Everyone needs to report the @Bitcoin twitter handle immediately

[franky1]

ok guys.. think of it this way

america - we have the dollar
australia - we have the dollar
america - no we have the dollar
australia - no we have the dollar

.... reality..
both of you shut up you both have the dollar. no one can decide who should own the trademark of "dollar" because no one should. even zimbabwee should be able to have the dollar.

WRONG.
reality:
America has US dollar (USD)
Australia has Australian dollar (A$ or AUD) and 1 AUD is worth 0.77 USD
....
if someone gives you this:

Link
and tells you it is 5 USD then they are committing fraud.
and that is exactly what's happening here. they are advertising something else and giving newbies BCH and telling them it is BTC.

yes america has u.s dollar
yes core has bitcoin segwit aka bitcoin core

yes australia has AU dollar
yes ABC/unlimited has bitcoin cash aka bitcoinabc

but no one owns the trademark dollar
but no one owns the trademark bitcoin

by even thinking that core deserve the trademark bitcoin destroys the whole concept of decentralisation
by even thinking that australia cannot have the dollar and only america can use the dollar destroys the concept of australian independance

take off the core defence hat and take a big long hard out of the box look at the debate on the global scale

[1714801189]

1714801189

[1714801189]

1714801189

[1714801189]

1714801189

[squatz1]

ok guys.. think of it this way

america - we have the dollar
australia - we have the dollar
america - no we have the dollar
australia - no we have the dollar

.... reality..
both of you shut up you both have the dollar. no one can decide who should own the trademark of "dollar" because no one should. even zimbabwee should be able to have the dollar.

This right here, I don't really think it's a problem for Ver to have the twitter account bitcoin and try to promote his coin. This would silence his argument and fail to bring  his side of the community to the table, which is unfair and unlike us I would assume. I'm not a fan of Ver either -- but is silencing him REALLY the best thing we can do.

Let him speak, even if people don't support what he has to say.

[franky1]

Strictly speaking, Bitcoin Cash is a fork, not an upgrade. This is phrased in such a way which suggests that Bitcoin Cash is a direct successor of Bitcoin when this is not the case. There have been precedents of newbies thinking BCH is BTC thanks to these antics.

bitcoin core is also a fork.. it is not following the same rules as bitcoin 2009-2014
bitcoin cash is also a fork.. it is not following the same rules as bitcoin 2009-2014

some argue this
(a)             _________   1
__________/_________   2

some argue this
(b)
____________________  1
               \__________  2

reality is this
(c)
                __________ 1
_________/
              \___________ 2

silly sheeppeople that want to defend a central team are fighting A and B
1 'we are the bitcoin
2 no we are the bitcoin

the reality is everyone is bitcoin. now accept no single team owns the brand because no team should. thats what decentralisation is
so 1 your bitcoin cash
so 2 your bitcoin core

now get on with your lives

[BrewMaster]

yes america has u.s dollar
yes core has bitcoin segwit aka bitcoin core

yes australia has AU dollar
yes ABC/unlimited has bitcoin cash aka bitcoinabc

but no one owns the trademark dollar
but no one owns the trademark bitcoin

by even thinking that core deserve the trademark bitcoin destroys the whole concept of decentralisation
by even thinking that australia cannot have the dollar and only america can use the dollar destroys the concept of australian independance

take off the core defence hat and take a big long hard out of the box look at the debate on the global scale

again i disagree with this and the fork comment below.

bitcoin in 2009 was bitcoin.
1 US dollar bill was 1 US dollar bill in 1862


bitcoin in 2018 is still bitcoin
1 US dollar bill is 1 US dollar bill in 2018


you can't call the 2018 version of USD something else (like Trump Dollar) just because they changed the technique of printing it, the paper, paint,... used in it.
bitcoin of 2018 which you are calling "bitcoin core" is the same thing with new additions.

[paulmaritz]

Bitcoin.com makes a clear distinction for anyone that cares to read.

I know, which is why I said that mistakes could be chalked up to due diligence or lack thereof. You can't deny that it's misleading though, whether intentional or not:

The Bitcoin Core (BTC) network is in trouble due to high fees and slow transaction times. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the upgrade that solves these problems.

