Everyone needs to report the @Bitcoin twitter handle immediately

[paulmaritz]

"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.

"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"

Thank you, by looking at the list of nodes at the source that you provide, it is clear that not all nodes are connected to Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd. - as falsely portrait in that last image you've previously posted. That is why I called it out for what it is, namely manipulation.

"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"

The Segwit hack will never be part of Bitcoin. In addition, beyond successful phishing attempts and willing participation in outright scams - I didn't claim that it is even remotely possible to steal funds from Segwit addresses. In fact, applying the same standard that you're applying - there is a $540,602,054 bounty in Bitcoin Cash waiting for you here: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/address/19hZx234vNtLazfx5J2bxHsiWEmeYE8a7k

"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."

All of those independent development teams mean little considering that Blockstream owns/controls Bitcoin Core. Starting one's own node also mean very little given the structure of the Lightning network and the fact that it doesn't even remotely resemble what is supposed to be the Bitcoin system. Pertaining to the rest, we will also have to agree to disagree.

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.

Yes, nobody is forcing anyone to use Segwit (or Bitcoin Cash for that matter). This however doesn't mean that we will allow the Segwit hack and LN to get away with the ongoing deception. We will do everything in our power to place all facts on the table so that people can make an informed decision free of manipulation and censorship. Segwit for one is not what Satoshi Nakamoto envisioned.

In addition, Bitcoin was never intended to be purely used as a store of value. It was foremost supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system as envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto - a system that could empower millions of people around the world, even those who earn less than $5 a month. Given Blockstream's stronghold on Bitcoin Core, you're kidding yourself when you claim that you "value a decentralized network with nodes as widespread as possible above paying coffee with it. I couldn't care less." Yes, it is very clear that the supporters of the Segwit hack, couldn't give two fcks about poor people and the original aim of Satoshi Nakamoto. It is better to be blinded by bankster fiat and their half-assed crypto hacks.

Make no mistake though, the time will come when the price of Bitcoin Cash will go up and up - as the network effect kicks in - while the price of the Segwit hack will stagnate as less and less users will find it useful. It is just a matter of time. Once people learn the truth and find out that the Segwit hack has very little utility value - and how they intend to force us into 3rd party side chains run and/or controlled by banksters via the Lightning network - they will drop the Segwit hack like a hot potato.

[1715470310]

1715470310

[paulmaritz]

And by the way, that's not the price of decentralization. It is the price of refusing to use the Bitcoin system for scaling.

[Anti-Cen]

Bitcoin (the one and the only real Bitcoin created by Satoshi Nakamoto) is the first decentralized peer-to-peer payment network that is powered by its users with no central authority or middlemen. BCash is not. That's the point!

Yeah but with centralized lightning network banker hubs you are now living on past glory that is off-chain and
is charging 0.65% per transaction which is also a scam as was the $55 fees charged by miners back in December.

BCASH sounds closer to the original plan than what we have going on here and forks do have both a left and right
side to them so who's to say who's misleading who but I will be happy to jump back to your side if BCASH charges
$55 per transaction and goes "off-block"

Satoshi built a system that they knew eight years ago would not scale and took most of what he used from
Bit-Torrent and introduced the world to CPU-Wars and energy wastage so please don't think that all software
developers are singing his praises, we are not but it what you will think if you hang around here too long.

[cellard]

Thank you, by looking at the list of nodes at the source that you provide, it is clear that not all nodes are connected to Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd. - as falsely portrait in that last image you've previously posted. That is why I called it out for what it is, namely manipulation.

Wrong. The image doesn't explicitly say "all nodes are Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.", it just points out at how an huge amount of BCash nodes are centralized in the hands of few actors, which is useless centralization wise. You could have 1 million BCash nodes hosted by a few parties vs 5000 nodes hosted by widespread independent parties in Bitcoin, and all things else equal, the Bitcoin network is an objectively stronger network.

The Segwit hack will never be part of Bitcoin. In addition, beyond successful phishing attempts and willing participation in outright scams - I didn't claim that it is even remotely possible to steal funds from Segwit addresses. In fact, applying the same standard that you're applying - there is a $540,602,054 bounty in Bitcoin Cash waiting for you here: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/address/19hZx234vNtLazfx5J2bxHsiWEmeYE8a7k

Segwit is part of Bitcoin since 21th August '17, particularly ever 10 minutes, as your blocks must be compatible with segwit transactions to qualify as a Bitcoin block. Segwit has never been compromised. As far BCash, BCash is too small for anyone to bother, the problem is that short-sighted BCashiers don't see is that dead end for a coin that raises blocks "as big as needed" is a mining AND transaction validation monopoly inside datacenters easily bribeable/easy to just launch a missile at if you must, in other words, a centralized system, vs a bunch of random nodes scattered across the globe, impossible to bribe and nuke, therefore, a decentralized system.

