I think the issue is that new members unaware were duped into buying bch believing it was BITCOIN as the majority see it ( even if they are wrong) which has financial consequences.
This argument goes both ways. What about the people who buy BTC thinking that it is the Bitcoin that was described in the white paper and became popular to begin with? In my opinion they are clearly being duped, and
I've put for strong factual arguments that that is the case, while the BTC camp has mainly resorted to censorship and name calling to support their case that BTC is Bitcoin.
It is sad that the project the majority consider bitcoin lost one it's more vocal and famous supporters. One could wonder where a single project called bitcoin could have been if all the fragmentation of the original supporting group had not taken place.
Agreed! That would have been the case if Segwit 2X or any of the other block size increases hadn't been blocked by censorship and social media attacks.
Surely though you must still consider btc > fiat
Even if you consider bch > btc?
Of course!
Perhaps there is room for both projects anyway. I certainly don't think that either side should be sniping at the other. Fighting against each other is not the way.
Agreed again!
Let's grow the size of the crypto pie, not fight over the percentage of the current sized crypto pie.
Unfortunately drastically changing the roadmap of BTC and limiting the block size set back all of crypto currency adoption by nearly half a decade![/quote]
Sort of like "hey we are bitcoin original, since we feel it essential to hold closer to the original design of satoshi for these reasons..", or "Hey we are BTC we feel we can improve the design in a few ways".
Sounds accurate, and a good plan to me, but it also seems clear which one of those two coins have a stronger claim to the word Bitcoin in the name.
We support bitcoin and hold BTC and some BCH. We also hold a few other projects that seem to have great developers and very interesting potential.
As do I. Any smart businessman would.
It is perhaps not a case " of there can be only one".
Bitcoin cash does not seem to get your message across as much as if you had called it bitcoin classic or bitcoin original... or something like that to demonstrate what distinguishes it from btc and why it is essential people read and understand this before they decide if they want to go for one or the other or get a bit of both of them.
If the name had ended up being Bitcoin Original, I think the pro BTC camp would complain even more than they do about the name Bitcoin Cash, and they would complain an equal amount if it was called Bitcoin Classic. I think the real reason they complain so loudly about Bitcoin Cash is that they know it has a real chance of surpassing BTC's market share, and merchant adoption. There are already more physical shops around the world accepting BCH than BTC. They fight against it because they fear it will hurt their investment in BTC.
Anyway hope you get fair treatment from members that have any business being in positions of trust here.
A sensible and accurate message if they feel you must have red trust not screaming scammer. What can you expect from these morons (real scammers) that have taken over the systems of control of this board.
Thanks for such a level headed post! We need more of those on the internet, and less name calling.
Show Posts
