Haha I'm a leper like you now.

Yes I did. I "fucked off". See my earlier comment where I said I'm done talking about it. I'm pissing people off and that never was my intention. Sorry.

Well first off no cat will ever be as sexy as a really beautiful monohull. I could never argue that. And yea I love monohulls too but the wife gets seasick in my little monohull and cats, apparently, drastically reduce sea sickness so I promised her that we would buy a cat next time.


Apparently well designed modern cats are no less safe for blue water cruising than monohulls, or if so only marginally enough so that no one really cares. Other than that they have some other big advantages. The layout is much more accommodating to extended time aboard than monohulls generally. The way you have the whole open floorplan galley and dining that transitions smoothly into the deck as one big area and more privacy between the two separated hulls. Also cats just plain move faster. And everything stays nice and level indoors, no rocking around, you can just have a regular stove, no need for a gimble. So yea plenty of love for monohulls from me, just probably wont be what I end up buying if I do buy another yacht someday.

Jesus christ man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

I mean I hate doing this because it's getting really boring and I feel like everyone here should have just understood what I was saying by now but:

#1 So it's a democratic thing? Because I can tell you some of the value did go to bcash. So the fact that more went to core is what made it "the real bitcoin"? So if 51% had gone to bcash you would have reluctantly agreed that it was the real bitcoin? Even though ver's ideas are garbage? What if bcash slowly gains more and more and gets to over 50% in the future? Does it then become "the real bitcoin". If the value bounces back and forth back and forth between 49% and 51% relative to each other does the "real bitcoin" change every day as the value changes? Even if I don't go this route and accept your reason. Even if I allow that "the market decided" why does the market get to decide? You still have to say why. You can't just declare it. It just so happens that I agree with the markets decision however If ver's garbage vision for bitcoins future had won out in market capitalization after the fork I wouldn't have accepted it as "the real bitcoin" just because it had slightly more market cap. I would be here saying that core was the real bitcoin in my opinion even though it was slightly less capitalized.

#2 If that is a real reason, than you would have to say that you would call ver's version of bitcoin "the real bitcoin" if the roles had been reversed and core forked first instead of cash forking first. Are you really prepared to stand behind that?

Anyway I'm getting really tired of this and really annoyed that there isn't one single person to step forward to say that they understand what I mean. Even though I really do believe in what I am saying and I think that I have good arguments behind it even I am starting to feel like a troll at this point. So I think I am going to disengage from this pursuit.

On a lighter node. Screw lambos. I'm want one of these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsfgbHvuYRU

So define your method of determining at which fork is "the real bitcoin" and show how it is in some way an objectively valid metric rather than just your opinion. If you throw on a half dozen other criteria than why are they the criteria that get to be used to determine which is "real"?

And answer me this. What if ver and his monstrosity totally took over the market and bitcoin core became a small group of hard core devotees? What if ver's monstrosity became even more centralized than our wildest nightmares but it still gained more and more support and almost everyone in the world was going along with it in every way including node count and what other metrics you want to use and everyone everywhere was calling it bitcoin? Would it then be the real bitcoin? Even though it was more like visa than the original vision of bitcoin? Or would the small group of core users be the real bitcoin?

I'm only doing it inside of this specific context, to make the argument more clear. I normally just say BTC to mean bitcoin core because, as I stated earlier, it is my opinion that bitcoin core is the real bitcoin.

Let me be clear guys. I share your opinion. It is my opinion as well that bitcoin core is the real bitcoin. All I am arguing is that that is my opinion and not a fact that is in some way objectively valid.

In what fundamental sense is bcash different from bitcoin core that makes it the fork and not bitcoin core the fork of it? Bitcoin core has changed the consensus algorithm too just like bcash. We used to not have segwit enabled and bcash used to not have massive blocks. One isn't "the fork" they are each forks of the other.

So if ver's fork had more nodes it would be the real bitcoin? Even though his ideas are total garbage?

Well then make an argument for why your preferred fork is "the real bitcoin" that is not based in opinion or some sort of logical fallacy.

No I am not trolling. I really do believe what I have said and it is a conclusion that I arrived at after significant contemplation.

