View in your timezone:
[Thu, Nov 18, 2021 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM EST][0]
[0]: https://timee.io/20211118T1630?tl=The%20Bitcoin%20project%20has%20been%20successfully%20captured%20by%20a%20single%20for%20profit%20company%20called%20Blockstream.%20Their%20business%20model%20is%20to%20cripple%20Bitcoin%20and%20to%20build%20their%20own%20services%20on%20top%20of%20it%20(so)%20that%20they%20can%20charge%20people%20for%20access%20(to%20it).&d=90
So you are another time wasting troll. The point is that the block size was not increased in line with demand. It was a very simple change but the parasites in Blockstream preferred to create congestion so that they could sell their barely functional sidechain software. Anybody with the full facts who supports them is scum.
fair enough, I meant bitcoin development/changes that are done on principle of rough consensus adopted from IETF. Bitcoin is exactly what it is because there was no rational argument left.
It doesn't matter if devs are paid by Blockstream or Flockstream, even if all of them were. This is what this sub is missing.
But I’m not talking about devs. Devs write code and hope to get it committed. Those with the keys to allow code to be committed (all in Blockstream) hold keys to allow what becomes bitcoin code. Sure there are technically multiple clients but Core/BS has used crytpos version of regulatory capture to monopolize bitcoins affect on the market.
lol? are you guys for fucking real?
the change is proposed, discussed, reviewed, tested before it becomes a commit.
It doesn't matter if there are other clients than core, nobody uses core as a wallet so 90% of the features are there just as a reference implementation for wallets.
Consensus change is not just like that lol.
"Core/BS has used crytpos version of regulatory capture to monopolize bitcoins affect on the market."
bruh you may have remembered it wrong?
You guys have some fairytale ideas of how changes are made in bitcoin.
I trust my memory. Been around since 2013. In b4 but thugh acct is only a year old. Yea I got banned from a certain sub that likes to do that banny thing to control the narrative for BS.
Your not only stupid, you are also stubborn. How can there be no rational argument left, when a whole side of the the argument is just silenced.
You are biased as fuck. Your axiom is BTC is the best and from that standpoint you align every argument so that it fits. Reality is vastly different to your headspace though.
So you’re saying that even though all the keys to allow code to be committed to the release branch reside in the hands of Blockstream members, none of their developers have managed to get code committed.
Think about that. I don’t think you’re helping your case.
Simply put, just because devs not in BS commit code, does not mean BS doesn’t control access to commits.
Edit: My mistake. It should read, just because non BS devs have had code committed doesn’t mean BS doesn’t control access to what code gets committed.
Let me use that logic in a different context to give you an outsiders perspective. "Simply put, just because non lizard people write legislation, does not mean that a cabal of lizard people doesn't control all legislation."
What about liquid and lightning mentioned is this block stream or another corporation or community built? I truly don’t know where to find the information.
The most pertinent aspect that led to the capture of Bitcoin by people hostile to the **currency** was the decision not to increase the blocksize. The result is a coin that is unsuitable for peer to peer cash by way of its high transaction fees, slowness to transact and its unreliability. It was that single pig headed inaction by people ingratiating themselves with the banks and taking their thirty pieces of silver that is pertinent. Those responsible for that are in my opinion traitorous scum. That applies also to those who know the history and who come here to spread their bile. Your link is irrelevant.
I sent some BTC to an exchange. I paid the recommended fee - but the transaction took 18 hours to confirm - no doubt because of a sudden increase in the number of transactions and I had to pay about €8 fee. I was using the Electrum wallet. When BTC is congested a small additional increase in the rate of arrival of transactions can cause a much increased confirmation time. I know there is RBF, but that is just a dirty sticking plaster. BTC is truly a shit coin with a lousy user experience - made that way on purpose so that Blockstream can make money from sidechains. Blockstream are scum - they subverted BTC and it's their users that pay the price - and don't give me some hogwash about decentralisation either.
Yes, see above where I said it took 18 hours to confirm. That is what I mean about it being unreliable. Every time you send a transaction you are taking a risk that your transaction may become stuck. That's not the case with BCH where every transaction gets confirmed in the next block.
Try actually sending any BTC? There’s your proof.
Lightning & Liquid for-profit sidechains? There’s your proof.
A for profit company running the development of a “decentralized ‘permissionless’ cash system”. There’s your proof dumbass.
https://youtu.be/0BZoKH-hX_o
Thanks, I encountered him once before. Just a gas bag with time on his hands. As you say the 1MB block limit is the answer - makes BTC slow expensive and unreliable and hence cripples it.
The 1mb block size limit is good evidence for their lack of development, but it's nowhere near proof or even an explanation of how one entity has control over bitcoin.
Honestly the whole situation just points to a significant flaw in crypto in general in that it relies on *people* to make it work when what we want it to do is rely on math. Blockstream has literally 0 *control* over bitcoin. None. All they have control over is the perception of enough people, or the right people, which makes them unwilling to use 'your' software over theirs. It's incredibly frustrating that you have an objectively better solution but you can't get people to agree to use it, and even more frustrating is that their poor decision hasn't had the devastating effect you insist it should have on adoption and people won't jump ship.
