I already replied to you in the other thread. But seeing this post, I cannot help myself. Hahaha.
I will post again here for everyone to see both sides of the debate.
bitcoin is owned by no one
bitcoin.com talks about cash
bitcoin.org talks about core
both sides need to clarify that they are
bitcoin core
bitcoin cash
I agree that no one owns the word "Bitcoin", that is why Bitcoin Cash can call itself "Bitcoin Cash". But that is not the problem. The problem is Roger Ver trying to confuse everyone that Bitcoin Cash is the real "Bitcoin". What if a newbie buys BCH and think he bought Bitcoin?
much like the analogy of "dollar"
america talks about U.S dollar
australia talks about A.U dollar
both sides need to clarify that they are
U.S dollar
A.U dollar
I appreciate that argument and I agree up to a point. But I believe your problem really is when people say Bitcoin, they are really referring it to what you call "Bitcoin Core".
Bitcoin is Bitcoin Core. The coin traded as BTC in the exchanges priced on $9300 at this minute, not BCH.
again no one should own "bitcoin"
No one said it should.
if you are going to rebut to say that the network with the core rules, the core bips, the core roadmap, and the team that have paid devs from blockstream who are also making segwit and lightning.. should be and own bitcoin.. then you have said goodbye to decentralisation.
which is what they want. they want decentralisation to die and to only have distribution (their buzzword: distributed ledger technology (DLT))
Bitcoin is decentralized. "Bitcoin Core" is only one implementation of Bitcoin that did not break from the consensus rules,
https://coin.dance/nodesEveryone is free to make their own implementation and follow the consensus rules to be compatible with Bitcoin.
so any argument you can have against ver also applies to theymos (both promote a team as being "the bitcoin")
so any argument you can have against jgarzic also applies to PWuille(both coded a node that maintains the rules and introduces new rules)
any argument you have against craig wright also applies to adam back (both falsely proclaim they invented bitcoin but neither coded anything in 2008-2009)
It depends on the argument. The argument is not only about the name.
because if you take a few steps back.. you will realise the whole bilateral split event was designed to fake democracy, purely to activate a bip that had 35% vote. by distracting the opposition into another coin which. in actual fact is maintained, created and activated by the same group funding the core team.
There was no bilateral split. It was Bitcoin Cash that changed the consensus rules and split.
Plus the story about Segwit's activation deserves to be in another topic. Jihan Wu, with the help of the Chinese mining cartel stalled Segwit because it was incompatible with AsicBoost.
But it was activated by the same miners that have stalled it.
so by saying X deserves it or Y deserves it. is the same as saying "someone" deserves it.
NO ONE DESERVES IT.
the bilateral split was not just a random altcoin event. it was a bi-directional split of equal direction change. both sides became an alt that is now different to the old chain. no side has claim over being the one and only.
if you intend to play the game that if someone hates core they must love cash.. is just playing th sheep game of fake choice.
look beyond the tactics of the only choice being team A or team B and bickering over which..
bitcoin should be ownd by no teams and so no one should defend core and no one should defend cash
.
now take a few steps back,, take off any team defense caps off.. take a few deep breaths and think about decentralised bitcoin.
You can repeat this in all of the threads in the forum but it was Bitcoin Cash that split from the main chain because it changed the consensus rules and made an altcoin incompatible with Bitcoin's consensus rules.
