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

[Bitbobb]

the USA is still an experiment much like the wheel.

[1714020625]

1714020625

[1714020625]

1714020625

[nutildah]

the only group following the whitepaper is the BSV coin

Why do you think the general public cares about what's in the whitepaper? I'm genuinely curious. Seems like its just a talking point without substance or relevance.

If for no other reason, because the experiment as satoshi originally envisioned it is worth carrying to logical conclusion.

Look at it from this angle for a moment: Satoshi's original invention, aligning the best interests of the individual with the best interests of the system as a whole, unleashed this entire ecosystem. In the design of Bitcoin, he/she/they accomplished what all of humanity had previously been unable to do.

I really don't have a strong aversion to carrying out multiple parallel experiments (that may be an egregious simplification, but the difference is nuanced and inappropriate for the scope of this reply). But should we not carry out the experiment as set forth in the design that led to this entire 'Cambrian Explosion' (there's an overused term) of innovation?

From my perspective, abandoning the experiment as envisioned by its progenitor is pure folly.

Its quickly abandoning itself. We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.

I'm just saying the general public - the market that both BCH and SV are trying to penetrate - don't care about what the whitepaper says. They in large don't even want bitcoin at all. However, BTC has always led the pack and all altcoins have been largely dependent on its success -- this dynamic is unlikely to change in the near future (2-5 years).

[jbreher]

the only group following the whitepaper is the BSV coin

Why do you think the general public cares about what's in the whitepaper? I'm genuinely curious. Seems like its just a talking point without substance or relevance.

If for no other reason, because the experiment as satoshi originally envisioned it is worth carrying to logical conclusion.

Look at it from this angle for a moment: Satoshi's original invention, aligning the best interests of the individual with the best interests of the system as a whole, unleashed this entire ecosystem. In the design of Bitcoin, he/she/they accomplished what all of humanity had previously been unable to do.

I really don't have a strong aversion to carrying out multiple parallel experiments (that may be an egregious simplification, but the difference is nuanced and inappropriate for the scope of this reply). But should we not carry out the experiment as set forth in the design that led to this entire 'Cambrian Explosion' (there's an overused term) of innovation?

From my perspective, abandoning the experiment as envisioned by its progenitor is pure folly.

Its quickly abandoning itself. We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.

No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit.

[hv_]

the only group following the whitepaper is the BSV coin

Why do you think the general public cares about what's in the whitepaper? I'm genuinely curious. Seems like its just a talking point without substance or relevance.

If for no other reason, because the experiment as satoshi originally envisioned it is worth carrying to logical conclusion.

Look at it from this angle for a moment: Satoshi's original invention, aligning the best interests of the individual with the best interests of the system as a whole, unleashed this entire ecosystem. In the design of Bitcoin, he/she/they accomplished what all of humanity had previously been unable to do.

I really don't have a strong aversion to carrying out multiple parallel experiments (that may be an egregious simplification, but the difference is nuanced and inappropriate for the scope of this reply). But should we not carry out the experiment as set forth in the design that led to this entire 'Cambrian Explosion' (there's an overused term) of innovation?

From my perspective, abandoning the experiment as envisioned by its progenitor is pure folly.

Its quickly abandoning itself. We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.

No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit.

... ant Ctor, and DSV,  ... whatever hole ABC loves to add to protocol / allow / change original econimicsto stifle the on-chain scaling ... 

[hv_]

https://live.keyport.tv/

Will Bitmain continue propping up Bcash?  Do the small fry bag holders regret not selling before the fork ?  Are Bcash and SVcash cancelling each other out and having a race to the bottom? Is Satoshi shaking his head and saying to himself "these guys are obsessed with my white paper, they need medical help"

These are the questions that must be asked.  

the only group following the whitepaper is the BSV coin

Why do you think the general public cares about what's in the whitepaper? I'm genuinely curious. Seems like its just a talking point without substance or relevance.

The general public should not, exactly as we do not care about smtp - but this is because it does not change and is on topic / purpose -

A protocol MUST be stable and simple (= scalable)  and clear to be 'ignored by public'
-> Industry / cyber risk whatch dogs take care .  There you 'll get the mass adoption - ONLY that way.

The white paper is the guide for the paper dogs do check if the protocol is doing what it should.

The tech impl must be to spec - or rekt

Bitcoin has two layers: Econimics AND tech -  if u fiddle with the tech and do not understand the dependencies up-hill -> you ll risk the entire eco system (and create an ALT coin like SegwitCoin). But do not sell that as Bitcoin.

