Quote from: DaRude on August 19, 2017, 05:59:54 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on August 19, 2017, 05:53:18 AM

Quote from: Elwar on August 19, 2017, 05:45:29 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on August 19, 2017, 04:28:32 AM

Quote from: Elwar on August 19, 2017, 02:32:15 AM

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCC_hina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN

All these forks are attacks on bitcoin. That's the only point there is.

Bitcoin's design was intended to be 1 cpu / 1 vote in order to keep the network decentralized. This aspect of the design started to fail, initially with pooled mining and then with ASIC-hardware that was built and kept private for companies to mine. In other words, it's not like a cpu or gpu where anyone can go buy it and start mining. Currently few companies create specialized hardware and by extension these few companies exercise centralized control over bitcoin mining. There is a market failure in terms of ASIC hardware getting sold.

Bitcoin devs, bitcoin users and bitcoin investors (who understand a thing or two) decided to look the other way, as to not be "contentious" about the whole situation, nor piss on the investments that all those miners have done. The rationale was "as long as the miners play nice, we'll pretend that Bitcoin's proof-of-work isn't centralized". No-one tried to find or implement a solution to this centralization issue. I'm not talking about a simple POW change to sha512 that will again bring the same issue in a few months time, but something more fundamental.

And as we were all pretending everything is fine, a few compromised (?) devs like Garzik (you can see what he was writing here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6ufv5x/a_reminder_of_some_of_jeff_garziks_greatest/ and what he currently does with Segwit2x), Gavin, etc, started pissing on the ecosystem along with some of the miners.

The next plan is to take over the chain with a 51%, and redefine what Bitcoin is - putting it under their direct control for any future protocol changes, or even the software we run. They will claim that they are following the vision of Satoshi, when Satoshi was pretty clear on how well planned and unanimous changes must be, not to mention his opinions on competing implementations.

Segwit2x is not BCH. It's not "free coins" in a parallel chain. Things are gonna get ugly if they decide to proceed. And let's be honest here. When Bitcoin is going so good, with valuation of near 4.5k USD, and people want to attack the main chain in a contentious way (=shitstorm), I can't really see them as having good intentions. Perhaps they stand to profit more from the destruction of value by positioning their "options" accordingly. After all if you can control the "good news" and "bad news" of a market, then you can benefit financially. And this is what they've been doing with all the forking scenarios, fud, or real since the price was at 200$. They create the news and the sentiment. They have become a market force that indirectly dictates prices. "Oh they are forking it, sell"... "Oh they cancelled the fork, onwards to 10k!!!", etc etc. This is bullshit on so many levels it's not even funny. No wonder Segwit2x was decided in a closed-meeting with financial companies.