3 ms·
The name "Bitcoin Cash" is confusing, and the authors meant it that way, so they can piggyback on the branding. There is no reason that the name of an unauthor
by topmonk 9y ago
The name "Bitcoin Cash" is confusing, and the authors meant it that way, so they can piggyback on the branding.
There is no reason that the name of an unauthorized fork of a cryptocurrency should use the name of the original within it.
- Nursie 9y agoUnauthorized? In a decentralised system based wholly around cypherpunk distrust of central authorisation, you call something unauthorised? I'm not sure if that's hilarious or just sad.
- topmonk 9y agoOh, it's "just sad", for sure... There has to be some acknowledgement that if you take someone else's work and modify it, you shouldn't then be allowed to claim you are them.
- Nursie 9y agoDo you not see the irony in what you're saying here? It is by definition a decentralised, anarchic system. The idea of authorisation or ownership of the one true core is hilarious.
- topmonk 9y ago> The idea of authorisation or ownership of the one true core is hilarious. That's great, but it's not what I wrote. What "one true core"? Taking someone's software, modifying it, and touting your change as the next version of their software is wrong. Regardless if the code is meant for a block chain, or anything else.
- Nursie 9y agoBut that's exactly what's happened with Bitcoin, as collaborative work.
- topmonk 9y agoWhat? Satoshi disappeared! The rest of the developers continued on. How is that comparable to bitcoin cash trying to do a hostile take over of bitcoin, simply because they want to take the brand name for themselves?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]