Strictly speaking, Bitcoin Cash is a fork, not an upgrade. This is phrased in such a way which suggests that Bitcoin Cash is a direct successor of Bitcoin when this is not the case. There have been precedents of newbies thinking BCH is BTC thanks to these antics.

Roger is doing nothing illegal. If he does, why don't they sue him and see where it ends up?

I did acknowledge that what he's doing is legal. Shady, but legal.

"You can't deny that it's misleading though" - Please don't speak on my behalf as I don't agree that it is misleading. Go to Bitcoin.com and see for yourself what I mean. By claiming it is misleading, one either is too lazy to read or intellectually dishonest.

"Strictly speaking, Bitcoin Cash is a fork, not an upgrade. This is phrased in such a way which suggests that Bitcoin Cash is a direct successor of Bitcoin when this is not the case. There have been precedents of newbies thinking BCH is BTC thanks to these antics" - Both Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and the Segwit hack are forks. BCH is marketed as the direct successor of Bitcoin, because it continues on the original path as envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto. In addition, BCH is an upgrade as it for one don't prevent the scaling of the Bitcoin system. The Segwith hack and LN deception are beasts of a completely different nature than Bitcoin. It is dishonest to call it Bitcoin. Blockstream and Bitcoin Core are not using the Bitcoin system for scaling, but the Lightning network. They should call it Lightning, not Bitcoin. Blockstream for one are funded by bansters who deliberately prevented scaling of the Bitcoin system through censorship and manipulation.

[jseverson]

-snip-

That's funny because I'm not defending Core at all. This is not about the brand at all. I'm just stating facts:

• Bitcoin is distinct from Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin is worth ~$8,922.36 at the moment, while Bitcoin Cash is worth ~$1,213.26 at the moment. They also work differently. They are different from each other
• Let's stop focusing on the brand. Coin 2 marketers (intentionally?) post potentially misleading statements that may lead less-knowledgeable people to believe that it is one and the same with Coin 1, which is utterly incorrect and has nothing to do with centralization.

I don't care about the brand, and I have nothing against Bitcoin Cash as a project, but I don't think it's right to claim that one thing is another when that is not the case.

[paulmaritz]

ok guys.. think of it this way

america - we have the dollar
australia - we have the dollar
america - no we have the dollar
australia - no we have the dollar

.... reality..
both of you shut up you both have the dollar. no one can decide who should own the trademark of "dollar" because no one should. even zimbabwee should be able to have the dollar.

This right here, I don't really think it's a problem for Ver to have the twitter account bitcoin and try to promote his coin. This would silence his argument and fail to bring  his side of the community to the table, which is unfair and unlike us I would assume. I'm not a fan of Ver either -- but is silencing him REALLY the best thing we can do.

Let him speak, even if people don't support what he has to say.

Thank you for having the right attitude and state of mind, namely "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

[paulmaritz]

ok guys.. think of it this way

america - we have the dollar
australia - we have the dollar
america - no we have the dollar
australia - no we have the dollar

.... reality..
both of you shut up you both have the dollar. no one can decide who should own the trademark of "dollar" because no one should. even zimbabwee should be able to have the dollar.

This right here, I don't really think it's a problem for Ver to have the twitter account bitcoin and try to promote his coin. This would silence his argument and fail to bring  his side of the community to the table, which is unfair and unlike us I would assume. I'm not a fan of Ver either -- but is silencing him REALLY the best thing we can do.

Let him speak, even if people don't support what he has to say.

Exactly and they are desperately trying to silence him. Yet, complain about manipulation and censorship. This while they have used manipulation and censorship to push through the Segwit hack.

[cellard]

Wait what? How did Roger gain access to the @Bitcoin twitter handle? Wasn't this twitter handle owned by a random person days/weeks ago?

EDIT: The previous owner was a cheetah lover  

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/8aq9f3/too_good_the_bitcoin_twitter_handle_has_been/

The same way Roger Ver accedes anything else: He uses his wealth to buy Bitcoin related stuff to use it as propaganda for their altcoin, while also wasting money on the Bitcoin mempool by spamming it while selling their altcoin as "the solution".

This, as we know, has been a waste of time:



Pushing this shitcoin down noobs throats as Bitcoin will not end well for these involved.