[jbreher]

the only group following the whitepaper is the BSV coin

Why do you think the general public cares about what's in the whitepaper? I'm genuinely curious. Seems like its just a talking point without substance or relevance.

If for no other reason, because the experiment as satoshi originally envisioned it is worth carrying to logical conclusion.

Look at it from this angle for a moment: Satoshi's original invention, aligning the best interests of the individual with the best interests of the system as a whole, unleashed this entire ecosystem. In the design of Bitcoin, he/she/they accomplished what all of humanity had previously been unable to do.

I really don't have a strong aversion to carrying out multiple parallel experiments (that may be an egregious simplification, but the difference is nuanced and inappropriate for the scope of this reply). But should we not carry out the experiment as set forth in the design that led to this entire 'Cambrian Explosion' (there's an overused term) of innovation?

From my perspective, abandoning the experiment as envisioned by its progenitor is pure folly.

Its quickly abandoning itself. We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.

No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit.

... ant Ctor, and DSV, 

tru dat

[nutildah]

Its quickly abandoning itself. We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.

No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit.

... ant Ctor, and DSV, 

tru dat

You guys are missing the point. The general public, which your fork of a fork is trying to appeal to, don't care about what was in the original white paper. It's a talking point aimed at crypto enthusiasts who might be on the fence, and are easily manipulated. The average world citizen doesn't care about your interpretation of the white paper, they just want a product that works and is usable.

Technologies advance, adopt, evolve. Hence, SegWit and LN. Bitcoin Cash has big blocks yet far less transactions per day than BTC, and SV has even bigger blocks and even fewer transactions. You can continue to think, "yeah, well, that will change in the future." But I just don't see that happening. More likely BTC will just continue to evolve to meet user demand and its knockoffs will continue to flounder.

[sirsplashalot]

Its quickly abandoning itself. We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.

No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit.

... ant Ctor, and DSV,  

tru dat

You guys are missing the point. The general public, which your fork of a fork is trying to appeal to, don't care about what was in the original white paper. It's a talking point aimed at crypto enthusiasts who might be on the fence, and are easily manipulated. The average world citizen doesn't care about your interpretation of the white paper, they just want a product that works and is usable.

Technologies advance, adopt, evolve. Hence, SegWit and LN. Bitcoin Cash has big blocks yet far less transactions per day than BTC, and SV has even bigger blocks and even fewer transactions. You can continue to think, "yeah, well, that will change in the future." But I just don't see that happening. More likely BTC will just continue to evolve to meet user demand and its knockoffs will continue to flounder.

the Bitcoin whitepaper proposes a specific economicmic model that does not parallel with the lightning network as you can see if you read the first page of the whitepaper. The lightning network is literally, an off chain solution that has nothing to do with hash power. Hash power is what backs the bitcoin economy, lightning network takes that away by proposing ‘2nd layer’ (a dummy name for third party) solutions.

We are talking about two completely different experiments here.

So for some, what ‘constitutes’ bitcoin is a document, not a ticker symbol ruled by the likes of a third party exchange.

[nutildah]

the Bitcoin whitepaper proposes a specific economicmic model that does not parallel with the lightning network as you can see if you read the first page of the whitepaper. The lightning network is literally, an off chain solution that has nothing to do with hash power. Hash power is what backs the bitcoin economy, lightning network takes that away by proposing ‘2nd layer’ (a dummy name for third party) solutions.

We are talking about two completely different experiments here.

Lightning Network isn't a "3rd party"; its an independent network of people who voluntarily agree to participate in it, for very little (if any) compensation. Yes, its an off-chain solution, and if it helps make bitcoin more usable then so be it. Nobody cares about rules you are arbitrarily imposing on the Bitcoin Network.

So for some, what ‘constitutes’ bitcoin is a document, not a ticker symbol ruled by the likes of a third party exchange.

Yes, and they are all already invested in BCH and SV.

[gembitz]

Its quickly abandoning itself. We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.

No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit.

... ant Ctor, and DSV,  

tru dat

You guys are missing the point. The general public, which your fork of a fork is trying to appeal to, don't care about what was in the original white paper. It's a talking point aimed at crypto enthusiasts who might be on the fence, and are easily manipulated. The average world citizen doesn't care about your interpretation of the white paper, they just want a product that works and is usable.

