its hard not to respond when guys like you stop by to throw bombs at BSV supporters like "obstructionists", "cultists", and "bits" of Bitcoin all in one post.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
The thing about cults is they want you to cut yourself off from the outside and take on risk, a typical cult has an unaccountable leader, they persuade by coercion and exploits members, economically, (and in other ways) BCH is looking more like a cult than even BTC and BSV to some degree.
[doublepost=1573862105][/doublepost]
@Norway this a complement.
I think this is important to get. Once Bitcoin starts to bleed into the marrow of the Internet it will be utterly unstoppable. It's going to blow the doors off everything else out there.
I know we keep putting up the same comparison chart of tx's and blocksize growth that's favored BSV for the last 5mo, but imo, that's a clear sign that the market is preferring not offchain scaling, nor protocol embedded data/token storage, but instead the OP_RETURN and Tokenization model with their prospect of concensus protocol lockdown of BSV. and for good reason; it's easier, more technically friendly, less subject to dev takeover, and doesn't effect the longterm economic assumptions of the original Bitcoin. just look at the chart.
[doublepost=1573936700][/doublepost]and if you're gonna cry "but centralization", then you better tack on the proverbial "in 18mo!"
[doublepost=1573936700][/doublepost]and if you're gonna cry "but centralization", then you better tack on the proverbial "in 18mo!"
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
So, BU lost the upgrade to ABCore?
And the french-segwit malleability fixes are complete? (or at least there are more of them)
And the french-segwit malleability fixes are complete? (or at least there are more of them)
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Great to see BCH cementing the 32MB limit. Demand will never reach this limit because of the limit itself.
couldn't have said it better myself
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
Yes, it's pretty funny. Peter did so much for the case against bsv. He rallied heavily for the vote to stop bsv support - without him emailing everybody, maybe even abusing the data he had access to as an bu official, bu would still support bsv. Maybe.
But this all doesn't help. The Amaury militia still accuses him of having been too friendly to bsv. They will always do, forever, they don't forget and don't forgive. Whenever there is a conflict between ABC and bu, the amauries will accuse Peter and Andrew to be the one at fault for the split (while it has been Amaury itself, but this makes it only more important for them to constantly blame Peter and Andrew).
more fee paying tx volume and bigger blocks don't matter, don't matter, don't matter; until it is all that matters.
I don't like to write here anymore because it's become a retarded BSV circlejerk, but this sentence of yours is very true sadly.
the real question you should be asking yourself is why you BCH cucks run and hide? i'd rather you stay and engage/attack our arguments so i can exercise my reasoning. you got it backwards.
Just reading that, I can't believe @deadalnix accusing @Peter R (and collectively BU) of not having skin in the game. BU has provably more BCH skin in the BCH game than ABC.
@deadalnix hasn't shown he has any skin in the BCH game, and he goes around accusing BU and Peter of not having sufficient skin in the game, what a joke. Is BCH some king of cult where you have to convert from one bitcoin to another to prove loyalty?
@deadalnix has succeeded in concentrating power in BCH governance under his control by pushing out nChain and attacking BU.
I can say with confidence that Peter is correct. I had a similar conversation with @deadalnix and @mangerion I can't believe the naivety, if nChain was a bad actor, ABC wouldn't have to project bad behaviour nChain would have become less and less rational over time and showed their true colours.
I think Peters's estimated split is also correct. I wound up giving BSV a chance on principle, ABC compromised on principles by concentrating power to make changes. The next stage of bitcoin is not about investing in the coin, it's about growing the demand for the coin. The people building the infrastructure have insider knowledge; they can see when the demand for the utilities they are creating is increasing.
The BCH splitting is truly a tragedy. Different opinions are a strength, not a weakness, compromise shows a willingness to cooperate. Great things are happening on both BSV and BCH, unfortunately, they are not synergistic.
[doublepost=1574023757][/doublepost]
I though @Peter R's proposal had room for splitting BCH and BSV development, that's what I understood by the 2 BUIP's maybe had he or someone else put forward a 3rd we'd seen support for BSV.
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Finally release! Support KaChing today and get your hands on our hardware wallet!
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/kaching-secure-bitcoin-wallet
looks like MW won't be a threat for a while:
[doublepost=1574098403][/doublepost]In legal terms, cryptoassets and smart contracts undoubtedly represent the future.
https://35z8e83m1ih83drye280o9d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/6.6056_JO_Cryptocurrencies_Statement_FINAL_WEB_111119-1.pdf
[doublepost=1574098403][/doublepost]In legal terms, cryptoassets and smart contracts undoubtedly represent the future.
https://35z8e83m1ih83drye280o9d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/6.6056_JO_Cryptocurrencies_Statement_FINAL_WEB_111119-1.pdf
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
kostialevin
Member
- Dec 21, 2015
- 55
- 147
Some take the view that the design of cryptoassets means that there is no need for traditional legal rules or processes. Law is irrelevant, it is sometimes said, because dealings are effected by non-legally-binding consensus between users, because cryptographic authentication and validation using strong encryption methods makes dealings irreversible, and because decentralisation and disintermediation means that there is no responsible party who can be compelled to act at the direction of a court. We do not agree. The design of cryptoassets may create some practical obstacles to legal intervention but that does not mean that cryptoassets are outside the law.