[ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees

[presduterte]

Roger Ver has gone full blown shill mode. Shills for ABC and WHC/Plasma, on this route ABC will destroy bch

Your lack of awareness of your irony is breath-taking/mind-numbing.

First you were calling BTC "Core," now you're calling BCH "ABC." When Wright forks the code again from Ayres, what will you call SV?

Hey buddy, read the white paper.

I assume you mean the Bitcoin white paper, by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Total number of references to "Bitcoin Cash": 0.

But what does the white paper have to do with price of petrol in Paris?

You can translate it to fit your cause any way you see fit, as would a schizophrenic monk translate the Old Testament. Still doesn't mean you have a point, or are even sane.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

[1714776523]

1714776523

[1714776523]

1714776523

[1714776523]

1714776523

[Icutgrass205]

Roger Ver has gone full blown shill mode. Shills for ABC and WHC/Plasma, on this route ABC will destroy bch

Your lack of awareness of your irony is breath-taking/mind-numbing.

First you were calling BTC "Core," now you're calling BCH "ABC." When Wright forks the code again from Ayres, what will you call SV?

Hey buddy, read the white paper.

I assume you mean the Bitcoin white paper, by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Total number of references to "Bitcoin Cash": 0.

But what does the white paper have to do with price of petrol in Paris?

You can translate it to fit your cause any way you see fit, as would a schizophrenic monk translate the Old Testament. Still doesn't mean you have a point, or are even sane.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

Clearly you haven't read it enough to understand it then, bitcoin is an economic system not just a cryptocurrency. If BCH fully adheres to the white paper then it is bitcoin, if BTC butchers the white paper then it is not bitcoin, is that too hard for you to understand?

[Bardadym]

How do these forks enrage me ... Roger Ver was so confident in his coin, and now what? So it can happen to any coin .. Today it is, and tomorrow it will die? Horror

[presduterte]

Roger Ver has gone full blown shill mode. Shills for ABC and WHC/Plasma, on this route ABC will destroy bch

Your lack of awareness of your irony is breath-taking/mind-numbing.

First you were calling BTC "Core," now you're calling BCH "ABC." When Wright forks the code again from Ayres, what will you call SV?

Hey buddy, read the white paper.

I assume you mean the Bitcoin white paper, by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Total number of references to "Bitcoin Cash": 0.

But what does the white paper have to do with price of petrol in Paris?

You can translate it to fit your cause any way you see fit, as would a schizophrenic monk translate the Old Testament. Still doesn't mean you have a point, or are even sane.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

Clearly you haven't read it enough to understand it then, bitcoin is an economic system not just a cryptocurrency. If BCH fully adheres to the white paper then it is bitcoin, if BTC butchers the white paper then it is not bitcoin, is that too hard for you to understand?

Please indulge me: how did bitcoin "butcher" the white paper? Where does it say in the white paper that off-chain transactions shouldn't happen, or that systems like SegWit shouldn't be introduced to fit more transactions per block?

Personally I wouldn't have minded 2 MB blocks. However, I'm not torn in rage that it didn't happen last year. I am, however, pleasantly surprised at the technological adaptations that have been built around the block size limit, keeping the blockchain girth down to a manageable level so that the commonfolk who were meant to benefit from bitcoin technology can still run a full node on their hard drives if they so choose.

[Icutgrass205]

Roger Ver has gone full blown shill mode. Shills for ABC and WHC/Plasma, on this route ABC will destroy bch

Your lack of awareness of your irony is breath-taking/mind-numbing.

First you were calling BTC "Core," now you're calling BCH "ABC." When Wright forks the code again from Ayres, what will you call SV?

Hey buddy, read the white paper.

I assume you mean the Bitcoin white paper, by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Total number of references to "Bitcoin Cash": 0.

But what does the white paper have to do with price of petrol in Paris?

You can translate it to fit your cause any way you see fit, as would a schizophrenic monk translate the Old Testament. Still doesn't mean you have a point, or are even sane.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

Clearly you haven't read it enough to understand it then, bitcoin is an economic system not just a cryptocurrency. If BCH fully adheres to the white paper then it is bitcoin, if BTC butchers the white paper then it is not bitcoin, is that too hard for you to understand?

