Quote from: jbreher on April 23, 2018, 04:40:25 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on April 23, 2018, 03:42:53 AM

Quote from: jbreher on April 22, 2018, 03:06:40 PM

Quote from: BobLawblaw on April 22, 2018, 09:38:57 AM

No. I don't EVER trust 0 confirmations. That's not how its supposed to work in Bitcorn.

Yet it did. Work, that is. Hmm.

Now you are pumping the trusting of 0 confirmations?

No. I am just pointing out that, before persistently full blocks was A Thing, zero conf txs worked.

Are you denying proven reality?

Even if what you say is true, it does not matter that much.

If there is a feature in bitcoin that is needed, such as zero confirmation between trusted parties (rather than wide-spread implementation), then likely the market is going to find a way to allow such feature into bitcoin.... On the other hand bitcoin seems to be moving away from such zero confirmation nonsense because the costs seem to outweigh any possible marginal benefits that may be gotten in such limited circumstances.

So why spend all this time on the topic of supposed value of zero confirmations, except for wanting to bump bcash as to having some supposed superior features, when surely those kinds of claims do not seem to be true - especially for what bcash actually is, which is merely some propaganda tool, bitcoin attack tool, and largely centralized pump and dump scheme.

You can believe all that you want about bcash retaining the original bitcoin vision and some pie in the sky existence of zero confirmations in 2011 when bitcoin was worth less than $5, but you are merely engaging in the same misinformation that attempts to deny the validity and benefits of bitcoin's actual direction and the benefits of confirmations to ensure security and to lessen double spend breaches.