I am not defending Ver and his trash coin. I am as adamantly opposed to BCash as anyone here. All I'm saying is that any argument that you make that one bitcoin is objectively "the real bitcoin" breaks down and fails. It's like saying my mac and cheese recipe is the one true recipe and only mac and cheese that is maid with my recipe is REAL mac and cheese.

Np mate. It's all good.


Agreed...


As much as I wish it weren't the case, as much as I wish I could say "my bitcoin is the bitcoin and that is a fact" the question of which bitcoin is "the real bitcoin" will, unfortunately, always be a matter of opinion not fact.

I'm still waiting for someone to make bitcoin wood so we can just bring this whole silly thing to an end.

I try really hard to be. Part of being reasonable means accepting hard truths sometimes.


Where the heck are you finding these stats? On my end it says I have 1049 merit. I didn't realize I was in some sort of competition with anyone anyway. I definitely never gloated about my merit or tried to use it to argue from authority or anything like that. So I don't know where all this is coming from. I don't think your scheme would work very well anyway because the best way to get merit is to tell people what ever they want to hear. I think you would find that the people who filtered to the top of your system were the people who stroked everyone off the best.

I am aware of the phenomena. I have talked about it before myself but always in terms of off market currency supply like in the form of ripple foundation holdings or dash masternode reserve requirements.

I haven't been active in this thread for years. If you have been I think you would know this. I started frequenting this thread a couple months ago and I certainly don't read even most of the posts. Far too many come through in a day to read even most of them.

I found HairyMaclairy's post to be insightful and illuminating. Even though I was aware of some of the shortcomings of market capitalization calculations I hadn't realized it was quite as bad as the example that he gave and it hadn't occurred to me that there is as direct of a connection between the total number of altcoins and the bitcoin dominance as there is. It hadn't occurred to me that there was a mechanism where one could make an infinite number of altcoins and they would never stop degrading the dominance of bitcoin (since all you would need is 1 trade to set a price and no requirement for any amount of liquidity at all) while not actually representing any real effect on the real world. I guess I kind of intuitively thought there would be a sort of diminishing return on the effect of new altcoins on dominance, and there certainly was early on, but I just now was forced to think through the mechanism that has caused me to realize that the returns probably plateaued at some point and stopped diminishing.

Well anyway I definitely am not above trolling, I have trolled once or twice in my life, but I haven't done it anywhere on bitcointalk except maybe a little bit in the dash thread.

Thanks for the perspective. That number freaked me out when I saw it and perhaps I got a little emotional. You have a very good point. Another example would be something like ripple that claims a marketcap of 34billion but some massive % of the currency supply is locked up and held off market while coinmarketcap still multiplies the price times that locked up off market supply to arrive at the market capitalization.


Do you really think I'm a troll?

Holy bananas. Is anyone else looking at this. https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentage Bitcoin dominance at 37%. This is not good... Having random scam coins be more valuable than bitcoin does not bode well for the future of the sector. If that trend continues and becomes exacerbated enough I will probably have to start thinking about divesting. A crypto sector where most of its capitalization is represented by scam coins is one that is doomed to crash.

Sorry to rain on the party... It's not calculated or anything. I just happened to notice that little figure just now.

I am imagining it because it seems very likely to be the case, not because you ever said it was the case.

Trying to "mix" your bitcoin in a tumbler is pretty much crap. It doesn't really work. What you describe isn't just a way to anonymize your bitcoins, it is, as far as I am aware, the only way to anonymize your bitcoins. It is the only way to actually achieve what people think they are achieving when they use tumblers.

Don't forget to use tor and vpns and what ever else though as well. Hiding your block chain activity is only half the battle, you also have to conceal your IP address.

There is no way to know when a transaction was issued. All a big miner can know is when he first saw it and he could share it with all of the other big miners. Then someone who is being paid could reach out to the big miners and ask if they have yet witnessed any conflicting transactions. If the answer is no and the receiver is aware of the miners policy of accepting the first transaction that they encounter in the event of conflicts, the receiver could then relatively reliably trust a 0 confirmation transaction. A degree of centralization in mining would help with this. I am imagining this is what jbreher meant by "bcash has 0 confirmation transactions". If it is than I'm not interested, if it's something else than I am.