I had kind of noticed the parts about some questionable deviance into being sympathetic into shitcoins and nonsense BIG blocker theories, but sometimes it is NOT clear about the various connections and maybe they do not matter too much in the whole scheme of things and if I feel that I am able to engage within the forum and share ideas, mostly about bitcoin, then I am good...
Jay, I think that it would be a real eye-opener (and ultimately beneficial to Bitcoin) if you were to do a market analysis to estimate approximately where Bitcoin should be today, were it not for the fork-attacks. Bitcoin’s “honey badger” power in resisting those attacks has been
phenomenal; but where would we be
without those attacks?
I am now arguing from a business perspective. Any reasonable prospectus on Bitcoin must disclose that Bitcoin’s biggest vulnerability is fork-attacks, also known as
the trust attack. Any reasonable investor should recognize it as in his own self-interest to fight those attacks. The forked shitcoins falsely advertised as “Bitcoin” will, in and of themselves, never amount to anything in the long term; they are purely a negative, which harms the market as a whole by intentionally,
fraudulently diluting the “Bitcoin” brand
and financially diluting Bitcoin’s market capitalization.
and reducing overall investor confidence in Bitcoin’s uniqueness. To invest exclusively in the one and only genuine Bitcoin, and to defend your investment by defending Bitcoin against dilution attacks, is a strategy perfectly matched in both principle and practicality.
Would I be right in assuming it's not the
existence of forkcoins you oppose, but rather just the false advertising part to sucker in new users? Because I'd argue that being opposed to forks unconditionally simply isn't practical. If people vehemently want to incorporate ideas into Bitcoin that are fundamentally incompatible with its underlying principles, do we really want them to stick around forever, still desperately trying to inflict their delusions on the Bitcoin protocol? Surely it's better to excrete such toxins? It's never "
dilution" to release waste. Let them build their faulty clones and pretend it's the real thing. I'd argue it's still preferable to an alternative outcome where no forks had taken place and the toxic "blocksize debate", instead of being a footnote in the annals of history like it is now, had still raged on to this day because those people never got what they believed they wanted.
The fact they still market their shitcoins as "Bitcoin" is inexcusable, but they're off doing their own thing now, leaving us to get on unopposed with our thing.