Bitcoin Forum
May 18, 2021, 02:01:44 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.1 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Bitcoin VS Bitcoin Cash - Arguments on: February 21, 2018, 07:11:13 PM
Hello all,

This topic is to set apart Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash arguments. It is really quite a search to find arguments from both sides. The reason I want to urge Bitcoin Core supporters to give their argumentation is because for a lot of newcomers to the Crypto markets, it is nearly impossible to find the actual ''Why'' Bitcoin Cash should not be considered as an equal to Bitcoin. The debate or available information seems very one-sided in participation.

Personally I have been involved in crypto community since 2013 as a financial / business mind with anarcho-libertarian-decentralist views. However, I do not have an IT background, I am not a frequent Reddit or Bitcointalk user. I have relied mostly on Telegram, Bitcoin news websites and some Twitter as sources for the debate. If you disagree with my arguments about the lack of in depth arguments against Bitcoin Cash being debated publicly, I am likely using different channels, meaning, a lot of other people are likely getting only one-sided information.

The reason for the absence of in-depth arguments against Bitcoin Cash is because in my opinion, Bitcoin core does not engage in elaborate marketing to claim its validity, or disapprove Bitcoin Cash. Whilst Bitcoin cash seems to be focused on marketing their message ('Real bitcoin'.)
Roger Ver is hammering on this issue on Twitter. Whilst Bitcoin core seems to be continuing day-to-day affairs. I have not really seen a lot of mentions of Bitcoin Cash in Bitcoin core. Which in my opinion has led to a possible information crisis on what actual good arguments for- and against Bitcoin cash are. Or could be. Depending on your perspective.

A lot of Bitcoin core supporters are outraged with Bitcoin Cash claiming the name of Bitcoin. Therefore, I am under the impression most Bitcoin maximalists or supporters do not feel the need to debate Bitcoin cash? I would like to urge you to do so, as Bitcoin Cash is also very actively lobbying their arguments.

I will limit my post to naming 3 sources pro Bitcoin Cash, and 3 advocates pro Bitcoin Core.

Supporters of Bitcoin Cash:  Rick Reacts: Evaluating the bitcoin cash / bitcoin core arguments past all the passion  Rick Reacts: Rick Falkvinge: Here's why I choose the Bitcoin Cash fork

Advocates of Bitcoin:  (

Hereby I have attached an example of a rebuttal, posted by myself against Bitcoin cash. The article is pro Bitcoin cash. Below are just my opinions, feel free to supplement, correct, comment, give your opinions. Be it either pro-Bitcoin or pro-Bitcoin Cash. Every opinion holds a truth.

Also I am curious, for all persons replying. What is the ratio of BTC to BCH you own. Myself I am 1:1. Simply because Bitcoin is much more expensive and the BCH I have received via chain split, plus it tends to correlate with the Bitcoin price.

I. Rebuttle of Bitcoin cash article

Rebuttle of above article:
Personally I favour bitcoin presently. Bitcoin is defined by consensus rules. So even if BCH was more technologically and philosophically better, it still isn't bitcoin. Bitcoins present release is backwards compatible with clients that haven't upgraded. BCH is not. Hence it's only on the philosophy side that someone can say that they feel BCH is more inline with their philosophy. But if we start with that then we're just getting to opinions and religion.
As for the article I'll give a comment on each point.

1 - Bitcoin had low fees as a result of not many people using it. At the end of the day it's decentralisation vs onchain scaling. People overwhelming are choosing that they prefer decentralisation. With trade volume, mining power, price, and number of transactions. The market is telling us that people prefer decentralisation over low fees. If people upgrade to Segwit, they can have low fees on chain. If they won't use Segwit then they should use BCH instead.

2 - Bitcoin is a reliable network. It's incredibly robust. Even when the memorypool was at 350k transactions, nothing happened. The world kept turning. Transactions were processed and the protocol worked exactly as it should have. BCH can organise a hardfork with a couple of weeks notice and almost no review except a small cabal. This is not robust.

3 - Yes it is a peer to peer electronic cash system. If you can't run a full node, is it really peer to peer? Not in my opinion. If I have to connect to a data centre and trust their data that's almost PayPal 2.0.

4 - Yes it was. But why have a blocksize increase when we have Segwit? That would be stupid. We have effective 2mb blocks or more if people use Segwit. Once we reach 95% Segwit adoption they will likely hard fork in Segwit at the same time as a block size increase. They also make the point that 1bg blocks run fine on a high end laptop. Yes. They do. But hardware has never been the issue, it's network speed which doesn't follow moores law.

