attempts to "rebrand" Bitcoin Cash won't work and look pathetic

[BitcoinBarrel]

I prefer Bitcoin Crap personally. It's like Bitcoin took a Crap and wha-la... brand new Alt-coin.

[1715098515]

1715098515

[Wendigo]

BitcoinFreeCash for everyone! People rejoice! There is free lunch for everyone! Free as in free beer! Woooooo 

[mindrust]

When you choose a shit unoriginal name like this, It is not that hard to come up with even shittier funny names.

Now let's see what we have...

Bitcoin Cash.

First, It steals the name of bitcoin just like any other bitcoin copy cat. Unoriginal. It is not different than making an alt like BitcoinDark.

Bitcoin dark,
Bitcoin classic,
BitcoinABC,
Bitcoin Unlimited,
BitcoinXT,
BitcoinSuperSaiyanIV,
BitcoinPOP,
BTCTOP,
Bitcoin Plus,
Bitcoin Scrypt,
Bitcoin123
Bitcoin Fast,
Bitcoin 21,
Bitcoin Planet,
Bitcoin that,
Bitcoin this,  aand...

the newest member is Bitcoin Cash. (aka Bitcoin China, Bcash, BCC, BCH, Bitmain Coin...)

Just another shit coin on the list.


Bitcoin is the one and the only,

Bitcoin.

[BitcoinHodler]

attempts to "rebrand" Bitcoin Cash won't work and look pathetic 

a very good point lies in your topic here. it is starting to look pathetic. all the attempts to "rebrand" bitcoin and call it weird names is not going to work. bitcoin will remain bitcoin it doesn't matter how many different individuals or small groups of people fork from it.

you can create as many forks as you want and name them "bitcoin A" to "bitcoin Z" and everything in between, it won't make them bitcoin. it will make them an altcoin which is taking advantage of bitcoin's name.

[Iranus]

Are you talking about Bitmain-cash?

Misleading.  BITMAIN are not yet supporting Bitcoin Cash and don't have control over it.  It's more to do with ViaBTC.
I kind of agree with leaving the name as it is.  I'm all for changing the ticker to BCH over BCC, but the name itself is fine.  It leaves a distinction between itself and the earlier/legacy chain without pretending to be completely unrelated.

Bitcoin classic,
BitcoinABC,
Bitcoin Unlimited,
BitcoinXT,
-long list of irrelevant names-

It's not the same as these attempts.  Those ones required consensus, whereas BCH does not require consensus to come into existence - the ones listed there either did not exist or were just alts rather than forks of the BTC blockchain which could also be regarded as alts.  They are very distinct from BCH.

[bamsterdam]

When you choose a shit unoriginal name like this, It is not that hard to come up with even shittier funny names.

Now let's see what we have...

Bitcoin Cash.

First, It steals the name of bitcoin just like any other bitcoin copy cat. Unoriginal. It is not different than making an alt like BitcoinDark.

Bitcoin dark,
Bitcoin classic,
BitcoinABC,
Bitcoin Unlimited,
BitcoinXT,
BitcoinSuperSaiyanIV,
BitcoinPOP,
BTCTOP,
Bitcoin Plus,
Bitcoin Scrypt,
Bitcoin123
Bitcoin Fast,
Bitcoin 21,
Bitcoin Planet,
Bitcoin that,
Bitcoin this,  aand...

the newest member is Bitcoin Cash. (aka Bitcoin China, Bcash, BCC, BCH, Bitmain Coin...)

Just another shit coin on the list.


Bitcoin is the one and the only,

Bitcoin.

haha bitcoin supersaiyanIV I looked it up but coudnt find it some time ago I did see gokucoin in the altcoin section

[maku]

Changing the symbol from BCC to BCH on the client and websites would help the brand as BCC is already taken. ViaBTC can't just expect BitConnect to go away just because they would rather use BCC for Bitcoin Cash. It looks like several exchanges are standardizing on BCH (BCash). Trezor has also. Having the brand consistent across exchanges is good for business and avoids confusing buyers. 

You are completely right and miners are completely right to create even more confusion regarding their altcoin.
They want the new name to be as similar to standard bitcoin ticker as possible - the more confused users who will think that BCC is legit the better for them.
It will allow Bitmain to manipulate the price with even greater ease.

[bamsterdam]

Are you talking about Bitmain-cash?

Misleading.  BITMAIN are not yet supporting Bitcoin Cash and don't have control over it.  It's more to do with ViaBTC.
I kind of agree with leaving the name as it is.  I'm all for changing the ticker to BCH over BCC, but the name itself is fine.  It leaves a distinction between itself and the earlier/legacy chain without pretending to be completely unrelated.

Bitcoin classic,
BitcoinABC,
Bitcoin Unlimited,
BitcoinXT,
-long list of irrelevant names-

It's not the same as these attempts.  Those ones required consensus, whereas BCH does not require consensus to come into existence - the ones listed there either did not exist or were just alts rather than forks of the BTC blockchain which could also be regarded as alts.  They are very distinct from BCH.

their not yet supporting it officially yes bc they have to hold on to the NYA and cant lose face by abandening it last minute. They have financial relationship with viabtc and created the software supporting the fork right? So little hard to believe they have nothing to do with it imo

[Red-Apple]

Bitcoin classic,
BitcoinABC,
Bitcoin Unlimited,
BitcoinXT,
-long list of irrelevant names-

It's not the same as these attempts.  Those ones required consensus, whereas BCH does not require consensus to come into existence - the ones listed there either did not exist or were just alts rather than forks of the BTC blockchain which could also be regarded as alts.  They are very distinct from BCH.

all of these
ARE the same thing. and
they all wanted the same thing,
and they are all created by the same people
and are backed by the same people and miners

they are all also were based on consensus once but when SegWit support started growing and reached a high level that it became clear to the above team that their proposal is dead in the waters they changed the consensus they were looking for and removed it completely. jut to hide this fact they started a new name. this is just a rename of "XT", "Classic", "Unlimited" nothing more.

[franky1]

lol

oh, so much fud

atleast try to be accurate if your going to spread fud

bitcoin cash is a bilateral split (true altcoin creation)

the other guys above are listing clients that did not want bilateral splits. even gmax admitted the list refused a bilateral split.

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

the list of clients do work on bitcoin mainnet but with functionality/features which core refuse to implement

..