4 ms·

Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin. They should just change the forked version to BCore or BStream, so as not to confuse people.

mancerayder 9y ago
Bitcoin Classic, like an original product that was brought back due to marketing creating demand.
- inferiorhuman 9y ago
  Original Recipe Bitcoin
tr4cefl0w 9y ago
I said it before and I’ll say it again, block size increase alone is not sustainable. The BCash boyz are stubborn and in denial. Might work for now but in the long term they will need another fork to increase the block size again and so on. They don’t have a Lightning Network either which is already available on Bitcoin Testnet and proved to be extremely fast (almost instant) at very low cost. I hold both but I’m realistic. I only hold BCash because I know the price is being pumped so I’ll make some money with it.
- blhack 9y ago
  And bcash isn't even living up to its claims right now. People are trying to move their coins out of storage onto exchanges, and seeing about an hour before they even get 1 confirmation.
  - makomk 9y ago
    It looks like the actual block size limit that most miners are using on Bitcoin Cash right now is 2MB, which isn't so much of an increase from Bitcoin at all. (The odd ones out are BTC.com with a 4MB limit and ViaBTC which has the full 8.) The new Cash difficulty algorithm also has an unfortunate tendency to oscillate when there's a sudden change in price relative to Bitcoin's price. Also, Bitcoin Cash supporters have a habit of... well, frankly, outright lying sometimes. They were still pushing the idea it was faster than Bitcoin back when it was running at hours per block most of the time, and the usual response to people who discovered this was to tell them that the block time varied and was as low as a minute per block. This was technically true - in fact, often an equal number of blocks were produced at the minutes per block and hours per block rate, in alternating 144 block chunks of each. Can you perhaps see the problem here?
- Alex3917 9y ago
  > block size increase alone is not sustainable Then they can just implement Segwit. I'm not really seeing the problem here. One version of Bitcoin works today, the other doesn't. It's not really that complicated.
  - makomk 9y ago
    It was hard enough to get the support required to implement SegWit on Bitcoin proper, even though it had a far more immediate need for it. Bitcoin Cash was literally founded for the purpose of avoiding SegWit and making the Lightning Network impossible. The idea that all its supporters will suddenly see the light of SegWit is implausible.
    - Alex3917 9y ago
      Most Bitcoin Cash supporters supported Segwit, they just didn’t support Core artificially limiting the block size to force people to use their proprietary solution and then lying about it.
jsutton 9y ago
Bitcoin Cash is the forked version, you're getting them mixed up.
- taysic 9y ago
  There were about 11 hard forks to Bitcoin before Bitcoin Cash was created - some of them temporarily decreasing the block size with the intention of putting it back into place when needed. BTC veered from that intention.
  - hndamien 9y ago
    11! Please inform me of these, they must have been very, very early, I'm only aware of the Berkley DB bug.
MertsA 9y ago
Rather than engage in an argument on semantics let's look at the facts of the matter. The Bitcoin project has been the organization behind the official Bitcoin client since Satoshi was still around. If you were to start up an ancient Bitcoin client today it would follow the Bitcoin project's chain. The BCash chain would be considered invalid as it does not conform to the restrictions of a valid block according to the ancient Bitcoin client. The Bitcoin project chain would still be considered a valid chain. Contrary to most of the FUD around Segwit, the reason why it is considered a soft fork is because while it is a change in what constitutes a valid block, it does not violate any of the previous rules for a valid block.

mancerayder 9y ago

Bitcoin Classic, like an original product that was brought back due to marketing creating demand.

inferiorhuman 9y ago
Original Recipe Bitcoin

tr4cefl0w 9y ago

I said it before and I’ll say it again, block size increase alone is not sustainable. The BCash boyz are stubborn and in denial. Might work for now but in the long term they will need another fork to increase the block size again and so on. They don’t have a Lightning Network either which is already available on Bitcoin Testnet and proved to be extremely fast (almost instant) at very low cost. I hold both but I’m realistic. I only hold BCash because I know the price is being pumped so I’ll make some money with it.

blhack 9y ago
And bcash isn't even living up to its claims right now. People are trying to move their coins out of storage onto exchanges, and seeing about an hour before they even get 1 confirmation.
- makomk 9y ago
  It looks like the actual block size limit that most miners are using on Bitcoin Cash right now is 2MB, which isn't so much of an increase from Bitcoin at all. (The odd ones out are BTC.com with a 4MB limit and ViaBTC which has the full 8.) The new Cash difficulty algorithm also has an unfortunate tendency to oscillate when there's a sudden change in price relative to Bitcoin's price. Also, Bitcoin Cash supporters have a habit of... well, frankly, outright lying sometimes. They were still pushing the idea it was faster than Bitcoin back when it was running at hours per block most of the time, and the usual response to people who discovered this was to tell them that the block time varied and was as low as a minute per block. This was technically true - in fact, often an equal number of blocks were produced at the minutes per block and hours per block rate, in alternating 144 block chunks of each. Can you perhaps see the problem here?
Alex3917 9y ago
> block size increase alone is not sustainable Then they can just implement Segwit. I'm not really seeing the problem here. One version of Bitcoin works today, the other doesn't. It's not really that complicated.
- makomk 9y ago
  It was hard enough to get the support required to implement SegWit on Bitcoin proper, even though it had a far more immediate need for it. Bitcoin Cash was literally founded for the purpose of avoiding SegWit and making the Lightning Network impossible. The idea that all its supporters will suddenly see the light of SegWit is implausible.
  - Alex3917 9y ago
    Most Bitcoin Cash supporters supported Segwit, they just didn’t support Core artificially limiting the block size to force people to use their proprietary solution and then lying about it.

jsutton 9y ago

Bitcoin Cash is the forked version, you're getting them mixed up.

taysic 9y ago
There were about 11 hard forks to Bitcoin before Bitcoin Cash was created - some of them temporarily decreasing the block size with the intention of putting it back into place when needed. BTC veered from that intention.
- hndamien 9y ago
  11! Please inform me of these, they must have been very, very early, I'm only aware of the Berkley DB bug.

MertsA 9y ago

Rather than engage in an argument on semantics let's look at the facts of the matter. The Bitcoin project has been the organization behind the official Bitcoin client since Satoshi was still around. If you were to start up an ancient Bitcoin client today it would follow the Bitcoin project's chain. The BCash chain would be considered invalid as it does not conform to the restrictions of a valid block according to the ancient Bitcoin client. The Bitcoin project chain would still be considered a valid chain. Contrary to most of the FUD around Segwit, the reason why it is considered a soft fork is because while it is a change in what constitutes a valid block, it does not violate any of the previous rules for a valid block.