Please indulge me: how did bitcoin "butcher" the white paper? Where does it say in the white paper that off-chain transactions shouldn't happen, or that systems like SegWit shouldn't be introduced to fit more transactions per block?

Personally I wouldn't have minded 2 MB blocks. However, I'm not torn in rage that it didn't happen last year. I am, however, pleasantly surprised at the technological adaptations that have been built around the block size limit, keeping the blockchain girth down to a manageable level so that the commonfolk who were meant to benefit from bitcoin technology can still run a full node on their hard drives if they so choose.

Lmao you just linked it to me,  "The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network."

Uneeded changes to the protocol are an attack on bitcoin

[presduterte]

Lmao you just linked it to me,  "The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network."

Uneeded changes to the protocol are an attack on bitcoin

Let me regale you with another tidbit from 2 messages down the convo:

If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

Minority version = BCH and now = SV.

Uneeded (sp) changes = BCH and now = SV.

You're in the minority of the minority. You lost, twice.

Also I don't believe for a second that you actually "laughed your ass off."

[Icutgrass205]

Lmao you just linked it to me,  "The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network."

Uneeded changes to the protocol are an attack on bitcoin

Let me regale you with another tidbit from 2 messages down the convo:

If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

Minority version = BCH and now = SV.

Uneeded (sp) changes = BCH and now = SV.

You're in the minority of the minority. You lost, twice.

Also I don't believe for a second that you actually "laughed your ass off."

You're so bright, if BCHSV fully adheres to the bitcoin whitepaper with orginal opcodes and all, then it is bitcoin. ABC is not bitcoin, you have been fooled by their WHC/plasma and shitcoin agenda

[presduterte]

You're so bright

Why thank you. It does take brains to lead a nation of millions.

if BCHSV fully adheres to the bitcoin whitepaper with orginal opcodes and all, then it is bitcoin. ABC is not bitcoin, you have been fooled by their WHC/plasma and shitcoin agenda

ABC isn't bitcoin. It's BCH.

Bitcoin is BTC.

SV is BSV.

Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.

[Icutgrass205]

You're so bright

Why thank you. It does take brains to lead a nation of millions.

if BCHSV fully adheres to the bitcoin whitepaper with orginal opcodes and all, then it is bitcoin. ABC is not bitcoin, you have been fooled by their WHC/plasma and shitcoin agenda

ABC isn't bitcoin. It's BCH.

Bitcoin is BTC.

SV is BSV.

Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.

No, bitcoin is bitcoin, BTC is no longer bitcoin. SV=bitcoin, tickers dont mean shit. It is the code underneath them that matters.

[AlloM]

You're so bright

Why thank you. It does take brains to lead a nation of millions.

if BCHSV fully adheres to the bitcoin whitepaper with orginal opcodes and all, then it is bitcoin. ABC is not bitcoin, you have been fooled by their WHC/plasma and shitcoin agenda

ABC isn't bitcoin. It's BCH.

Bitcoin is BTC.

SV is BSV.

Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.

But current ongoing drama is that which is original BCH and this have been proved both BCH ABC and BCH SV are now useless low value coin. Hash war is still going on but in the end both will be big losers.

[presduterte]

ABC isn't bitcoin. It's BCH.

Bitcoin is BTC.

SV is BSV.

Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.

No, bitcoin is bitcoin, BTC is no longer bitcoin. SV=bitcoin, tickers dont mean shit. It is the code underneath them that matters.

Then why are we in the Alternate cryptocurrencies > Announcements (Altcoins) section?

[Icutgrass205]

ABC isn't bitcoin. It's BCH.

Bitcoin is BTC.

SV is BSV.

Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.

No, bitcoin is bitcoin, BTC is no longer bitcoin. SV=bitcoin, tickers dont mean shit. It is the code underneath them that matters.

Then why are we in the Alternate cryptocurrencies > Announcements (Altcoins) section?

That is a question you should ask the mods/devs of bitcointalk.org

[CoinClarity]

That is a question you should ask the mods/devs of bitcointalk.org

He could, but I know you wouldn't like the answer.

[starmman]

You're so bright

Why thank you. It does take brains to lead a nation of millions.

if BCHSV fully adheres to the bitcoin whitepaper with orginal opcodes and all, then it is bitcoin. ABC is not bitcoin, you have been fooled by their WHC/plasma and shitcoin agenda

ABC isn't bitcoin. It's BCH.

