5 ms·

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 a

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.
- etherael 5y ago
  > Your argument is still predicated on the fact that BCH is the "real" Bitcoin, and that it's strictly better. No, it isn't. It accurately reflects the original intent as outlined in the whitepaper, that is not an argument or opinion, it is a fact. And it is also a fact that BTC does not. As for what's "real" well that's an entirely different question, even what's "better" is an entirely different question; maybe peer to peer currency for the world that disintermediates and thus disempowers the present mediators of the economy of the world would actually be catastrophic, those things are questions, arguments and matters of opinion, sure. But the underlying attributes of the things under discussion and what they actually are, are not, they are observable, indisputable facts of reality. > 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. Sure, and I think your position and argument is wrong, and I think the fact that it has continued to be attacked after the split whilst BTC has been in a holding pattern and accomplished absolutely nothing significant since except validating the warnings of everybody who said it was a sabotage attempt is evidence of that fact, but these are just opinions and arguments, so whatever. > IMO BCH would have lost anyways. And the critical factor is what it all boils down to; nobody ever got the chance to see, because the powers that be couldn't allow the question to be raised. That tells me everything I need to know about this. But it also doesn't change the fact that "the bad guy won" so, whatever. Cheating a win doesn't change the fact it's still a win.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    > It accurately reflects the original intent as outlined in the whitepaper, that is not an argument or opinion Sure, but I disagree that that matters. The whitepaper is not an authority, the project is allowed to evolve and that doesn't make it illegitimate. I think sticking to a whitepaper (that was written ages ago, long before any of this tech even gained any traction or real world usage) seems crazy to me, like some sort of religion / cargo cult. Do you see the original whitepaper as something that's perfect? No room for improvement or change in the ideas presented there? > Sure, and I think your position and argument is wrong, and I think the fact that it has continued to be attacked after the split whilst BTC has been in a holding pattern BTC has had tons of development (Lightning, time locks, signature schemes, smart contracts), especially compared to BCH which is pretty close to dead. It may not be the direction you want but don't mischaracterize it as a lack of development. > "the bad guy won" > Cheating a win doesn't change the fact it's still a win. There is no game, there are no rules, there are no "good and bad" guys. Respectfully, that's a pretty naive view of the world.

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.

etherael 5y ago
> Your argument is still predicated on the fact that BCH is the "real" Bitcoin, and that it's strictly better. No, it isn't. It accurately reflects the original intent as outlined in the whitepaper, that is not an argument or opinion, it is a fact. And it is also a fact that BTC does not. As for what's "real" well that's an entirely different question, even what's "better" is an entirely different question; maybe peer to peer currency for the world that disintermediates and thus disempowers the present mediators of the economy of the world would actually be catastrophic, those things are questions, arguments and matters of opinion, sure. But the underlying attributes of the things under discussion and what they actually are, are not, they are observable, indisputable facts of reality. > 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. Sure, and I think your position and argument is wrong, and I think the fact that it has continued to be attacked after the split whilst BTC has been in a holding pattern and accomplished absolutely nothing significant since except validating the warnings of everybody who said it was a sabotage attempt is evidence of that fact, but these are just opinions and arguments, so whatever. > IMO BCH would have lost anyways. And the critical factor is what it all boils down to; nobody ever got the chance to see, because the powers that be couldn't allow the question to be raised. That tells me everything I need to know about this. But it also doesn't change the fact that "the bad guy won" so, whatever. Cheating a win doesn't change the fact it's still a win.
- thebean11 5y ago
  > It accurately reflects the original intent as outlined in the whitepaper, that is not an argument or opinion Sure, but I disagree that that matters. The whitepaper is not an authority, the project is allowed to evolve and that doesn't make it illegitimate. I think sticking to a whitepaper (that was written ages ago, long before any of this tech even gained any traction or real world usage) seems crazy to me, like some sort of religion / cargo cult. Do you see the original whitepaper as something that's perfect? No room for improvement or change in the ideas presented there? > Sure, and I think your position and argument is wrong, and I think the fact that it has continued to be attacked after the split whilst BTC has been in a holding pattern BTC has had tons of development (Lightning, time locks, signature schemes, smart contracts), especially compared to BCH which is pretty close to dead. It may not be the direction you want but don't mischaracterize it as a lack of development. > "the bad guy won" > Cheating a win doesn't change the fact it's still a win. There is no game, there are no rules, there are no "good and bad" guys. Respectfully, that's a pretty naive view of the world.