[paulmaritz]

-snip-

That's funny because I'm not defending Core at all. This is not about the brand at all. I'm just stating facts:

• Bitcoin is distinct from Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin is worth ~$8,922.36 at the moment, while Bitcoin Cash is worth ~$1,213.26 at the moment. They also work differently. They are different from each other
• Let's stop focusing on the brand. Coin 2 marketers (intentionally?) post potentially misleading statements that may lead less-knowledgeable people to believe that it is one and the same with Coin 1, which is utterly incorrect and has nothing to do with centralization.

I don't care about the brand, and I have nothing against Bitcoin Cash as a project, but I don't think it's right to claim that one thing is another when that is not the case.

The Segwit hack, that aims to scale via the Lightning network, have no right to the Bitcoin name. It should be called Lightning as it has nothing to do with the Bitcoin system. Segwit and the Lightning system will never house anything that can be rightfully called Bitcoin. The Segwit and Lightning deception need to be put to an end. No quantity of trolls, intellectually dishonest people, people who are too lazy to read, people who are too stupid and bought and paid for provocateurs will change these facts. I don't like Roger Ver, but he and those who support him are right when it comes to Bitcoin Cash.

[paulmaritz]

Wait what? How did Roger gain access to the @Bitcoin twitter handle? Wasn't this twitter handle owned by a random person days/weeks ago?

EDIT: The previous owner was a cheetah lover  

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/8aq9f3/too_good_the_bitcoin_twitter_handle_has_been/

The same way Roger Ver accedes anything else: He uses his wealth to buy Bitcoin related stuff to use it as propaganda for their altcoin, while also wasting money on the Bitcoin mempool by spamming it while selling their altcoin as "the solution".

This, as we know, has been a waste of time:



Pushing this shitcoin down noobs throats as Bitcoin will not end well for these involved.

haha Yes, that is giving a complete picture - no manipulation involved!

[paulmaritz]

It is funny how an increase in transactions on the Segwit hack network is called spamming.

[cryptorTUX]

It's sad in what thing has this all wen downhill.  Of course that Roger loves profit that's why he initially went on the bitcoin roller coaster.  I can congratulate him for making money and for seeing the opportunity before most of us. However what he is doing now to buy more BCH then lure people into buying and using it losses all credibility from me. He wants our money, yes your money! If we buy BCH and pump it's value Roger earns in the long run. This is sad that we are tearing bitcoin apart and for confusing newbies about it.

[jseverson]

-snip-

Since this is degrading into age-old arguments, let's just agree to disagree. I would like to highlight one thing in particular though:

The Segwit hack, that aims to scale via the Lightning network, have no right to the Bitcoin name.

That is your, and many other supporters' opinion. The cold hard fact is that BTC, not BCH, is Bitcoin. All ideologies aside, just like how no one can take the Bitcoin handle on Twitter (which I pointed out in my first post in this thread) and how no one can take Bitcoin.com from Roger Ver (well he actually owns it lol but no one can stop him from using the Bitcoin name), no one can take Bitcoin from BTC.

[franky1]

you can't call the 2018 version of USD something else (like Trump Dollar) just because they changed the technique of printing it, the paper, paint,... used in it.
bitcoin of 2018 which you are calling "bitcoin core" is the same thing with new additions.

you are also trying to define that a dollar belongs to america
sorry but australia can have the dollar too
as does canada, fiji and many other countries.

your argument is saying USD is the dollar
much like saying bitcoin core is bitcoin

which i rebut saying
so australia is not allowed to use the dollar, fiji is not allowed to use the dollar?
by claiming only america can use the brand:dollar you are giving america global control of finance
by claiming only core can use brand:bitcoin you are giving core global control of a network that suposed to not have control..

what you are not understanding is that "bitcoin" is not a straight line. its full of forks. some died off (2013 leveldb bug) some live on
but essentially no one owns the brand bitcoin and trying to defend a single team(core) should.. is the biggest fail for decentralisation ever

ok.. draw a line in the sand. and call that line the stepping out of the core defence camp
here is the line
now clear your head. open your mind to a reality beyond core. beyond teams. beyond finger pointing.