All of those independent development teams mean little considering that Blockstream owns/controls Bitcoin Core. Starting one's own node also mean very little given the structure of the Lightning network and the fact that it doesn't even remotely resemble what is supposed to be the Bitcoin system. Pertaining to the rest, we will also have to agree to disagree.

Wrong, Blockstream doesn't own/control Bitcoin Core. This is the same BCashie rhetoric we've been hearing for a while, debunked a million times:

https://medium.com/@whalecalls/fud-or-fact-blockstream-inc-is-the-main-force-behind-bitcoin-and-taken-over-160aed93c003

The same rethoric could be applied to your supposed "6 development teams" on BCash, all funded by Bitmain/Ver.

Yes, nobody is forcing anyone to use Segwit (or Bitcoin Cash for that matter). This however doesn't mean that we will allow the Segwit hack and LN to get away with the ongoing deception. We will do everything in our power to place all facts on the table so that people can make an informed decision free of manipulation and censorship. Segwit for one is not what Satoshi Nakamoto envisioned.

In addition, Bitcoin was never intended to be purely used as a store of value. It was foremost supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system as envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto - a system that could empower millions of people around the world, even those who earn less than $5 a month. Given Blockstream's stronghold on Bitcoin Core, you're kidding yourself when you claim that you "value a decentralized network with nodes as widespread as possible above paying coffee with it. I couldn't care less." Yes, it is very clear that the supporters of the Segwit hack, couldn't give two fcks about poor people and the original aim of Satoshi Nakamoto. It is better to be blinded by bankster fiat and their half-assed crypto hacks.

Make no mistake though, the time will come when the price of Bitcoin Cash will go up and up - as the network effect kicks in - while the price of the Segwit hack will stagnate as less and less users will find it useful. It is just a matter of time. Once people learn the truth and find out that the Segwit hack has very little utility value - and how they intend to force us into 3rd party side chains run and/or controlled by banksters via the Lightning network - they will drop the Segwit hack like a hot potato.

What satoshi "envisioned" is not God's word. If you must do only and only what satoshi envisioned, Bitcoin would no longer be a decentralized project, this is what cashies fail to understand for some reason.

In any case, satoshi also didn't envision his project being forked because some people didn't got their way. He wanted all nodes to follow the same rules, otherwise you get an altcoin (that is why BCash is an altcoin). You can compete as an altcoin, nobody is saying you can't, but it is not Bitcoin, think again and you'll understand.

He also predicted people would be against big blocksizes in order to participate in the network (run nodes). Hal Finney (aka Satoshi Nakamoto) also talked about a proto-lightning network (and LN is much better than what Finney envisioned back then).

Satoshi also failed to predict many things, such as pool mining. Some of his stuff is now deprecated.

Also lol at how "we don't care about poor people". I wish everyone could use Bitcoin at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, but once again, this is impossible, physically. And again, just like Soros, certain forces are trying to appeal to the good intentions of the common folk in order to fuck up the blockchain for everyone else. You can thank LN will allow for poor people to participate in Bitcoin, but there's no way everyone is going to be able to use on-chain transactions, you can use any other centralized altcoin for that.
In order to cater for global demand at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, at the security levels Bitcoin delivers currently with his massive PoW+node network, we need a technology that simply doesn't exist.

[paulmaritz]

Thank you, by looking at the list of nodes at the source that you provide, it is clear that not all nodes are connected to Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd. - as falsely portrait in that last image you've previously posted. That is why I called it out for what it is, namely manipulation.

Wrong. The image doesn't explicitly say "all nodes are Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.", it just points out at how an huge amount of BCash nodes are centralized in the hands of few actors, which is useless centralization wise. You could have 1 million BCash nodes hosted by a few parties vs 5000 nodes hosted by widespread independent parties in Bitcoin, and all things else equal, the Bitcoin network is an objectively stronger network.

