4 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.
- etherael 5y ago
  Most people aren't even aware that it happened so you're miles ahead of the game just from that alone. As far as forcing them to do it, if the market was more aware and willing to actually pursue the purpose of all this to begin with it would have been trivial for all of us to put our money where our mouth was at the time and boycott bitfinex and anybody else who dared follow them on the same nonsense. But because of a combination of the usdt fraud, outright censorship and narrative manipulation, and last of all the fundamental unalterable stupidity of the vast majority of the species, that's not what happened. BCH had a brief boom to 0.5 BTC and ever since its trudged endlessly forward with very little growth still faithfully executing on the original agenda whilst simultaneously being barraged with new split attacks and simple name calling from people who if they understood the actual facts on the ground, should be doing the exact opposite. But that's life. We're stuck with the world we have and the nature of the people in it, warts and all. We don't get to wish them away, we must contend with it as it actually is. And any currency that can't operate with those realities of human nature as they are is going to always have that problem to contend with because if there's one thing I've learned about humans at scale, it's that they don't change. I keep that in mind constantly now and the education I got from the experience is priceless and it's the primary lens through which I see most things now; keeping that fundamental lie of equality and the common sense of humanity and how we're all invulnerable to propaganda in mind. It's definitely served me well over the past few years, so hats off to the Machiavellian psychopaths responsible for the entire episode I guess.
  - etherael 5y ago
    Also, it's a critical point to make; the hashpower doesn't "choose" anything, it just mines whatever is the most profitable at any given point in time. Any other strategy loses to that.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    Your argument is still predicated on the fact that BCH is the "real" Bitcoin, and that it's strictly better. Even before Bitfinix chose the ticker this was heavily under discussion. I personally disagree with you, and think the larger block sizes were shortsighted, and Bitcoins path towards smaller transactions and layer twos is the more responsible approach. IMO BCH would have lost anyways.

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.

etherael 5y ago
Most people aren't even aware that it happened so you're miles ahead of the game just from that alone. As far as forcing them to do it, if the market was more aware and willing to actually pursue the purpose of all this to begin with it would have been trivial for all of us to put our money where our mouth was at the time and boycott bitfinex and anybody else who dared follow them on the same nonsense. But because of a combination of the usdt fraud, outright censorship and narrative manipulation, and last of all the fundamental unalterable stupidity of the vast majority of the species, that's not what happened. BCH had a brief boom to 0.5 BTC and ever since its trudged endlessly forward with very little growth still faithfully executing on the original agenda whilst simultaneously being barraged with new split attacks and simple name calling from people who if they understood the actual facts on the ground, should be doing the exact opposite. But that's life. We're stuck with the world we have and the nature of the people in it, warts and all. We don't get to wish them away, we must contend with it as it actually is. And any currency that can't operate with those realities of human nature as they are is going to always have that problem to contend with because if there's one thing I've learned about humans at scale, it's that they don't change. I keep that in mind constantly now and the education I got from the experience is priceless and it's the primary lens through which I see most things now; keeping that fundamental lie of equality and the common sense of humanity and how we're all invulnerable to propaganda in mind. It's definitely served me well over the past few years, so hats off to the Machiavellian psychopaths responsible for the entire episode I guess.
- etherael 5y ago
  Also, it's a critical point to make; the hashpower doesn't "choose" anything, it just mines whatever is the most profitable at any given point in time. Any other strategy loses to that.
- thebean11 5y ago
  Your argument is still predicated on the fact that BCH is the "real" Bitcoin, and that it's strictly better. Even before Bitfinix chose the ticker this was heavily under discussion. I personally disagree with you, and think the larger block sizes were shortsighted, and Bitcoins path towards smaller transactions and layer twos is the more responsible approach. IMO BCH would have lost anyways.