5 - saying that bitcoin should allow instant transactions is the same as saying every transaction should be included in the next block. So what? Unlimited blocksize? Nothing would surprise me with BCH. Bitcoin transactions were never meant to be instant. It's only the proof of work that makes a transaction final. Even Satoshi said 3-6 confirms. If you want instant transactions you need offchain like LN.

6 - Short term. BCH has barely even doubled its transaction volume since it launched. That's even with Satoshi dive probably making up a huge %.

7 - yes, and it will. It's the same thing everyone in bitcoin believes. But thinking bitcoin is at that stage yet is just premature. We have another 10 years before we start banking the unbanked. Bitcoin is still a high risk investment. Banking poor people with a high risk investment is stupid. We should be focusing on letting them take advantage of infrastructure built on top of blockchain. Like imports and exports to poor countries.

8 - bitcoincore is not centralised at all. They have an open mailing list and anyone can submit a bip. I point to BCH hardforking with a couple weeks notice with barely reviewed code as an example of centralisation.

9 - The 55% statistic is very old. Fees are pretty low right now. If you put 10sat/byte it will confirm. Just not in the next block.

10 - censorship resistant? Haha. Yea when in a few years all nodes will be run in data centres that can be shit down with one letter from a judge. No home mining anymore. LN is trustless in design as a second layer. BCH onchain is barely decentralised once they up the blocksize enough and actually fill blocks. How can you worry about the centralisation of optional payment hubs when you have mining hubs?

11 - Segwit doesn't change anything about bitcoin being a chain of signatures. It's just segregated. It's a fix to the malleability bug. It's as cryptographically secure as it ever was and nobody ever presents evidence to
The contrary. The code was reviewed for 3 years before the fork.

12 - we have RSK on bitcoin. Which is way smarter
because it's on a sidechain. So it doesn't increase the attack surface on the main blockchain. Totally rubbish point. Rsk is smarter and safer that enabling a load of OP codes that were disabled for security.

Look at r/bitcoin and r/btc right this second. Zero mentions of bch or r/btc on r/bitcoin. Whereas there's 6 mentions of bitcoin or r/bitcoin or core on r/btc.
BCH has social media power because of people like Verr. All they do is moan instead of getting on with it.

I'm glad BCH exists because now we get to see what happens onchain if we get massive blocks. I hope they can somehow start to fill blocks with more than 50kb so we can see what happens with 300mb blocks etc. Even if that might take decades based on how slow transactions are currently growing.

BCH supporters have their hearts in the right place and their vision and opinion is valid. But it's not bitcoin, that's not even up for debate.
2  Other / Politics & Society / Can we make politics, honest and transparent? on: February 17, 2018, 05:07:29 PM
This post is designed to brainstorm, inspire or archive a possible Blockchain solution that results in a uncensorable debate or public debate platform. This platform will assist in disinsentivising untruthful debate, news and untruthful politics. Whilst insentivising truth and integrity. The objective is to have a proof-of-validity of truthful information, or, to have a proof of invalidity of untruthful information.

For the purpose of discussion, the conjured idea will be refered to as ''Politicoin''. This is an idea and is not related to any current projects defining themselves by this name. 

Decentralized publishing and debate platform. Open source peer reviewed politics.
Designation trust model. People don't trust open source because they understand it, they trust it because they designate trust to someone. Those people can be held to account.
Making sure content cannot be obscured from google searches.
Financial disincentive to spam.

Knowledge and discussion on contentious and controversial matters currently takes place within a system not optimized/designed to provide neutrality, context, or evaluation to. Participation is polarized and contributors’ performance is largely unaccountable and influence is centralized and participation is unevaluated.