The Segwit hack will never be part of Bitcoin. In addition, beyond successful phishing attempts and willing participation in outright scams - I didn't claim that it is even remotely possible to steal funds from Segwit addresses. In fact, applying the same standard that you're applying - there is a $540,602,054 bounty in Bitcoin Cash waiting for you here: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/address/19hZx234vNtLazfx5J2bxHsiWEmeYE8a7k

Segwit is part of Bitcoin since 21th August '17, particularly ever 10 minutes, as your blocks must be compatible with segwit transactions to qualify as a Bitcoin block. Segwit has never been compromised. As far BCash, BCash is too small for anyone to bother, the problem is that short-sighted BCashiers don't see is that dead end for a coin that raises blocks "as big as needed" is a mining AND transaction validation monopoly inside datacenters easily bribeable/easy to just launch a missile at if you must, in other words, a centralized system, vs a bunch of random nodes scattered across the globe, impossible to bribe and nuke, therefore, a decentralized system.

All of those independent development teams mean little considering that Blockstream owns/controls Bitcoin Core. Starting one's own node also mean very little given the structure of the Lightning network and the fact that it doesn't even remotely resemble what is supposed to be the Bitcoin system. Pertaining to the rest, we will also have to agree to disagree.

Wrong, Blockstream doesn't own/control Bitcoin Core. This is the same BCashie rhetoric we've been hearing for a while, debunked a million times:

https://medium.com/@whalecalls/fud-or-fact-blockstream-inc-is-the-main-force-behind-bitcoin-and-taken-over-160aed93c003

The same rethoric could be applied to your supposed "6 development teams" on BCash, all funded by Bitmain/Ver.

Yes, nobody is forcing anyone to use Segwit (or Bitcoin Cash for that matter). This however doesn't mean that we will allow the Segwit hack and LN to get away with the ongoing deception. We will do everything in our power to place all facts on the table so that people can make an informed decision free of manipulation and censorship. Segwit for one is not what Satoshi Nakamoto envisioned.

In addition, Bitcoin was never intended to be purely used as a store of value. It was foremost supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system as envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto - a system that could empower millions of people around the world, even those who earn less than $5 a month. Given Blockstream's stronghold on Bitcoin Core, you're kidding yourself when you claim that you "value a decentralized network with nodes as widespread as possible above paying coffee with it. I couldn't care less." Yes, it is very clear that the supporters of the Segwit hack, couldn't give two fcks about poor people and the original aim of Satoshi Nakamoto. It is better to be blinded by bankster fiat and their half-assed crypto hacks.

Make no mistake though, the time will come when the price of Bitcoin Cash will go up and up - as the network effect kicks in - while the price of the Segwit hack will stagnate as less and less users will find it useful. It is just a matter of time. Once people learn the truth and find out that the Segwit hack has very little utility value - and how they intend to force us into 3rd party side chains run and/or controlled by banksters via the Lightning network - they will drop the Segwit hack like a hot potato.

What satoshi "envisioned" is not God's word. If you must do only and only what satoshi envisioned, Bitcoin would no longer be a decentralized project, this is what cashies fail to understand for some reason.

In any case, satoshi also didn't envision his project being forked because some people didn't got their way. He wanted all nodes to follow the same rules, otherwise you get an altcoin (that is why BCash is an altcoin). You can compete as an altcoin, nobody is saying you can't, but it is not Bitcoin, think again and you'll understand.

He also predicted people would be against big blocksizes in order to participate in the network (run nodes). Hal Finney (aka Satoshi Nakamoto) also talked about a proto-lightning network (and LN is much better than what Finney envisioned back then).

Satoshi also failed to predict many things, such as pool mining. Some of his stuff is now deprecated.

Also lol at how "we don't care about poor people". I wish everyone could use Bitcoin at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, but once again, this is impossible, physically. And again, just like Soros, certain forces are trying to appeal to the good intentions of the common folk in order to fuck up the blockchain for everyone else. You can thank LN will allow for poor people to participate in Bitcoin, but there's no way everyone is going to be able to use on-chain transactions, you can use any other centralized altcoin for that.
In order to cater for global demand at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, at the security levels Bitcoin delivers currently with his massive PoW+node network, we need a technolgoy that simply doesn't exist currently.

"Wrong. The image doesn't explicitly say "all nodes are Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.", it just points out at how an huge amount of BCash nodes are centralized in the hands of few actors, which is useless centralization wise. You could have 1 million BCash nodes hosted by a few parties vs 5000 nodes hosted by widespread independent parties in Bitcoin, and all things else equal, the Bitcoin network is an objectively stronger network."

