I was there debating @nullc (Gregory Maxwell) at Reddit.
I still have a hard time believing that 100s of competent developers, researchers, and interested parties can't at least admit that your doomsday Segwit booty theory is a possible (no matter how slightly possible) attack vector. You are not going to convince me that your theory is possible without convincing at least SOME people that have a high amount of knowledge as to the inner workings of Bitcoin and Segwit. We might as well stop arguing about it.
I consider my "expertise" to be more on the side of cryptocurrency economics with a heavy focus on the game theory of such. At least, that is where I have spent most of my time researching and debating about with cryptocurrencies over the years. Yet, my technical merit is sufficient enough to understand almost all technologies (if I invest the time to understand them fully) based on my technical background since my teenage years. Reading "Happy Hacker" and "Steal This Book" at 15, and going down that rabbit hole. Earning an A+ certification at 17. Learning Java and C++ at 18. Building and running large mining farms. Self taught HTML/CSS/Javascript, Etc... Although I have never had a job in such because the money I used to make in the oil industry lured me away from computer science (you can't say no to $350 a day at 18 years old). I know you like to peg me as clueless when it comes to technology, but I'm not nearly as clueless as you think.
Youre the one who started the name calling by declaring BCH sleazy.
Yes, BCH is sleazy because:
1. It's riding off of Bitcoin's coattails. If an alternative cryptocurrency can't stand on its own two feet without using the Bitcoin brand in its name, then it is likely not as great of an idea that it's proponents think.
2. Piggybacking off of #1, it is confusing to noobs. With every "hype wave" (a new term for bubble, because the word bubble infers to something that pops and never rises again), noobs enter the space at orders of magnitude more than the last. Having 20 cryptocurrencies with Bitcoin in their name is confusing, and economic losses due to errors will be had as a direct result of having Bitcoin in the name.
3. Piggybacking off of "noobs entering in orders of magnitude more so than before": those noobs are buying Bitcoins. They are not buying BCH, and nor are they buying any other alternative cryptocurrency in any meaningful amounts. Bitcoin's supremacy is secured by The Network Effect. There have probably been more Noobs brought onboard in the past months since BCH split off compared to the entire existence of Bitcoin before that fork. These people are Bitcoin's army. These are the people that will ensure Bitcoin will never die. Bitcoin's Network Effect will never ever be trumped by the much lesser network effect of BCH (or BTCSatoshi for that matter). These people, the majority of users, will be fleeced if your supposed doomsday actually happens. Thus, the wishful thinking that BCH will kill Bitcoin is indeed sleazy.
4. There are many ALT coins that have existed long before BCH that could perform the same functionality as BCH, and there was no need to create the BCH alternative cryptocurrency fork. IMO, the only reason why it was created was that the Bitcoin whales wanted a large stake in a cryptocurrency that operates similarly to the aforementioned already existing ALT coins without risking much of their own capital. Thus, they forked Bitcoin and keep their Bitcoins (or more likely spend a small percentage of their Bitcoins to pump BCH and bring it relevance), resulting in a lot of valuable yet free new tokens when similar scaling tech has existed in other ALT coins for years. At least the speculators in alternative cryptocurrencies have had to use a large amount of capital to speculate on the value of such technology. BCH just printed the value out of thin air.
5. It's not even the best design for the peer-to-peer electronic cash that they champion it to be. For example, I think something like Monero is a much better design. It's more fungible, more private, tail emission reduces longterm hoarding incentives, tail emission increases longterm security by further incentivizing it, and there are no arbitrary block size limits that have to be changed via a hard fork... only bandwidth/latency/propagation issues inherent with a distributed network.
6. It is backed by a shady (all for different reasons) cast of characters. Fake Satoshi Wannabe (Craig Wright), ASICBoost Owner (Jihan Wu), Grey/Black Market Online Gambling Tycoon (Calvin Ayre), and Bitcoin Brand Theif (Roger Ver).
7. Their proposed way of scaling by infinitely raising the block size in perpetuity is a centralized dead end due to network propagation, network latency, and bandwidth issues, but they champion it to be a form of decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash. Decietful...
8. Competing LNs ran by different parties with different fee structures are much more of a free market solution than a big block monopoly. BCH is promoting a roadmap with more anti-free market tendencies (a communist agenda... it is mandatory to transact on the PBOC payment channel) than Bitcoin's free market driven LN roadmap (a capitalist agenda... with multiple competing parties with whom it is optional to use, and you can still make on-chain transactions via the PBOC payment channel if you wish.)
9. It is an obvious pump and dump (see below).
And this is just off the top of my head... I'm sure I'm forgetting something, or at least I feel like I am.
