12 ms·

They never should have allowed it in the first place. By testing the waters of trading custodial currencies they were really pushing the limits. BTC has been a

They never should have allowed it in the first place. By testing the waters of trading custodial currencies they were really pushing the limits. BTC has been a joke ever since the GitHub repo was hijacked by Blockstream and Adam Back. The only interesting cryptocurrencies are Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash and Monero. The rest are either obvious scams or dead ends at this point. A lot of people were holding out hope for decentalized storage projects like FileCoin but that project now seems to be dead in the water as well.

37ef_ced3 6y ago
The above shouldn't be downvoted. It's an interesting statement What do you think of the Lightning Network? Lightning Network channels specify a blockchain hash, so Bitcoin is supported but other cryptocurrencies could be used (if the HTLC scripts, etc., were ported) The Lightning Network web of payment channels looks good to me. You can see how it can form an efficient "overlay" on any cryptocurrency that provides sufficient scripting power: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
- etrabroline 6y ago
  Lightning is not reliable the way Bitcoin is, and correspondingly has not seen any real-world adoption. It is effectively dead.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >and correspondingly has not seen any real-world adoption. It is effectively dead. but https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to-launch-bitcoin-lightning-%E2%9A%A1%EF%B8%8F-integration-in-2021/ https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to... and https://coingate.com/lightning-network https://coingate.com/lightning-network
    - etrabroline 6y ago
      > In 2021 So they are still putting money into the project and promising things in the future. Years ago, before venture capital took over BTC, I could buy games on Steam with Bitcoin. Can I buy video games with Lightning? https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to-launch-bitcoin-lightning-%E2%9A%A1%EF%B8%8F-integration-in-2021/ https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to... > https://coingate.com/lightning-network https://coingate.com/lightning-network Ok. What can I actually buy with it? There's tons of venture capital going into this project and no commerce happening. Bitcoin had more real commerce 5 years ago than BTC and Lightning combined do today.
      - gruez 6y ago
        >So they are still putting money into the project and promising things in the future. I don't get it. A major cryptocurrency exchange says they're planning to adopt it, and that doesn't count as "real-world adoption"? I guess that's true if your original statement read as "not seen any real-world adoption ...[today]" but it certainly doesn't follow that it's dead. >Ok. What can I actually buy with it? One of the merchants I've made multiple purchases on uses coingate for payments so that's something for me, at least. That said I'll admit that I haven't used lightning yet because I'm quite happy with the status quo of waiting for a lull in transaction volume so I can pay pennies per transaction (my payments aren't usually urgent). Going through the hassle setting up a lightning node isn't worth saving a few pennies each month in my opinion. >Years ago, before venture capital took over BTC, I could buy games on Steam with Bitcoin. Can I buy video games with Lightning? To be fair, bitcoin was launched in 2009 and it took until 2016 for steam to accept it. How many years has lightning been around? Also, while looking up when steam first accepted bitcoin I also found https://twitter.com/udiWertheimer/status/952206482715660289 https://twitter.com/udiWertheimer/status/952206482715660289, which answers your second question.
      - aeternum 6y ago
        You could buy Steam games years ago because Bitcoin volume was low. Just try some math: How large would blocks need to be to handle just 50% of Visa's current US transaction rate?
- splintercell 6y ago
  I find LN's UX really painful. Ethereum's layer 2 solutions are far ahead in terms of user experience. The other day I had to settle an election bet, and either I settle it in stablecoin on high tx fees of ETH/BTC or try explaining one of the layer-2 solutions. And no, I can't pay them in USDT on bch because that requires them to get a new wallet. Raiden network which is Ethereum's LN like solution, faces the same problem. Whatever bitcoin folks envision, they will never get LN bitcoins to have the same network effect as bitcoin itself.
  - nullc 6y ago
    > I find LN's UX really painful. What did you find painful, and which wallet(s)?
logicslave 6y ago
I thought filecoin had a successful launch?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  https://www.axios.com/filecoin-blockchain-delay-3b5e6b9a-bcc8-41cf-81cf-563f6cebb2c4.html https://www.axios.com/filecoin-blockchain-delay-3b5e6b9a-bcc...
  - logicslave 6y ago
    Yeah but they successfully ICO'd since then and the market cap has held its value
briefcomment 6y ago
> “BTC has been a joke ever since the GitHub repo was hijacked by Blockstream and Adam Back” Could you spell out the implications of this?
- est31 6y ago
  I don't think there are any major implications. The point of blockchain currencies is to be decentralized so hacking a random github repo shouldn't have major implications. It's not even the only bitcoin node implementation out there at this point.