take a breathe. now think outside of the box.

in a decentralised network NO ONE SHOULD OWN THE BRAND BITCOIN
..
think of it this way
if there was a twitter username @dollar
who should own it?
america or australia or fiji or any of the other currencies that have dollars.

the real debate is not "only X should own Y" because thats destroying the whole concept of decentralisation.
instead its noticing the reality that no own owns dollar but
america has US dollar
australia has AU dollar

again america does not own dollar. america is US dollar but pretends it owns dollar.
the reality is we need to clarify to the wide world that there is more than one type of dollar
the reality is we need to clarify to the wide world that there is more than one type of bitcoin

so if someone says i have a dollar.. you ask asutralian canadian or us
so if someone says i have a bitcoin.. you ask core or cash

[cellard]

Wait what? How did Roger gain access to the @Bitcoin twitter handle? Wasn't this twitter handle owned by a random person days/weeks ago?

EDIT: The previous owner was a cheetah lover  

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/8aq9f3/too_good_the_bitcoin_twitter_handle_has_been/

The same way Roger Ver accedes anything else: He uses his wealth to buy Bitcoin related stuff to use it as propaganda for their altcoin, while also wasting money on the Bitcoin mempool by spamming it while selling their altcoin as "the solution".

This, as we know, has been a waste of time:



Pushing this shitcoin down noobs throats as Bitcoin will not end well for these involved.

haha Yes, that is giving a complete picture - no manipulation involved!

Where the fuck is the manipulation involved?

That objective data shows 3 facts:

Bitcoin is a safer (higher hashrate) coin than BCash
Bitcoin has more demand (more transactions) than BCash
Bitcoin is more decentralized (nodes all over the world hosted by different independent parties) than BCash

The fact that scammers try to push an inferior coin as Bitcoin is straight fraud. BCash is an altcoin, it doesn't accept blocks from the original client, you have to add "Cash" to the name, you have to specify "(BCH)" whenever you don't add "Cash". Irrespective of segwit, which you can ignore if you don't like, your coin is an altcoin. If you want to keep living in bizarro world where X is Y if that helps you sleep at night then go on.

[paulmaritz]

It's sad in what thing has this all wen downhill.  Of course that Roger loves profit that's why he initially went on the bitcoin roller coaster.  I can congratulate him for making money and for seeing the opportunity before most of us. However what he is doing now to buy more BCH then lure people into buying and using it losses all credibility from me. He wants our money, yes your money! If we buy BCH and pump it's value Roger earns in the long run. This is sad that we are tearing bitcoin apart and for confusing newbies about it.

What is sad is that Blockstream was allowed to push through the Segwit hack via manipulation and censorship. Roger was a millionaire long before getting involved in Bitcoin. The reason he got involved in Bitcoin is because of the benefits Bitcoin offered to humanity as a whole. Bitcoin Cash is not an attempt by him to make more profits, but to support what was originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto - a peer-to-peer electronic cash system as defined in the Satoshi Whitepaper. This is why he gets emotional when talking about this stuff, making emotional comparisons to killing babies and what not. If Roger Ver was in it for profit alone, he would have kept all of his BTC and helped to push the price higher and higher. No, Bitcoin Cash is about something much bigger than merely profit. Profits are a bonus. If you see it as Roger wanting all of our money, then I feel very sorry for you.

[franky1]

bitcoin core is an altcoin, it doesn't accept blocks from the original client

original client satoshi-qt 0.1-0.7   oh look bitcoin core blocks are not acceptable to the original client
the brand name "bitcoin" was decoupled when core got involved in 2013-2014
the network is not a straight line. a fork (which there have been many) is self explanitory, a fork is a fork
             _QT
_______/             _
           \__core__/               _______core(segwit)
                        \_________/
                                       \_______cash

no one owns bitcoin
core owns bitcoin core
cash owns bitcoin cash

america owns us dollar
australia owns au dollar
canadada owns ca dollar

trying to say core owns bitcoin
trying to say america owns dollar
is like saying the dollar is centralised
is like saying bitcoin is centralised

put it another way.
amricans do not speak english.. you yanks speak american.. deal with it.. its tom@o not tom8o. stop pretending you yanks own everything

[paulmaritz]

Wait what? How did Roger gain access to the @Bitcoin twitter handle? Wasn't this twitter handle owned by a random person days/weeks ago?

