Never really paid much attention to this coin

autistic ancaps with a higher-time preference with less money are far more likely to be into bcash, yes

and also cranky "game theorists" that were forum superstars in the old days but don't really have a formal skillset

bcash grew out of a thread that was notorious on bitcointalk (BITCOIN UP GOLD DOWN) which ran for many years and was composed of a number of notorious malcontents and armchair cryptographers without any actual skill.

they are complimented now by a known charlatan (Craig Wright) who has been positively demonstrated with no shadow of a doubt to have forged "evidence" given to Gavin Andresen to prove he was Satoshi. The step by step forgery was exposed in 2016, but again because it requires an appreciation for the types of sublte tricks you can perform with signatures it wasn't well understood by laymen. Wright is certainly clever for having performed the trick, but ultimately this led to Gavin being unceremoniously dropped from the bitcoin project. He understands now the nature of the trick. I always liked Gavin, but it was a giant fuckup.

Roger Ver really was our best marketer for many years and it's sad to see him fall from grace in this way. His bugaboo is essentially that he has been making a pitch with claims about Bitcoin's features almost word for word for over 6 years (sending money for nothing, etc). Bitcoin no longer has those traits and he thinks it has changed.

But Ver is just taking advantage of those newbies that don't understand how Bitcoin works or why anyone would wish it to have fees. One reason is that Bitcoin will completely collapse in the future unless a fee market is established. (Because the block rewards are halving)

But a more subtle view of this is: median fees in 2017 were slightly lower than in 2011 and 2012 when measured in satoshis per byte. That is to say that in bitcoin terms, it cost slightly more to send bitcoin transactions in 2011 than it did in 2017. The price of bitcoin is what has changed.

>Bitcoin Cash is still the original Chain.
Then why isnt it in my bitcoin-qt wallet?

This was from first of Jan and BCH was around 2300 $ then.

Funny that in this whole thread you don't have an argument to back up any of your beliefs. You could explain why as to any of your points, but you don't. I wonder why that is?

if zero conf was a non issue then replace by fee would be a non issue -- because its not a consensus change.. it's just a feature of bitcoind

zero-conf worked by convention, a sort of decorum by miners, which was to accept the first spend by time and not prioritize the higher fee version of a transaction

it was unsafe, and that is sort of evidenced by the fact that RBF is being used now.. RBF was ALWAYS available from day one, it was just formalized

fortunately with lightning we can get far better than zero-conf: instant payments with 100% blockchain security (because the transaction was already mined)

I'm unclear on how bcash would ever implement lightning because they still have transaction malleability because of the rejection of segwit -- i think some gimped version of it is possible

This is from the NSA run .gov National Institute of Standards

You could counter argue his points but you make posts like this instead. I wonder why that is?

I'm not sure if you can read (you are a Segwit soyboy so its very uncertain). But he never picked a side. He just said the BCH side wasn't allowed to make technical changes, which is true. When Gavin Andresen let the small blockers have access to the code the small blockers forced out the big blockers and revoked their commit access. This guy is just stating a fact, the small blockers were granted access to the code by the big blockers and then centralized control of the code and forced out the big blockers. Thus the big blockers were forced to fork Bitcoin.

If Bitcoin Cash were the original chain then why are you not able to use any version of Bitcoin-QT prior to August of 2017 to transact on that chain? I'll tell you why: because when they HARD FORKED they changed the signature derivation. Replay protection.

If you want to run an old version of Bitcoin-QT from 2015 you will be able to transact on the BTC blockchain however.

The NIST corrected this mistake in their draft the next day. While I understand that it was an exciting moment for bcashers that a government agency wrote this into a draft for one day, its not really the best case for being the original chain is it?

not an argument soycash

>desperate bcashies still posting this bullshit
How about you post the link instead of an outdated screenshot :^)

Wouldn't you argue that relying on hubs for lightning network with BTC is more of a middleman than with purely onchain BCH transactions?

he made like a thousand arguments. Are you a bot or something?

neeeeerrrddssssssss

I don't use bitcoin-qt and see no reason too

They only amended cause of all the trolls bombarding them

...

