4 ms·

It's more a reaction to Bitcoin Cash officially insisting that it's the "real" bitcoin, and trying to actively misleading users by referring to BTC as "Bitcoin

by ryebit 9y ago

It's more a reaction to Bitcoin Cash officially insisting that it's the "real" bitcoin, and trying to actively misleading users by referring to BTC as "Bitcoin Core", creating a false parity to make it seem like they're both equal "forks" that bitcoin split into. I've tried to refer to them using the less loaded "BTC" and "BCH" symbols instead; but it's kindof getting tiring, hearing people insist "Bitcoin Cash is Satoshi's True Vision". It's like somebody starting a "Apple Phone LLC" and saying it's Steve Jobs' true vision, ignore that other "Apple" company.

anonymous5133 9y ago
The difference is that you have to look at the attributes of each coin and see which one most likely reflects the white paper that satoshi himself wrote. He is talking about a P2P cash system, not a P2P gold system. Just because the first generation of bitcoin was the beginning doesn't mean it still reflects the original vision.
- Frogolocalypse 9y ago
  A peer, in bitcoin, is a node. If you don't run a node, or indeed if you can't run a node because of its resource requirements, you aren't a peer. Bitcoin : Peer-to-peer cash. You went right over the first part, and only talk about the second part, even though in the first part, the word 'peer' is used twice.
  - theadamp 9y ago
    "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate." - Satoshi Nakamoto https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306
    - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
      160,000 nodes have a different view than your selective quote, and they control consensus.
asciimo 9y ago
I think a better analogy would be if Steve Wozniak started a new company called Apple Electronics back in the middle 80s.
MichaelGG 9y ago
The comparison to Apple is funny. Are you suggesting Bitcoin is a centralised company with a trademark? If suddenly someone spins up a million bitcoin cash nodes will you call it bitcoin? If total PoW exceeds core will you? If core finally hard forks to increase the blocksize will you stop calling it bitcoin? But that you'd compare it to Apple, that's just weird.

by ryebit 9y ago

anonymous5133 9y ago

The difference is that you have to look at the attributes of each coin and see which one most likely reflects the white paper that satoshi himself wrote. He is talking about a P2P cash system, not a P2P gold system. Just because the first generation of bitcoin was the beginning doesn't mean it still reflects the original vision.

Frogolocalypse 9y ago
A peer, in bitcoin, is a node. If you don't run a node, or indeed if you can't run a node because of its resource requirements, you aren't a peer. Bitcoin : Peer-to-peer cash. You went right over the first part, and only talk about the second part, even though in the first part, the word 'peer' is used twice.
- theadamp 9y ago
  "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate." - Satoshi Nakamoto https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306
  - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
    160,000 nodes have a different view than your selective quote, and they control consensus.

asciimo 9y ago

I think a better analogy would be if Steve Wozniak started a new company called Apple Electronics back in the middle 80s.

MichaelGG 9y ago

The comparison to Apple is funny. Are you suggesting Bitcoin is a centralised company with a trademark? If suddenly someone spins up a million bitcoin cash nodes will you call it bitcoin? If total PoW exceeds core will you? If core finally hard forks to increase the blocksize will you stop calling it bitcoin? But that you'd compare it to Apple, that's just weird.