Yes, it is easy to claim that I am wrong after the relevant image was removed. And no, I haven't said that the image explicitly say "all nodes are Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co." It did however convey the idea that all nodes are connected to Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd. - while it is not the case. The best part: You had the audacity to use it as proof that Bitcoin Cash is not decentralized. If that is not manipulation, what is? Please don't answer.

---------------------------------------------------

"Segwit is part of Bitcoin since 21th August '17, particularly ever 10 minutes, as your blocks must be compatible with segwit transactions to qualify as a Bitcoin block. Segwit has never been compromised. As far BCash, BCash is too small for anyone to bother, the problem is that short-sighted BCashiers don't see is that dead end for a coin that raises blocks "as big as needed" is a mining AND transaction validation monopoly inside datacenters easily bribeable/easy to just launch a missile at if you must, in other words, a centralized system, vs a bunch of random nodes scattered across the globe, impossible to bribe and nuke, therefore, a decentralized system."

Segwit was not part of the original Bitcoin system and never will be. It promotes something completely different than what is stated in the Satoshi whitepaper. In addition, if "BCash is too small for anyone to bother" as you claim, why do you bother? Again, you're wrong about Bitcoin Cash being centralized. It is the Segwit hack that is centralized via Blockstream. The bankster funded company that pushed for 'consensus' via censorship and manipulation. It is clear that you've taken a page out of their play book.

---------------------------------------------------

"Wrong, Blockstream doesn't own/control Bitcoin Core. This is the same BCashie rhetoric we've been hearing for a while, debunked a million times:

https://medium.com/@whalecalls/fud-or-fact-blockstream-inc-is-the-main-force-behind-bitcoin-and-taken-over-160aed93c003

The same rethoric could be applied to your supposed "6 development teams" on BCash, all funded by Bitmain/Ver."

As Paul Ramlac stated in response to that article: "I don’t see the link between GitHub contributions and control of a project. A corporate takeover happens through social games rather than code. If anything, you make a stronger case for a Blockstream takeover: with few coders on the team, one might assume other Blockstream members are hard at work on other fronts. For example, persuading the public, and by extent Bitcoin developers who are not part of Blockstream, of the legitimacy of Blockstream’s vision for Bitcoin" (Source: https://medium.com/@paulramlach_60688/i-dont-see-the-link-between-github-contributions-and-control-of-a-project-c897aa6a597).

---------------------------------------------------

"What satoshi "envisioned" is not God's word. If you must do only and only what satoshi envisioned, Bitcoin would no longer be a decentralized project, this is what cashies fail to understand for some reason.

In any case, satoshi also didn't envision his project being forked because some people didn't got their way. He wanted all nodes to follow the same rules, otherwise you get an altcoin (that is why BCash is an altcoin). You can compete as an altcoin, nobody is saying you can't, but it is not Bitcoin, think again and you'll understand.

He also predicted people would be against big blocksizes in order to participate in the network (run nodes). Hal Finney (aka Satoshi Nakamoto) also talked about a proto-lightning network (and LN is much better than what Finney envisioned back then).

Satoshi also failed to predict many things, such as pool mining. Some of his stuff is now deprecated.

Also lol at how "we don't care about poor people". I wish everyone could use Bitcoin at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, but once again, this is impossible, physically. And again, just like Soros, certain forces are trying to appeal to the good intentions of the common folk in order to fuck up the blockchain for everyone else. You can thank LN will allow for poor people to participate in Bitcoin, but there's no way everyone is going to be able to use on-chain transactions, you can use any other centralized altcoin for that.
In order to cater for global demand at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, at the security levels Bitcoin delivers currently with his massive PoW+node network, we need a technolgoy that simply doesn't exist currently."

Yes, it is not God's Word, but it is with reason called the Satoshi or Bitcoin whitepaper. There is zero support in it for Segwit and the Lightning network. No true supporters of a project will sit idle while impostors come in, change things from what is explicitly stated in the project's whitepaper and steal the name via manipulation and censorship. And why would Bitcoin "no longer be a decentralized project" if it was not for the Segwit hack? 1 TB hard drives come pretty much standard nowadays - and it is only the beginning of what is possible.

