6 ms·

> Verbatim Anyone can fork bitcoin, swap out icons, and change the genesis block. By definition, that is not "verbatim". Your comment is like someone being an

> Verbatim Anyone can fork bitcoin, swap out icons, and change the genesis block. By definition, that is not "verbatim". Your comment is like someone being angry that their WordPress site isn't as popular as WordPress.org.

CyberDildonics 4y ago
The parent comment was saying bitcoin is the only decentralized cryptocurrency, which is ridiculous and has nothing to do with ledgers, it is about the mechanics of synchronization. If someone told you anything different than this, you might want to diversify your sources of information on how these things work. Saying bitcoin is the only decentralized cryptocurrency is like saying yahoo is the only website that exists.
- ashwagary 4y ago
  I believe "only really decentralized" meant, where important components are concerned (minings, nodes, development, adoption, marketing, etc) bitcoin sets the standards and maintains a balance. Cant have a second immaculate conception where this particular template is concerned.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    Again, nothing about what you are saying makes sense. Mechanics of the system and some mining dictate decentralization. Non mining nodes only help relay blocks, development is a matter of syncing the source code with other people and trying to lump in adoption and marketing is completely detached from reality. You might love bitcoin (and its dialup speed throughput of a few kilobytes a second for the whole world), but somehow trying to backward rationalize decentralization as only bitcoin is some 1984 level propaganda and reality denial. This is beyond just not understanding some aspects of cryptocurrency and into flat earth style actively ignoring easily provable facts.
    - ashwagary 4y ago
      I disagree. 1. There is no founder directing the project (big plus). "Dear leader" doesnt direct development which is unique compared to almost 100% of the shitcoins in the space. 1b. You think adoption rate and the decentralized movement that pushes/promotes adoption is irrelevant? I'm sure all the centralized shitcoin (aka unregistered security) founders would find your view on this hilarious. 2. Non mining nodes ensure transactions/blocks followed certain rules. When attached to wallets and services, that means much more than "just relaying blocks". 3. Layer 1 scaling is poor design. Larger blockchain = less nodes due to more expensive hardware requirements = more centralization. BSV and BCH are mostly dead because of getting this wrong, no debate about it. The original poster is more right than wrong in his view.
      - CyberDildonics 4y ago
        This all reads like straight propaganda from /r/bitcoin and none of it is true. Decentralization of a currency doesn't mean or have to do with development, that is a separate issue. Still, whoever controls github commits is going to control the reference implementation and that isn't many people. Decentralization refers to being able to use money electronically without any third party's permission. All the rest of this are obvious talking points to try to redefine bitcoin as more unique than it is. It was always completely possible to copy everything and modify any part of it. Part of the excitement is that there is actual competition in currencies. Non mining nodes ensure transactions/blocks followed certain rules. When attached to wallets and services, that means much more than "just relaying blocks". This part is just a straight lie and someone has grossly mislead you. Non mining blocks have nothing to do with making blocks or deciding anything. All they can do is relay blocks that the miner decide. This is like someone printing books, those books being sold on amazon and a hundred other stores, then someone arguing that a single library deciding not to carry a book has any bearing on that book being created. 3. Layer 1 scaling is poor design. Larger blockchain = less nodes due to more expensive hardware requirements = more centralization. BSV and BCH are mostly dead because of getting this wrong, no debate about it. When people say things like this it's obvious that they only get information from /r/bitcoin and don't have understanding beyond the heavily curated narrative there. Do you ever stop to think about why other cryptocurrencies don't need a second layer? Do you think the optimal throughput is a few kilobytes per second worth of transactions for the whole world? It all has to be synced on the main chain anyway. A second layer is a solution in search of a problem. Larger blockchain = less nodes due to more expensive hardware requirements Have you ever done the math on this? I can never believe people keep repeating something so obviously wrong. Bitcoin runs at dialup speed. A $10 per month VPS literally runs at 50,000 times the speed that the bitcoin network does. There have been times when average transaction costs spiked so high one transaction fee could pay for the hard drive space and vps time to host a node for months. The craziest thing here is that nodes don't even really matter. The miners can broadcast blocks themselves and anyone can sync with the chain if they want.

