Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[AdrianX]

Bitcoin Cash, and the miners supporting ABC, had more hash power, and the other group (SV) plainly lost.

The Chain split on the first block, no amount of PoW would have changed the outcome, ABC designed their fork to be incompatible with the previous chain, there was no competition to extend the original chain with new rules, SV wanted to hash it out, they did not get the opportunity as ABC forked them off.

 

[freetrader]

no amount of PoW would have changed the outcome

Boy, the narrative keeps changing.

ABC designed their fork to be incompatible with the previous chain

Not ABC, the BCH development community settled on features for the upgrade.
Yes, in BCH we hard fork every 6 months, get used to it, those are not compatible with the existing chain, in order so that new features can be introduced. If you don't like this, then BCH is probably not for you.

there was no competition to extend the original chain with new rules

What do you even mean?
You can't "extend the original chain with new rules" unless it's a soft fork only.
There are two non-soft-fork extensions of the original chain with differing new rules - one is called BCH and the other is BSV.

SV wanted to hash it out

You can't even keep your argument consistent within one comment post. How can they "hash it out" if as you say, "no amount of PoW would have changed the outcome"?

 

[AdrianX]

I never said I pushed an ABC commit.

OK, I'll bite, for what project was it? Was it even a bitcoin-related project?
[doublepost=1575227064][/doublepost]

Here's the commit information, without divulging the subject of the commit.

I can use this any time I please to prove what I say has been true (cryptographic hashes, remember?).


So

You would never have the privilege.

thanks, so @cypherdoc was correct when suggesting your last commit to ABC was your last comit. You were misdirecting by insisting it wasn't.

 

[AdrianX]

No narrative change, my comment history is here for review.

Not ABC, the BCH development community settled on features for the upgrade.

Which community was that? not nCHain, BU or reddit. bitcoincash.org dictated, and those who followed were listed as compatible.

 

[freetrader]

OK, I'll bite, for what project was it? Was it even a bitcoin-related project?

It is a bitcoincash-related infrastructure. So the answer is yes.

thanks, so @cypherdoc was correct when suggesting your last commit to ABC was your last comit. You were misdirecting by insisting it wasn't.

@cypherdoc was lying by suggesting I'd stopped developing for BCH immediately after the fork.
The referenced commit's date is way past the date of BCH creation.
Even the fact that I developed on ABC for months after BCH was launched, indicates that cyperdoc's statement was false.

You were misdirecting by insisting it wasn't.

You are unfortunately misdirecting by lending your support to cypherdoc's false claims.

Which community was that? not nCHain, BU or reddit. bitcoincash.org dictated, and those who followed were listed as compatible.

A significant majority of the Bitcoin Cash community supported the features listed for the upgrade (and elaborated in the specification repo) for the November 2018 upgrade.
This became very evident after the split of BSV.

 

[cypherdoc]

>@cypherdoc was lying by suggesting I'd stopped developing for BCH immediately after the fork.

and that "suggestion" (not a lie) still stands until or unless you provide the data that confirms the hash. and then it would still not be a lie, just a wrong assumption/suggestion. I've already stated I can't be sure but continue to be highly suspicious. btw, why all the secrecy? I thought Bitcoin was open source? surely you shouldn't mind us taking a look (and hashing) at your supposed Bitcoin Cash infrastructure code so we can see if it ever got merged? and to see that you're not lying.

 

[freetrader]

 

[lunar]

Ouch

 

[AdrianX]

What do you even mean?
You can't "extend the original chain with new rules" unless it's a soft fork only.

if new rules were introduced one at a time BIP135 style, and let's say X% supported the rule and Y% did not, you would hash it out with PoW keeping the network intact and get those supporting or opposing the rules to put skin in the game. Splitting the network is a cop-out.

 

[torusJKL]

A significant majority of the Bitcoin Cash community supported the features listed for the upgrade (and elaborated in the specification repo) for the November 2018 upgrade.

In a system (Bitcoin) where the Byzantine Generals problem has been solved with PoW some people always go back to the "community", a fuzzy group of (anonymous) individuals and organizations that are not part of the PoW and hence we can't trust them as a source of truth in a PoW system.

@freetrader This is not the first time.
You don't understand Bitcoin and PoW.

 

[freetrader]

@torusJKL

You claim I don't understand PoW and Bitcoin.

But BSV split off with incompatible consensus rules, having a minority of the hashpower, in a "hashwar" they wanted to engage in (in fact it looked more like a pathetic dick measuring contest with predictable outcome to me).

They lost, and here you all are, complaining about it while you ought to be spending time building BSV's "multiple clients".

I think you project too much.
[doublepost=1575281063][/doublepost]

Splitting the network is a cop-out.

Tell it to Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre next time you see them.

 

[cypherdoc]

may I remind everyone. this is what @freetrader said in a thread about banning BU members ;

>No, that's exactly what we wanted. A definite split from SegwitCoin. You're not on board with that - then fuck right off back to /r/Bitcoin or wherever.

 

[freetrader]

No, that's exactly what we wanted. A definite split from SegwitCoin. You're not on board with that - then fuck right off back to /r/Bitcoin or wherever.