>zero-conf: instant payments with 100% blockchain security
Off chain transactions are not blockchain transactions and not nearly as secure despite what Blockstream shills you.

>that is sort of evidenced by the fact that RBF is being used now
No, its not. Just because its being used now on Segwit chain doesn't mean its safe. RBF was never superior to how bitcoin functioned before in anyway, its less secure. Same goes for Segwit. They blocked scaling to remove signatures from transactions to push LN, a centralized payment processor that runs on top of the blockchain.

They got the original information from Gavin Anderson a fellow CIA comrade and early Bitcoin developer.

I have to say I appreciate your efforts in shilling your bitcoin fork. It comes off as genuine and natural, the complete opposite of the obvious paid pajeets that shill betacash

>if zero conf was a non issue then replace by fee would be a non issue -- because its not a consensus change.. it's just a feature of bitcoind
Replace by fee is an issue because I can reverse my transactions. So I go to a gas station send them BTC with a low fee, they give me the good I purchased then I replace that transaction with one of a higher fee and the first is erased.

>fortunately with lightning we can get far better than zero-conf: instant payments with 100% blockchain security
BCH zero confirmation transactions route in seconds and there is no risk of losing funds or bad routing which locks up funds for days. So no, lightning cannot compete with 0-conf.
>I'm unclear on how bcash would ever implement lightning because they still have transaction malleability
You do not need a transaction malleability fix for Lightning, there are two ways to do this, the first requires double the amount of funds in a channel, the second requires you not to re-use lightning channels. Also without a transaction malleability fix you would have people operating the Lightning channels so they would be like banks. Segwit is unnecessary for Lightning and so is a malleability fix, it just changes how you build the Lightning Network.

Very interesting read.

To be honest, as someone with a degree in computer science who learned about CCs last year, it looked to me that the BCH crowd either does not understand tech or (in the case of the prominent supporters) wants to get full control over the network. Do I understand you correctly that they indeed have some kind of idealism and are acting that way not for personal profit?

diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/overview-of-bips-necessary-for-lightning/
This is from Lightning devs on how to do Lightning without a malleability fix.
"There's a simpler way, which is called SIGHASH_NOINPUT. It does not fix malleability, because txid can still be changed, but the signatures can be applicable to multiple txid values. The txid is not included in the signature. If the txid changes, it's okay. What I'm including in the signature are my outputs and my input scripts, so it's still referencing the correct, also I'm referencing, signing with the pubkey, so as long as I don't reuse pubkeys, it's really safe. There's some risks to this. If you did it the wrong way, you could for example send 2 bitcoins to a pubkeyhash, send 3 bitcoins to that same pubkeyhash, and then try to spend the two, and sign, and you're trying to send the original 2 BTC, well, a miner would redirect that signature to the 3 BTC output, and cause you to spend 3 and take that extra 1. So this is somewhat dangerous in that you don't want to reuse addresses with this sighash type. You could do this with a soft-fork, and do it with multisig only so that it's much less likely that someone would replay the signature. It would require, in 2-of-2 multisig, for both people to reuse the same pubkey, and they both would have to be doing something stupid, which is much less likely. If you were going to do a soft-fork, you could do remove the 0 bug in multisig. There was a pathological transaction a few months ago where the whole block was a single transaction with thousands of inputs, and you were hashing an enormous amount of data per signature. This helps a little. Segregated witness would also allow this lightning level 3 channel, however."

>To be honest, as someone with a degree in computer science who learned about CCs last year, it looked to me that the BCH crowd either does not understand tech or (in the case of the prominent supporters) wants to get full control over the network.
You sure about that? Two of your most prominent supporters complete misunderstand Lightning. Tone Vays didn't even know if you needed a Node for it and Jimmy Song doesn't know that your Lightning Node needs to know the states of all other Lightning Nodes on the network. I hope you are LARP'ing that you have a degree in CS because if not your school defrauded you.

youtube.com/watch?v=9_WCaqcGnZ8&feature=youtu.be&t=40m4s

I'm not really interested in knowing all the intricate details of how they want segwit buttcoin to work.

