Quote from: DooMAD on Today at 02:26:41 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on Today at 08:06:02 AM

Quote from: franky1 on March 21, 2024, 04:16:01 PM

never was a chainsplit?! oh no, you have caught the ignorant blind disease of the stupid bridage again.
sorry to tell you this but there was a chain split.
its not like BCH is a complete separate altcoin that had its own unique block 0 genesis

If I waste 1-2 hours of my life I can easily create a new shitcoin using the same Genesis block with the same blockchain and same everything else except a small change like having 10 MB blocks and a different difficulty adjustment policy (to make it easily mineable with CPU/GPU). Then I can start building new blocks on top of it, pay a CEX to list my coin calling it Bitcoin Pooya and start trading it there.

Do you call that a chainsplit too?

Let me guess, he's still rewriting history for how BCH came into existence? Even though it's been robustly refuted?

Announced fork was announced. Took place when announced to take place. Did what it said on the tin. Yet franky1 blames everyone but the people who announced it.

Definitely dropped on his head a few too many times as an infant. Cheesy

funny comedy.. his source actually debunks what he says

the NYA crew are the segwit supporting crew and it was the segwit supporting crew that said if there was to be a split they would call the not segwit supporting fork bitcoin cash
the split happened by old node users not changing code thus ended up on a split thus got CALLED bitcoin cash
it was not due to some ABC brand. the ABC brand was segwit but under false pretenses to get segwit activated under a broken promise but in actual effect had mandatory rejection of old blocks

when segwit started its mandate(due to nya) of rejecting old block versions.. in a mandate from economic nodes and mining pools (not user assisted, just economic/minerpool). and in august those not retaining segwit blocks but retaining old versionbit blocks.. stagnated at first and adopting themselves as bitcoin cash from the names the segwit crew of NYA decided to call the old versionbit block retaining chain

https://viabtc.medium.com/statement-on-bitcoin-user-activated-hard-fork-6e7aebb67e67
by supporting the NYA option it caused segwit to activate with the faked promise of 2x base.. but where it required segwit to activate first with the fake promise of a 2x at later date..
the mandatory activation of segwit was their goal, by rejecting old blocks. causing any old nodes that retain old block versionbits to be forked away

if you look at who the NYA are (DCG) and what side they funded. you would see it was all a bait and switch to get segwit activated. and its admitted even by doomads sources that the old blocks segwit ignores and old nodes segwit bans they would call bitcoin cash

yep even garzic and g.andresen were funded(bloq) by DCG who also funding segwit(blockstream) team

doomad really fails to use blockdata and funding and real info and tries to make subtle assumptions, but if you look at it all in full context, his story falls apart
..
i keep laughing at doomad.. he tries so hard to avoid the truth by not doing any research and then not understanding the links he then grabs actually goes against what he says, as he doesnt take things in full context nor looks at the surrounding impacts things had on each other to provide a full picture of actual events

he wants to pretend he knows things.. but has changed his narrative many times whereby initially he had said that:
a. BCH changed code early and forked themselves independently (his narrative was incorrect, code, block data prove it)
b. that he can replace words with idol invented buzzwords to hide his siillyness but not admit to the mistake,
but then
c. every 6-12 months he keeps forgetting he got the whole thing wrong and got debunked so circles back to silly old notions he had wrong in the first place, acting like he never got debunked. quoting himself as source when using his own ignorance of real sources full context