BitPico throwing down against Roger Ver

[Wind_FURY]

so a bunch of core supports want to make more and more altcoins that have a satoshi genesis block and hundreds of thousands of blocks of tx data..
ok. let me guess bitcoin copper, bitcoin zinc, bitcoin nickel, bitcoin tin. bitcoin aluminium

more social drama distractions.

It might be one of Roger Ver's sock puppets disguised as a Core supporter, deceiving everyone that it is "attacking" the Bitcoin Cash network only fail on purpose.

The end of this drama will be, Roger Ver "wins" and then announces that Bitcoin Cash is resilient to network attacks. Hahaha.

[1713533779]

1713533779

[1713533779]

1713533779

[1713533779]

1713533779

[1713533779]

1713533779

[1713533779]

1713533779

[1713533779]

1713533779

[Pursuer]

so a bunch of core supports want to make more and more altcoins that have a satoshi genesis block and hundreds of thousands of blocks of tx data..
ok. let me guess bitcoin copper, bitcoin zinc, bitcoin nickel, bitcoin tin. bitcoin aluminium

more social drama distractions.

It might be one of Roger Ver's sock puppets disguised as a Core supporter, deceiving everyone that it is "attacking" the Bitcoin Cash network only fail on purpose.

The end of this drama will be, Roger Ver "wins" and then announces that Bitcoin Cash is resilient to network attacks. Hahaha.

this is the first thing that came to my mind too.
because first of all they have been so much more vocal than they have been active. you can see the bigger blocks but not much else results. so now I think it is strongly possible that this was a social media sham from the start trying to advertise bitcoin cash more as a secure network that you can't attack.

[nutildah]

this is the first thing that came to my mind too.
because first of all they have been so much more vocal than they have been active. you can see the bigger blocks but not much else results. so now I think it is strongly possible that this was a social media sham from the start trying to advertise bitcoin cash more as a secure network that you can't attack.

The same guys did the same thing to bitcoin when the Lightning Network was introduced. Of course BTC doesn't need that kind of publicity because its already bigger than every single other coin put together.

[squatter]

Sorry but from a technical standpoint ,
if the 32MB is a security problem, but can only be exploited if 32 mb blocks are created,
A hard fork dropping BCH back down to 8MB limit would circumvent the problem.

Actually, only a soft fork is required, since lowering the block size limit doesn't remove or relax consensus rules. All that would be required is 51% hash power support, and then users would follow the forked chain by default.

The problem is more philosophical: big blocks = BCH's raison d'être. If it turns out big blocks are unsafe, and block size must be lowered to just 2x that of Bitcoin, why does it even exist? What's the point?

It might be one of Roger Ver's sock puppets disguised as a Core supporter, deceiving everyone that it is "attacking" the Bitcoin Cash network only fail on purpose.

The end of this drama will be, Roger Ver "wins" and then announces that Bitcoin Cash is resilient to network attacks. Hahaha.

BitPico also backed Segwit2x and tried to carry it out even after everyone else had abandoned it. I wouldn't assume anything about their motives here.

This could certainly be a ploy to execute a "failed" attack against BCH. If such a highly publicized "attack" were to fail, BCH might come out looking good, yeah?

[Zin-Zang]

Sorry but from a technical standpoint ,
if the 32MB is a security problem, but can only be exploited if 32 mb blocks are created,
A hard fork dropping BCH back down to 8MB limit would circumvent the problem.

Actually, only a soft fork is required, since lowering the block size limit doesn't remove or relax consensus rules. All that would be required is 51% hash power support, and then users would follow the forked chain by default.

This is not intended toward you, so don't take it that way, but soft forks are for pussies.
Soft forks require over 90% to agree to be safe, Hard forks require only ~55% to agree to be safe and the code enforces the change.

If overnight 60% of segwit-core decided to dump segwit and return to pre-segwit,
they could with a soft fork split the network and anyone that joined them would be able to steal all coins stored in segwit address on their soft fork,
since without the soft fork enforcement, all segwit funds become an anyone can spent, if block stream had hard forked to segwit ,
then the above would be impossible , but as it is one day may pose a serious threat , if the miners lose too much revenue to LN.