If they pull it off more power to them. I'm just not interested in it myself.

Remember that buttcoin needs a minimum of 18M USD influx just to keep price stable, so unless Tether starts printing 100M each day, like they used to, forget about the fake bull run.

I'm glad one of you guys is open at least.

Roger took his time before finally putting his support behind BCH. He publicly stated he would support BTC as long as it was able to scale to meet demand, he waited for segwit 2x to fail before putting his full weight behind BCH. People seem to forget that Roger has always been pro Bitcoin, pro adoption, pro usage. His goal is to spread adoption as fast as possible because then it's harder and harder for gov't to censor. In his mind, shilling BCH is just a continuation of his shilling Bitcoin, which he's been doing for years.

My personal qualms with BTC are the following:
Segwit destroys the definition of a digital currency as set out in the white paper, it breaks the chain of digital signatures.

The limiting of the blocksize has stifled adoption and innovation. If you look at the dominance chart on Coinmarketcap, the time when BTC dominance starts to plummet is the same time the block limit was reached. Alt coins could have been built on top of BTC, but they refused to scale so they went elsewhere. Ethereum would have existed on BTC otherwise.

Lightning Network economically incentivizes centralized, highly connected, highly liquid hubs. Since the path through a channel is limited by the amount in that channel, channels that have low amounts of money in them wont be used, and since a fee happens every channel hop, the shortest routes are preferred. Also, it costs a blockchain transaction to even open a channel in the first place. The result, only rich people will open channels, and they will open many channels, because only they can afford to. They can lock up tons of funds in these channels so there will be no worry for anyone sending money through them, since there will be enough in that channel to cover most TXs. Sounds fine and dandy, except this is exactly what banks are. Highly connected, highly liquid, highly centralized hubs.

What's your point? I don't care what Tone Vays knows or not when it comes to evaluating the pros and cons of a technology.

P.S.: A lightning node does not need the whole network, this depends on the routing model.

P.P.S.: I even have a PhD and worked with effeicient algorithms and networks. :)

Sincere attempt at education:

Replace by fee is not a controversy because it is in any way new. From 2009 until today RBF has always been available. There was never a time when we didn't have that capability.

What is new is that rather than hide it from newbies, we exposed it. Rather than pretend it didn't exist, we added it to the user interface.

100% of Bitcoin's lifespan RBF has been available. 100% of Bitcoin Cash's lifespan RBF has been available.

The difference with Bitcoin Cash is that they don't put it in the user interfaces of the popular wallets. And supposedly the miners promise not to mine more valuable transactions, but there is nothing preventing them from doing that. They just promise to not act in their self interest.

That's literally the debate about RBF.

The adversarial thinking approach is to imagine that not all miners will behave this way over time. They won't act altruistically forever. If given two transactions with the same inputs but different outputs, and different fees, they will mine the more valuable transaction:

> Transaction 1: 1 BTC (From A to B with .001 fee) sent at 9:00
> Transaction 2: 1 BTC (From A to A with .555 fee) sent at 9:00:01

This is called a double spend. The prevention of double spends is killer feature #1 of Bitcoin. This is done through mining into a block and waiting until more blocks reference the hash of the block that you were mined into.

Zero conf provides no actual security. Defacto it has worked most of the time, and Bitcoin survived with only minimal attempts at double spends for many years, but it was a really difficult thing to teach to new people about how Bitcoin worked.

One of the many benefits of Lightning is that when you open a channel, you're being mined into the chain.. Your subsequent transactions off chain gain the benefits of the security of that channel. Incidentally this is mentioned by Satoshi in the whitepaper

>P.S.
>P.P.S.
>:)

jfc, I've never seen Reddit posting of this degree.

...