EDIT: The previous owner was a cheetah lover  

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/8aq9f3/too_good_the_bitcoin_twitter_handle_has_been/

The same way Roger Ver accedes anything else: He uses his wealth to buy Bitcoin related stuff to use it as propaganda for their altcoin, while also wasting money on the Bitcoin mempool by spamming it while selling their altcoin as "the solution".

This, as we know, has been a waste of time:



Pushing this shitcoin down noobs throats as Bitcoin will not end well for these involved.

haha Yes, that is giving a complete picture - no manipulation involved!

Where the fuck is the manipulation involved?

That objective data shows 3 facts:

Bitcoin is a safer (higher hashrate) coin than BCash
Bitcoin has more demand (more transactions) than BCash
Bitcoin is more decentralized (nodes all over the world hosted by different independent parties) than BCash

The fact that scammers try to push an inferior coin as Bitcoin is straight fraud. BCash is an altcoin, it doesn't accept blocks from the original client, you have to add "Cash" to the name, you have to specify "(BCH)" whenever you don't add "Cash". Irrespective of segwit, which you can ignore if you don't like, your coin is an altcoin. If you want to keep living in bizarro world where X is Y if that helps you sleep at night then go on.

"Where the fuck is the manipulation involved?" - Provide the source of the graphs and/or data so that we can go look at it ourselves and not only at a limited selection, especially in terms of the last image.

"Bitcoin is a safer (higher hashrate) coin than BCash" - The Segwit hack is not Bitcoin, but yes, a higher hash rate is normally associated with being safer. Except with Segwit's LN scaling solution - which is not based on the Bitcoin system, funds are lost as if it is nobody's business. Who needs security via a hash rate if funds can be lost that easily? In addition, the Segwit hack is piggybacking on the original Bitcoin's success - as many people still falsely believe it is Bitcoin. However, the situation will change as more learn the truth and make the switch to BCH.

"Bitcoin has more demand (more transactions) than BCash" - Again, the Segwit hack is piggybacking on the original Bitcoin's success. However, the situation will change as more learn the truth and make the switch to BCH. Confirmed transactions per day via the Segwit hack hit a high of roughly 500k transactions  in December last year (2017-12-14), but have declined to the current 193975 (2018/04/21 - 02:00) - roughly a 60% decline in the number of confirmed transactions per day (https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions). And while admittedly - the number of Bitcoin Cash transactions have seen a sharper decline, it is not bad when compared to Bitcoin's early days. Bitcoin Cash is still pretty much in the adoption stage.

Bitcoin is more decentralized (nodes all over the world hosted by different independent parties) than BCash - Unfortunately nodes only tell half of the picture, especially in terms of the way transactions are done via the Lightning network. In addition, you fail to mention that Blockstream pretty much control the direction of the Segwit hack. This while there are at least 6 independent development teams that determine the direction in which Bitcoin Cash go. Again, we're still in early days for BCH, unlike the Segwit hack that gets to piggyback for all the wrong reasons.

"The fact that scammers try to push an inferior coin as Bitcoin is straight fraud. BCash is an altcoin, it doesn't accept blocks from the original client, you have to add "Cash" to the name, you have to specify "(BCH)" whenever you don't add "Cash". Irrespective of segwit, which you can ignore if you don't like, your coin is an altcoin. If you want to keep living in bizarro world where X is Y if that helps you sleep at night then go on" - Applying your logic, then the Segwit hack should also be called an altcoin. Bitcoin Cash with an average transaction fee of $0.055 currently (https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/), makes it 2245%+ cheaper than the current average transaction fee of $1.29 (https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/) in terms of the Segwit hack. This is not even to mention transaction speed and the rest. Yet, you have the audacity to claim that those who promote BCH are scammers. Go figure!

[cellard]

"Where the fuck is the manipulation involved?" - Provide the source of the graphs and/or data so that we can go look at it ourselves and not only at a limited selection, especially in terms of the last image.