Technologies advance, adopt, evolve. Hence, SegWit and LN. Bitcoin Cash has big blocks yet far less transactions per day than BTC, and SV has even bigger blocks and even fewer transactions. You can continue to think, "yeah, well, that will change in the future." But I just don't see that happening. More likely BTC will just continue to evolve to meet user demand and its knockoffs will continue to flounder.

the Bitcoin whitepaper proposes a specific economicmic model that does not parallel with the lightning network as you can see if you read the first page of the whitepaper. The lightning network is literally, an off chain solution that has nothing to do with hash power. Hash power is what backs the bitcoin economy, lightning network takes that away by proposing ‘2nd layer’ (a dummy name for third party) solutions.

We are talking about two completely different experiments here.

So for some, what ‘constitutes’ bitcoin is a document, not a ticker symbol ruled by the likes of a third party exchange.

fake satoshi and company goal is to destroy the real bitcoin ...get over it! :\  ===> these crooks need jail time imho weee

[nutildah]

Bcash currently has 31% of the number of total active addresses as EOS... weeee

https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/new-analysis-shows-bitcoin-still-dominates-the-cryptocurrency-market-in-terms-of-overall-activity/

BTC has 30x more... weeeeeeeeeee 

[Bitbobb]

One of good news recent days is Bitcoin Cash and DASH might make a partnership in the future (as Roger Ver disclosed).
The news mentioned in the ANN topic of DASH project.

#dash_force

Bitcoin Cash [BCH] and Dash can work towards bringing economic freedom to the world, says Roger Ver

https://ambcrypto.com/bitcoin-cash-bch-and-dash-can-work-towards-bringing-economic-freedom-to-the-world-says-roger-ver/

proof roger does not understand cash vs. money lol.  I guess he needs to go back to where he learned about economics to study more

Its quickly abandoning itself. We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.

No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit.

... ant Ctor, and DSV,  

tru dat

You guys are missing the point. The general public, which your fork of a fork is trying to appeal to, don't care about what was in the original white paper. It's a talking point aimed at crypto enthusiasts who might be on the fence, and are easily manipulated. The average world citizen doesn't care about your interpretation of the white paper, they just want a product that works and is usable.

Technologies advance, adopt, evolve. Hence, SegWit and LN. Bitcoin Cash has big blocks yet far less transactions per day than BTC, and SV has even bigger blocks and even fewer transactions. You can continue to think, "yeah, well, that will change in the future." But I just don't see that happening. More likely BTC will just continue to evolve to meet user demand and its knockoffs will continue to flounder.

the Bitcoin whitepaper proposes a specific economicmic model that does not parallel with the lightning network as you can see if you read the first page of the whitepaper. The lightning network is literally, an off chain solution that has nothing to do with hash power. Hash power is what backs the bitcoin economy, lightning network takes that away by proposing ‘2nd layer’ (a dummy name for third party) solutions.

We are talking about two completely different experiments here.

So for some, what ‘constitutes’ bitcoin is a document, not a ticker symbol ruled by the likes of a third party exchange.

fake satoshi and company goal is to destroy the real bitcoin ...get over it! :\  ===> these crooks need jail time imho weee

Gemmybitzzzzzzzz, giving him free rent is not a crime.    Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[mrRen_]

Hurray, BTC has 21K unconfirmed transactions again! Thats soo usefull when you wan't to transact !!!!
STUPID 1megabyte supporters!!!

[cvdesty]

fake satoshi and company goal is to destroy the real bitcoin ...get over it! :\  ===> these crooks need jail time imho weee

I believe he believes what he is doing is right but what he has done has caused great harm to the crypto market in general. I don't think he cares that most of us have lost money. He comes across as selfish, mean-spirited, and narcissistic in my opinion.

[Bitbobb]

fake satoshi and company goal is to destroy the real bitcoin ...get over it! :\  ===> these crooks need jail time imho weee

I believe he believes what he is doing is right but what he has done has caused great harm to the crypto market in general. I don't think he cares that most of us have lost money. He comes across as selfish, mean-spirited, and narcissistic in my opinion.

And what exactly do you think he has done lol? 

Craig has systematically been working to save BitCoin since day 1.