Social commentary centralized

GIVE THE PEOPLE WITH ACCESS THE RIGHT QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED. We on the platform don’t necessarily have the access to individuals that we would like to pose questions to. Give reporters the pertinent questions and reward them with positive coverage. No excuses for not asking hard questions, also recognize which reporters are honest. Create an army of interviewers who can ask reporters why they didn't think this was a pertinent question and if they will ask next time.
What makes up politics
People, events, statements, policies, reports by reporters, news articles, claims,
For most people, the accumulation of knowledge on contentious matters of political, scientific, and social importance generally comes from the consumption of partisan media owned by corrupt corporations and censored media, broadcast without the right of reproach or public scrutiny. Even news-by-social media where public discussion is possible presents minefields of staged content (fake news) within echo chambers of manipulated and censored information. Disagreements rarely proceed objectively or end amicably, and the most insightful content can be buried whilst anecdotal evidence can be presented as conclusive. Those disseminating information can do so without any accountability or greater context, giving false indications to all but the most dedicated of investigators. This has the effect of polarizing opinions, creating tensions where it might not exist and inhibiting the natural pursuit of peaceful cooperation that stands as one of humanity's greatest characteristics.
In short, political discourse is disorganized and unscientific, corrupted and without any accountability. A blockchain based system with the right design and incentives could potentially address these issues by providing a fully transparent, non-partisan platform to discuss and reflect.
How would a platform aiming to provide meaningful discussion, accountability and equal access be designed?
These are the faults with free to access platforms where sock-puppeting and astroturfing are only inhibited by the ability to register an email address.
The confusion, lack of impartiality and cherry picked information enables the corruption in politic to continue with no solution in sight, as both sides of any debate succumb to very psychologically confirmation bias. That is not to say that in any disagreement there is a universally correct answer, but through the design of a decentralized platform all information is uncensorable.
Politicoin aims to contextualize, quantify, and qualify ===== equalize the unfair ability of those with the most resources to have the loudest voices and sort between the controversial but unpopular and also baseless claims.
It is more important than ever that the process of political discussion must be fair and provably fair. Politcoin will not provide oracle style answers to questions, but a framework and environment whereby all participants take part and form their own conclusion in full knowledge knowing the *rules/set up/algorithms/weaknesses* of the platform. No bias and an understanding of the transparent weaknesses and limitations of politicoin.
Definitions of terms
Open source investigation

Describing the platform

Best described as a censor free publishing platform like Steemit or Twitter, with an integrated blockchain secured discussion system for publishers and users and researchers to comment, rebuff, link to, and debate information presented by other users. The platform aims to provide context, accountability and Network tokens will be used to incentivize behaviors, pay for visibility and pay for advertisements in a manner that remains equitable for those with minimal resources, yet still thwarts the risks of spam
Platform communities like reddit have shown the incredible ability to provide valuable and insightful investigate matters, mine for information with users performing arduous amounts of research and tenacity for no reward. Harnessing this hive mind with the accountability and transparency of the blockchain could provide a valuable resource tool for journalists using the platform and a timestamped proof of *heritage**posterity**ownership* for contributors to the platform.
A place where anecdotes can be fully discussed in detail
Politicoin aims to be the most optimized possible place to discuss and research politics.
Navigation of the platform/Layout
The platform is about the discussion of ideas, and ideas come from people. Rather than subject the user to an unfiltered not necessarily relevant bulk of information, user experience will be decided by a subscription to topics and users. Users arrive with existing opinions and bias’s and the platform will aim to show them opposing opinions and arguments. Users will build upon their own platform as they dig deeper into topics of discussion.
As an investigation platform Information in, like documentaries, claims, ideologies, then to be deconstructed and debated about by users
How would we like the platform to be used?
As an accountable environment to conduct open source investigations
Acknowledgement of limitations, potential for abuse, and mitigation
With a public pay-to-play platform like politicoin there exists multiple potential avenues which participants could use to try and corrupt or distort the meritocratic exchange of information.
Vote rigging
Spam - The client would allow censorship and sorting based upon the users pre-selected ‘likes’ and ‘subscriptions’. This provides a new user an entry point without having to dig through masses of content. Content from the users’ preferences would still be subject to uncensored relies and rebuttals, giving opposing viewpoints to their initial network of trust. Layer 1 censorship.
Whales - Votes for visibility are weighted whereby the amount a vote/coin increases visibility by exponentially decreases when on the same content. For example, 1000 votes would only be 50% more visible than 20 votes. This reduces the effect that large bag holders and wealthy individuals have to monopolies visibility.
Burying comments - As well as the vote weighting system, users will be incentivized to dig through thread for insightful comments as their ‘find’ of a good comment would be rewarded with a share of future votes that comment receives. Reputation of users based on received votes would also be a possibility.
sock puppets/astroturfing - The ability to create anonymous accounts has to be integral to the system so the only countermeasure to this is the would be the overall design of the system. With all activity non-rescindable and permanently recorded, the use of running multiple accounts would be inherently risky as ‘failures to respond to challenge’ would be 
Users would be encouraged to add credibility to their accounts by taking public ownership of aid accounts through other verified social media and publishing platforms. Users can tweet or post to verify they control an account.
What would the ideal debate look like/contain?
- An environment where participants should be accountable for their positions. Debating on the record
- You profess to have opinion X, please tackle the opposing opinion Y. Pay to/bounty for answer means where normally a point could be avoided or ignored, there would be a negative perception of someone turning away funds to argue for a point they supposedly supported.
- Right of reply/challenge. Token bounties used to grab the attention of contributors requesting clarification or debate on their
- provably fair ranking of comments
- Historical reputation and reliability
Envisioned evolution of the project/where do we see it going