My point is that I guarantee you that you don't understand what you are talking about. The current version of Lightning Network has the originator find the route. That requires the originator to know the states of all possible channels for this route. If the path weren't found by the originator this would be different, but that's how it works today. Also are you aware of the Microsoft paper stating that all networks with 3 or more hops can be sybilled? And on average it is assumed Lightning will have 20 hops? So if any of those intermediary nodes are a part of a Sybil attack they can shut off the payment before it reaches the destination and in its current form it takes days to reverse a lightning transaction? This is basic stuff. I know you can make a Lightning Network where each node isn't required to know the states of other nodes, but that's not what we have. Don't argue about what they could have used, argue about what they are using.

>Replace by fee is not a controversy because it is in any way new. From 2009 until today RBF has always been available. There was never a time when we didn't have that capability.What is new is that rather than hide it from newbies, we exposed it. Rather than pretend it didn't exist, we added it to the user interface.
Bitcoin Cash removed zero confirmation transactions by implementing the first come first serve rule. Whatever transaction is first in the blockchain is accepted regardless of fee, so you are just wrong on this. The part of RBF makes it controversial is that it makes it impossible to use the base chain layer for retail transactions. Please do your research, because I know RBF was always in Bitcoin before, but it was removed by the Bitcoin Cash development team.

>Whatever transaction is first in the blockchain is accepted regardless of fee, so you are just wrong on this.

I don't disagree with this. This is not a feature of bcash though, it's just the policy of miners.
There's no consensus rule, regardless of what they tell you. There's no rule preventing anyone from mining the more valuable transaction. It's just a social convention.

Another way of putting this is that RBF is the policy of Jihan when he's mining BTC and not the policy of Jihan when he's mining BCH.

That make sense to you?

How does the internet node I am connected to find its way to the correct server?

Lightning Network is a young protocol, improvements can be implemented, different routing models can be used, there is no serious problem.

That's the beauty about second layer solutions. You can use different models without compromising the basic layer forever.

The one thing I know for certain is that increasing block size gradually increases centralization, so this is out of the question for me.

> And on average it is assumed Lightning will have 20 hops?
Afaik, this is the onion routing parameter, it's assumed to be at most 20 hops. The small world theory suggests a much lower average hop distance.

>Bitcoin Cash removed zero confirmation transactions by implementing the first come first serve rule.

You cannot enforce this, so you shouldn't rely on this.

why do bcash threads have the most technical discussions on biz? they are also the most popular for some reason even when its dubbed a scam/trash. wth is going on

So fucking true.

Fucking BCH shills. We all know BTC has issues - but your massive, public scam is an embarrassment and not a solution. We don't want or need it - Litecoin is better for faster transactions right now along with a thousand other shitcoins.

Hell, BTC is currently lower fees than BCH and it's MUCH faster since there's finally segwit adoption.

I'm not even a BTC maximalist - but grandaddy BTC is important. Stop being a nuisance.

The problem isn't that bcashies are right about bcash (absolute trash) is that they're right about BTC and blockstream.

>grandaddy BTC is important

Sorry, I don't negotiate with crypto terrorists who hold the market hostage

so is eth going to be the leadeR?

RIP Bitcoin Red.

Because they are the only threads that disscuss tech plain and simple. Veeky Forums is a board in which new threads are created at the same rate as /pol/ with each thread maintaining about an 1/8th of the replies.

What this means is most threads on Veeky Forums are:

>GET IN HERE NOW FAGGOTS, WE ARE MOONING!
>I told you about x y and z
>do you want stay poor?

Its all brute force shilling. Cashfags have been in crypto for awhile, we've made profits and are more interested in the direction of crypto and helping people understand how this stuff actually works. Of course the other half of the thread is "muh Ver" "bcash bcash bcash" "scam" etc.

Because paid shills call it Bcash and a scam, and people who don't know any better follow them and perpetuate it, while people who are actually passionate about the project call them out on their shit with actual facts and discussion.

It's fine, really. All the more exposure for BCH. No matter how much you pay a shill, they can't change the truth.

This is maxwell-esque garbage that you copy pasted. Kill yourself shill.

BCH is not going away, and it's only going to grow from here. This isn't about chasing the latest alt coin moon while granddaddy bitcoin acts as the financial backbone of the market, this is about changing the world.

