Well, Ixcoin of course! 

Just like Donald Trump and every other person or business of considerable net worth, it is in their own interest to pay as little tax as possible. You would do the same, I hardly see how that is relevant to his technical arguments.

I know you Segwitters love taxes, so much so that you even want to raise them perpetually, but please kindly shut the fuck up with your anti-logic propaganda. Thanks.

You're either very stupid or a skilled shill trying to dissuade stupid people from uncovering the truth. I find both prospects to be plausible which is disturbing. This forum is a horrible, horrible place.

That's not a bias, that's a time tested principle. It's a bias to think that cryptocurrencies can only grow all the way upwards to become the main global transaction system in one straight line. The fact that so much easy money has been made points to a very real period of correction. Hubris comes before the fall and all that stuff.... anyways, I'm done in this thread for now have fun filling it with garbage everyone!

He allegedly said that he would appear on Kenn Bosak's Bitcoin talk show on the 23rd but then didn't confirm a time with him and stood Kenn up.

Perhaps this is because Bosak was intending to ask such a question. When McAfee goes on RT like he did recently, he can give a general explanation without revealing too much of his deeper thoughts about crypto. Kenn Bosak is familiar with the space though and would likely have a great deal many more probing questions for McAfee.

Finally, when somebody says Bitcoin, it is now a general term which could be perceived to mean BCH or BTC. In McAfee's small time slot on RT he couldn't possibly explain such a complicated topic to what is anticipated to be a general audience, uneducated about crypto-currency on any level.

There is a lot of doublespeak around this situation, many people are vocal about supporting one side while others are silent and willing to follow whichever appears to be 'winning'. This is like poker, people may not want to telegraph their moves because there is no clear advantage in doing so. Only time can tell where this leads.

BTC split from "The" Bitcoin chain via segwit.

BCH split from "The" Bitcoin chain via raising the block size.

Both forks implemented changes, thus while one kept the stock ticker of BTC and the infrastructure built around the BTC ticker on trade platforms, it is not inherently the defacto Bitcoin.

If BCH manages to maintain the majority hashing power and prices rise to support it, it will become the chain which is used and referred to as the main Bitcoin.

Obviously, this could not happen within the same day of launch, or week, or maybe even month or months. This will take some time to play out. Right now there is a great deal of uncertainty among investors, traders, and miners.

A great deal hold both of their coins, BTC and BCH and use BTC + BCH to calculate the overall bitcoin price, which is a sensible way of understanding this.

That is a blatant lie, it was released on June 26th. It says it plainly at the top of the article.

+/-  Quite some time could be 7 days, 14, 21, 30, 40, but on that 42nd day at the such and such hour, where will it break? Down or up?

Stagnation is not a good sign for an asset which has seen such a monstrous climb if you ask me. BTC valuation depends on inflows of new capital and if things get tense that is one precipitous peak on the 1, 2 year chart. Crypto investors have a tendency to adapt tunnel vision and only conceive of rises, they don't consider other sectors of investment which might present great opportunities for larger players to shuffle their capital allocations.

It feels as though with this statement you are intentionally obfuscating the facts. He didn't say BTC, he said BC.

BCH is Bitcoin

BTC is Bitcoin

If a tree has two branches, you do not consider the two branches to be separate from the tree. At the time of the split, there was no "correct" main chain, just the one which was perceived to be the main chain because they used their political positioning to maintain the original ticker of btc. The valuation of these two forks is in flux, people are still struggling to grasp the technological, political, and economic concepts at play here. There is no clear winner yet, this will take months to settle.

Again, you have NO proof of that, and the fact that he included neither T or H means one could not conclusively state one way or the other. To claim you know for certain, that is pure dishonesty.

That article merely discusses the same tweets which were sent on the 17th of july, before the hardfork.

And finally, what one considers Bitcoin is now open to interpretation and simply because one fork managed to politically keep the ticker BTC does not mean that it is in some way more or less inherently entitled to the name of the main chain.

Watch this play out over the coming months. McAfee also said that BTC will remain frozen in the $4000 range for quite some time. It's going to be a long process.

BCH IS Bitcoin. SegwitCoin is a fork from Bitcoin which has won the title of BTC through political attrition.

John McAfee posted this tweet on July 17th before the hard fork occurred.

Look at how out of hand taxation has gotten around the world. Most countries have never had a time in their history where taxation could even possibly be conceived as emanating from the public's collective willingness to contribute in order to reap a collective gain. America is possibly the only true example we have to point to. At one point the tax dollars were well appropriated but now we are all painfully aware of the sheer tyranny this taxation has become.

Nobody feels true representation from the current American government.

Do we really want to go down this path again? First they block upgrades so that they can maintain their tax, then they implement selective upgrades which further their capacity to tax people. While it may seem nominal now it will one day be a flatly unacceptable tax for a service which was supposed to be a force acting to free the masses from domineering bureaucracies.

They deride BCH while joking about adding increased tax fees in twitter polls, they accuse BCH of being an illegitimate cash cow for miners when in reality they openly want to modify the code to fill their pockets beyond the block reward.

I am on McGregor's side but I don' t follow it close at all, I just know that Mayweather sounds retarded and used race baiting to falsely accuse McGregor.

I don't disagree that patents won't stop the endless flow of shitcoins.

Doesn't mean people aren't trying.

aaaaaaaaaand bitcoin core is dead.

No dependency whatsoever?

Just no. In a logical, just world, it is necessary. Yes, it is possible that strings could be pulled by government agencies to allow him to have the patents without proof of being Satoshi, but you know damn well in such a scenario there will be legal action against Craig and people will cry bloody murder.

My inclination on Craig Wright is to believe him. I understand why he would choose to refuse proof to the masses of idiots looking for a leader to worship. I think it makes sense that if Nakamoto were to argue his ideas in public without his identity to back him people would probably attack him as has happened with Wright.

It comes down to this, if he ultimately isn't satoshi, can't prove anything, and ergo has no chance at having his patents approved, why go through all the trouble to apply for them? It just doesn't make sense. Ultimately I acknowledge that I don't know, but in truth I do want him to be the real Satoshi and I detest the idiots who are so blinded by their ideologies and preconceived notions that they attack him and refuse to consider the possibility that he is telling the truth.

Just chiming in to say that XRP didn't make an ATH, as with every coin, it's not a true ATH unless it is a BTC-pairing ATH.

There's that quote about conspiracy theorists, that it's nothing more than a derogatory title used to dismiss a critical thinker.

FUD is the Bitcoin version, a term used to dismiss facts, evidence, and (often) truth that runs contrary to the prevalent view.

Fee is still cheaper than dirt. It's taking longer to transfer BCH because difficulty increased on BCH at the same time difficulty dropped on BTC. So the difficulty is higher and the available hashpower is lower, double whammy. I haven't tried sending BCH today though, so I don't know if this is even affecting confirm times.

Compare that to a day or two ago when BTC's mempool was flooded, all kinds of people had transactions stuck, even with the increased hashpower it is still flooded.

I believe that eventually BCH will become the dominant chain simply because it is more profitable for the dominant traders if it replaces BTC. It's also the better technology but people will debate that all the way up until it becomes the economic reality that BCH is preferred and that they must adapt. Even after the flippening people will be jilted that they were cheated unfairly although it was ultimately their own choice not to hold onto their BCH. People are being suckered into parting from their share dividend, or rather, selling their BCH which is the actual share and holding the dividend which is the segwitified-BTC.