3 ms·

> Node operators who didn't intentionally switch over to the Bitcoin Cash software were mining on the original Bitcoin chain, not the other way around. Which i

> Node operators who didn't intentionally switch over to the Bitcoin Cash software were mining on the original Bitcoin chain, not the other way around. Which is to say; they were entirely duped by the complete change in direction and went right on just mining the way they were beforehand despite the difference. > The bcash "original vision" argument is extremely tiresome. If you think that's the "real Bitcoin" then you are free to use it, but that's not what the world at large settled on. "The world" didn't settle on anything, centralised exchanges allocated the BTC ticker to whatever was blessed by the core BTC client as "bitcoin core" and that's all she wrote. Most people have no idea it happened, and even fewer why or how. And the fact that happened so silently with so little fanfare and so completely is exactly why BTC is such an utter failure at what it actually set out to do and what so many people foolishly continue to believe it still is. > That's because most splits are basically worthless, not worth the trouble of cashing out. Bcash was an exception that gained traction, and most people did track it. Right, because you can't fool all the people all the time. You can do a good enough job though that even in relatively obscure forums like hacker news posters refer to the chain that just wanted to actually execute on the original mission by the derogatory title slapped onto it by the exact same saboteurs that forced their agenda over the original. And that matters at scale when you're considering the entirety of the global economy. It drastically impacts how much difference you can make. > Then use the other side of the fork? That isn't the point at all. If you invest in a hospital because you think it's a good investment and because you approve of the mission statement of a hospital, and it spins off an abbatoir and starts butchering baby calves and selling veal instead because it thinks that's somehow superior to the original mission, your ability to sell your stock in the abattoir doesn't change the fact that the economic impetus that went into the hospital is now almost entirely behind the abattoir. And so it has been with BTC, it was turned from decentralised currency to disintermediate central banks to a shitty, low quality, captured centralised settlement layer for those exact same central banks, and all the while it mostly kept the public relations layer from the original project, and most people still claim that's why they're interested in it, screaming calves in the abattoirs or not. The core point is they hold absolute power over BTC as an enterprise and what it is or will be able to accomplish in the future, and holders are purely along for the ride come what may.

thebean11 5y ago
> so silently with so little fanfare lol, were you around when this was going on? People were absolutely losing their shit about bcash. This post really takes me back to that honestly. > And so it has been with BTC, it was turned from decentralised currency to disintermediate central banks to a shitty, low quality, captured centralised settlement layer for those exact same central banks, and all the while it mostly kept the public relations layer from the original project, and most people still claim that's why they're interested in it, screaming calves in the abattoirs or not. We are not going to agree on that point. Consensus disagreed with you here, so I'm not sure what exactly you want to happen. Any system, not just a cryptocurrency, has the potential to split off from your specific viewpoints at any time. In this case it did, so what remediation do you want beyond the ability to sell out of the currency? > The core point is they hold absolute power over BTC Who is "they"? If you mean tiny group of developers I disagree. If you mean the developers + users + exchanges + merchants then yes, you are right. They reached a consensus and you are in the minority.
- etherael 5y ago
  > lol, were you around when this was going on? People were absolutely losing their shit about bcash. This post really takes me back to that honestly. I was, and I recall that the vast majority of trade volume was not constituted in USDT also. Both those things are no longer true, most trade now is USDT, and near enough to nobody has the faintest idea what actually happened back then. > We are not going to agree on that point. It's not a point of "agree or not agree". It's a point of fact. If you won't acknowledge the fact that a currency needs more than seven transactions per second across the globe in order to actually be used as a global currency, or that the lightning whitepaper itself says very clearly that it was designed to resemble the banking settlement network, that's just your ignorance, not something to be argued about. > Consensus disagreed with you here There wasn't any consensus, there was just centralised exchanges tagging the output of the core node software as BTC and that's all there was to it, I can dig up the bitfinex announcement of exactly that if you want to dispute the point, but once again, it's a simple fact. > so I'm not sure what exactly you want to happen. I'm completely out of that fight so I don't want anything to happen of course aside from the entire thing to fail miserably and be viewed as a cautionary tale. I don't think that will actually happen though, because the world is simply too full of ignorant and stupid people who desperately want to believe the lie they've been sold and moon lambo doing it. > Who is "they"? If you mean tiny group of developers I disagree Yes I mean the tiny group of core developers who actually already did this back in 2017, so once again, this is just a point of fact and there's nothing to dispute, and to the extent you try, you're simply outright wrong.

thebean11 5y ago

> so silently with so little fanfare lol, were you around when this was going on? People were absolutely losing their shit about bcash. This post really takes me back to that honestly. > And so it has been with BTC, it was turned from decentralised currency to disintermediate central banks to a shitty, low quality, captured centralised settlement layer for those exact same central banks, and all the while it mostly kept the public relations layer from the original project, and most people still claim that's why they're interested in it, screaming calves in the abattoirs or not. We are not going to agree on that point. Consensus disagreed with you here, so I'm not sure what exactly you want to happen. Any system, not just a cryptocurrency, has the potential to split off from your specific viewpoints at any time. In this case it did, so what remediation do you want beyond the ability to sell out of the currency? > The core point is they hold absolute power over BTC Who is "they"? If you mean tiny group of developers I disagree. If you mean the developers + users + exchanges + merchants then yes, you are right. They reached a consensus and you are in the minority.

etherael 5y ago
> lol, were you around when this was going on? People were absolutely losing their shit about bcash. This post really takes me back to that honestly. I was, and I recall that the vast majority of trade volume was not constituted in USDT also. Both those things are no longer true, most trade now is USDT, and near enough to nobody has the faintest idea what actually happened back then. > We are not going to agree on that point. It's not a point of "agree or not agree". It's a point of fact. If you won't acknowledge the fact that a currency needs more than seven transactions per second across the globe in order to actually be used as a global currency, or that the lightning whitepaper itself says very clearly that it was designed to resemble the banking settlement network, that's just your ignorance, not something to be argued about. > Consensus disagreed with you here There wasn't any consensus, there was just centralised exchanges tagging the output of the core node software as BTC and that's all there was to it, I can dig up the bitfinex announcement of exactly that if you want to dispute the point, but once again, it's a simple fact. > so I'm not sure what exactly you want to happen. I'm completely out of that fight so I don't want anything to happen of course aside from the entire thing to fail miserably and be viewed as a cautionary tale. I don't think that will actually happen though, because the world is simply too full of ignorant and stupid people who desperately want to believe the lie they've been sold and moon lambo doing it. > Who is "they"? If you mean tiny group of developers I disagree Yes I mean the tiny group of core developers who actually already did this back in 2017, so once again, this is just a point of fact and there's nothing to dispute, and to the extent you try, you're simply outright wrong.