Calling Bitcoin's network of developers collectively "Bitcoin Core" as a derogatory term is simply Bcash propaganda speak. Anyone can suggest and debate the merits of protocol changes, and also submit pull requests. Where were you when they were debating the merits of Segwit? It seems you are scared to tussle with the big boys for a reason... perhaps your FUD train would be derailed by the real geniuses?
I was there debating @nullc (Gregory Maxwell) at Reddit.
Youre the one who started the name calling by declaring BCH sleazy. Im just reminding you that the entire paradigm is sleazy. You seem to not understand the big picture of crypto is a system for the TPTB to rape the masses yet again.
The early adopters will profit. The masses will be fleeced. I explained how in my prior post.
Your foolish idealism about the lie of democracy and user supported soft/hard forks is being utilized against you.
You were wrong when I predicted in this thread that buying BCH at $300 would soon go to $1500. And you will be wrong again. BCHBTC is the only token in the Top 10 other than BTC (note I have not analyzed BTG yet) which is bullish over the next months relative to BTC, in terms of the current chart picture.
I have
never argued that trading in BCH wouldn't be profitable, but I have argued extensively that it will not overtake Bitcoin.
Backsplaining again. Review the thread. You railed pretty hard against BCH in this thread. If you want to spin that as not arguing, then so be your spinmastery.
This thread is not about BCH replacing/overtaking BTC, so do not use that lie as an excuse. Read the thread title again
Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi?, it is not that many words. Surely you can comprehend the thread title if you read it multiple times?
Effectively, I think most of the run-up in BCH price was Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Calvin Ayre and Craig Wright (and likely the PBOC) buying up a large portion of the supply. All of them are billionaires with a large war chest, and they all have been shilling BCH non-stop too.
Just because some hyperbolic nonsense pops into your brain, doesnt make it a sensible estimate of reality. Youre trying to paint a picture that there is no widespread speculation participation in BCH.
Youre reasoning is emotionally influenced by your desire for a community driven idealism. You really believe the community of fools could achieve decentralized governance and that this would make a better world. Ah to be age 20-something and delusional again
Segwit is not "shit". It solves many issues that Bitcoin had. Technology, software, and protocol are all bound to evolve over time. People who assume Satoshi Nakamoto was omniscient as to each and every game theory and technical aspect back in 2008 is utterly ridiculous. He could not tell the future as to how big Bitcoin would get, or how it would scale best. If he did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The protocol needed to change.
Re: Segwit Booty
As you stated, Bitcoin developers as a whole have the most expertise in the space. If they see no merit in your purported doomsday attack theory, then there is likely a good reason for it. Notice you are the only one pushing such a narrative. I think you must have a very basic misunderstanding of how everything works. At this point, I have completely discredited this argument.
Re: LN Attack Vectors
BCH's on-chain scaling roadmap comes with its own set of pros and cons. No technology or protocol is perfect. Also, you cannot judge LN attack vectors properly because a specification for LN does not exist. Do you not realize there are at least 5 competing LN implementations which all work a little differently? That is what will take the most time for LN to come to fruition... arguing over specifications... there are already working LNs on testnets and mainnets (although still in a development environment). Also, who's to say that a LN couldn't be crowdfunded, decentralized, and autonomous with funding from an ICO?
The entire point of Talebs antifragility math is that the fragile systems overcommit to the past and thus lack degrees-of-freedom to handle the reality that was unseen. The unseen reality is for example the fragile timebomb of SegWit and LN. As well, the futures markets on Wallstreet being created presumably first for BTC and not BCH, meaning although a lot more liquidity also a huge incentive to front run manipulation of the BTC price.
Remember the majority always has to be slaughtered in financial markets. That is simply the way markets for
passive investing/speculation function. The experts steal the candy from the fools.
None of you entirely understand LN. Im not going to argue the deep technical issues of LN with someone such as yourself who is incapable of having such a discussion. LN undeniably will create
a Mt. Box scenario and the fragility I have alluded to.
Satoshi (i.e. the Zionists) entirely predicted LN. In fact, he was the first one who explained conceptually about
hashed time-locked contracts for Bitcoin. They (the Zionists writing under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto) knew damn well why he had set the block size at 1MB and various other aspects in the game theory and design of Bitcoin.
Who do you really think controls the national security agencies apparatus throughout the world?
I think you misunderstand who the miners are. They are likely banksters themselves...
And that you do not even understand that is also what I wrote in the post you were replying to, speaks volumes
I will tell you again that TPTB (i.e. the Zionists) pulling the strings are in control of (or funded) both Core and Bitmain (i.e. both BTC and BCH). The entire Hegelian dialectic crisis is a dog & pony show to make us fools believe we have something new and innovative. We dont. Its just another speculation and enslavement paradigm to fleece the majority.
This entire notion of BCH being evil and Core being the savior, is so naive. Were being played from all directions.
Some amongst us will reap some monetary gains in the process. The vast majority who come into crypto will be fleeced.
The entire reason the Zionists created proof-of-work is so they can create a globalized monetary system they can control technologically in order to enslave the nation-states and move towards the NWO, and of course they will set up futures markets which they can front run. Of course the feigned resistance from the nation-states is part of the deception (although that resistance is easy to make appear to be valid via the compartmentalization
1 employed, i.e. bureaucrats and politicians may actually believe theyre important). The truth about politicians and beaucrats (i.e. those who run the nation-states, ignorant that theyre compartmentalized and controlled like puppets by the leverage of the Zionists):
Politicians have absolutely ZERO perspectives on the future. They assume that whatever trend is in motion, will remain in motion. When I have been in meetings around the world and asked about the policy of borrowing year after year with no intention of paying anything back, I get the blank stare as their eyes glaze over. I then point out again, there is absolutely no plan to ever pay down even a small portion of the national debt. I then state you do know you cannot keep borrowing like this forever? I follow this up with the question, you do know that at some point you will not be able to see public debt? That finally gets the response! Yes, a company or individual cannot do that, but we are the government.
They actually believe their own lies. They believe that their debt is AAA and people will buy it forever above all else no matter what they do. When I say that have never been the historical case, I get the classic statement this time its different!
I repeat (since it is now buried on the prior page):
Satoshis proof-of-work does not scale
decentralized. Period. Not with LN nor with big blocks. The fight is over who will control it. Miners want big blocks and banksters want LN so they can do fractional reserve banking and take control over it.
It doesnt matter to me who will control it. I just want to make the correct investment decisions. And I would much prefer the stability of Satoshis immutable protocol than the potential creative self-destruction chaos (REKTing) of those Rube Goldberg machines created by Core in order to violate the entire principle of Satoshis protocol.
As for
the idealism of a truly decentralized protocol
Also I want to reiterate that on the prior page I cautioned against reentering BCH too soon.