Your foolish idealism about the lie of democracy and user supported soft/hard forks is being utilized against you.
Its true that I see even flaws in my own design which could potentially cause it to become centralized, but Im working on the notion that people will be able to form groups of like-mindedness about protecting the invariants of the protocol. The key is for the community to be able to objectively distinguish malfeasance and for each individual to be able to independently and effectively route around it, i.e. castrating the powe of political influence.
The devil is in the details.
You contradict yourself regarding forming a democratic utopia when it is convenient to do so to support your arguments. In the above quote in a separate thread, you compose an argument for what I have been arguing all along ITT... leveraging
Social Consensus to keep a protocol static. If you believe such Social Consensus can be obtained to keep a protocol the same (IE. BCH), then surely the same Social Consensus can be reached to change a protocol for the betterment of the protocol (IE. Bitcoin). You can not castrate political influence altogether, because cryptocurrencies are a
contract, and political influence is baked into the contract at the time of inception. That remains true regardless of any changes that may be made in the future (or not.)
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.
BS. Don't put words in my mouth. I have extensively argued three points ITT:
1. You can't prove who did or didn't create Bitcoin, and therefore any argument you form off of any assumptions as to who created Bitcoin are purely speculatory hubris-fueled diatribes.
2. Bitcoin will not be attacked by your purported Segwit Booty doomsday theory.
3. Bitcoin will remain Bitcoin, BTCSatoshi is long since dead and buried, and BCH
in the longterm (because that's all I care about) will be a worse investment.
I would never ever argue that there aren't profits in trading cryptocurrencies, no matter how bad/scammy I think a certain cryptocurrency is, because I realize that the markets can stay irrational for long periods of time. I have realized for a long time that trading BCH would likely be profitable because of the FUD/propaganda the BCH supporters are spreading everywhere relentlessly, and also because of the backing of the shady billionaires. I chose not to do so because I think it is a pump and dump scam, and I can't on a good conscience knowingly participate in such. Fleecing greater fools is not in my wheelhouse.
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.
LOL.
Step 1: Own a lot of Bitcoins
Step 2: Create a fork that leverages Bitcoin's brand
Step 3: Spend a small percentage of your Bitcoin stash to create a large amount of value out of the low value forked tokens
Step 4: Hodl
Step 5: Spread propaganda and FUD
Step 6: Slowly dump the forked tokens on the masses whenever you're happy with the value of the scheme.
It is a very easy to understand and sensible plan, and a very well orchestrated pump and dump. There may be some speculation from greater fools that the whales have fooled, and some participation from people that don't have any moral culpability for participating in a pump & dump, but there's no one else sensibly speculating on Bcash.
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
And your reasoning is emotionally flawed by your stubbornness, and by your conflating of technical analysis & facts with speculation based on incomplete information...
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.
There are ways to profit greatly off of Bitcoin (and the cryptocurrency ecosystem) without destroying Bitcoin. You have failed to realize that in this entire thread. The masses will never trust or use cryptocurrencies if the elites go through with your purported doomsday theory. Practically 80% of the poll's respondents agree with me on that. They can profit off of the pumping and dumping of Bitcoin Cash greatly, and they will still be able to keep their Bitcoin stashes very valuable while doing so as a bonus.
The doomsday theory doesn't seem to have any technical merit to it anyways, because if it did then there would be more people yelling it from the rooftops.
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?
More hubris-filled speculation based primarily on conspiracy theories...
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.
What do you mean I don't understand it? I explicitly stated so in my reply. Just replace Zionists in your post with Bankers in mine, and we effectively came to the same conclusion. The only difference is that I reject the conspiracy theory that the Zionists control everything in the world, and that they are the one's that created Bitcoin.
This entire notion of BCH being evil and Core being the savior, is so naive. Were being played from all directions.
I disagree with you here. You completely ignored the last part in my previous reply about multiple LNs resembling more of a free market than BCH (which was IMO the most sound argument in my reply). That on top of the aforementioned sleaziness makes BCH much sleazier.
The difference though is that there will be competing implementations of the LN which compete with different fee structures. There will be many banksters with the LN instead of one with BCH. The LN banksters will have to compete with each other, and the users will win from the resulting economic efficiencies. The banksters will have to compete with venture funds will have to compete with ICO-backed ventures.
To transact on the PBOC payment channel is mandatory with BCH, but to transact on the bankster/venture/ico payment channel of your choosing via LN via Bitcoin is optional.
The LN roadmap resembles much more of a free market than the BCH roadmap.
Some amongst us will reap some monetary gains in the process.
I can agree with you there- but on a different basis. Those that promote and participate in the pump and dump of BCH will certainly make some monetary gains. Those that invest in BCH for the long haul will certainly take some monetary losses.