Bitcoin transactions were cheap before the deliberate attempt to prevent the Bitcoin system from scaling. It is funny that Bitcoin Cash - that scales on the Bitcoin system - offers on-chain transactions that are faster and more than 2245% cheaper (when I checked yesterday) than what the Segwit hack has to offer. The technology exists, but the banksters and their buddies had to move consensus away through manipulation and censorship in order to gain control. Unlucky for them, Satoshi left room for consensus to move as well - so that those who wish to support the Bitcoin as envisioned by Satoshi, have the opportunity to do so.

In short: We support the Bitcoin defined in the Satoshi whitepaper despite its shortcomings - real and perceived. And will stand against all attempts to bring something else in and call it Bitcoin (such as the Segwit hack).

P.S. And in terms of name calling, given that you call us cashies, perhaps we should start calling you seggies and lighties for fun.

[cellard]

Yes, it is easy to claim that I am wrong after the relevant image was removed. And no, I haven't said that the image explicitly say "all nodes are Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co." It did however convey the idea that all nodes are connected to Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd. - while it is not the case. The best part: You had the audacity to use it as proof that Bitcoin Cash is not decentralized. If that is not manipulation, what is? Please don't answer.

Ehh, what are you talking about? the image is still here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3369820.msg35321433#msg35321433

The image is just pointing out at the fact that a ton of BCash nodes are hosted by the same party, which in terms of decentralization it's useless. Facts remain.

Segwit was not part of the original Bitcoin system and never will be. It promotes something completely different than what is stated in the Satoshi whitepaper. In addition, if "BCash is too small for anyone to bother" as you claim, why do you bother? Again, you're wrong about Bitcoin Cash being centralized. It is the Segwit hack that is centralized via Blockstream. The bankster funded company that pushed for 'consensus' via censorship and manipulation. It is clear that you've taken a page out of their play book.

Again, cult of satoshi in full effect. I bother with BCash because Roger Ver is misselading noobs into buying an altcoin while saying it's Bitcoin, already happened to some people I know, they told me why my coins are worth 9 times more. This needs to end.

And again, more nonsense about censorship. There's plenty of censorship in BCash's side, on the githubs and on social media. The Bitcoin twitter handle is blocking everyone claiming how BCH is not Bitcoin for instance.

In addition, the whitepaper says "peer to peer cash". When your huge blocks get attacked and the nodes become huge mammoths that people cannot host, it will be centralized inside datacenters, so it will no longer be peer to peer but peer to corporation running a node to peer, and certainly not cash.

As Paul Ramlac stated in response to that article: "I don’t see the link between GitHub contributions and control of a project. A corporate takeover happens through social games rather than code. If anything, you make a stronger case for a Blockstream takeover: with few coders on the team, one might assume other Blockstream members are hard at work on other fronts. For example, persuading the public, and by extent Bitcoin developers who are not part of Blockstream, of the legitimacy of Blockstream’s vision for Bitcoin" (Source: https://medium.com/@paulramlach_60688/i-dont-see-the-link-between-github-contributions-and-control-of-a-project-c897aa6a597).

Again ridiculous, hilarious to complain against "social attacks" when Roger Ver is the biggest social attacker in crypto, using all sorts of social media to pumps his altcoins. Looks like propaganda is not propaganda if the propaganda meets your agenda.

Yes, it is not God's Word, but it is with reason called the Satoshi or Bitcoin whitepaper. There is zero support in it for Segwit and the Lightning network. No true supporters of a project will sit idle while impostors come in, change things from what is explicitly stated in the project's whitepaper and steal the name via manipulation and censorship. And why would Bitcoin "no longer be a decentralized project" if it was not for the Segwit hack? 1 TB hard drives come pretty much standard nowadays - and it is only the beginning of what is possible.

Bitcoin transactions were cheap before the deliberate attempt to prevent the Bitcoin system from scaling. It is funny that Bitcoin Cash - that scales on the Bitcoin system - offers on-chain transactions that are faster and more than 2245% cheaper (when I checked yesterday) than what the Segwit hack has to offer. The technology exists, but the banksters and their buddies had to move consensus away through manipulation and censorship in order to gain control. Unlucky for them, Satoshi left room for consensus to move as well - so that those who wish to support the Bitcoin as envisioned by Satoshi, have the opportunity to do so.

In short: We support the Bitcoin defined in the Satoshi whitepaper despite its shortcomings - real and perceived. And will stand against all attempts to bring something else in and call it Bitcoin (such as the Segwit hack).