Corefags are scared. Just look at all the character assassination going on.

This guy so we can stop arguing. The leader will remain BTC, there can be arguments about what could work better, what's truer to the roots but I have no faith on an eventual flippening in any direction ending as something more positive. But good luck to those that want to try and have good intentions, I'm just a pessimistic fuck.

It's not just Core people, I see it from people who make their livings chasing alt coins, and it makes sense. BCH threatens BTC as the financial backbone, which threatens the latest and greatest pump and dump shitcoins. I get it, but I disagree with it. I'm in this to be part of something big and amazing, something we still don't fully understand the potential impact of.

But honestly, the more anti BCH threads I see, the more bullish I get. Hatred and Love are just 2 sides of the same coin, it's getting attention and that's what's important. The truth is apparent to anyone who wants to find out and research, and the truth is much more sustainable than a paid for lie. Just like spamming the network, eventually the attacker runs out of money.

I'll be glad when Bitcoin Cash grows large enough for either the corecucks to simply be unable to ignore it further (ie parity with corecoin) or Blockstream collapses and all the paid shills spamming 'bcash bcash bcash' in this thread and many of the daily bot threads are gone. Pretty tired of hearing the same non-argument garbage spam to be perfectly frank.

Bitcoin (BCH) is the genuine article and it simply is not going to go away no matter how many pajeets are paid to FUD on online forums.

This would have been avoided if kikes like Tone Vays, Bitfinex and the kike-twins had just supported Bitcoin Cash from the beginning as the legitimate fork the price would be well over 50k per coin. I don't see the economic gain from trying to control a decentralized currency when another can just fork off and continue the project unmolested. Even ignoring the fact that there are thousands of other currencies that are being primed to muscle in as a major competitor. Blockstream's business plan was utterly moronic and doomed to failure from the beginning, but kikes being kikes they just can't let go without a fight - which is why every goy on the planet hates these fucking plagues.

>I don't disagree with this. This is not a feature of bcash though, it's just the policy of miners. There's no consensus rule, regardless of what they tell you. There's no rule preventing anyone from mining the more valuable transaction. It's just a social convention.
Seeing as how this rule is the method through which Ripple operates I find this statement hard to believe. How is this rule unenforceable if other cryptos use it?

We do. The oldest and most knowledgeable all moved over. I mean it has Gavin on its side ffs.

does blockstream control github access so not anyone can contribute or is that false?

>How is this rule unenforceable if other cryptos use it?

Because there is nothing invalid about a block which includes a valid transaction. Only one of the two spend attempts will be in the block. So there's nothing invalid about it being the more expensive transaction.

By social convention bitcoin cash miners agree that they will mine the transaction that they saw earliest.

In the past there were other conventions, too. We use to mine transactions from utxos that were older with a higher priority.

These conventions were established at a time when the blocks were not full. They were helpful with gaining adoption for bitcoin because we were able to simulate a secure network for merchants who wanted to take bitcoin and not wait the 10 min on average for it to be mined before handing over the taco.

However we always knew this was potentially a big problem for Bitcoin. If any miner broke with the cartel on the social convention it could really harm the reputation of bitcoin.

There was a controversy around this in 2012-2014 with some people saying that it is wrong to advertise bitcoin as having instant irreversable transactions when it doesn't really have that feature -- while others said it was our best marketing face, even if it wasn't technically true from a consensus code standpoint it was true from a social convention standpoint

Roger Ver was the most active marketer on this topic.. He was fantasic, and spoke endlessly about how Bitcoin meant you could send money to anyone anywhere around the world for little to no fee instantaneously. This is a mostly true statement with some very serious caveats. Caveats that are not easy for a newbie to pick up on.

By admitting to the fact that this was a social convention, and not a real feature of the software, we angered a number of people who believe that bitcoin retail adoption is its most important growth factor. Those people are largely in Bitcoin Cash now.

