come close to forming an argument against continuing to develop Lightning.  I hope everyone sees you for the hollow, morally bankrupt vermin you are.  Troll harder.

And if there is an issue, the solution is not to get rid of the people who freely offer up their own time and effort to find potential solutions to the scalability problem (rather than just ignoring the fundamental issue and pretending that infinite blocksize increases will magically fix everything without consequence).  The solutions proposed have now been accepted by the majority of the users and miners, so blame them.  There is nothing you can do to change that, so quit your infantile whining already.  

If you don't like what the developers are doing, either make something better yourself or use something else.  Developers don't owe you anything.  Get over yourself.  Life doesn't work like that.  I spent a long time thinking a larger blocksize was the way to go, but I'm mature enough accept that not everyone sees it that way.  So we (that's the users and the miners) went with the compromise of a larger blockweight via softfork, which incidentally does allow for more on-chain transactions (which you strangely keep failing to acknowledge   ) and the introduction of Lightning.  

This is Bitcoin now.  Lightning happened.  It's not going away.  Not a single thing you can say or do will change that.  And best of all, it's optional.  No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use it.  So it's time for you to grow up, be mature and accept that simple and undeniable fact.  

This.  Is.  How.  It.  Is.



And what "innovation" do you think will solve scalability, exactly?  I hear all the critiques, but absolutely bugger all that sounds like a solution from you.  Come on, let's hear it then...  

Hint:  Blocksize increases are not "innovative".  Look up the definition of the word.

Developers are also working on Schnorr Sigs and MAST, which (like SegWit) also contribute towards on-chain scaling in an innovative way.  But you're too busy bawling like a spoiled brat to acknowledge that either.  Again, grow up.



Good luck trying to make a Lightning payment without making a mainnet transaction first.  Reassure me one more time you actually understand how Lightning works, perhaps?  'Cause I'm pretty sure you don't with the nonsense you keep spouting.  

Ultimately, this is the road the users have decided we're going down, you can get off anywhere you like.  But then it stands to reason you can't be a loudmouth backseat driver from the pavement, so I'm sure you'll stick around and continue to be an annoyance to everyone else by blaming the developers for everything, even though they aren't the ones behind the wheel.  One of these days you might figure that out.

Generally, crypto has exactly the right level of transparency to validate the transactions and ensure that you aren't being ripped off.  Beyond that, any personally identifying information should be strictly voluntary.

The problem is that "information" is sometimes valuable.  So the primary reason people would want to "analyse and interpret" the blockchain is because they're interested in profit.  Crypto is not meant to be some tool for "big data" companies to sell our information on the the highest bidder.  We have to put up with enough of that crap in fiat.  It's not a trait we're looking to emulate here.

While we're primarily disrupting the finance industry, if we can partially disrupt the analytics industry as well, that's just icing on the cake.  At the end of the day, they're all middlemen.  Leeches, effectively selling off things that other people are producing, passing it off as their own work.  That shouldn't even be considered a business model.  Crypto eliminates the middlemen.

If all of your comments didn't appear to stem from the possibility that you're bitter about not being accepted, perhaps we might give your criticisms greater consideration.  Also, based on your posts in this thread, I don't think I'd consider joining a campaign where you were the manager.  The attitude you've displayed here is just generally unpleasant and unprofessional.  Consider that perhaps you aren't in a position to insinuate you could do a better job.

And it should be obvious that the issue with adding participants from non-English sections is that it's more difficult to check for quality if you aren't fluent in the language.  It sounds like what you actually want is another campaign, where the quality is just as high as this one, but run by someone in the local sections.  It's not DarkStar_'s fault that you aren't able to find such a campaign.  Direct your frustrations elsewhere.



Personally, I've always found reddit to be the far murkier cesspool.  StackExchange for the win.  That's where you get the technical talk without the BS.

Your idea of a "debate" is that everyone has to accept your insane doomsday theories as fact.  The onus is on you to provide a compelling argument.  You have failed.  Maybe stop repeating the same drivel if it's clearly proving ineffective.  We assimilate what you're saying just fine.  You don't assimilate that we still think you're unhinged and your words carry all the weight of someone who wriggled out of their straightjacket and scrawled some nonsense on the wall in their own excrement.  Maybe I need to point out again the sheer volume of 'The end is nigh', 'The sky is falling', 'The anonymint who cried wolf' FUD BS you've spouted in the past that turned out to be nothing other than a fevered dream on your part.  You have ZERO credibility.  You are synonymous with FUD at its most ludicrous peaks.  If I don't believe what you're telling me, you only have yourself to blame for that.