 Jihan WU gas-lighted him and then stabbed him in the back in order to cause first btc/bch split and again his moron devs et al split bch/bsv now.  Yet in spite of this Craig is fighting for the innovation known as bitcoin to have a chance in this world. 

       it seemed very mean-spirited and selfish in my opinion but maybe you believe you are doing right IDK..  But why do people who like to say things about Craig only have emotional items to complain about?  Meanwhile actual bad actions like chain splits have been caused by JiHam and Ver and they get a pass because they say please and thank you once in a while in public?  I think your standard is way off for real life money.  Money and wealth is not based upon pretty please it is based upon real things not emotional reactions.  BTC and BCH are now in the hands of bad actors and all anyone can say about Craig is that he hurts your feelings?  BSV PLS

[jbreher]

Its quickly abandoning itself. We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.

No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit.

... ant Ctor, and DSV, 

tru dat

You guys are missing the point. The general public, which your fork of a fork is trying to appeal to, don't care about what was in the original white paper.

I understand the points you are making, I just find them underwhelming. I do not disagree with your immediately preceding statement. However _I_ care about what was in the original white paper.

Can you describe to me why is it that you believe the cruft that the current Core handlers have added is objectively better than the original protocol that they cast overboard?

It's a talking point aimed at crypto enthusiasts who might be on the fence,

No, it is far more than a talking point. It is a concrete technical difference between BTC and BSV. BTC has abandoned the original design, well before it revealed any flaws (i.e., none known to this day).

and are easily manipulated.

Sez you. I might throw your comment back at your camp.

The average world citizen doesn't care about your interpretation of the white paper, they just want a product that works and is usable.

The average world citizen should not need to care about the white paper. Just as they don't care about the technical details of how the credit card systems work. But such systems need be technically sound.

I agree that they just want a product that works and is usable.

And when the next step function wave of adoption occurs, BTC will once again experience an interminable backlog of tx volume, with soaring tx fees. At which point it will 'work' only in the vaguest sense, and will be all-but-unusable. At which point, the wisdom of having stayed with the original protocol design will be revealed.

[jbreher]

One of good news recent days is Bitcoin Cash and DASH might make a partnership in the future (as Roger Ver disclosed).
The news mentioned in the ANN topic of DASH project.

#dash_force

Bitcoin Cash [BCH] and Dash can work towards bringing economic freedom to the world, says Roger Ver

https://ambcrypto.com/bitcoin-cash-bch-and-dash-can-work-towards-bringing-economic-freedom-to-the-world-says-roger-ver/

Cruddy article provides no link to source. Seems merely Dash hopium shill injection.

[nutildah]

And when the next step function wave of adoption occurs, BTC will once again experience an interminable backlog of tx volume, with soaring tx fees. At which point it will 'work' only in the vaguest sense, and will be all-but-unusable. At which point, the wisdom of having stayed with the original protocol design will be revealed.

Again, the basis for your rationale depends on things you believe _will_ happen, and so far have yet to happen. Despite BTC's tx fee woes that plagued it a year ago its still by far the dominant coin in terms of popularity and BCH's market share has only decreased since then. BCH has become a tiny fraction of BTC in terms of price since Dec 2017. There's no reason to believe things will change, especially since BCH supporters are now divided into two firmly entrenched camps intent on reducing the price of the other to zero. Merchants don't want to have to set up multiple wallets to accept multiple coins -- they want one coin: bitcoin. Everything else is just an altcoin.

[D1jay]

the resistance line is broken, begins growth

Triangle pattern. The time of blossom to come soon.
I call it like a unavoidable, and unstoppable rise.

Well out of the shady bias post and debate going back and forth here on this intelligent thread    These is what interest me though, if your TA is anything near %70 accurate, then i hope good things await us in the next coming weeks or probably months
Let me for now breath a fresh air with this little information even though there is %100 chance it could be false sooo, lets prepare for the upcoming rise

the fact you only care about spot price proves you have no clue what BitCoin is about.  BitCoin is not some investment ponzi.  Maybe that is what ABC coin is going for IDK.  

Intelligence is relative.

Lol! Please spare me the technology mumble jumble, and i can see you are a hip of clues about how btc technology works, so tell me, what good is technology without monetary value alongside? Do you buy technology with your poo or you need money to do it?
Show me which technology that is for free?
Everything in this life revolves around money - price, btc is no exception.
so yes, am more concerned about the price for now,

[Globb0]

Show me which technology that is for free?

Maybe you are describing both the past and the future.

Everything was controlled, perhaps in the future more things can be free'er.

Lets hope so