MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough

Most people aren't even aware that it happened so you're miles ahead of the game just from that alone. As far as forcing them to do it, if the market was more aware and willing to actually pursue the purpose of all this to begin with it would have been trivial for all of us to put our money where our mouth was at the time and boycott bitfinex and anybody else who dared follow them on the same nonsense. But because of a combination of the usdt fraud, outright censorship and narrative manipulation, and last of all the fundamental unalterable stupidity of the vast majority of the species, that's not what happened. BCH had a brief boom to 0.5 BTC and ever since its trudged endlessly forward with very little growth still faithfully executing on the original agenda whilst simultaneously being barraged with new split attacks and simple name calling from people who if they understood the actual facts on the ground, should be doing the exact opposite.

But that's life. We're stuck with the world we have and the nature of the people in it, warts and all. We don't get to wish them away, we must contend with it as it actually is. And any currency that can't operate with those realities of human nature as they are is going to always have that problem to contend with because if there's one thing I've learned about humans at scale, it's that they don't change. I keep that in mind constantly now and the education I got from the experience is priceless and it's the primary lens through which I see most things now; keeping that fundamental lie of equality and the common sense of humanity and how we're all invulnerable to propaganda in mind.

It's definitely served me well over the past few years, so hats off to the Machiavellian psychopaths responsible for the entire episode I guess.

Are you saying me I should tell users to wait 7 or more years for this desired functionality while they lose more money trying to figure out how to use it?

I also don't think there is a cryptocurrency network that is widely used that has operated without network halts, downtime or congestion so I do not expect any network to have such a 'smooth' transition either.

> Your argument is still predicated on the fact that BCH is the "real" Bitcoin, and that it's strictly better.

No, it isn't. It accurately reflects the original intent as outlined in the whitepaper, that is not an argument or opinion, it is a fact. And it is also a fact that BTC does not. As for what's "real" well that's an entirely different question, even what's "better" is an entirely different question; maybe peer to peer currency for the world that disintermediates and thus disempowers the present mediators of the economy of the world would actually be catastrophic, those things are questions, arguments and matters of opinion, sure. But the underlying attributes of the things under discussion and what they actually are, are not, they are observable, indisputable facts of reality.

> I personally disagree with you, and think the larger block sizes were shortsighted, and Bitcoins path towards smaller transactions and layer twos is the more responsible approach.

Sure, and I think your position and argument is wrong, and I think the fact that it has continued to be attacked after the split whilst BTC has been in a holding pattern and accomplished absolutely nothing significant since except validating the warnings of everybody who said it was a sabotage attempt is evidence of that fact, but these are just opinions and arguments, so whatever.

> IMO BCH would have lost anyways.

And the critical factor is what it all boils down to; nobody ever got the chance to see, because the powers that be couldn't allow the question to be raised.

That tells me everything I need to know about this. But it also doesn't change the fact that "the bad guy won" so, whatever. Cheating a win doesn't change the fact it's still a win.

> The whitepaper is not an authority, the project is allowed to evolve and that doesn't make it illegitimate.

The whitepaper is a statement of intent, what the project is actually for. It can evolve into anything that still serves that intent, it can even shift it somewhat, but to go exactly 180 degrees contrary to the intent is like saying it's perfectly reasonable to set out building a shield, turn it into a sword and still insist that everybody else calls it a shield and any actual shields that exist after that point are impostors to the title.

People are observably stupid enough to do so, but that is not a shield, and BTC is not a global peer to peer currency. It is a settlement layer for banks; the exact opposite of what it was intended to be.

Nobody can spin that into sensibility. It is an attack by definition. Every other fork that has happened it was arguable, but the BTC fork was the exact opposite of what bitcoin was intended to achieve.

That's clearly not an accident, no matter how many people would desperately like to believe otherwise.

> Do you see the original whitepaper as something that's perfect? No room for improvement or change in the ideas presented there?

Not at all. Plenty of other unsabotaged cryptocurrencies exist right now that still serve the intent of the original project but use vastly different mechanics to do so, I sincerely hope they give BTC the death it so richly deserves. That's fine and desirable as long as the plane still flies instead of tries to write a strategic shift into becoming a lawn dart as some kind of desirable evolution.

> BTC has had tons of development

All of it firmly dedicated to cementing the sabotage of the settlement layer for banks betrayal in place. So even worse than none at all. It isn't that it's just stale, but it's actually directly harming the original mission and sucking air out of the room and diverting investment from that goal, fooling idiots who naively don't realise they've been hijacked entirely off the original mission.

> there are no "good and bad" guys. Respectfully, that's a pretty naive view of the world.

In the context of the mission yes there very much are, and those that betray it are "bad" in terms of bad for the mission. They might be ethically good overall if the mission turns out to be undesirable and all along what everybody wanted was just more banks and the power they allow people who control them to wield, but that is indeed an argument that I'm not particularly interested in mostly because of the reason you mistake my position for being; global ethics and morality are complex beasts subject to endless debate with very little progress toward an objective outcome.

Is x a betrayal or in service of mission y however is as easily defined as how precisely mission y was. And it was very precisely defined, and BTC is indisputably a betrayal of it and thus bad from the perspective of the mission.