Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

please don't let this piss you off

ahahahaha, you still here?

 

[Zarathustra]

BCH is now down to the same tx level as Dogecoin
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-bch-doge.html#3m

They even couldn't compete with Doge anymore if Blitz wouldn't spam their no-data(!) mainnet with data.

https://explorer.viabtc.com/bch/statistics/address/frequenttransactions

 

[torusJKL]

It is funny that they don't mention that the Blitz app creates 2/3 of the daily BCH transactions.
While making fun of the on-chain use cases BSV has.

 

[sgbett]

please don't let this piss you off

humour me... why would that piss anyone off?

 

[bitsko]

No way tiffany

 

[Bartab]

Boy, the narrative keeps changing.


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.


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.

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"?

What do you think happens to gold when asteroid mining will take place? Gold is DONE!

 

[AdrianX]

company is much more effective than a charity organisation

Yup. BU is not a charity. It's a company of like-minded people. If it has no income, it goes bankrupt.

@theZerg set it up such that it can service without income was smart. The people who get paid negotiate with the members who pay them. It's up to us to be more discerning.

Generally, no matter the company (legal or otherwise), if your conduct is insulting, it's practical to distance one's self. ( statements like shitcoin unlimited as an opening line is rather low on Graham's Hierarchy even if it's derived from rational concerns)

Bitcoin is defined in the white paper and the Genesis Block, whatever how it's interperated, differs.

So think of BU as a company. It can't run on donations. When it was conseved, it was not designed too.
[doublepost=1576186398][/doublepost]I'm happy to pay the money. It's not mine, and I hope the people who want some will complete getting some.

I also hope the people who get the money realize they need to produce work that generates revenue, and if they dont, it goes away. @Peter R and @Peter Tschipper are the reason BU has any money at all. So funding them this year is a no brainer

 

[bitsko]

freeze funds until bch is recognized a failure imo

 

[cypherdoc]

at least it's consistent with the theory of "freeze blocksize until demand is there" --> fail.

could be years; could be never. in the meantime, BCH will ossify like a fossil.
[doublepost=1576256212,1576255422][/doublepost]imo, there are not three sha256 chain choices, there are only two. BTC/BCH vs BSV.

BTC/BCH are stuck at 1MB/32MB respectively, imo. Amaury et al are stuck in the theory that further blocksize increases are not necessary/allowed until demand approaches 32MB. nvm that it suits a dev protocol leadership that wants mo-money to dev ancillary unnecessary anonymity or CTOR crap. if they removed the limit, like BSV is doing, their need goes away. can't have that. otoh, BSV wants to prepare for an unlimited future via the easiest, originally planned scaling method of a simple limit removal. it's working, as shown by the tx volume and blocksizes produced dominance. BSV devs are employed, as in they get a handsome paycheck, probably with some BSV coin (motivates making the coin more valuable). once the limit is removed (plus one or two more hardforks to remove DAA and cleanup), the paradox will be that they can sit back and let 'er run. life oftentimes is not fair; the less work (dev) they do the mo-money they will make. that's b/c they are pursuing the original vision and a market place that wants rule certainty.

 

[79b79aa8]

coingeek interview with @Christoph Bergmann.

 

[Norway]

From the interview with @Christoph Bergmann:

I think real data ownership can become a big issue. If you have your data encrypted onchain, it is always available for you, like it’s on your own disc, but you can access it from everywhere, and nobody can steal or destroy it. If you look at what all those big scary servers do, and how they get more and more influence over the lifes of people, we really need this. In some way the Metanet is our only chance to prevent the upcoming data tyranny.

But will people realize it? Will they get out of their beloved nanny zone under the hood of a scary server? Taking care of your own data is terrifying for most.

 

[cypherdoc]

ok, i've avoided criticizing Roger since he has done so much for the space, but he's now gone down the same path Voorhees took with Shapeshift years ago. it's impossible for him to be impartial/objective at this point:

 

[sgbett]

How does it go again?

"Oh brother"?

 

[cypherdoc]

actually , I've been framing this slightly wrong all along as the "refuse to upgrade" option . at this point, if CSW wants to push bsv coin stealing code that allows him to seize 1m coins, he would have to be the one to have to create the hard fork to do this, not the assumption that he could easily do this and force the community to have to hard fork away from him to have to save itself :

[doublepost=1576464383][/doublepost]btw, it would really help putting this question to rest if @shadders and @Otaci would come out and say that anything like this that CSW might want to push into the BSV code would be flat out rejected by them as the commit key holders .

 

[trinoxol]

The protocol is frozen. There is no possibility of changing the ownership of coins. This goes against the very reason why BSV exists.

These shenanigans are the most impossible on BSV of all chains. Other chains have done these kinds of repossessions (ETH). BTC has been talking about freezing or reclaiming the Satoshi coins (because they know that they are available to Craig). BTC is talking about adding inflation which is a wealth tax on everyone.

This possibly malicious rumor just shows how little the world understands about BSV. Rumors like this are peddled because enough people buy them.

 

[Norway]

Is it wrong to call Roger Ver Hex Jesus?

 

[Norway]

Thousands of blockchains.

But only one is taking scaling development seriously and demonstrating capacity both on live net and test net.

And only one is committing to a locked-down protocol, removing developer priesthood power.

These are the two main reasons Bitcoin (BSV) will be the only blockchain people use when the dust has settled.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

ok, i've avoided criticizing Roger since he has done so much for the space, but he's now gone down the same path Voorhees took with Shapeshift years ago. it's impossible for him to be impartial/objective at this point:

This is much worse than shapeshift. At its time it was an innovative platform to exchange many shitcoins.

Roger's platform is not innovative, and he doesn't list a lot of coins (?). Picking out hex from all options available incredibly stupid and borderline scammy.

 

[cypherdoc]

well, that's true. I agree that it's worse in the sense that he's going for the profit (mostly in fiat terms) in that exchanges have been proven to be the most profitable form of business to run in the space. also the fact that exchanges have to work in fiat (unlike Shapeshift) means that bitcoin.com will have to do AML KYC. I think this is what happens when you get so involved in the space in so many projects and political wars that you eventually just lose focus and ideals. as much money as he's made as an OG, he's probably lost alot too.

 

[torusJKL]

Picking out hex from all options available incredibly stupid and borderline scammy.

This is indeed odd.

If bitcoin.com doesn't want to list BSV, fine.
But then out of all the other coins bitcoin.com could have listed choosing Hex is very odd and makes me suspicious and looks like they got paid for doing so.