Not exactly. The Bitcoin Core development team controls GitHub access (they all work at Blockstream) and they revoked access to many prominent big blockers until they just refused to implement the ideas of big blockers. You have to understand, Mike Hearn tried to create Bitcoin Cash years ago due to this GitHub control by the small blockers, but he didn't have community support at the time. This has been a long time coming and is due to GitHub access being limited to all those who aren't small blockers.

github.com/orgs/bitcoin/people

> 3 of 22 are at blockstream

Blockstream isn't even the organization with the most contributors. Chaincode Labs is

yea so when they say no one controls bitcoin, that is false. thats what bothers me a bit

CoinGeek.com are launching a contest to shape the next technological leaps on the BCH blockchain. The available prize is £5 million worth of Bitcoin Cash.

youtu.be/xuaBuPuYbso

so why is there this big thing about gavin getting his access revoked? who controls that?

Gavin lost commit access a few hours after it was revealed how he had been scammed by Craig Wright. He didn't lose, and still hasn't lost the ability to do a pull request like anyone else. He wasn't the maintainer at the time that he lost commit access, either. That had already been handed over to laanwj.

There were questions about whether he was being somehow forced to claim Craig Wright was Satoshi, or he had been hacked, or if he was in some other way compromised. It was demonstrated without any possibility of being incorrect that Wright had certainly falsified his "evidence" of being Satoshi.

It's important to point out that there is zero percent chance that Gavin wasn't scammed. Literally zero people familiar with this issue would claim otherwise. There might be some people familiar with the issue that think it was a double triple sneaky scam to make us think that Wright was a scammer and not Satoshi, therefore protecting his identity as Satoshi by making us think he's a scammer -- but there's no value whatsoever to the "proof" that he scammed Gavin with.

Gavin was humiliated by the episode with Craig Wright. He lost commit access, but it wasn't actually that important because there's no scenario where Gavin would commit without the consensus of the other frequent contributors anyway. He lost the respect of a lot of people, while at the same time he was coming off the defeat of Bitcoin XT. It was two losses at the same time and his reputation just tanked. It's sad because Gavin was a really good guy, and to my knowledge Craig Wright has never apologized for doing that to him.

It's surprising seeing all those big name, big finance backers wholly supporting Bitcoin Cash and yet there are still legions of /r/bitcoin retards who still listen to autists like Luke Jr. (who is almost toothless and believes the universe rotates around the Earth)

And it was unanimously decided by all active maintainers to revoke his commit access. In case he was being coerced.

>github.com/orgs/bitcoin/people
There are only 3 developers with commit access. Most developers on this list don't have that.

>It's important to point out that there is zero percent chance that Gavin wasn't scammed. Literally zero people familiar with this issue would claim otherwise.
Jon Matonis was shown the same proof Gavin was and Jon now works for Craig. So quit lying out your ass. Gavin still believes Craig to be Satoshi.

Wow holy shit literally none of this is true.

Gavin lost commit access waaaaay after the Craig thing. They had no relation whatsoever.

Literally nobody with half a brain thinks Gavin was scammed or hacked into saying Craig was satoshi. That's like unbelievable retarded on so many levels. Gavin's reputation didn't tank...he's highly respected by people who aren't brainless sheeple.

In all honesty, if there is still a Satoshi and Satoshi can reasonably be represented by 1 person, its probably Craig. It's all irrelevant anyway though. Who Satoshi is really doesn't matter anymore. What I can guarantee you though is this: Satoshi would never ever support the current pile of garbage calling itself "Bitcoin" or the corrupt devs/corporation censoring the community and tyrannically controlling the protocol.

Look, I see that you're interested in BCH throughout the thread. I think that's fine. Lots of good people on the BCH side of the fork, lots of my friends.

I hope you don't get taken in by Craig though. If you're interested in how he pulled it off:

dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not/

TLDR, he used a signature from 2009 that was already in the blockchain. Through misdirection he made it appear he was signing a quote from Satre with a key known to be owned by Satoshi.

You can see the signature. You can search it on the blockchain. You can see for certain that its not being used to sign the quote as he made it look.