The problem is more philosophical: big blocks = BCH's raison d'être. If it turns out big blocks are unsafe, and block size must be lowered to just 2x that of Bitcoin, why does it even exist? What's the point?

The point is :
Example:
When you put gas in your car , do you put just enough gas to make it home and then back to the Gas station (segwit-core)
or
do you fill up the gas tank so you have the ability to travel longer and visit more places without worry, before needing a refill. (bitcoin cash)

In other words:
if you install the future capacity needs now why limit it, so when you do need the larger capacity ,
no one has to fight over upgrading , like what happen with bitcoin for ~2 years where the capacity problem was left broken
and fees reaching so high it began decreasing merchant adoption instead of increasing it.

FYI:
So far 32mb has not yet been proven unsafe, (we only have a theory of some anonymous person without proof)
and they were running at 8mb before that
so segwit-core is ~1.7mb max, so they are almost ~5X larger onchain even if they drop back down to 8mb.
*32mb is the current max capacity size, as 8MB used to be Bitcoin Cash Max size,
however they only make blocks large enough to hold the data as such, (right now their average block size is less than 100KB:  https://blockdozer.com/blocks)
the bitcoin cash blockchain is actually smaller than segwit-core blockchain at the present time.*

FYI2: The Main Point behind all of it is that corrupt individuals can't take advantage of a limited onchain blocksize to drive the transactions fees sky high to the point people start using the competition. Example: I moved exclusively to ltc and doge when btc was charging even over $10 much less when it was $50 to send a penny worth.
Insanely high transaction fees destroy any use of a coin as a currency and the bitcoin cash supporters fork to end the fees so high it was making sure no one would use it.

Segwit-Core fees are still all over the place , today less than 83 cents on average and last week over $6 on average,
business people like consistent reliable performance, the above fluctuations make it intolerable to that mindset.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#3m

[jbreher]

in fact BCH chain is already longer.

Well, no. In Bitcoin, 'longest' is not defined as 'greatest block height', it is defined as 'most accumulated proof of work'.

[jbreher]

BTC doesn't need that kind of publicity because its already bigger than every single other coin put together.

Hmm. CMC reports Bitcoin dominance at 42.8%.

Must be 'new math'.

[Wind_FURY]

BTC doesn't need that kind of publicity because its already bigger than every single other coin put together.

Hmm. CMC reports Bitcoin dominance at 42.8%.

Must be 'new math'.

"Bigger" would mean different aspects, not only the market capitalization in my opinion. Compare Bitcoin's network effects, security, stability, and usefulness as a decentralized, censorship resistant "hard money" against all altcoins combined, then I believe we would agree that there is only Bitcoin.

Back on the topic, what is the latest gossip on this "attack"?

[jbreher]

BTC doesn't need that kind of publicity because its already bigger than every single other coin put together.

Hmm. CMC reports Bitcoin dominance at 42.8%.

Must be 'new math'.

"Bigger" would mean different aspects, not only the market capitalization in my opinion. Compare Bitcoin's network effects, security, stability, and usefulness as a decentralized, censorship resistant "hard money"

All those aspects are factored into the market cap. Econ 101.

[Wind_FURY]

BTC doesn't need that kind of publicity because its already bigger than every single other coin put together.

Hmm. CMC reports Bitcoin dominance at 42.8%.

Must be 'new math'.

"Bigger" would mean different aspects, not only the market capitalization in my opinion. Compare Bitcoin's network effects, security, stability, and usefulness as a decentralized, censorship resistant "hard money"

All those aspects are factored into the market cap. Econ 101.

Then I believe that using market capitalization as the "base of dominance" is flawed because to use Ethereum as an example, it is mainly used for issuing ICO shitcoins for projects that have no real usage in the real world. The other altcoins are more of the same.

[nutildah]

BTC doesn't need that kind of publicity because its already bigger than every single other coin put together.

Hmm. CMC reports Bitcoin dominance at 42.8%.

Must be 'new math'.

"Bigger" would mean different aspects, not only the market capitalization in my opinion. Compare Bitcoin's network effects, security, stability, and usefulness as a decentralized, censorship resistant "hard money"

All those aspects are factored into the market cap. Econ 101.

