Quote from: jbreher on February 19, 2018, 07:27:22 PM

Quote from: bitserve on February 19, 2018, 07:17:40 PM

Quote from: jbreher on February 19, 2018, 06:59:17 PM

Quote from: bitserve on February 19, 2018, 06:33:32 PM

Quote from: jbreher on February 19, 2018, 06:30:54 PM

Quote from: HairyMaclairy on February 19, 2018, 06:22:08 PM

Quote from: jbreher on February 19, 2018, 06:11:32 PM

Quote from: Last of the V8s on February 19, 2018, 11:30:01 AM

scammers of cypherdoc/jbreher class

Exactly what do you assert I have done to scam anyone?

Pretend Bcash was a helpful and useful upgrade to Bitcoin instead of admitting it is a pre-mined (EDA) scam of the first order. We dont readily forget your fraud nor Peter R nor any other of your pals.

Let's unpack this. In what way is Bitcoin Cash a scam?

They tried to confuse investors saying it was *Bitcoin*, parasiting on the Bitcoin "branding" with bad faith.

Bullshit.

1) At this time the fork occurred, Bitcoin Cash had as legitimate a claim on the name 'Bitcoin' as did Bitcoin Segwit -- especially what with The Bitcoin Segwit Omnibus Changeset being the single greatest change ever perpetrated upon Bitcoin. Simply appending the 'Cash' modifier can be seen as a favor to the other fork.

2) While there may have been a couple isolated incidents of people confusing Bitcoin Cash with Bitcoin Segwit due to the shared 'Bitcoin' portion of the name, they are miniscule. There was no attempt to confuse. There was no bad faith.

3) The word 'Bitcoin' is not a trademark of Bitcoin Segwit, Bitcoin Core, Blockstream, or any other entity. There are no ownership rights to be stolen.

4) 'Parasiting' is a laughable charge. The Bitcoin Cash community reacted in the only manner available to them to do what was in their eye what was necessary to save Bitcoin.

1) Wrong. Bitcoin, following the established consensus rules set from the beginning, did an upgrade to Segwit. Some people, going AGAINST that consensus decided to create a fork with a bunch of UNconsensuated rules (like the difficulty change algo) so it wasn't even some rogue people deciding to maintain the previous branch AGAINST the newly consesuated rules, BUT A COMPLETELY NEW AND DIFFERENT THING. <- The point here is, anyways, CONSENSUATED OR NOT, according to the pre-established rules.

"They vote with their CPU proof-of-worker, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
- S. Nakamoto

Quote

2) The bad faith was in some prominent proponents of that unconsensuated rogue fork PUBLICLY INSISTING that it was "THE REAL BITCOIN". And don't make start on arguing about all the rest of statements like it was going to be the predominant chain, etc etc....

At the time of the forks, Bitcoin Cash had every right to make that claim. It ceded that right when it was unable to gain a greater accumulated PoW. Not before that was demonstrated.

Quote

3) I was very prudent in chosing "branding" instead of BRAND, as I am well aware of the implications of both concepts.

Perhaps you can explain how you think there is any proprietary 'branding' violation here.

Quote

4) Parasiting is exactly what hapenned here. I didn't even argue if it was or wasn't a trademark infringent, but an intentional malicious "parasiting" sure did happen.

I would counter that Bitcoin Segwit has parasited upon Bitcoin in exactly the same manner.

1) It's good you quote satoshi, because that is exactly why I say that they did a pre-vote (with their hashrate) establishing what their consensus was. You could argue that pre-voting wasn't needed, but it was demonstrated that the pre-voting was perfectly representative of what later happened when the rogue forkers decided to go on with their unconsensuated fork. Consensus at its best.

2) Ok, so you choose to ignore that consensus pre-voting already established what the outcome would be... but anyways it was later demonstrated that unconsensuated forking was... well... unconsensuated. It's ok to me I guess. But next time I hope we do respect what a pre-voting clearly states so that we don't, ever again, have this sort of confrontations that do no good to anyone and do harm Bitcoin trust.

3) Propietary can only be applied to "Brand". Brand has legal trademark protection. Branding is a concept that comprises much more than "brand" and that most people can recognize (legal protection or not) via common sense and public usage either if it is "registered" or not. I can't explictly say it was a "propietary branding" protection infringement here, but it surely was an attempt to parasite on Bitcoin "branding" through confussion and deception.

4) No. Because Bitcoin consensuated to evolve/adopt Segwit. I would agree with you if someone decided to make an unconsensuated rogue fork including Segwit... but that's not what did happen. Almost everybody (hashrate) voted to adopt Segwit, then it did. At that point in time, after Segwit was consensuated to be part of Bitcoin, anything not having Segwit would NOT be Bitcoin.

Really, why are we arguing ANYTHING when CONSENSUS already spoke?