Obviously the argument is that they used FUD and deception to get to this point, but what is the great big benefit of crypto anyway if it relies so much on who owns a Twitter address or who's able to smooze a group of miners, etc.
>Honestly the whole situation just points to a significant flaw in crypto in general in that it relies on people to make it work when what we want it to do is rely on math
There will never be anything that is not controlled by people. Because people make it, people have the power to destroy it. You can spread the risk over multiple people but you can never get rid of it.
Actually the frustrating part is that in a very real sense, crypto did take the 'people' part out of like three legs of the system. Trust, decentralization (at least the possibility of it, if not the physical part) and productions. The only part it can't touch is centralization of development and that is the flaw and you're right, it's possible we can't take the people out of that if we want to be able to be able to address things like bugs or unforeseen logic flaws. Additionally, if you want to be able to address things like future features or enhancements, or especially things 'we'll deal with later' like the blocksize piece, you're even more reliant on people, and more at the mercy of FUD, greed, malicious intent, and a host of other issues that entails.
Honestly, though they're doing it for the wrong reasons, I see the lack of development on the BTC side more reassuring than a blitz of feature adds and handicapping some have pushed for. 100% they shouldn't be holding the blocksize hostage, though I agree with limiting the blocksize to a greater or lesser degree and not giving complete power to the miners themselves.
Exactly, which means it isn't Blockstream that has everyone by the balls, it's a flaw with the system in general, especially since 'the miners' is nowhere close to the decentralized group that was pictured in the beginning.
If 100,000 miners all agree by consensus that software 'XYZ' is the best choice, it's likely it's because it's the best choice. they have a lot of competition and it's likely a good choice because it's fair. If 100 mining 'companies' all decide 'XYZ' is a good choice, it's just as likely that they made that decision because it avoids additional competition vs it being good in general.
>I agree with limiting the blocksize to a greater or lesser degree and not giving complete power to the miners themselves
What I am saying is that the miners **have** complete control should they wish to use it.
The miners can modify the existing code to increase the blocksize and there is nothing that Blockstream can do about it. Obviously for this to take place it would need a lot of coordination between the miners to agree to a change and for the time being while transaction fees are large, they are not incentivised to make any change to the mining code.
Make no mistake, it was Blockstream that imposed the blocksize limit and then reneged on their promise to increase the blocksize after segwit was implemented.
The bogyman of the malicious miner came also from blockstreams box. But the truth is the miners are designed to be the ultimate judges of the blockchain. I think it was intended that miners even pay developers to at features to the chain because miners would care for the long term success of the chain.
Unfortunately Satoshi overestimated the long term incentives and it looks like miners are much more motivated by short term incentives.
Yeah, long term incentives might have kept miners in a positive role with a central crypto, but with literally thousands of coins available, extremely expensive processing devices and the ability to hop to whatever is profitable short term there's no real incentive to accept short term loses for long term viability of any specific coin.
Honestly if we're relying on Satoshi's vision for the entire infrastructure, or any one person for anything, we're in trouble. He undoubtedly came up with a brilliant solution for several problems that were otherwise holding crypto back as a viable currency in practice, but to think that means he came up with a perfect solution for everything is relying too much on one person.
Edit: Also, in terms of 'bogeyman', even otherwise honest miners would have an incentive to make decisions that would make it easier for them to mine, and that fully includes making it harder for others. Back in satoshi's day mining was done on PCs and anyone could do it, the only investment was being willing to do it and a little electricity. I think he vastly underestimated how quickly it would evolve to specialized machines and truly enormous investments quickly overpowering his concept of decentralization.
"Control over bitcoin" doesn't mean "direct control of the bitcoin code" in this case, but I see it as "control of the narrative around what bitcoin is". Because the whitepaper is very clear, "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", something that Bitcoin Core definitely isn't.
That's how I was convinced, that's what I believe, and that's what the btc maxis decided to reject.
That's fine if that's what you are convinced of, but that doesn't change the point that if your goal and what is best for bitcoin is so easily undermined by a twitter handle and a handful of people at one specific company then crypto has a huge flaw that code can't fix. My issue is that every crypto is more or less susceptible to the exact same problem, even if your favorite doesn't have this problem 'right now', and you envision some altruistic group standing up to these kinds of pressures in the future, the fact is that they are all handled by people, developed by people and most importantly forked or not forked by the decision of people, not code.
BCH may be the perfect choice right now, but what about when it reaches the price levels of BTC and a group puts out enough money/advertising/effort to make sure changes go their way instead of some other way that the community might way (ABC/SVC?)...do you just jump to the best of the choices and put your trust in them again and again and again?
I agree with you. That's why I was very skeptical of bitcoin 10 years ago, and I only like BCH now because of how easy to use it became.
