4 ms·

BCH, it should be noted, has nothing to do with Bitcoin other than appropriating the name...

by all_blue_chucks 9y ago

a_t48 9y ago
And forking the BTC blockchain.
- hndamien 9y ago
  And the blockchain history.
  - dane-pgp 9y ago
    And living up to Satoshi's original vision of a "purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash".
    - hndamien 9y ago
      Not really. I think Monero has that mantle. Mining was supposed to be decentralised and the cash was supposed to be fungible.
      - dane-pgp 9y ago
        Is Bitcoin Cash mining not decentralised? https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/thisweek https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/thisweek Also I'm not sure what definition of fungible you are using that doesn't include Bitcoin Cash, but here's another spurious definition for you: A cryptocurrency isn't fungible if most wallets have balances that can't be spent because of fees. https://www.newsbtc.com/2017/11/17/bitpay-ceo-claims-current-average-bitcoin-fee-makes-57-26-wallet-balances-unspendable/ https://www.newsbtc.com/2017/11/17/bitpay-ceo-claims-current...
        hndamien 9y ago
        It isn't as decentralised as Monero. 5 pools control 60% hashrate for BCH, the top 5 XMR pools control 13% (Yuge difference). Also, Monero has a dynamic block size, so it is somewhat future proofed while BCH has another hardfork if it is successful. And fungible means that each unit of the currency is indistinguishable from another unit. BCH and Bitcoin both leave trails, therefore, are not fungible.
        shanusmagnus 9y ago
        The usual definition of fungible is that one coin (more precisely, one spend output) is as good as another (e.g., the same amount coming from a different UTXO) and they are not distinguishable from each other due to their provenance. Put more simply, if the coins can be 'tainted' because they were transferred to you from a ransomware hoard then they're not fungible because a merchant could say: "I'm not taking those coins, I don't want to be associated with ransomware. You have to pay me with other coins." Neither BTC nor BCH has this kind of fungibility, though Monero does.
        dane-pgp 9y ago
        I could see (some) merchants applying a blacklist to wallets that are known to be "evil" (as decided by some third party, somehow), but it's hard to imagine a non-negligible proportion of the bitcoin marketplace ever blacklisting all coins which have at any time in history been held by a ransomeware writer. The possibility of denying business to innocent customers is too great, and the benefits too small. If some bizarre counter-productive legislation does come in requiring such a system for bitcoin, then yes, Monero might suddenly become more fungible in practice.
        hndamien 9y ago
        There is no "more fungible". It is either fungible or it isn't. Provenance can either be determined, or it can't. Sure there may be a degree of difficulty to determine provenance for some things, but if you cannot determine provenance at all, there is no degree.
    - qsucvatz 9y ago
      And support by the original developers of Bitcoin, for scaling by blocksize and exponential growth of computing, bandwidth, and storage.
      - keymone 9y ago
        and here i thought that scaling distributed systems is very hard problem. it turns out you just bump a number in configuration. quick, patent it and sell to google for billions!
        dane-pgp 9y ago
        We managed to scale the internet from dial-up to broadband without needing any hardcoded bitrate parameters imposed across the whole network. Bitcoin Cash seems to be doing just fine with its 8 megabyte blocks.
        keymone 9y ago
        by "we managed" you mean the network of centralized gateways? because that's how internet works, just in case you didn't know. we grew past the global scale fully connected topologies somewhere in late 80s if not earlier (i was in ussr kindergarden at that time, so please somebody correct me). > Bitcoin Cash seems to be doing just fine with its 8 megabyte blocks is it maybe because nobody is using it? :) blocks are 15 times smaller, tps is 10 times lower, USD transferred per day is 50 times lower. gee, no wonder bitcoin cash is doing just fine, it's a copy of bitcoin and that kind of load is where bitcoin was couple years ago.
        dane-pgp 9y ago
        Having a two-tier system (if that's how you want to picture the internet) is still a valid way of scaling, as Satoshi said: "At that stage, most users should start running client-only software and only the specialist server farms keep running full network nodes, kind of like how the usenet network has consolidated." You're right that Bitcoin Cash usually has fewer transactions than Bitcoin Core, though, which alleviates scaling pressure. Similarly, now that people are switching to Bitcoin Cash and altcoins, that same scaling solution is working for Bitcoin Core too. https://i.redd.it/wbpq99paw74z.png https://i.redd.it/wbpq99paw74z.png
    - rajacombinator 9y ago
      This is a really bad catchphrase by the bcash crowd because it sets up bcash as “electronic cash” vs btc “store of value”, when bcash is actually both, as in Satoshi’s vision. Shame bcash is spearheaded by such an untrustworthy team. Their argument is in the right but held back by poor tactics.
  - rajacombinator 9y ago
    The blockchain is the history bro ...
    - hndamien 9y ago
      No it isn’t bro, otherwise they would be the same. They are only the same from a specific block. There is a difference in being implicit and explicit.
thomasrognon 9y ago
That's an incredibly misleading statement, regardless of what side of the community you're aligned with.