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    Before wall street involvement there was a single fork of Bitcoin that was a viable currency with low transaction fees. After Wall Street involvement there are at least 3 forks, the biggest of which had fees spiking at 60 USD per transaction making it nonviable for anything but speculators, and the others having very low adoption. The protocol was decentralized but enough of the community that controlled it was bought out to bring it down. EDIT: calling something a lie does not make it so. also, what on earth is hateful here
    - nullc 6y ago
      This is a hateful lie.
      - CyberDildonics 6y ago
        Not it isn't, it's just information you don't want people to see.
    - grubles 6y ago
      Unused blockchains have no / low transaction fees. >When people started using Bitcoin, fees went up! That's how it is supposed to work.
      - 6y ago
gnrl 6y ago
I don't see any additional value of bcash over bitcoin. Eth and Monero I agree though, each of them bring fundamental values additionally to btc.
- spurgu 6y ago
  The argument as far as I'm aware is that it's like Bitcoin, except with transaction fees low enough to make it actually usable as a currency as opposed to being a pure store of value.
  - haolez 6y ago
    It's not only that. There is also the "replace by fee" stuff that allows BCH to make instant payments with 0 confirmations for small values. This was hinted by Satoshi as well, but was made impossible by the current BTC.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >It's not only that. There is also the "replace by fee" stuff that allows BCH to make instant payments with 0 confirmations for small values. Can you elaborate on this? I did a quick search and the gist of it seems to be that BCH doesn't support replace by fee and bitcoin does, so therefore it's possible to "safely" accept 0 confirmation transactions on BCH because you can reasonably believe that it won't be double-spent before it gets its first confirmation. The only problem I can think of is that there's nothing preventing the attacker (the person making the purchase) from bribing a miner to mine his double spend transaction. Indeed, even without RPF there are "transaction accelerators"[1] that allow you make out of band payments to miners to increase your transaction's priority. It's not too hard to imagine a service where you can pay $$$ for a miner to mine your double-spend transaction. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_accelerator https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_accelerator
      - pstrateman 6y ago
        He's extremely confused. The bcash people argued that replace-by-fee (RBF) functionality made unconfirmed transactions unsafe to accept. Except as you can tell from the name, unconfirmed transactions are not safe to accept RBF or not.
traceddd 6y ago
It says more about bcash than bitcoin that it’s supporters feel the need to push a (false) narrative anywhere they can.
seibelj 6y ago
This is clearly FUD pushed by bitcoin cash supporters. I’m coin-agnostic and don’t get into these fights but bitcoin is 100% doing exactly what it was designed to do.
- etrabroline 6y ago
  >bitcoin is 100% doing exactly what it was designed to do Bitcoin was designed to allow low-fee small amount internet commerce. From the first paragraph of Satoshi's white paper: >The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions [emphasis added] This is clearly no longer the case with the BTC fork of Bitcoin: https://privacypros.io/tools/bitcoin-fee-estimator/ https://privacypros.io/tools/bitcoin-fee-estimator/ Therefore BTC is not doing what it was designed to do.
- lhl 6y ago
  Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System - “The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.” https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Average transaction fees are frequently $5-10 these days, which completely invalidates the original proposed use case for a system that would enable “small casual transactions.” https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... Since transactions will only increase in price as demand grows (and the tx limit has been effectively capped for years), I don’t see Bitcoin ever improving in this regard. Bitcoin may be successful as a speculative asset and for other purposes, but as “peer-to-peer electronic cash” it’s a failure.
grubles 6y ago
Just to note: the "Bitcoin was hijacked by <corp>" is a running joke at this point and not to be taken seriously. Ask anyone to provide verifiable proof of this and they will respond with hyperbole or conspiracy theory.
- FreeTrade 6y ago
  I'm seeing a lot of valid concerns and criticisms of Blockstream's actions and methods. I dont think they can be dismissed with ad hominems.
  - nullc 6y ago
    > I'm seeing a lot of valid concerns and criticisms of Blockstream's actions and methods I've carefully reviewed each post in the thread and cannot find that. Instead, I see a couple vague and clearly false allegations which are unambiguously debunked. What specifically are you referring to? For the avoidance of confusion, the anonymous maintainer of "Bitcoin Cash" (a deceptively named Bitcoin clone) is named "Freetrader". Are you they?
    - FreeTrade 6y ago
      No, different guy.
kallewoof 6y ago
The Blockstream hijack lie is getting really old. And it doesn't age well either. Both gmax and pieter are not even in it anymore. Blockstream's contributions (what you consider 'hijacking') to Bitcoin are pretty slim at this point. Which is a pity, honestly. Blockstream was a good force for bitcoin, despite the continuous stream of baseless lies coming from you people. Gmax made a much better summary of why your statements are all baseless babbling below...