Btw in order to try and confuse people more, he put the quote up in an image, so that you couldn't select the text and test the signature. His entire post was done with images so that nothing could be copy pasted to be tested easily.

There's two possibilities:

1) He took a signature from Satoshi's transaction in 2009 and passed it off as a signature that he was able to produce in 2016

2) He found the only known SHA256 collision in the history of the world that matches both Satoshi's transaction and a Satre quote that only he knows that has never been recreated by anyone else, because he accidentally made a typo in an image or something.

You're wrong.

twitter.com/peterktodd/status/727078284345917441

> May 2, 2016

same day as the kaminsky link above explaining how Craig scammed him

If you think about it the ones with the most lies and scamming going on is definitely Core segwit team.

The whole planning and pulling off of the scam is exactly like something the government would do if they planned a takeover.

Also the same results as they took control and thought they could pull this off without anyone objecting to much if they just keep repeating same lies they will all be rich

>twitter.com/peterktodd/status/727078284345917441
Craig never released this information to prove he was Satoshi. News outlets did without his permission, which is why its so hard to find. No one is debating this. The PGP key is separate from the Satre quote. If you weren't a dumbass you would have read the Satre quote which was about a guy who turned down a nobel prize in literature, Craig quoted that and repeated a similar quote to that of Satre. Meaning he deliberately took the 2009 signature to say he won't ever prove he is Satoshi publicly. I don't know why you are trying to say the Satre quote and signature are his attempts to prove he was Satoshi when it was the exact opposite. The only two people Craig ever released direct evidence to were Gavin and Jon who have stood by their statements that he is Satoshi even though it ruined their public image. If you are retarded enough to believe that he was trying to prove he was Satoshi when he put up a quote from Satre and then put in the text that he doesn't ever want to be labeled as Satoshi then you need help.

. There are only two people alive who

are you twitter.com/AlexPickard

that's the only person I've ever seen make this case

complementarycurrency.org/jean-paul-sartre-signing-and-significance/
No I've just read the original Sartre text and I'm not retarded. Read it for yourself and tell me if you think Craig would have wrote this if he wanted to "prove" he was Satoshi.

By the way when the article begins explaining how to verify cryptographic keys that is the end of what Craig wrote.

serious question, were you around that night when he was putting up these blog posts?

were you in bitcoin at the time?

i'm not asking because I want to slam you or something, but I'm curious if you picked up these points as a relative newbie or if you were around back then

...

basically to summarize this thread. BCASH IS TRASH

>were you in bitcoin at the time?
I was in Bitcoin at the time, but if I remember correctly this was during a big bear market after Mt. Gox so I was hodling and just hoping Bitcoin wouldn't die at the time. For awhile I thought Craig was in on the Mt. Gox hack (which may be true as it would explain his BTC fortune if he's not Satoshi). But I didn't read this article from Craig's blog page (which has since been deleted), I read it much later after the bull cycle restarted. I believed the whole Blockstream narrative about Craig being a fraud until I read what Craig actually posted. I still don't know if he is Satoshi as only Gavin Andresen, Jon Matonis, and Craig know. But what I do know is everything said about Craig is a lie. They said his academic credentials were fake, but they aren't. He's got like six masters degrees. So he very well could be Satoshi and I don't care either way, but I just don't like the lies being spread.

There's nothing I can really do for you. The post you linked is a noble attempt by someone to put into text form a post by Craig that was obfuscated by putting key portions in images. It was a ham-fisted stunningly retarded post that was universally mocked by literally every person that wasn't named Jon Matonis. Gavin was silent on it, and he posted a few days later saying that he may have been scammed or maybe not but he was going to move on. If he's said recently that he thinks CSW is Satoshi I'd be really surprised.

Best of luck!

LN nodes are to be considered insecure hot wallets, I wouldn't bet on smart people putting liquidity into them, I sure as fuck wouldn't.

>Segwit destroys the definition of a digital currency as set out in the white paper, it breaks the chain of digital signatures

This x10.

...

