171–180 of 204 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin. They should just change the forked version to BCore or BStream, so as not to confuse people.
Bitcoin Cash is the forked version, you're getting them mixed up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really an open question which one is the "real" Bitcoin and merits having "Bitcoin" in the name. It's like saying that the People's Front of Judea is fraudulent because they don't really represent Judeans like the Judean People's Front.
One possible way to distinguish between both would be continuity: if you had a Bitcoin node running several months before the announcement, and kept running the same unchanged software until today, which one would your node be following now? That one probably has a bigger claim to both being the "real" Bitcoin, and having the plain unadorned "Bitcoin" name. As to whether it merits having "Bitcoin" in the name, both a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said it before and I’ll say it again, block size increase alone is not sustainable. The BCash boyz are stubborn and in denial. Might work for now but in the long term they will need another fork to increase the block size again and so on. They don’t have a Lightning Network either which is already available on Bitcoin Testnet and proved to be extremely fast (almost instant) at very low cost. I hold both but I’m rea…
> block size increase alone is not sustainable Then they can just implement Segwit. I'm not really seeing the problem here. One version of Bitcoin works today, the other doesn't. It's not really that complicated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have neither, Why can't he call his fork Bitcoin Cash? He claims that it adheres to the Bitcoin.org idea than BTC. Him & a vocal community (/r/btc) appears to believe in that. What gives BTC (and /r/bitcoin) the right to the name Bitcoin considering both are forks from the original chain?
You can create a fork today but should you be allowed to take the bitcoin name? Leave the name with the existing entity.
You're mixing up soft fork with a hard fork and implying that soft fork is somewhat better, when in reality it is just technical concept and has nothing to do with it.
Actually in current situation we already have example, the soft fork (SegWit) implements a complex mechanism to add segregation witness feature and allow for off-chain transactions.
The change in Bitcoin Cash is simply raising the block limit to 8MB. In fact initially bitcoin had no limit for the block size and the limit was added to prevent DDoS.
That limit was meant to be increased as there would be higher demand.
Here's the stickiest thing about this entire thing to me: the name. Roger Ver (one of the people behind bcash) has said repeatedly that he believes that his fork deserves the name "Bitcoin" and that it is the "real" bitcoin. It seems obvious that the intent here is to confuse people. This, to me, seems like blatant fraud. It is concerning to me that coinbase would continue to allow this market confusion to build by l…
It seems like one of the disadvantages of Satoshi being anonymous is that Bitcoin wasn't trademarked, which allows for forks like Bitcoin Cash to use the name Bitcoin. I think this is kind of an interesting case of why trademarks are important as having both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash must be very confusing to new users on Coinbase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also a good criticism of BCH here: https://medium.com/@homakov/weekly-sync-friction-the-most-im... Basically it will be too much bandwidth for most users to bother running their own core, meaning increased centralization for BCH and easy way to kill it in the future through some government action or bug.
The thesis of the article is that if bandwidth requirements are too high, then people will stop running full node wallets on their laptops, thus reducing the number of full nodes in the network. In reality, you would have to be insane to store bitcoins with a C++ program permanently connected to and broadcasting your IP address to a p2p network. Now, it may be that many bitcoin nodes are run by insane people who do e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coinbase software does not do basic market unlock?! Is it another company that did not get anyone from Island or InstaNet or Brut?
> Is it another company that did not get anyone from Island or InstaNet or Brut? Do you mind giving some context to this statement? What I know of the ECNs you mentioned is from reading the book 'Dark Pools'. It would be great to get some insight into the innovations that were developed in all three projects, that have become a mainstay in 'fintech'.
ECNs were f!cking amazing and when Datek started routing limit orders to Island (genius play) from retail investors the days of crazy spreads, slippage and free money became history. Some of them also allowed you to do cross-exchange routing - I think BRUT was first to do it - so you could send your order via BRUT to a specific exchange. This killed NYSE/PHL/AMEX arbitrage (AMEX and PHL were slower than NYSE so it was possible to do a trade on NYSE and take offsetting position on PHL/AMEX immediately locking the spread)
Since ECNs would self-cross at the NBB and NBA even if the market had no action because the likes of NITE and GSCO were slowing down just to get better money on the order flow, the trading simply moved to Island and Instinet forcing regular market makers to play ball.
The effect of ECNs in trading was equivalent of introducing Ansible and Puppet management in server management. Crypto-exchanges now act the same way as the who who say "We only manage our servers using Vt100 terminals using vi"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> block size increase alone is not sustainable Then they can just implement Segwit. I'm not really seeing the problem here. One version of Bitcoin works today, the other doesn't. It's not really that complicated.
It was hard enough to get the support required to implement SegWit on Bitcoin proper, even though it had a far more immediate need for it. Bitcoin Cash was literally founded for the purpose of avoiding SegWit and making the Lightning Network impossible. The idea that all its supporters will suddenly see the light of SegWit is implausible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me it seems like Bitcoin Cash profits greatly just from having the word "Bitcoin" in front of it. Surprised no one just copyrights it and sues other coin makers. I guess that's against he community, but imo it needs to be done. I don't hold any bitcoin or bitcoin cash...I say this as just a general consumer. The "bitcoin" name has brand value, and having "bitcoin" cash is going to inflate the market value of the i…
Not really. There's Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Ruby, Bitcoin Plus... the list goes on and on but the 'Bitcoin' name hasn't helped any of them much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have neither, Why can't he call his fork Bitcoin Cash? He claims that it adheres to the Bitcoin.org idea than BTC. Him & a vocal community (/r/btc) appears to believe in that. What gives BTC (and /r/bitcoin) the right to the name Bitcoin considering both are forks from the original chain?
Right now if you run an ancient bitcoin node it will still see the segwit addresses and the real Bitcoin chain as valid just fine. It cannot follow the BCash chain because it's not a valid chain to it. Also, the Bitcoin project has been marching along same as always, it seems disingenuous to claim that the original is a fork when it's the same exact project and it is still a valid chain for every Bitcoin node out the…
You own your Bitcoins in the full meaning of the word. You fully control them, by way of your private key, but you also trust that the rules of Bitcoin won't change. The former ownership is technical but the latter is social.
There is an implicit social contract towards anyone who buys Bitcoin to be able to spend them any time in the future, under the same rules as today. That includes not having to upgrade to another ruleset with arbitrary changes.
For this reason it was important that the block size increase was made opt-in, and that any hard forking fundamental changes that are required in the future are trivial or have pretty much unanimous support.