3 ms·

I believe in both BTC and BCH in principle, and think it's good that the two factions are going separate ways because honestly speaking I've been disgusted with

I believe in both BTC and BCH in principle, and think it's good that the two factions are going separate ways because honestly speaking I've been disgusted with how the entire bitcoin community is relying on a bunch of people who do nothing more than tweeting all day spreading propaganda. These developers really would have made much more progress if Twitter didn't exist. That said, after the fork I thought things would cool down but I was wrong, it only intensified the propaganda and now I see so many people spreading false information and things taken out of context just for their own profit. And these people even shit on people who think bigger and say the two should coexist. The only reason people say the two shouldn't coexist in my opinion is either because of their ego or their greed (probably because they sold all their BCH and put it into BTC, and yes I only mostly see this behavior now on BTC people side) I think it's good for the future of cryptocurrency that two coexist because there's no saying one of the two may fail or go corrupt one day, and not having a strong enough alternative would mean we will have ended up with a compromised future. But to be honest, I'm getting sick of many of BTC core developers attacking BCH people as well as those [NO2x] and [NOBCH] idiots who just bitch on anyone who: 1. either sees any future in BCH 2. thinks it may be a good thing if the two can coexist. I think it is an important factor because nowadays whenever I think about building a piece of technology that will help the BTC community as a whole, the first thing that comes to my mind is, "By doing this all I'm going to do is make these assholes--who by the way do nothing but tweet around all day while I'm working on these things--richer, at a faster pace than myself". I hope other cryptocurrency developers learn from this and try to be "nice" so that the community actually thinks that these "early adopters" deserve their worth, which will help with contribution.

DonHopkins 9y ago
"I've been disgusted with how the entire bitcoin community is relying on a bunch of people who do nothing more than tweeting all day spreading propaganda." The fish rots from the head. See my posting about Brock Pierce, Director of the Bitcoin Foundation, and the film about him, "An Open Secret". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15681189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15681189 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5icPtmLsTy4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5icPtmLsTy4 Yeah, THIS Brock Pierce: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155736654012782&set=a.112810102781.118888.749357781&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155736654012782&se... The creepiest comment on that photo is "I'd love to see a pic of you shaking the Donald's hand, each wearing your respective hats. And Baron is going to need your advice and counsel. Need to make this happen."
- tfha 9y ago
  The bitcoin foundation plays a minimal role at best in the bitcoin ecosystem. They've never been very important, and they remain unimportant to this day
cesarb 9y ago
> That said, after the fork I thought things would cool down but I was wrong The issue is that both chains compete directly for hash power, since their hash mechanism is identical. If every miner is "rational" (for a simplified definition of "rational"), they would all mine on the most profitable chain, and the least profitable chain would instantly stop working. That is, the continued existence of BTC is an existential threat to BCH, and the continued existence of BCH is an existential threat to BTC. Therefore, those who have a stake on either of those chains feel threatened by the other chain.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  You're underestimating the power of speculation and greed. You scenario will never happen as long as human nature doesn't change. If too many people move to one chain, the speculative expected outcome of the other chain will rise, leading some people to switch back, etc. This is the very reason why Bitcoin works.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  You really don't need much hash power to make the network work. Remember in the very early days it ran on a couple CPU miners.
  - nosuchthing 9y ago
    That's not how it works. When computational hash power leaves the network, the difficulty won't readjust and transactions will slow down and clog for at least 2 weeks unless computational hash power returns.
etherael 9y ago
I don't see why the two should co-exist, given there is just no reason for the existence of BTC looking at the present landscape and positioning of the two. Forcing all the transaction throughput into a channel with bandwidth no greater than a few Fax machines is just stupid, and no argument exists to justify this position at all. It's really amazing that the forces backing it managed to delay it coming to a head all these years, but now that it finally has the conclusion appears mind numbingly obvious.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  That's because you're looking at it from transaction point of view. The BTC guys have been selling the "reserve currency" aspect for a while now, ever since it became apparent that there won't be a viable scaling solution anytime soon. So just looking at it from pure utilitarian view BCH is superior, but BTC team has a point too, because the larger block size does mean it has higher chance of being centralized. The thing is, nobody knows if this will actually result in centralization, nor does anyone know if being moderately centralized will be as bad as we expect. Anyone claiming to know what will happen is either ignorant or a liar. Anyway, to make my point clear, let's imagine BCH does succeed and end up dominating and BTC dies off. There's a chance that BCH will lead to centralization and won't be so different from what the Internet ended up becoming. If you look at how the Internet works nowadays, it's extremely centralized from top layer all the way to the bottom. For example DNS companies can ban certain organizations from existing online simply because there are so few DNS companies, and your ISP can monitor all your traffic and sue you if you download something on Torrent. And Facebook and Google owns everyone's attention online, etc. People who resist BCH are those who think BCH will end up evolving in that direction and kill off BTC in the process because obviously it's much more user friendly. If something like this happens, it's good to have an alternative which has equivalent influence. Also having a competition plays into the game theory of how each party will behave going forward. They won't be able to make drastic decisions if they have a close competitor. I don't think Ethereum is it even though I'm super bullish on Ethereum, because Ethereum is an entirely different beast.
  - etherael 9y ago