Bitcoin is BTC.

SV is BSV.

Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.

But current ongoing drama is that which is original BCH and this have been proved both BCH ABC and BCH SV are now useless low value coin. Hash war is still going on but in the end both will be big losers.

yep - completely follow that - the whole thing is a farce - maybe DOGE will turn out the be the real bitcoin in the end!

IMO this has totally put a dampener on a potential December bull run.

[presduterte]

the whole thing is a farce - maybe DOGE will turn out the be the real bitcoin in the end!

 

I mean it was also a fork of bitcoin, so why not?

[valthomas]

Roger Ver has gone full blown shill mode. Shills for ABC and WHC/Plasma, on this route ABC will destroy bch

Your lack of awareness of your irony is breath-taking/mind-numbing.

First you were calling BTC "Core," now you're calling BCH "ABC." When Wright forks the code again from Ayres, what will you call SV?

Hey buddy, read the white paper.

I assume you mean the Bitcoin white paper, by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Total number of references to "Bitcoin Cash": 0.

But what does the white paper have to do with price of petrol in Paris?

You can translate it to fit your cause any way you see fit, as would a schizophrenic monk translate the Old Testament. Still doesn't mean you have a point, or are even sane.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

Clearly you haven't read it enough to understand it then, bitcoin is an economic system not just a cryptocurrency. If BCH fully adheres to the white paper then it is bitcoin, if BTC butchers the white paper then it is not bitcoin, is that too hard for you to understand?

i just dont get it with these dumbass jackasses here the original code of bitcoin is bchsv why do you think craig is doingeverything in his power to protect it and spend millions everyday on hash war with bchabc? Its true most dont agree with him becasue they dont care about the original bitcoin people care more about making usd than in the technology of bitcoin whatever changes they make or fork as long as bitcoin name is on an alt chain they dont care

[Mrpumperitis]

^, No ,
Craig had planned to steal users funds.."sunken treasure"
Craig wanted to make users pay more than once to store info on the blockchain...
This is why Craig wont make a new coin, he cant build and he would have nothing to steal...

Craig would have destroyed everything we have all worked hard to create...



If you think craig is Satoshi..you are a shill or stupid.

[valthomas]

^, No ,
Craig had planned to steal users funds.."sunken treasure"
Craig wanted to make users pay more than once to store info on the blockchain...
This is why Craig wont make a new coin, he cant build and he would have nothing to steal...

Craig would have destroyed everything we have all worked hard to create...



If you think craig is Satoshi..you are a shill or stupid.

ok who said he was Satoshi?

[Icutgrass205]

Roger Ver has gone full blown shill mode. Shills for ABC and WHC/Plasma, on this route ABC will destroy bch

Your lack of awareness of your irony is breath-taking/mind-numbing.

First you were calling BTC "Core," now you're calling BCH "ABC." When Wright forks the code again from Ayres, what will you call SV?

Hey buddy, read the white paper.

I assume you mean the Bitcoin white paper, by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Total number of references to "Bitcoin Cash": 0.

But what does the white paper have to do with price of petrol in Paris?

You can translate it to fit your cause any way you see fit, as would a schizophrenic monk translate the Old Testament. Still doesn't mean you have a point, or are even sane.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

Clearly you haven't read it enough to understand it then, bitcoin is an economic system not just a cryptocurrency. If BCH fully adheres to the white paper then it is bitcoin, if BTC butchers the white paper then it is not bitcoin, is that too hard for you to understand?

i just dont get it with these dumbass jackasses here the original code of bitcoin is bchsv why do you think craig is doingeverything in his power to protect it and spend millions everyday on hash war with bchabc? Its true most dont agree with him becasue they dont care about the original bitcoin people care more about making usd than in the technology of bitcoin whatever changes they make or fork as long as bitcoin name is on an alt chain they dont care

Because most people dont do the research.

[Mrpumperitis]

^, No ,
Craig had planned to steal users funds.."sunken treasure"
Craig wanted to make users pay more than once to store info on the blockchain...
This is why Craig wont make a new coin, he cant build and he would have nothing to steal...

Craig would have destroyed everything we have all worked hard to create...



If you think craig is Satoshi..you are a shill or stupid.

ok who said he was Satoshi?

I said if you think it...

Not saying you said it,
But many sv supporters say it...including Craig lol