People have also used Gresham's law to "assure us" that all of Bitcoin will die, not just the particular "brand" of code you've taken a personal disliking to.  I don't give their argument any greater credence than yours.  Again, debate does not mean we have to automatically believe your far-fetched premise as fact.  Your argument is in no way, shape or form convincing.  Troll harder.



Also Anonymint:

<cough>hypocrite</cough>

Also, I don't know what forums you've been reading, but many of the most vociferous supporters of Core hate my guts and think I'm some sort of Communist.  I don't think they'd appreciate me being lumped in with them, heh.



I'm sure from the perspective of a crazy person, you might genuinely believe I'm lying.  Just like I'd be lying if I said "the sky is blue", when you clearly perceive it to be on fire and hurtling towards us at an alarming rate because your mind is unwell.  Nodes will only become irrelevant when we stop running them, which incidentally, isn't happening.  So best of luck with your continued tirade, because it isn't having the desired effect.  

You would certainly like nodes to be irrelevant because that would suit your narrative.  

Which, for the briefest moments of considering the possibility you aren't insane, could ultimately be the basis of your FUD.  You don't like SegWit, so you tell people there's a vulnerability with it.  You try to convince them it's not safe to use in an attempt to diminish it.  You don't like the fact that full nodes clearly do enforce the will of a supermajority of network users, so you claim nodes are irrelevant.  So if your arguments aren't insane, then they're deliberately intended to weaken the aspects of Bitcoin that you don't personally agree with.  I'll leave it to the other readers of the thread to decide if you're crazy or simply malicious.  I think most of them should have a pretty solid opinion by now.

---

Apparently it's what I'm good at.    



Providing other readers of this thread can assure me that they're still happy to use SegWit and the demented loon isn't having any sway on their thoughts in that regard, I'll happily stop.  It's was never about trying to convince Anonymint of anything, since I know from repeated prior encounters that's a complete waste of time.  Plus, it's not like his opinion matters anyway.  I just like to know the FUD isn't having the desired effect.

And you can keep exhaustively explaining it wrong all you like, but no one is going to agree with you.

The market decides what the extant protocol is.  Not you, not the 0.5.4 users.

It doesn't matter if a fork is hard, soft or goddamn sunny-side-up.  If your client differs to a supermajority of other full nodes on the network to the point where it becomes incompatible, you are the fork.  No amount of egotistical belligerence is going to change that.  No amount of calling it "Satoshi’s client" is going to change that.  If pigs fly and this attack happens, I fully welcome your "I-told-you-so".  Until then, give it a rest already.



You started this Thiefcoin discussion, you can stop any time you wish.  If you keep posting lunacy then you prompt us to reply and tell you why what you're saying is lunacy.  Ball's in your court, feel free to leave any time.

So the argument being present is that centralised coins are stronger because you can't fork them?  

We're generally willing to accept the myriad pointless forks as a small price to pay for all the benefits gained from being open source.  It doesn't matter if some of the forks want to believe they're fighting for attention, because in reality, few people care about most of these forks.  They don't even appear on the radar.  I honestly couldn't tell you what the difference is between "Bitcoin Diamond" and "Bitcoin Ultimate" because I, quite frankly, don't even care enough to even look them up and find out.  They're not noteworthy or remarkable.

Open source gives us greater transparency, almost impenetrable resistance to corruption, total freedom and battle-hardened code where any developer can help find and solve issues.  There are no plans to forsake any of those excellent qualities just because a small number of people decided to use Bitcoin as a base for their altcoin.  That's simply not a weakness.

No kidding.  It's a relief we can put this behind us.  Several years on and I'm still mildly traumatised from the levels of ignorance and fear-mongering on display in threads like this.  Some people just genuinely didn't "get it".  

Incidentally, was that thread the main catalyst for this decision?  Would be nice to know that something positive came out of that mess.

Interesting to see that a potential DDoS vulnerability was found, though.



I'm thinking the hardline fundamentalists running deliberately outdated "TRB" nodes might need to fix theirs?

And the seed words you found are definitely the ones for the BTC address you sent the BCH to?  It sounds as though you need to check the settings you're using on the Mnemonic Code Converter:


The default setting on the page is  m/0 and that won't get you what you need.  If  m/0'/0 doesn't work, then this particular address was likely a change address, so it'll be  m/0'/1 for that.  Also make sure you definitely selected 'BIP32' first.