3 ms·
> If you fork a project, even if yours becomes more popular, that doesn't mean you get to take over the original name. That's exactly what happened with BTC. A
by etherael 4y ago
> If you fork a project, even if yours becomes more popular, that doesn't mean you get to take over the original name.
That's exactly what happened with BTC. And yet almost everybody calls it Bitcoin.
- ntoskrnl 4y agoBCH changed the blocksize and thus became incompatible with the original network. If you're claiming that the project that kept the blocksize the same and remained backwards compatible is the fork, then I'm done here and I wish you the best of luck.
- etherael 4y agoIt was the original plan to change the blocksize all along. Satoshi said in 2009: "The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size." Some latecoming BTC core devs cancelled that plan, with zero justification, changed the consensus mechanism for the chain from hashpower to fiat declaration by fraudulent centralised exchange running a pump and dump scam with fake money, and sabotaged the entire project in the process into complete uselessness, and to this day we're stuck with people who believe a fundamental financial revolution is going to take place on a chain that was forced to 4tx/second and get very angry, confused or surprised when you point out that such a change is clear and obvious sabotage. If you're claiming otherwise, then I'm done here and I wish you the best of luck.