P.S. And in terms of name calling, given that you call us cashies, perhaps we should start calling you seggies and lighties for fun. Grin

I don't care about segwit, I haven't even used it except in a couple of occasions when the sender required me to do so, same goes for LN. I think it's very interesting technology and I will watch it develop, but that's all, Bitcoin #1 priority is a solid, robust gold 2.0, hosted in a battlefield-ready network, not a stupid token to buy coffee with, that is secondary. I wish we could have both, but we can't as of right now. It's how things are. If we can achieve that use through the LN then so be it, but don't fuck up the decentralized, censorship resistant store of value property as a result, because we only have one shot. If Bitcoin fails at being a censorship resistant store of value, no altcoin will ever do it, so anyone attempting to do that will end up facing severe consequences, since you are playing with $billions worth of holder's money. Not smart to piss them off.

[Wind_FURY]

Segwit was not part of the original Bitcoin system and never will be. It promotes something completely different than what is stated in the Satoshi whitepaper.

Can you explain this with more details? What was in the whitepaper and why is Bitcoin now "completely" different? This is not an attack, I want to know what you are talking about. I am as lost as most newbies here sometimes.

Plus look, if Roger Ver controls @Bitcoin, someone else controls this, https://twitter.com/btc. Hahaha.

[Pursuer]

Segwit was not part of the original Bitcoin system and never will be. It promotes something completely different than what is stated in the Satoshi whitepaper.

Can you explain this with more details? What was in the whitepaper and why is Bitcoin now "completely" different? This is not an attack, I want to know what you are talking about. I am as lost as most newbies here sometimes.

he is just talking out of his ass
it is like saying P2SH (multi signature features aka addresses starting with 3), all these OP codes and lots of other additions are not a part of bitcoin and never will be because it is not in Satoshi Whitepaper.

[merkuriya]

It is a shame that some people are making money  by fooling innocent people. He should be punished by law for this.

[metenjean]

I thought twitter already suspended this account a while ago? But i agreed that he is using @Bitcoin account to promote bitcoincash rather than bitcoin and all claimed about bitcoincash is better than bitcoin while using bitcoin account is very contradictive. Again, if he really wanted to promote bitcoincash then why not using @bitcoincash rather than @bitcoin? Even if its a fork, it also manipulating info for new investor. Account reported !!  

[thesmallgod]

In as much as I don't like a scammer, I think your friend too need to be blame too. Who does that? you see a post about bitcoin offering at a cheap price and you rush to go and buy it. I am sorry to say this but I think that is not sensible. He should have gone online to make some research maybe this is genuine. I do not know when BTC will become that cheap that someone will just go buy thinking he/she is buying BTC. and for this and other twitter handles that engage in all form of dubious activities with cryptocurrency, they all deserve to be ban because they are the one giving the coin bad images and I am going to report this @bitcoin page as well but tell your friend to watch out next time.

[paulmaritz]

Segwit was not part of the original Bitcoin system and never will be. It promotes something completely different than what is stated in the Satoshi whitepaper.

Can you explain this with more details? What was in the whitepaper and why is Bitcoin now "completely" different? This is not an attack, I want to know what you are talking about. I am as lost as most newbies here sometimes.

Plus look, if Roger Ver controls @Bitcoin, someone else controls this, https://twitter.com/btc. Hahaha.

Sure. You will find more details here: https://www.cryptocoinupdates.com/bitcoin-cash-is-the-real-bitcoin/

lol Exactly.

[ralfshu]

Do they consider the quality of Twitter accounts reporting the particular abuse ? I can ask a friend to help with this as he multiple new accounts.

[paulmaritz]

Yes, it is easy to claim that I am wrong after the relevant image was removed. And no, I haven't said that the image explicitly say "all nodes are Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co." It did however convey the idea that all nodes are connected to Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd. - while it is not the case. The best part: You had the audacity to use it as proof that Bitcoin Cash is not decentralized. If that is not manipulation, what is? Please don't answer.

Ehh, what are you talking about? the image is still here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3369820.msg35321433#msg35321433

The image is just pointing out at the fact that a ton of BCash nodes are hosted by the same party, which in terms of decentralization it's useless. Facts remain.

