3 ms·

> 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, an

> 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
Nobody is disputing that BTC needs to scale throughput, you misunderstand my point. Bcash was a disagreement on how to scale it. Again, it's been discussed to death. What I'm trying to get out of you is how the "winning fork" should be decided, beyond just "I think my fork should have won". How should the exchanges have done it? Just listed both at BTC? I really don't get what you want here. > Yes I mean the tiny group of core developers who actually already did this back in 2017 The group of developers running the centralized exchanges, who you also blame?
- etherael 5y ago
  > Nobody is disputing that BTC needs to scale throughput, you misunderstand my point. Bcash was a disagreement on how to scale it. And changing a bridge into an airport might be characterised as a disagreement on how to cross the river in question, but that characterisation would be utterly dishonest. The fact that people accepted the same dishonest characterisation when it came to "lets change decentralised global peer to peer currency to a settlement network for central banks and let them handle the last mile of transactions" is exactly my point and exactly why things are so utterly hopelessly broken. People really didn't question this nonsense as much as they actually saw it, and most people never even saw it to begin with to question it, it's ancient history now, buried, but absolutely undisputed that while the exchanges simply bless whatever the core devs say is BTC as such, they hold the power to define what that is. > What I'm trying to get out of you is how the "winning fork" should be decided, beyond just "I think my fork should have won". Exactly how it was going to be done before bitfinex (who is also invested in blockstream, whose CTO at the time was the head of the faction responsible for this inane nonsense) changed to the "whatever the core devs say is what we'll bless as BTC" and then all the other exchanges backed off and followed bitfinex assumedly as to not allow the chaotic confusion that would ensue if the original plan to follow the hashpower was held to. And that is how I believe it should've been done. That's how it was done on later splits between BCH and BSV, and then again between BCH and XEC. In fact that's how it's always done, generally speaking, except in this isolated case when it is likely because of the incestuous relationship between all the parties involved to fix the match to castrate BTC entirely. > The group of developers running the centralized exchanges The group of developers who get to decide entirely on their own what is the canonical chain, in light of the fact that for this precedent, the exchanges allocate them that privilege as discussed above.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - thebean11 5y ago
    I see, I definitely don't disagree that hashpower would have been a good way to decide this. I also don't see how force centralized exchanges to follow those rules though. I don't expect the hashpower would have gone in the BCH direction, but I may be wrong.

thebean11 5y ago

Nobody is disputing that BTC needs to scale throughput, you misunderstand my point. Bcash was a disagreement on how to scale it. Again, it's been discussed to death. What I'm trying to get out of you is how the "winning fork" should be decided, beyond just "I think my fork should have won". How should the exchanges have done it? Just listed both at BTC? I really don't get what you want here. > Yes I mean the tiny group of core developers who actually already did this back in 2017 The group of developers running the centralized exchanges, who you also blame?

etherael 5y ago
> Nobody is disputing that BTC needs to scale throughput, you misunderstand my point. Bcash was a disagreement on how to scale it. And changing a bridge into an airport might be characterised as a disagreement on how to cross the river in question, but that characterisation would be utterly dishonest. The fact that people accepted the same dishonest characterisation when it came to "lets change decentralised global peer to peer currency to a settlement network for central banks and let them handle the last mile of transactions" is exactly my point and exactly why things are so utterly hopelessly broken. People really didn't question this nonsense as much as they actually saw it, and most people never even saw it to begin with to question it, it's ancient history now, buried, but absolutely undisputed that while the exchanges simply bless whatever the core devs say is BTC as such, they hold the power to define what that is. > What I'm trying to get out of you is how the "winning fork" should be decided, beyond just "I think my fork should have won". Exactly how it was going to be done before bitfinex (who is also invested in blockstream, whose CTO at the time was the head of the faction responsible for this inane nonsense) changed to the "whatever the core devs say is what we'll bless as BTC" and then all the other exchanges backed off and followed bitfinex assumedly as to not allow the chaotic confusion that would ensue if the original plan to follow the hashpower was held to. And that is how I believe it should've been done. That's how it was done on later splits between BCH and BSV, and then again between BCH and XEC. In fact that's how it's always done, generally speaking, except in this isolated case when it is likely because of the incestuous relationship between all the parties involved to fix the match to castrate BTC entirely. > The group of developers running the centralized exchanges The group of developers who get to decide entirely on their own what is the canonical chain, in light of the fact that for this precedent, the exchanges allocate them that privilege as discussed above.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thebean11 5y ago
  I see, I definitely don't disagree that hashpower would have been a good way to decide this. I also don't see how force centralized exchanges to follow those rules though. I don't expect the hashpower would have gone in the BCH direction, but I may be wrong.