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
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.
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.
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.