Quote from: Spaceman_Spiff_Original on February 19, 2018, 09:59:01 PM

Quote from: itod on February 19, 2018, 09:47:44 PM

Quote from: jbreher on February 19, 2018, 07:14:33 PM

Bitcoin.com is not a scam, it is a URL. What is scammy about that? Further, in what way does the existence of such make me a scammer?

jbreher, just stop it.

By definition in the Whitepaper Bitcoin is the chain with greatest accumulated PoW.

I disagree. It is the longest valid chain. What is valid is up to the collective of users, and different users can have different preferences. Luckily, there is a clear leader in terms of number of users and market cap. However, if bitcoin (core) and bitcoin cash had an equal amount of supporters, we might have a hard time determining which one would be named bitcoin.

Besides your stupid-ass use of bitcoin core to describe bitcoin, and your attempt at confusion by referring to bcash as bitcoin cash, you are also suggesting that the true bitcoin is a product of it's having more networking effects.

Many of us probably already have heard of the 7 network effects outlined by Trace Mayer, and perhaps many of us would concede that if Bcash were able to gain substantial ground in those 7 network effects, then it would be in better place to be touting itself as the "real bitcoin." But instead, currently bcash has fuck all in those networking effects, but still wants to tout itself as the real bitcoin.. so yeah, aspirations could meet reality, even though currently bcash remains as an aspirant to become the real bitcoin rather than anything even close to the real bitcoin inspite of it sharing the same prefork history.

Quote from: Torque on February 19, 2018, 11:00:49 PM

Quote from: itod on February 19, 2018, 10:21:41 PM

Quote from: bitserve on February 19, 2018, 10:14:48 PM

This is ridiculous. The concept of the "longest chain" only has a meaning considering the same difficulty. When you change that (at that point we are talking about a completely different thing longest or not) you can easily get a longer chain with ANY PoW you want. That's exactly what Bcash did, and now it doesn't matter how long they get, because they are using a lower diffculty and... a smaller accumulated proof of work.

It's obvious that Satoshi thought about all this when he repeated the definition several times, including: "The longest chain which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it" in section 4.

He had hard-forks in consideration, so the only thing that he thought of worthy differentiating between forks is what he stated above. There's no other way to be sure which chain is Bitcoin.

Satoshi also envisioned that miners would attack the contentious fork with the shortest chain and least PoW and kill it off. But that didn't happen. Because he didn't anticipate that mega miners would contentiously fork and collude to keep said fork alive (along side the main chain), and for selfish or malicious reasons. And then brokers and exchanges decide to help keep it alive as well.

Once this happened, all of the dogma of Satoshi's vision in his whitepaper got nullified. All bets are off, Katie bar the door, the end users now have the power to decide what is Bitcoin. Mega miners have fucked themselves as potential bad actors in the system. Brokers and exchanges have also now made themselves suspect.

Your response here, Torque, seems to support why in the real world, the ability to establish actual networking effects, within the contemplations of the Trace Mayer model become relevant in determining what (which) is the "real" bitcoin.