[[edited out]
Didn't you know this is the Wall Observer Maximalist thread.
I know exactly what you mean but risk being shouted at to say that here
On the date of the bitcoin cash fork. Bitcoin core forked too didn't they? That was when segwit was activated. The original bitcoin in reality is an etheric and ambigous thing which probably no longer exists. The real shit slinging match is over the brand.
nonsense.
You are suggesting that there is some kind of equality in forks. There is only one bitcoin, and that thing called bcash was a renegade fork that ends up serving as an ongoing and persistent attack vector on bitcoin - the real one.
Get the fuck out of here trying to assert that bcash is bitcoin or that bcash is the real bitcoin or anything close to that, even though bcash happens to copy bitcoin from both branching off and its continued lack of innovations, so they are engaged in ongoing stealing from bitcoin.
Regarding bitcoin forking at around the same time as the renegade bcash hardfork , you got your history wrong. If you recall there was a process for obtaining consensus in bitcoin and the process was followed, which caused locking in of the segwit consensus and thereafter there was another period before the actual new consensus code was activated... a soft fork and voluntary and backward compatible, too.
If you also recall bcash was a hardfork that went into effect on a kind of emergency basis and was driven by a small group of folks who were disgruntled about the segwit2x newyork agreement not going the way that they had hoped.. which if you recall the segwit2x and ny agreement was also a kind of scam and an attack attempt on bitcoin both in terms of attempting to change the blocksize limit but also attempting to change bitcoin's governance.. which failed.
Hey JJG, I trust your recollections better than my own of the events of that fork. I'm not suggesting equality of the forks, my point was on a more philosophical level.
Even if you seem to have some legitimate questions, you seem to be communicating various bcash shill talking points. Over my several months of back and forth with you, I am getting the sense that you are not intending to shill or to engage in talking points, but still you do seem to have a tendency to get caught up in certain points that are less relevant - for example when you are referring to philosophical talking points rather than referring to what is or what has actually taken place. Frequently, there can develop too much confusion if we focus on philosophy rather than facts on the ground and the logic that follows from the facts, rather than theorizing facts that do not exist.
What is bitcoin anyway? If it is how the protocol was originally conceived then it doesn't exist anymore as I see it.
Yeah, sure, bitcoin is a theoretical thing, but it is also a product of networking effects and it is a product of what the people have decided through consensus. Bcash nutjobs want to get us distracted into thinking about original intention bullshit, and really those are distractions because the fact of the matter, through the ny agreement and segwit2x, the bcash (big blocker folks) attempted to change bitcoin's consensus mechanism and to get big blocks forced into bitcoin, but if you recall the bip 91 compromise that allowed for the compromising of positions which allowed for segwit to be voted on first. Accordingly, since segwit was voted upon first, the whole big blocker nutjob plan of attempting to change bitcoin's consensus mechanism fell through and they forced bcash. Therefore bitcoin remains the product of the community, rather than some abstract and failed attack mechanism that is largely operating under the current bcash name.
You may recall also, that few of those big blocker fuckheads actually cared about the technicals of what they were attempting to propose, but instead were intent upon merely criticizing bitcoin's governance mechanism and to make changes easier to make in bitcoin, which tended to focus on their hate of core developers.... In any event, there are no two bitcoins because as you seem to recognize the bitcoin community stuck with bitcoin, so there is no confusion about what is the real bitcoin. Of course, some folks branched off with bcash, and some folks kept their feet in both camps, but in any event there should not be any questions about what is the real bitcoin, and it is not the imitator and snake oil that currently goes by the name bcash.
One might argue that core had deviated more from the initial protocol than bcash did so is less close to the original bitcoin.
It does not matter very much if there was deviation because the whole process of change was made through a consensus mechanism process. Sure that consensus mechanism process can be changed and apparently is changed from time to time, too, but various aspects of the community still continue to recognize only one bitcoin, even though confusion continues to be attempted to be perpetuated by bcashers.
I mean stripping witness data from blocks is a massive change no matter how you colour it.
Of course, it is a massive change, and massive changes can still occur while bitcoin evolves into something that looks somewhat differently than it did in 2009... You gotta have various changes when you are dealing with technology and money and security and both knowns and unknowns. As you may recall in late 2015, segwit was proposed as a BIG block solution, and initially it was praised by a lot of the technical folks, including Gavin Andressen.. but anyhow, as time passed, segwit became more controversial, but largely those were made up shit concerns, because largely segwit has remained largely supported, and that it is part of the reason that it reached consensus so quickly when a compromise avenue was established in June/July 2017 to get it to be voted on and then subsequently activated.
However I accept that the community as a whole has backed cores direction and bestowed the brand on that.
yes, that is largely what happened. The bitcoin community wanted segwit, and sure there were some minority players who did not want it for various reasons, and some of those folks got behind bcash or got behind segwit2x, but there was division too and some of them also kept feet in both camps to support bitcoin while being against it, at the same time.
I shouldn't be lumped in with bcash anyway. Yes I do have some in my portfolio along with selected other alts
There is nothing wrong with holding various alts, if you believe that you can profit from them either short term or long term or you have some kind of belief in them or you want to gamble.
and of course bitcoin itself but if I had to choose the best digital cash, it isn't bcash
the bcash nutjobs are desperate, and they want folks to come to believe that they are the better cash, and that bitcoin should have attempted to focus on that, and really they are just all over the fucking place. If it has actually developed in the bitcoin community that storage of value is more important than cash, then that might be an evolution of bitcoin in the current times. Such evolution of thinking or the practices of folks to value storage of value and decentralization does not mean that cash functionality cannot be developed later. At this point in time there are a lot of various kinds of cash including various cryptos and including various fiats, and folks are going to be in differing positions regarding which options they have available and which forms of money they would like to spend first. Usually folks are going to chose to spend their less valuable forms of money first, and if some kind of money (such as bitcoin) is likely to retain value or to gain in value then either peeps are not going to want to spend it or they may chose to replace it as soon as possible after they spend it.
Surely there has developed another problem in terms of people's choices too, and that is if governments are going to tax or to cause accounting issues on people in regards to spending their money (such as bitcoin) then they are not going to want to spend it because they do not want to suffer accounting issues, either.
Poll