37ef_ced3 6y ago

The above shouldn't be downvoted. It's an interesting statement What do you think of the Lightning Network? Lightning Network channels specify a blockchain hash, so Bitcoin is supported but other cryptocurrencies could be used (if the HTLC scripts, etc., were ported) The Lightning Network web of payment channels looks good to me. You can see how it can form an efficient "overlay" on any cryptocurrency that provides sufficient scripting power: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

etrabroline 6y ago
Lightning is not reliable the way Bitcoin is, and correspondingly has not seen any real-world adoption. It is effectively dead.
- gruez 6y ago
  >and correspondingly has not seen any real-world adoption. It is effectively dead. but https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to-launch-bitcoin-lightning-%E2%9A%A1%EF%B8%8F-integration-in-2021/ https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to... and https://coingate.com/lightning-network https://coingate.com/lightning-network
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    > In 2021 So they are still putting money into the project and promising things in the future. Years ago, before venture capital took over BTC, I could buy games on Steam with Bitcoin. Can I buy video games with Lightning? https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to-launch-bitcoin-lightning-%E2%9A%A1%EF%B8%8F-integration-in-2021/ https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to... > https://coingate.com/lightning-network https://coingate.com/lightning-network Ok. What can I actually buy with it? There's tons of venture capital going into this project and no commerce happening. Bitcoin had more real commerce 5 years ago than BTC and Lightning combined do today.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >So they are still putting money into the project and promising things in the future. I don't get it. A major cryptocurrency exchange says they're planning to adopt it, and that doesn't count as "real-world adoption"? I guess that's true if your original statement read as "not seen any real-world adoption ...[today]" but it certainly doesn't follow that it's dead. >Ok. What can I actually buy with it? One of the merchants I've made multiple purchases on uses coingate for payments so that's something for me, at least. That said I'll admit that I haven't used lightning yet because I'm quite happy with the status quo of waiting for a lull in transaction volume so I can pay pennies per transaction (my payments aren't usually urgent). Going through the hassle setting up a lightning node isn't worth saving a few pennies each month in my opinion. >Years ago, before venture capital took over BTC, I could buy games on Steam with Bitcoin. Can I buy video games with Lightning? To be fair, bitcoin was launched in 2009 and it took until 2016 for steam to accept it. How many years has lightning been around? Also, while looking up when steam first accepted bitcoin I also found https://twitter.com/udiWertheimer/status/952206482715660289 https://twitter.com/udiWertheimer/status/952206482715660289, which answers your second question.
    - aeternum 6y ago
      You could buy Steam games years ago because Bitcoin volume was low. Just try some math: How large would blocks need to be to handle just 50% of Visa's current US transaction rate?
splintercell 6y ago
I find LN's UX really painful. Ethereum's layer 2 solutions are far ahead in terms of user experience. The other day I had to settle an election bet, and either I settle it in stablecoin on high tx fees of ETH/BTC or try explaining one of the layer-2 solutions. And no, I can't pay them in USDT on bch because that requires them to get a new wallet. Raiden network which is Ethereum's LN like solution, faces the same problem. Whatever bitcoin folks envision, they will never get LN bitcoins to have the same network effect as bitcoin itself.
- nullc 6y ago
  > I find LN's UX really painful. What did you find painful, and which wallet(s)?

logicslave 6y ago

I thought filecoin had a successful launch?

ceejayoz 6y ago
https://www.axios.com/filecoin-blockchain-delay-3b5e6b9a-bcc8-41cf-81cf-563f6cebb2c4.html https://www.axios.com/filecoin-blockchain-delay-3b5e6b9a-bcc...
- logicslave 6y ago
  Yeah but they successfully ICO'd since then and the market cap has held its value

briefcomment 6y ago

> “BTC has been a joke ever since the GitHub repo was hijacked by Blockstream and Adam Back” Could you spell out the implications of this?