CyberDildonics 4y ago

The parent comment was saying bitcoin is the only decentralized cryptocurrency, which is ridiculous and has nothing to do with ledgers, it is about the mechanics of synchronization. If someone told you anything different than this, you might want to diversify your sources of information on how these things work. Saying bitcoin is the only decentralized cryptocurrency is like saying yahoo is the only website that exists.

ashwagary 4y ago
I believe "only really decentralized" meant, where important components are concerned (minings, nodes, development, adoption, marketing, etc) bitcoin sets the standards and maintains a balance. Cant have a second immaculate conception where this particular template is concerned.
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  Again, nothing about what you are saying makes sense. Mechanics of the system and some mining dictate decentralization. Non mining nodes only help relay blocks, development is a matter of syncing the source code with other people and trying to lump in adoption and marketing is completely detached from reality. You might love bitcoin (and its dialup speed throughput of a few kilobytes a second for the whole world), but somehow trying to backward rationalize decentralization as only bitcoin is some 1984 level propaganda and reality denial. This is beyond just not understanding some aspects of cryptocurrency and into flat earth style actively ignoring easily provable facts.
  - ashwagary 4y ago
    I disagree. 1. There is no founder directing the project (big plus). "Dear leader" doesnt direct development which is unique compared to almost 100% of the shitcoins in the space. 1b. You think adoption rate and the decentralized movement that pushes/promotes adoption is irrelevant? I'm sure all the centralized shitcoin (aka unregistered security) founders would find your view on this hilarious. 2. Non mining nodes ensure transactions/blocks followed certain rules. When attached to wallets and services, that means much more than "just relaying blocks". 3. Layer 1 scaling is poor design. Larger blockchain = less nodes due to more expensive hardware requirements = more centralization. BSV and BCH are mostly dead because of getting this wrong, no debate about it. The original poster is more right than wrong in his view.
    - CyberDildonics 4y ago
      This all reads like straight propaganda from /r/bitcoin and none of it is true. Decentralization of a currency doesn't mean or have to do with development, that is a separate issue. Still, whoever controls github commits is going to control the reference implementation and that isn't many people. Decentralization refers to being able to use money electronically without any third party's permission. All the rest of this are obvious talking points to try to redefine bitcoin as more unique than it is. It was always completely possible to copy everything and modify any part of it. Part of the excitement is that there is actual competition in currencies. Non mining nodes ensure transactions/blocks followed certain rules. When attached to wallets and services, that means much more than "just relaying blocks". This part is just a straight lie and someone has grossly mislead you. Non mining blocks have nothing to do with making blocks or deciding anything. All they can do is relay blocks that the miner decide. This is like someone printing books, those books being sold on amazon and a hundred other stores, then someone arguing that a single library deciding not to carry a book has any bearing on that book being created. 3. Layer 1 scaling is poor design. Larger blockchain = less nodes due to more expensive hardware requirements = more centralization. BSV and BCH are mostly dead because of getting this wrong, no debate about it. When people say things like this it's obvious that they only get information from /r/bitcoin and don't have understanding beyond the heavily curated narrative there. Do you ever stop to think about why other cryptocurrencies don't need a second layer? Do you think the optimal throughput is a few kilobytes per second worth of transactions for the whole world? It all has to be synced on the main chain anyway. A second layer is a solution in search of a problem. Larger blockchain = less nodes due to more expensive hardware requirements Have you ever done the math on this? I can never believe people keep repeating something so obviously wrong. Bitcoin runs at dialup speed. A $10 per month VPS literally runs at 50,000 times the speed that the bitcoin network does. There have been times when average transaction costs spiked so high one transaction fee could pay for the hard drive space and vps time to host a node for months. The craziest thing here is that nodes don't even really matter. The miners can broadcast blocks themselves and anyone can sync with the chain if they want.