Segwit was not part of the original Bitcoin system and never will be. It promotes something completely different than what is stated in the Satoshi whitepaper. In addition, if "BCash is too small for anyone to bother" as you claim, why do you bother? Again, you're wrong about Bitcoin Cash being centralized. It is the Segwit hack that is centralized via Blockstream. The bankster funded company that pushed for 'consensus' via censorship and manipulation. It is clear that you've taken a page out of their play book.

Again, cult of satoshi in full effect. I bother with BCash because Roger Ver is misselading noobs into buying an altcoin while saying it's Bitcoin, already happened to some people I know, they told me why my coins are worth 9 times more. This needs to end.

And again, more nonsense about censorship. There's plenty of censorship in BCash's side, on the githubs and on social media. The Bitcoin twitter handle is blocking everyone claiming how BCH is not Bitcoin for instance.

In addition, the whitepaper says "peer to peer cash". When your huge blocks get attacked and the nodes become huge mammoths that people cannot host, it will be centralized inside datacenters, so it will no longer be peer to peer but peer to corporation running a node to peer, and certainly not cash.

As Paul Ramlac stated in response to that article: "I don’t see the link between GitHub contributions and control of a project. A corporate takeover happens through social games rather than code. If anything, you make a stronger case for a Blockstream takeover: with few coders on the team, one might assume other Blockstream members are hard at work on other fronts. For example, persuading the public, and by extent Bitcoin developers who are not part of Blockstream, of the legitimacy of Blockstream’s vision for Bitcoin" (Source: https://medium.com/@paulramlach_60688/i-dont-see-the-link-between-github-contributions-and-control-of-a-project-c897aa6a597).

Again ridiculous, hilarious to complain against "social attacks" when Roger Ver is the biggest social attacker in crypto, using all sorts of social media to pumps his altcoins. Looks like propaganda is not propaganda if the propaganda meets your agenda.

Yes, it is not God's Word, but it is with reason called the Satoshi or Bitcoin whitepaper. There is zero support in it for Segwit and the Lightning network. No true supporters of a project will sit idle while impostors come in, change things from what is explicitly stated in the project's whitepaper and steal the name via manipulation and censorship. And why would Bitcoin "no longer be a decentralized project" if it was not for the Segwit hack? 1 TB hard drives come pretty much standard nowadays - and it is only the beginning of what is possible.

Bitcoin transactions were cheap before the deliberate attempt to prevent the Bitcoin system from scaling. It is funny that Bitcoin Cash - that scales on the Bitcoin system - offers on-chain transactions that are faster and more than 2245% cheaper (when I checked yesterday) than what the Segwit hack has to offer. The technology exists, but the banksters and their buddies had to move consensus away through manipulation and censorship in order to gain control. Unlucky for them, Satoshi left room for consensus to move as well - so that those who wish to support the Bitcoin as envisioned by Satoshi, have the opportunity to do so.

In short: We support the Bitcoin defined in the Satoshi whitepaper despite its shortcomings - real and perceived. And will stand against all attempts to bring something else in and call it Bitcoin (such as the Segwit hack).

P.S. And in terms of name calling, given that you call us cashies, perhaps we should start calling you seggies and lighties for fun. Grin

I don't care about segwit, I haven't even used it except in a couple of occasions when the sender required me to do so, same goes for LN. I think it's very interesting technology and I will watch it develop, but that's all, Bitcoin #1 priority is a solid, robust gold 2.0, hosted in a battlefield-ready network, not a stupid token to buy coffee with, that is secondary. I wish we could have both, but we can't as of right now. It's how things are. If we can achieve that use through the LN then so be it, but don't fuck up the decentralized, censorship resistant store of value property as a result, because we only have one shot. If Bitcoin fails at being a censorship resistant store of value, no altcoin will ever do it, so anyone attempting to do that will end up facing severe consequences, since you are playing with $billions worth of holder's money. Not smart to piss them off.

We will have to agree to disagree. I've stated what I wanted to state. I am resting my case now. Those with the eyes to see are welcome to read through our communication, do their own due diligence and make up their own minds - for better or worse. That being said, I appreciate the fact that you've taken the time to respond. Thank you.

[paulmaritz]

Segwit was not part of the original Bitcoin system and never will be. It promotes something completely different than what is stated in the Satoshi whitepaper.

Can you explain this with more details? What was in the whitepaper and why is Bitcoin now "completely" different? This is not an attack, I want to know what you are talking about. I am as lost as most newbies here sometimes.

he is just talking out of his ass
it is like saying P2SH (multi signature features aka addresses starting with 3), all these OP codes and lots of other additions are not a part of bitcoin and never will be because it is not in Satoshi Whitepaper.

haha You seem to know more about my ass than myself. Good luck and good for you.

