4 ms·
Why do we say Bitcoin Cash is the "real" Bitcoin?
I can understand a lot of the hate that Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general gets on this forum. For most it is now a get rich quick scheme and those who have been inundated into the cult are quick to downplay it's shortcomings.
But Bitcoin was not built to make money for anyone it was built to be money.
The very title of the Bitcoin white paper has long since been outdated as it was referred to a peer-to-peer digital Cash system that would have low fees and instant transactions is a distant cry from what it has become. Now with high fees and taking from 10 minutes to several hours for transaction to clear it has become completely useless as digital cash. What is bizarre is that this is no coincidence or fault of the protocol. The changes that were introduced into the Bitcoin code base were deliberately put there by the developers who had hijacked control of the GitHub repo most of whom worked for the for-profit company called Blockstream.
Two hacks in particular were introduced years ago that invalidated the cash use case for Bitcoin namely something called replaced by fee and another called segwit. Both reduce the usefulness of Bitcoin by making it either more expensive or less useful.
However before these chain breaking hacks were introduced a fork was made of the repository which is now called Bitcoin Cash, BCH. Bitcoin cash is nothing more than the original code base and vision of Bitcoin that has been carried forward for over a decade now. There is one simple difference between the two projects. The former has high transaction fees and low transaction speed purpose-built into the protocol well the latter sticks with the original road map by incrementally increasing the block size as needed to keep transactions quick and cheap.
Only one of these two projects looks anything like the original and the other is a twisted useless get rich quick scheme managed by a for-profit company with only themselves in mind.
- cranberryturkey 3y agosatoshi's vision.
- infotainment 3y agoWasn't it BSV (and not BCH) that was supposed to be, literally, [B]itcoin: [S]atoshi's [V]ision?
- kylebenzle 3y agoBSV was an attempted takeover of BCH. BSV failed and ended up forming BCH instead. It was started by Craig Wright, a well know scammer claiming to be Satoshi, in an attempt to take over satoshis coins. Because Craig Wright claims to be Satoshi in that sense, BSV is Satoshi's vision but only if you believe Satoshi is Craig Wright.
- kylebenzle 3y agoSatoshi had a simple but profound idea, a peer to peer digital Cash system. The BTC of today failed to live up to that ideal after the GitHub repo was hijacked by Adam Back's for profit company, Blockstream. Soon after they wrestled control away from the original maintainer they introduced several changes that broke the original vision. Satoshi would hardly recognize what BTC has become today but BCH is almost identical in form and function.
- wmf 3y agoBitcoin has a bunch of problems preventing it from being adopted as digital cash, including volatility, deflation, lack of privacy, wasteful proof of work, etc. BCH only fixes one problem, fees. It still isn't good digital cash.
- tromp 3y ago> BCH only fixes one problem, fees. And in doing so, creating a much bigger problem: there won't be enough fees to secure the chain when the block subsidy dwindles into insignificance over the coming decades.
- kylebenzle 3y agoMany small fees makes up for loss of new coins. This requires the block size to incrementally increase over time, just as BCH has done.
- arthurcolle 3y agoBitcoin spot ETF just got approved by SEC
- tromp 3y ago> But Bitcoin was not built to make money for anyone Its emission, with half of all supply emitted in first four years alone, and only a few % for later generations, was built to concentrate wealth on early miners/adopters. With a large fraction ending up in the hands of its creator. > incrementally increasing the block size as needed to keep transactions quick and cheap. Fees are needed to finance the chain security when the block subsidy become insignificant. So txs can only stay cheap with an uncapped supply.
- kylebenzle 3y ago>Fees are needed to finance the chain security when the block subsidy become insignificant. So txs can only stay cheap with an uncapped supply. Actually the entire idea is that many small fees will make up for the lack of new coins. That can only work if the number of transactions increases by incrementally increasing the block size.
- npoc 3y agoI absolutely disagree. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg289... You can see here in one of Satoshi's last posts that he envisaged that bitcoin users would likely prefer to keep the block size small, and why. He later replies in that thread stating that fees for block space would be "expensive": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28959#msg28959 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28959#msg289...