6 ms·
They should not have used the similar name in the first place during the fork and the aggressive marketing on CNBC about bcash as the original Bitcoin added mor
by vthallam 9y ago
They should not have used the similar name in the first place during the fork and the aggressive marketing on CNBC about bcash as the original Bitcoin added more confusion to the people and as I see the systems too.
Though Anecdotal, none I know even talking about Bitcoin Cash. Can we not rename it already? It would be better for investors and also Bitcoin Cash team.
- gruez 9y ago>Can we not rename it already? You answered it yourself. >the aggressive marketing on CNBC about bcash as the original Bitcoin The confusing naming clearly benefits them more than it harms.
- vthallam 9y ago> The confusing naming clearly benefits them more than it harms. That's what I thought. It helped them initially, but if you see even after launching on the biggest US exchange, their price hardly moved or there's hardly news or predictions about bitcoin cash. People are reading, albeit slowly, it wouldn't help them in the longer run. If all they want is to use the name, pump and cash out, sure I think they succeeded.
- granitosaurus 9y agoIt's a fork of X why couldn't it use X in it's name? OpenBSD should have BSD in it's name either?
- vim_wannabe 9y agoBitcoin in the name is the only thing that holds the value. Other currencies have noticed and are quickly naming themselves after Bitcoin, like ZClassic renaming to Bitcoin Private.
- sillysaurus3 9y agoSounds like it's time for decentralized trademark enforcement.
- mkirklions 9y agoCan someone get Circle Pay to give me my BCH? Would like to sell before BCH hits 0.
- mtgx 9y ago> like ZClassic renaming to Bitcoin Private I'm not even mad about that. If anything, it has frustrated me that Bitcoin developers don't seem to want anything to do with implementing privacy features on top of Bitcoin. So I wouldn't mind Bitcoin Private dethroning Bitcoin in the future, even though I don't think they use the best cryptocurrency privacy technologies out there.
- setr 9y agoActually there's nothing really stopping you from using "bitcoin" directly is there A thousand currencies, of all the same name
- smaps 9y ago"bcash" as you call it really is more like the original Bitcoin than bcore. The whole chain split and scaling debate shouldn't have existed, the 1mb limit was only put in place as a temporary measure to stop spam early on in Bitcoin's life.
- imtringued 9y agoYes Bitcoin Cash wouldn't have to exist if the original bitcoin just accepted the 2x blocksize increase. That would have given Bitcoin one or two years more time until scaling becomes a problem again. That's enough time for Lightning Network to be completed.
- xorcist 9y agoScaling is what limits capacity increase. A block size increase, taken in isolation, does not change scaling. It only means capacity is increased. And while it would be welcome to increase capacity, there are many ways to do that. Coinbase fixing their broken wallet would single handedly give more spare capacity than any other measure right now. If their customers would instead choose a service where you pay low or no fees we wouldn't have the fee spikes we have right now. To argue that a globally coordinated rule change is somehow the easy way out requires some very good explanation. That said, it might be prudent to mention in this context that we activated a blocksize increase only a few months ago. The opt-in, non-coordinated kind, which you are free to use at any time. (Unless you are with Coinbase, of course. In which case, see above.)
- tedunangst 9y agoHow robust can a blockchain be if a single wayward service can cripple the network?
- xorcist 9y agoThat's a very good question! It's robust in the sense that there is a lot of work produced with no downtime, but not very in the sense that most people gets less useful work out of it. Consider the case there most users would like to tumble their coins before each transaction, as was the case with certain markets, preferably a full 16 rounds and how that would affect usability of the system as a whole. This problem affects dark net markets just as well as exchanges. There are also other real life examples too, of single wayward services that made the blockchain harder to use for everyone, such as the casino which recorded a transaction in the global ledger for all eternity for every dice roll. Those are all priced out now, together with some of the more excessive tumblers, but that solution could be considered crippling the network. Are there "too big to fail" services within the Bitcoin ecosystem? Matters are complicated further by the fact that the exchange in question foot the bill to their customers, one customer at a time, so the economic impact for them is negligible. Why "fail", then? Well, it turns out that somebody looked at their hot wallets recently and noted that the mostly inappropriate choices of transactions to make had resulted in a non trivial amount of non-spendable dust collecting. In a bank run situation, that would result in them not being able to fully empty their wallets. The further down we investigate, the more there is to learn.
- mkirklions 9y agoBCH shills are relying that BCH will change its name. It obviously hasnt happened, and at this point its approaching Fraud. Moms/Casuals who bought Bitcoin in december bought BTC. They dont know what BCH is.
- qsucvatz 9y agoMore know BCH is Bitcoin every day.
- Alex3917 9y agoThen BStream should have changed their name when they decided not to double the blocksize.
- IncRnd 9y agoShould Canada, Australia, or the many other countries who have their own Dollar currencies all rename their money?
- vthallam 9y agoMan, I see there are a lot of BCH fan boys here. Can we please have a debate or discussion instead of down votes?
- qsucvatz 9y agoSure thing. BCH scales as Bitcoin was supposed to. It is supported by the original Bitcoin developers. It's electronic cash, directly peer to peer, not hub and spoke like Lightning. Bitcoin is now BCH.