And I remind everyone, @cypherdoc posed as a Bitcoin Cash supporter for a long time, knowing one of the reasons it forked was to increase the blocksize, and the other to avoid shit like Segwit.

Whoever does some research on this forum, on Reddit and on my blog, can find out that my position towards Segwit has been consistent. I always supported a big-block fork to fork away from BTC before Segwit took effect on the BTC's chain.

@cypherdoc has recently rediscovered his love for BTC.

Let's wait til he finds out that his other love, BSV, doesn't have Segwit, because it forked off from BCH instead of BTC.

 

[torusJKL]

But BSV split off with incompatible consensus rules

You are twisting the words to your advantage.
The ABC and SV both introduced incompatible consensus rules.
You can't single aout SV because at that time SV was as much part of BCH as ABC.

having a minority of the hashpower

CoinGeek had a majority hashrate for months prior to the split.
They were almost the only ones mining at a loss to show PoW and their commitment to the chain.

in a "hashwar" they wanted to engage in (in fact it looked more like a pathetic dick measuring contest with predictable outcome to me)

Here is it again your misunderstanding of PoW.
You always return to social media as the source of truth.
Why is it so important to you what people say on social media when you can see what they do with PoW?

This is why I say you don't understand Bitcoin.
You are just making my point again and again.

They lost, and here you all are, complaining about it while you ought to be spending time building BSV's "multiple clients".

They "lost" the ticker because the exchanges colluded with ABC to assign the ticker to the ABC rules after the short sprint by Bitcoin.com

With this move they secured the value of the coin and the hash rate going further.

BSV did not lose the hash war because there was none.
No chain attacked the other.

Short term hash rate and exchange rate doesn't matter.

The jury is still out.
My money is on BSV.

I think you project too much.

Cheap move.
Use arguments.

 

[cypherdoc]

>posed?

what I was led to believe was that a hash war would destroy btc so there would remain one chain. that is, until you abruptly inserted replay protection. and BCH deviated away from PoW to some limited half breed of a coin.

>rediscovered his love for BTC.

to lie by trying to say I'm in love with btc is so ludicrous that I have to laugh as should everyone else around here who's followed my years long postings on the matter. you don't get to just make up lies around here @freetrader. yours is the kinda sad manipulation that makes you look bad.
[doublepost=1575284964][/doublepost]>You are twisting the words to your advantage.

This has become his normal strategy over the last year since outted. expect a ramp up in intensity on his part.

we're being psyop'd.

 

[cypherdoc]

so, @freetrader's entire basis for trying to say I've rediscovered my love for BTC is based on this innocent comment where I say we need to give some credit to core devs for keeping the genesis block coins unspendable so as to prevent a fork at the time of introduction of the UTXO construct:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1566#post-100904

this is an example of how low and distorted the quality of his postings have become and why I am so suspicious that he's here to not just chain split but to divide and conquer using classic social media tactics.

 

[AdrianX]

Tell it to Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre next time you see them.

nChain split for the same reasons ABC used to split from Core's hegemony. ABC refused to compromise or adopt BIP135 or accommodate the concerns of the other miners and implementation on BCH. As irrational as nChain may have seemed, ABC was the implementation with more support and thus in the position to negotiate without having to abuse its power. ABC has not understood why many people supported BCH, the lack of insight has led them down the same road Core is headed.

Bitcoin is still on life-support, BSV is pulling it together. Investors now are building, creating value for the next wave of adoption. Bitcoin is secured by incentives, ABC is not exhibiting a good understanding of Bitcoin through analysis of their conduct. No business wants to be forked off or build on a protocol that has a roadmap controlled by a handfull of people.

 

[cypherdoc]

I thought this was rich of @freetrader accusing me of Blockstream tactics for deleting my reddit posts as a routine healthy practice. like I said, I'd delete them here and on twitter too if they had a shreddit tool. I just think it's smart practice:

I notice in that thread you either deleted all your comments, or (probably) your entire Reddit account.
Typical intelellectually dishonest behavior that I've seen plenty from the Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side. Oh, I forgot - also massively popular on the BSV side.

since two can play this game, who does @freetrader's submission of a hash as proof of commit remind you of? I explain below:

Here's the commit information, without divulging the subject of the commit.

I can use this any time I please to prove what I say has been true (cryptographic hashes, remember?).

commit df4de60f16e3e504296a1c7d5bef3ed6b36b8da0
Author: ftrader <freetrader@tuta.io>
Date: Fri Mar 22 14:41:19 2019 +0100

@freetrader gives us just a hash and expects us to accept that's proof alone that he has submitted a legitimate BCH commit, to his private server of all places . we can't verify that without the data (commit). yet @freetrader rips CSW when he submits addresses to court as proof he owns the balances (we can't verify this either without a private key signing). and then @freetrader angrily states he'll prove it on his own terms if and when he wants to. facepalm. let's be clear, I don't condone either of their proof methods but it seems @freetrader willingly takes a page out of CSW's book when it's convenient

what a hypocrite:

https://i.redd.it/j8e7w1vuk0z21.jpg

 

[freetrader]

Whatever smear-tactics-for-dummies course you went to, just ask for your money back....
The difference between me and CSW is that I don't have to forge anything in a court of law

 

[cypherdoc]

ACCEPT MY HASH