If you read the text Craig posted in the original post and still come to the conclusion he was trying to prove he was Satoshi then you can't help anyone with anything. He literally did the Sartre post to say he would never prove he was Satoshi, that is painfully obvious. If you want to say Craig is a fraud, the only valid argument is the PGP key used in his contract with Dan Kleiman over 1.1 million BTC. The PGP key he listed there would have had to have been customized otherwise it would have had a different format. This is the only valid evidence Craig was a fraud and its questionable whether or not he customized the PGP key or edited the contract after it was dated. If you want to prove Craig is a fraud use that argument because your argument is completely invalid and makes no sense if you read the blog you keep using as "proof".

That's also why my first responses covered said PGP key, I thought you had a valid argument. Unfortunately you cannot read.

youtu.be/5DCAC1j2HTY

Let the man speak for himself

>fee market
>not understanding that fee markets are double blind auctions and therefore worthless

Blocks should NEVER be full. Funny how this whole bitcoin 2041 feepocolypse wasn't a concern until Cuckstream showed up.

This.

It boils down to two different visions for what Bitcoin *should be* and what threat model it should prepare for.

I think that it was a mistake reducing OP_RETURN to 40B.

The absolute state of Corecucks.

Capping the blocksize *NOW* was some of the most disastrous product decision ever made.

You don't ditch your power users in hope to chase another "cooler" crowd (e.g WallStreet SoV folks).

Quadrupling the block size would have bought enough time to develop production-ready L2 solutions while at the same time taking care of the businesses *actually* using the network and without putting a huge burden on routing nodes either.

>To be honest, as someone with a degree in computer science who learned about CCs last year, it looked to me that the BCH crowd either does not understand tech or (in the case of the prominent supporters) wants to get full control over the network. Do I understand you correctly that they indeed have some kind of idealism and are acting that way not for personal profit?

Senior SDE from a top tech company reporting in.

You've been misled by censorship and astroturfing. Bitcoin Core are incompetent hackers who focus on "perfect solutions" to problems that exist only in their minds, even when no such perfect solution has yet been formulated. They do this at the expense of the economy and the community that made Bitcoin a thing. They're basically a bunch of random C++ devs who lucked into coding for a financially lucrative open-source project, and now everyone thinks they're good at their jobs. They aren't.

Pay attention to how people who actually know what they're doing like Vitalik Buterin and Cornell Professor Emin Gun Sirer think of the Bitcoin Core devs as dogmatic control-freaks who have abandoned science ages ago.

BTC holders are pretty insecure about any similar coin that gains. Start a LTC thread and see how many people call it a "shitcoin" or "BTC copy" when it has legitimate technology, uses, and marketing.

The arguments against bcash are easy for brainlets to make. Being a "fake BTC" "scam" "jew coin" is low hanging fruit. The truth is BCH has just been well marketed.

I don't really buy into one being in direct competition with the other yet. Bcash rides the popularity of BTC but it has its own pros and cons.

Terrible shill. Try again pajeet.

I think Blockstream is made up of excellent people (Wiulle, Poelstra, Chris Allen, formerly Greg etc.) and I assume they mean well.

But, I have to agree with you. From my limited perspective, they seem to be acting as academics not engineers and with that mindset, no solutions will ever be good enough.

They're not interested in providing utility *today* they want to prepare for *tomorrow* which might too late, especially in the currency world with its winner-takes-all paradigm.

Please stick around, I think the anonymity makes it possible for people to talk and share their concerns without fear of reprisal. It's a moment we should cherish regardless of which side we stand on.

Personally I’m tired of all the core cucks still out there proclaiming sidechains and LN will make all alts useless when these alts literally have years of development ahead of them. These faggots still couldn’t come to an agreement on a measly 1MB blocksize increae after 8 years yet they think in their heads they’re going to implement all this cool shit onto Bitcoin’s chain? Get real.

The only value crypto brings is security through "adversarial thinking". It's the whole point. The BCH crowd doesn't understand crypto and just wants to make money so pushing for adoption as early as possible is their main concern. They are the ponzi element to crypto, scammers counterproductive to actual development and long term adoption.