BCH, it should be noted, has nothing to do with Bitcoin other than appropriating the name...

a_t48 9y ago

And forking the BTC blockchain.

hndamien 9y ago
And the blockchain history.
- dane-pgp 9y ago
  And living up to Satoshi's original vision of a "purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash".
  - hndamien 9y ago
    Not really. I think Monero has that mantle. Mining was supposed to be decentralised and the cash was supposed to be fungible.
    - dane-pgp 9y ago
      Is Bitcoin Cash mining not decentralised? https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/thisweek https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/thisweek Also I'm not sure what definition of fungible you are using that doesn't include Bitcoin Cash, but here's another spurious definition for you: A cryptocurrency isn't fungible if most wallets have balances that can't be spent because of fees. https://www.newsbtc.com/2017/11/17/bitpay-ceo-claims-current-average-bitcoin-fee-makes-57-26-wallet-balances-unspendable/ https://www.newsbtc.com/2017/11/17/bitpay-ceo-claims-current...
      - hndamien 9y ago
        It isn't as decentralised as Monero. 5 pools control 60% hashrate for BCH, the top 5 XMR pools control 13% (Yuge difference). Also, Monero has a dynamic block size, so it is somewhat future proofed while BCH has another hardfork if it is successful. And fungible means that each unit of the currency is indistinguishable from another unit. BCH and Bitcoin both leave trails, therefore, are not fungible.
      - shanusmagnus 9y ago
        The usual definition of fungible is that one coin (more precisely, one spend output) is as good as another (e.g., the same amount coming from a different UTXO) and they are not distinguishable from each other due to their provenance. Put more simply, if the coins can be 'tainted' because they were transferred to you from a ransomware hoard then they're not fungible because a merchant could say: "I'm not taking those coins, I don't want to be associated with ransomware. You have to pay me with other coins." Neither BTC nor BCH has this kind of fungibility, though Monero does.
        dane-pgp 9y ago
        I could see (some) merchants applying a blacklist to wallets that are known to be "evil" (as decided by some third party, somehow), but it's hard to imagine a non-negligible proportion of the bitcoin marketplace ever blacklisting all coins which have at any time in history been held by a ransomeware writer. The possibility of denying business to innocent customers is too great, and the benefits too small. If some bizarre counter-productive legislation does come in requiring such a system for bitcoin, then yes, Monero might suddenly become more fungible in practice.
        hndamien 9y ago
        There is no "more fungible". It is either fungible or it isn't. Provenance can either be determined, or it can't. Sure there may be a degree of difficulty to determine provenance for some things, but if you cannot determine provenance at all, there is no degree.
  - qsucvatz 9y ago
    And support by the original developers of Bitcoin, for scaling by blocksize and exponential growth of computing, bandwidth, and storage.
    - keymone 9y ago
      and here i thought that scaling distributed systems is very hard problem. it turns out you just bump a number in configuration. quick, patent it and sell to google for billions!
      - dane-pgp 9y ago
        We managed to scale the internet from dial-up to broadband without needing any hardcoded bitrate parameters imposed across the whole network. Bitcoin Cash seems to be doing just fine with its 8 megabyte blocks.
        keymone 9y ago
        by "we managed" you mean the network of centralized gateways? because that's how internet works, just in case you didn't know. we grew past the global scale fully connected topologies somewhere in late 80s if not earlier (i was in ussr kindergarden at that time, so please somebody correct me). > Bitcoin Cash seems to be doing just fine with its 8 megabyte blocks is it maybe because nobody is using it? :) blocks are 15 times smaller, tps is 10 times lower, USD transferred per day is 50 times lower. gee, no wonder bitcoin cash is doing just fine, it's a copy of bitcoin and that kind of load is where bitcoin was couple years ago.
        dane-pgp 9y ago
        Having a two-tier system (if that's how you want to picture the internet) is still a valid way of scaling, as Satoshi said: "At that stage, most users should start running client-only software and only the specialist server farms keep running full network nodes, kind of like how the usenet network has consolidated." You're right that Bitcoin Cash usually has fewer transactions than Bitcoin Core, though, which alleviates scaling pressure. Similarly, now that people are switching to Bitcoin Cash and altcoins, that same scaling solution is working for Bitcoin Core too. https://i.redd.it/wbpq99paw74z.png https://i.redd.it/wbpq99paw74z.png
  - rajacombinator 9y ago
    This is a really bad catchphrase by the bcash crowd because it sets up bcash as “electronic cash” vs btc “store of value”, when bcash is actually both, as in Satoshi’s vision. Shame bcash is spearheaded by such an untrustworthy team. Their argument is in the right but held back by poor tactics.
- rajacombinator 9y ago
  The blockchain is the history bro ...
  - hndamien 9y ago
    No it isn’t bro, otherwise they would be the same. They are only the same from a specific block. There is a difference in being implicit and explicit.

thomasrognon 9y ago

That's an incredibly misleading statement, regardless of what side of the community you're aligned with.