If the project was successful and debate and publishing on politician became of political utility we would like to see the tracking and discussion of the roles, actions and opinions of all public officials to the extent that initially it would be adopted by honest politicians wanting to prove a point, then onto something that would be compiled on existing politicians by the community. Tracking the decisions, statements, actions and contradictions of a politician could be done in an open source community powered way. Transgressions of public officials would be recorded and accessible to the electorate as a way to provide transparency.
Crowd funded politicians
Built in advertisements for political parties. Bounties for politicians answering questions paid in tokens used for advertising to users. Why would they not want visibility. The resources is people's attention. Possibly existing traditional publications would license over advertising space on their own platforms in return for tokens since journalists might have a use for tokens. Vice versa, the supporters of a politician may directly influence decision making by cutting funding of a politician that is not upholding his mandate.
- Decentralised hub of censor free information and news
- Covering news items from all angles (contributors over the world) / Obtaining all sides of the story
- Direct democracy
- Decentralized provably fair voting system (No more ‘Russian hackers’)
- Uncensored decentralized research and profiles of politicians and public figures (Reputation, integrity)
- Crowdfunding politicians
- Tracking donations to political candidates.
- Tracking integrity of political promises
- Independent decentralized community investigations with bounty program

Free of ‘vested interests’
Independent censor free source of information

Censor free
Community Consensus
'Miners' become editors

To assist in censor free hub of sharing information, serious debate and governance.
To take the politics out of facts and media. / Make information objective.
Take finance out of the information industry.

The information market deserves an access to unbiased information, uncensored debate and objective facts.
As opposed the never-ending desire for the powers at be to monopolize information and control public opinion.


We believe such a platform will be robust enough to overcome censorship, finance and lobbyists.


- Political debate
- Political contributions
- Resolution of geopolitical conflicts?
- Bridging east and west, overcoming language barriers, connecting people - not politicians.
- News, bridging language and bias

Area of effect
- Independent politicians ‘crowdfunding’
- Independent politicians as actual representatives of the people / direct democracy
- Honest politics (censor free candidate profiles).

The idea speaks for itself. The code is law. The community governs. The philosophy is as decentral as the governance of the project.

The whitepaper serves as a brainstorm initiative to inspire the crypto community to rethink the possibilities of the bitcoin ecosystem and the potential of blockchain technology in information, news, politics and even the consciousness.
The Politicoin platform will connect the information markets, news, debate and politics by allowing for a censor free platform that is capable of reducing the subjectivism of facts that can have major consequences. (Fake news leading to war, invasions and malice.)

- Bridge between governance and smart decentralized technology
- What could be the real-world impact?
- How could it change the information landscape?
News, debate and Fake news
- Fake News (M)
Recently it has come to the attention of a great many people how the news is influenced by sensationalism, political agendas or one-sided views.

The need for unbiased media has called out for independent publishers.

Relevant topics
- Propaganda
- Censorship

Connecting worlds

- Actual communication between countries and people in it.
- Local voting on 'what is happening' in popular events?
- No more sensationalism and fake news.
- The code
- Open source
- Platforms can be made for various purposes
- Integration of DAO in Politicoin?
- DAO vs Direct democracy?
- Direct democracy inspiration
I think the objective should be to solve the distrust of a vast majority of the population through this platform.

3  Local / Mining (Nederlands) / Galaxycoin on: December 08, 2013, 06:33:38 PM
Iemand enig idee hoe Galaxycoins mined? Of waar je überhaupt de wallet kan vinden?
De enige miningpool die ik vond met google is gesloten.

Alle links naar wallets en pools staan offline of zijn gecanceld..

Ps. Ik kan nergens posten in general topics?
Pages: [1]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!