Then I believe that using market capitalization as the "base of dominance" is flawed because to use Ethereum as an example, it is mainly used for issuing ICO shitcoins for projects that have no real usage in the real world. The other altcoins are more of the same.

Agreed. I would say at least 90% of the total market cap is speculation-based.

Take for example Bitcoin Cash... Probably 99% of its value is speculative. Statistically zero real-world implementation, because I'm rounding down the less than 1/2 percent to zero.

[iotarocket]

I think all coins need to be stress tested to make sure they are secure. If bitcoin cash is a legitimate cryptocurrency, it should be able to withstand this type of attack. We will find out in the coming months I suppose just how strong the bitcoin cash network is.

[mymenace]

Here is why I think BCH is Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

I gave clear and consise reasons why I think that is the case.  Feel free to refute them with logic and evidence.

Yeah Ok

Not that the most decentralized blockchain is the real bitcoin

The one that holds all the illegal transactions from Silk Road

the one that can incriminate some very very big people

Leave the real blockchain alone, gotta catch the criminals (do not protect them)

[actmyname]

Here is why I think BCH is Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

I gave clear and consise reasons why I think that is the case.  Feel free to refute them with logic and evidence.

Your reasons are "bitcoin cash has ths, bitcoin core does not". What kind of bullshit rhetoric is that?

[nutildah]

Here is why I think BCH is Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

I gave clear and consise reasons why I think that is the case.  Feel free to refute them with logic and evidence.

Your reasons are "bitcoin cash has ths, bitcoin core does not". What kind of bullshit rhetoric is that?

Funny how the only people who call bitcoin "bitcoin core" are BCH supporters. Its pretty sad that Roger dragged that drama onto bitcoin.com. Guess somebody should make a bitcoincore.com? Lol, what a joke.

There are 3 main reasons by BCH isn't the real bitcoin.

1. The real bitcoin came first, and there literally would be no BCH without bitcoin.
2. BTC is just starting to break into the mainstream and actually be used for things, BCH is not.
3. The symbol for bitcoin is BTC. That's the real bitcoin. The symbol for Bitcoin Cash is BCH.

Roger might have retained some respectability if he had developed his own name for his altcoin. Instead he's simply riding on the coat-tails of bitcoin, which is quite evident by observing all the ways he's hijacked bitcoin.com to support BCH, to fuel his insatiable greed.

[pooya87]

1. The real bitcoin came first, and there literally would be no BCH without bitcoin.
2. BTC is just starting to break into the mainstream and actually be used for things, BCH is not.
3. The symbol for bitcoin is BTC. That's the real bitcoin. The symbol for Bitcoin Cash is BCH.

all true but this is not how things work.
1. there is only one bitcoin that existed from the start. "came first" doesn't make sense in my opinion.
2. any other altcoin can and possibly will in the future enter mainstream but it won't make it bitcoin.
3. the symbol is platform specific, some call it XBT

the only important thing that makes bitcoin, bitcoin is the majority support. that is how it works in a decentralized network.
- the majority of hashing power aka miners
- the majority of nodes which represents people using bitcoin the right way
- the majority of services, businesses, merchants,...
we all decided this chain that we are using that now has Segregated Witness enabled is bitcoin so it is bitcoin.

- bitcoin cash didn't have the miner support so they had to create the incentive for them to come and mine it (difficulty manipulation and 1000+ blocks (12500 BCH/day) per day instead of 144 normal blocks/day)
- it didn't have the node support so they had to run a lot themselves on datacenters
- there is no merchants apart from bitcoin.com and the things they create. then some smaller ones here and there wanting to hype their business by adding multiple altcoins one of which is BCH

[mindrust]

As much as I want it, They won't be able to collapse Bcash.

Roger would pay them whatever to prevent it from happening. There is a chance he already owns them already. Just like a long term con artist would do, bitpico first attacked LN (some call it a "stress test") to gain credibility and now they are going to do it on Bcash, so they say.

I say bullshit.