est31 6y ago
I don't think there are any major implications. The point of blockchain currencies is to be decentralized so hacking a random github repo shouldn't have major implications. It's not even the only bitcoin node implementation out there at this point.
- etrabroline 6y ago
  Before wall street involvement there was a single fork of Bitcoin that was a viable currency with low transaction fees. After Wall Street involvement there are at least 3 forks, the biggest of which had fees spiking at 60 USD per transaction making it nonviable for anything but speculators, and the others having very low adoption. The protocol was decentralized but enough of the community that controlled it was bought out to bring it down. EDIT: calling something a lie does not make it so. also, what on earth is hateful here
  - nullc 6y ago
    This is a hateful lie.
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      Not it isn't, it's just information you don't want people to see.
  - grubles 6y ago
    Unused blockchains have no / low transaction fees. >When people started using Bitcoin, fees went up! That's how it is supposed to work.
    - 6y ago

gnrl 6y ago

I don't see any additional value of bcash over bitcoin. Eth and Monero I agree though, each of them bring fundamental values additionally to btc.

spurgu 6y ago
The argument as far as I'm aware is that it's like Bitcoin, except with transaction fees low enough to make it actually usable as a currency as opposed to being a pure store of value.
- haolez 6y ago
  It's not only that. There is also the "replace by fee" stuff that allows BCH to make instant payments with 0 confirmations for small values. This was hinted by Satoshi as well, but was made impossible by the current BTC.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >It's not only that. There is also the "replace by fee" stuff that allows BCH to make instant payments with 0 confirmations for small values. Can you elaborate on this? I did a quick search and the gist of it seems to be that BCH doesn't support replace by fee and bitcoin does, so therefore it's possible to "safely" accept 0 confirmation transactions on BCH because you can reasonably believe that it won't be double-spent before it gets its first confirmation. The only problem I can think of is that there's nothing preventing the attacker (the person making the purchase) from bribing a miner to mine his double spend transaction. Indeed, even without RPF there are "transaction accelerators"[1] that allow you make out of band payments to miners to increase your transaction's priority. It's not too hard to imagine a service where you can pay $$$ for a miner to mine your double-spend transaction. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_accelerator https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_accelerator
    - pstrateman 6y ago
      He's extremely confused. The bcash people argued that replace-by-fee (RBF) functionality made unconfirmed transactions unsafe to accept. Except as you can tell from the name, unconfirmed transactions are not safe to accept RBF or not.

traceddd 6y ago

It says more about bcash than bitcoin that it’s supporters feel the need to push a (false) narrative anywhere they can.

seibelj 6y ago

This is clearly FUD pushed by bitcoin cash supporters. I’m coin-agnostic and don’t get into these fights but bitcoin is 100% doing exactly what it was designed to do.

etrabroline 6y ago
>bitcoin is 100% doing exactly what it was designed to do Bitcoin was designed to allow low-fee small amount internet commerce. From the first paragraph of Satoshi's white paper: >The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions [emphasis added] This is clearly no longer the case with the BTC fork of Bitcoin: https://privacypros.io/tools/bitcoin-fee-estimator/ https://privacypros.io/tools/bitcoin-fee-estimator/ Therefore BTC is not doing what it was designed to do.
lhl 6y ago
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System - “The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.” https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Average transaction fees are frequently $5-10 these days, which completely invalidates the original proposed use case for a system that would enable “small casual transactions.” https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... Since transactions will only increase in price as demand grows (and the tx limit has been effectively capped for years), I don’t see Bitcoin ever improving in this regard. Bitcoin may be successful as a speculative asset and for other purposes, but as “peer-to-peer electronic cash” it’s a failure.

grubles 6y ago

Just to note: the "Bitcoin was hijacked by <corp>" is a running joke at this point and not to be taken seriously. Ask anyone to provide verifiable proof of this and they will respond with hyperbole or conspiracy theory.

FreeTrade 6y ago
I'm seeing a lot of valid concerns and criticisms of Blockstream's actions and methods. I dont think they can be dismissed with ad hominems.
- nullc 6y ago
  > I'm seeing a lot of valid concerns and criticisms of Blockstream's actions and methods I've carefully reviewed each post in the thread and cannot find that. Instead, I see a couple vague and clearly false allegations which are unambiguously debunked. What specifically are you referring to? For the avoidance of confusion, the anonymous maintainer of "Bitcoin Cash" (a deceptively named Bitcoin clone) is named "Freetrader". Are you they?
  - FreeTrade 6y ago
    No, different guy.

kallewoof 6y ago

The Blockstream hijack lie is getting really old. And it doesn't age well either. Both gmax and pieter are not even in it anymore. Blockstream's contributions (what you consider 'hijacking') to Bitcoin are pretty slim at this point. Which is a pity, honestly. Blockstream was a good force for bitcoin, despite the continuous stream of baseless lies coming from you people. Gmax made a much better summary of why your statements are all baseless babbling below...