[cellard]

Segwit was not part of the original Bitcoin system and never will be. It promotes something completely different than what is stated in the Satoshi whitepaper.

Can you explain this with more details? What was in the whitepaper and why is Bitcoin now "completely" different? This is not an attack, I want to know what you are talking about. I am as lost as most newbies here sometimes.

Plus look, if Roger Ver controls @Bitcoin, someone else controls this, https://twitter.com/btc. Hahaha.

There's a difference... whoever controls https://twitter.com/btc it's not pitching an altcoin as Bitcoin. In any case, this is a propaganda war on both sides. It's funny seeing people bash each other on social media. Im sure Roger Ver is going to be mad at the btc twitter account now and will try to bribe the owner into making it a BCash shilling central as well just like the @Bitcoin one.

https://twitter.com/btc/status/987874702193545218

btw, this has more retweets than this

https://twitter.com/Bitcoin/status/983617226606440448

[LeGaulois]

Hi guys, just a few things:

I have been vocal recently on Twitter about this shit account then he blocked me after asking too much embarrassing questions daily. No problem I have different accounts, still he avoids replying to different questions...
Remember when @Bitcoin claimed to be censored by the guy from Twitter when he was suspended and once back he was telling to people The guy from Twitter gave the @Bitcoin handle to someone else, then he started to cry about how bad are his stats

Here is the real truth
He has been suspended not because of the reports (We were doing it massively long before, but didn't success) but because he is using bots. His account didn't survive to the last Twiter update that makes Twitter very strict against bots and fake accounts.

He was buying bots to follow his account, and at a time he used a wrong supplier... So after the update, Twitter suspended his account for obvious reasons.
The guy from Twitter didn't give the @Bitcoin username, the other accounts were using a trick to have @Bitcoin and once Twitter figured this they suspended those account as well. Twitter staff never gave the @Bitcoin account to someone, it's just a lie.

The stats he was crying about blaming Twitter have nothing special, when you use bots you can't expect to have some "great stats", right?
Twitter just "ghost banned" all his fake followers like they do with every account. Every long Twitter users know about this.

He deleted some tweets from June-July-August 2017, I haven't been able to find what it was about, but it's clear he has something to hide

Conclusion
He got banned for using bots
Twitter didn't give @Bitcoin to someone
His stats go down because he has a ton of fake followers bought since he got the ownership of the account


There isn't much to do other than spreading the word about the BCH garbage, Tweet sometime about it, it doesn't take a lot of time and it's free. Boycott bitcoin.com, a lot of you guys are using this website to auto post the RSS to your fake accounts. There are much better and reliable source to find on the web

[Wind_FURY]

Segwit was not part of the original Bitcoin system and never will be. It promotes something completely different than what is stated in the Satoshi whitepaper.

Can you explain this with more details? What was in the whitepaper and why is Bitcoin now "completely" different? This is not an attack, I want to know what you are talking about. I am as lost as most newbies here sometimes.

Plus look, if Roger Ver controls @Bitcoin, someone else controls this, https://twitter.com/btc. Hahaha.

Sure. You will find more details here: https://www.cryptocoinupdates.com/bitcoin-cash-is-the-real-bitcoin/

lol Exactly.

Ok, but let me collect my thoughts on that. I want to read it thoroughly and see if that article is not one of Roger Ver's paid propaganda that shills have been spreading.

Thanks for sharing it. Did you write it?

[Pursuer]

In any case, this is a propaganda war on both sides. It's funny seeing people bash each other on social media.

it is funny until it starts damaging the newcomers to bitcoin. millions of people are exposed to all this nonsense every day on twitter, reddit, and elsewhere and the damage is growing. for example when a newbie who wants to start getting involved with bitcoin searches and finds bitcoin.com and buys something that THEY are calling bitcoin but receives bitcoin cash instead shit like this happens https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=

[Pan Troglodytes]

It is clearly the discussion over ideals and over definitions, and such discussions cannot lead to any concensus between the parties involved. As long as the participants cannot agree on the common definition of the terms they use (and clearly, they cannot), it will not lead to any understanding of each other.

Clearly, I have my sides chosen, but getting heat up in a discussion like this is really pointless.