[Wind_FURY]

Here is why I think BCH is Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

I gave clear and consise reasons why I think that is the case.  Feel free to refute them with logic and evidence.

Your reasons are "bitcoin cash has ths, bitcoin core does not". What kind of bullshit rhetoric is that?

Funny how the only people who call bitcoin "bitcoin core" are BCH supporters. Its pretty sad that Roger dragged that drama onto bitcoin.com. Guess somebody should make a bitcoincore.com? Lol, what a joke.

There are 3 main reasons by BCH isn't the real bitcoin.

1. The real bitcoin came first, and there literally would be no BCH without bitcoin.

Roger Ver's propaganda is that "Bitcoin bilaterally split into Bitcoin Cash after the hard fork, and Bitcoin Core after the Segwit soft fork. There is no Bitcoin anymore. But Bitcoin Cash is still the real Bitcoin because Satoshi's vision". Hahaha.

2. BTC is just starting to break into the mainstream and actually be used for things, BCH is not.

Social consensus and accumulated proof of work are what ascertains "what is Bitcoin?"

3. The symbol for bitcoin is BTC. That's the real bitcoin. The symbol for Bitcoin Cash is BCH.

Hahaha, what?

Roger might have retained some respectability if he had developed his own name for his altcoin. Instead he's simply riding on the coat-tails of bitcoin, which is quite evident by observing all the ways he's hijacked bitcoin.com to support BCH, to fuel his insatiable greed.

The Bitcoin Cash community should kick out Roger Ver and his friend Craig Wright and start building their coin's reputation from its own merits.

[Wind_FURY]

Nick Szabo once said that "Bitcoin Cash is centralized sockpupptery". Bitpico is now proving it true.

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1017514874291843072

We now understand the centralized nature of #bcash $bch. It is just a UAHF (user activated hard fork) Sybil setup to force the hands of all nodes and miners in the ecosystem. Without this setup @JihanWu & @rogerkver are powerless to control their network. #bitcoin #nodes #matter

Forcing the decentralized portion of the network to upgrade to a hard fork codebase via a centralized Sybil attack is nonsensical? You do realize a #bcash $bch hard fork is scheduled and they are using these nodes to force the hands of the entire network. #blockchain #ignorance

Roger Ver is always convincing everyone in the community about the "non-mining nodes do not matter" narrative for good reason. Always be cynical if you see someone else saying it in the forum.

Some newbies might not know who is Nick Szabo. Read this, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/genesis-files-bit-gold-szabo-was-inches-away-inventing-bitcoin/

[jbreher]

"Bitcoin Cash is centralized sockpupptery". Bitpico is now proving it true.

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1017514874291843072

We now understand the centralized nature of #bcash $bch. It is just a UAHF (user activated hard fork) Sybil setup to force the hands of all nodes and miners in the ecosystem. Without this setup @JihanWu & @rogerkver are powerless to control their network.

Of course, a fundamental mistake is the errant premise that Bitcoin Cash somehow belongs to Jihan and Roger (see "their network" above).

Another mistake is the odd dogma that non-mining validating entities have any effect on the network itself. The only power such non-mining validating entities have is to isolate themselves from the blockchain being built. Of course, this could be a rough proxy for signaling of preference of economic power. Too bad this signaling is subject to Sybilization into meaninglessness.
 

Forcing the decentralized portion of the network to upgrade to a hard fork codebase via a centralized Sybil attack is nonsensical? You do realize a #bcash $bch hard fork is scheduled and they are using these nodes to force the hands of the entire network.

BitPico's 'attack' fell flat on its face due to programming errors, and they ignorantly attributed their failure to 'centralization'.
Haha. Nice try.
I'm sure we'll get to the stress test when they learn how to format a valid Bitcoin transaction.

Curtis Ellis
‏@KarlTheProgrmr
 Jul 12
More
Last I saw @bitPico software was unable to create / validate transactions according to BCH rules. They were sending / propagating transactions without the fork ID flag in the sig hash type. Then got blocked from most nodes for not being compliant and claimed centralization.


Curtis Ellis
@KarlTheProgrmr
 Jul 12
More
@connolly_dan and I gave them some tips though, so hopefully they will be up and testing our network soon.