DonHopkins 9y ago

"I've been disgusted with how the entire bitcoin community is relying on a bunch of people who do nothing more than tweeting all day spreading propaganda." The fish rots from the head. See my posting about Brock Pierce, Director of the Bitcoin Foundation, and the film about him, "An Open Secret". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15681189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15681189 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5icPtmLsTy4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5icPtmLsTy4 Yeah, THIS Brock Pierce: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155736654012782&set=a.112810102781.118888.749357781&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155736654012782&se... The creepiest comment on that photo is "I'd love to see a pic of you shaking the Donald's hand, each wearing your respective hats. And Baron is going to need your advice and counsel. Need to make this happen."

tfha 9y ago
The bitcoin foundation plays a minimal role at best in the bitcoin ecosystem. They've never been very important, and they remain unimportant to this day

cesarb 9y ago

> That said, after the fork I thought things would cool down but I was wrong The issue is that both chains compete directly for hash power, since their hash mechanism is identical. If every miner is "rational" (for a simplified definition of "rational"), they would all mine on the most profitable chain, and the least profitable chain would instantly stop working. That is, the continued existence of BTC is an existential threat to BCH, and the continued existence of BCH is an existential threat to BTC. Therefore, those who have a stake on either of those chains feel threatened by the other chain.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
You're underestimating the power of speculation and greed. You scenario will never happen as long as human nature doesn't change. If too many people move to one chain, the speculative expected outcome of the other chain will rise, leading some people to switch back, etc. This is the very reason why Bitcoin works.
sliverstorm 9y ago
You really don't need much hash power to make the network work. Remember in the very early days it ran on a couple CPU miners.
- nosuchthing 9y ago
  That's not how it works. When computational hash power leaves the network, the difficulty won't readjust and transactions will slow down and clog for at least 2 weeks unless computational hash power returns.

etherael 9y ago

I don't see why the two should co-exist, given there is just no reason for the existence of BTC looking at the present landscape and positioning of the two. Forcing all the transaction throughput into a channel with bandwidth no greater than a few Fax machines is just stupid, and no argument exists to justify this position at all. It's really amazing that the forces backing it managed to delay it coming to a head all these years, but now that it finally has the conclusion appears mind numbingly obvious.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
That's because you're looking at it from transaction point of view. The BTC guys have been selling the "reserve currency" aspect for a while now, ever since it became apparent that there won't be a viable scaling solution anytime soon. So just looking at it from pure utilitarian view BCH is superior, but BTC team has a point too, because the larger block size does mean it has higher chance of being centralized. The thing is, nobody knows if this will actually result in centralization, nor does anyone know if being moderately centralized will be as bad as we expect. Anyone claiming to know what will happen is either ignorant or a liar. Anyway, to make my point clear, let's imagine BCH does succeed and end up dominating and BTC dies off. There's a chance that BCH will lead to centralization and won't be so different from what the Internet ended up becoming. If you look at how the Internet works nowadays, it's extremely centralized from top layer all the way to the bottom. For example DNS companies can ban certain organizations from existing online simply because there are so few DNS companies, and your ISP can monitor all your traffic and sue you if you download something on Torrent. And Facebook and Google owns everyone's attention online, etc. People who resist BCH are those who think BCH will end up evolving in that direction and kill off BTC in the process because obviously it's much more user friendly. If something like this happens, it's good to have an alternative which has equivalent influence. Also having a competition plays into the game theory of how each party will behave going forward. They won't be able to make drastic decisions if they have a close competitor. I don't think Ethereum is it even though I'm super bullish on Ethereum, because Ethereum is an entirely different beast.
- etherael 9y ago