That data comes from the https://fork.lol/ website and the node list is from:

https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/?q=Bitcoin%20ABC:0.16.1

"Bitcoin is a safer (higher hashrate) coin than BCash" - The Segwit hack is not Bitcoin, but yes, a higher hash rate is normally associated with being safer. Except with Segwit's LN scaling solution - which is not based on the Bitcoin system, funds are lost as if it is nobody's business. Who needs security via a hash rate if funds can be lost that easily? In addition, the Segwit hack is piggybacking on the original Bitcoin's success - as many people still falsely believe it is Bitcoin. However, the situation will change as more learn the truth and make the switch to BCH.

Yes, segwit is part of Bitcoin now, like it or not. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to use it. You can develop a wallet that will ignore segwit transactions if you must. In any case, still waiting for anyone to steal funds from segwit addresses. Here's a $350,000,000 bounty waiting for you:

https://blockchain.info/tx/92785a57f6e9e9eb9d37a00e6e8be7f888376f65fa2b8f868db261cbf6cca7b0

"Bitcoin has more demand (more transactions) than BCash" - Again, the Segwit hack is piggybacking on the original Bitcoin's success. However, the situation will change as more learn the truth and make the switch to BCH. Confirmed transactions per day via the Segwit hack hit a high of roughly 500k transactions  in December last year (2017-12-14), but have declined to the current 193975 (2018/04/21 - 02:00) - roughly a 60% decline in the number of confirmed transactions per day (https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions). And while admittedly - the number of Bitcoin Cash transactions have seen a sharper decline, it is not bad when compared to Bitcoin's early days. Bitcoin Cash is still pretty much in the adoption stage.

Again, you are confusing terms here. The situation will also not change, since anyone with enough money to matter knows BCash is an altcoin. No one is going to put big amounts of money into a centralized chinese knockoff version of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is more decentralized (nodes all over the world hosted by different independent parties) than BCash - Unfortunately nodes only tell half of the picture, especially in terms of the way transactions are done via the Lightning network. In addition, you fail to mention that Blockstream pretty much control the direction of the Segwit hack. This while there are at least 6 independent development teams that determine the direction in which Bitcoin Cash go. Again, we're still in early days for BCH, unlike the Segwit hack that gets to piggyback for all the wrong reasons.

No, there are many independent development teams working on the open source lightning protocol. Anyone is also free to start their own full client node and convince people to run these nodes instead of Core, as long as they comply with the nakamoto consensus rules from the original client, they are also Bitcoin. If for example Luke convinced everyone to run Bitcoin Knots instead of Core, then Knots would be the team with the strongest influence. No one is forcing anyone to run any of the nodes and mine these blocks.
BCash ABC node doesn't comply with the nakamoto consensus rules, therefore is a de-facto altcoin. Just because your shitty big blocks idea doesn't get merged into Bitcoin and you get mad at it and go and create an altcoin out of forking Bitcoin with bigger blocks, you don't get to call it "the real Bitcoin". It doesn't work that way, for reasons you would understand if you actually thought about it.

"The fact that scammers try to push an inferior coin as Bitcoin is straight fraud. BCash is an altcoin, it doesn't accept blocks from the original client, you have to add "Cash" to the name, you have to specify "(BCH)" whenever you don't add "Cash". Irrespective of segwit, which you can ignore if you don't like, your coin is an altcoin. If you want to keep living in bizarro world where X is Y if that helps you sleep at night then go on" - Applying your logic, then the Segwit hack should also be called an altcoin. Bitcoin Cash with an average transaction fee of $0.055 currently (https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/), makes it 2245%+ cheaper than the current average transaction fee of $1.29 (https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/) in terms of the Segwit hack. This is not even to mention transaction speed and the rest. Yet, you have the audacity to claim that those who promote BCH are scammers. Go figure!

No, starting after 21th August '17, all Bitcoin blocks include segwit transactions, now you as an user, can use or not segwit transactions, no one is forcing anyone to use segwit, once again. I don't care about segwit adoption, since I only use Bitcoin as a store of value, so I value a decentralized network with nodes as widespread as possible above paying coffee with it. I couldn't care less. Apparently most people in Bitcoin value this too above everything else, otherwise BCash, Litecoin and any other coin would be the leading coins.