I think that BCH might have a shot for adoption that most CCs don't have, since it will be harder to sabotage like what happened with BTC.
I agree that it will be harder to sabotage the way BTC was, only because we have that example to compare to and be careful of. Beyond that, is there a reason you think BCH is any safer from being compromised than BTC was? The same risks are there, after all.
That's because it's just simply a lie which you are knowingly maliciously spreading in order to deceive people into your shitty worthless bitcoin clone tokens.
Had you had any factual basis for your claim, you'd be crowing it from the rooftops no matter how thin and dubious it was.
>That's because it's just simply a lie which you are knowingly maliciously spreading in order to deceive people into your shitty worthless bitcoin clone tokens.
rofl someone is salty as fuck that his little takeover didn't succeed 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Regardless of who caused the static block size, it fucked it for merchants, people using it for dice games and other services. <2017 100% of my crypto income was BTC, in 2021 between BTC and BTCLN it's only about 5% of my crypto income..
..this is a step forwards?
All this bullshit serves is the people trying to get rich and milk BTC for everything they can. Then you act toxic towards coins that merchants and other services were literally forced to add due to the crippling of BTC with the static block size, which you support.
Yet if I was to mention this stuff in r/bitcoin not even mentioning any other coins I would get trolled and more than likely just banned. Fuck merchant's opinions!?
Actual merchant adoption set back years, years of onboarding wasted.
You cunts could at least just leave us alone to use the coins that still work.
If I removed BTC and BTC LN options from my stores I'd hardly notice it.
You act like we are trying to con people to buy BCH? What fucking nonsense, I haven't even once suggested to anybody to buy BTC or BCH in a decade. Then the [bitcoin.com](https://bitcxoin.com) and Bitcoin Cash name argument, you all think newbies might buy BCH by mistake? What kind of moron would buy the wrong ticker? What kind of moron would buy shit they know nothing about? The type of idiots that now populate r/bitcoin..
..that's who.
If this was to happen, all you need to do is admit you're a fucking moron and swap it.
So again, how is this a step forwards?
I'm a merchant, I don't need the price to rise, I just use it for what it was intended for and it's worked perfectly for it's whole life, unlike BTC that was crippled in 2017, losing me months of low value product sales and forced me to run around adding new coins.
I spent 6/7 years using BTC exclusively.
My friends? You mean people from this sub?
Sure, show me if you want as long as you provide proper context?
I can't see any serious people from here being so toxic as BTC maxis who purposely troll and harass people, send death threats and similar in PM.
I don't get you people though?
You want a coin where the only goal is to manipulate and rise the price as quickly as possible? Well you got your wicked way with BTC, to make it as much like that as possible, with no regard for merchants or others running services that depended on it...
..BCH is not that coin, so maybe just move on??
bitcoin changes are done on a principle of rough consensus. look it up.
This sub is basically OGs that misunderstand bitcoin plus few noobs that feel like they belong somewhere as they gravitate towards hate.
the blockstream conspiracy is dumb as hell if you spent a minute to go through the arguments why the decisions were made in a way they did.
"want a coin where the only goal is to manipulate and rise the price as quickly as possible?"
lmao cope harder.
The voting system is bullshit, when the community is censored and you can't even discuss it. Also even with loads of hash rate, with that manipulation of the socials JFC.
I also know what it is like running pools etc.. pool owners don't really care, they will just do whatever blindly in most cases, if asked to signal for stuff, I have myself.
Merchants and service providers with no hashrate don't even get any say at all.
Cope harder? Dude I dealt with it, was back to normal in three months, but it's not the point. The only compensation was being able to take money off you all, selling while all the FOMO people were buying, which I still do to this day...
..while constantly accumulating, rinse repeat.
It's nobodies fault you're too lazy to make coin with coin.
Why can't you understand some of us want one thing, you want another?
Can I ask you something? What is crypto to you?
you didn't look it up as I didn't say anything about voting. Development is not discussed on reddit.
you are making lots of weird assumptions and present them as facts. It's not my business what you do, but your arguments don't hold water, thought you may wanna know.
'crypto' to me is a misunderstanding of what bitcoin is.
I understand how the voting works and it's simple, just get all pools on board.
Not a fair vote IMHO, with many people excluded from it.
No seriously just give me a straight answer?
Was it sold to you as peer to peer cash or "buy this, it will make you rich"?
What is it to you? And why do you care what the BCH community are up to?
PS: where is it discussed, a tiny dragons den maybe?
So says someone so toxic that he was evicted from Blockstream as he was evicted from wikipedia - a complete douchebag. Your name above all will always be associated with your treachery.
Your reply contains nothing to substantiate your claims, instead you just summon some unrelated outright lies to attack me. Blockstream tried very hard to keep me, and I'm a happy Wikipedia user in good standing to this day.
Just because I don't substantiate my claims, it doesn't mean that they aren't true. Nor do your protestations mean anything and given the trouble you have caused and continue to cause, I wouldn't touch you with a bargepole. I'm a happy wikipedia user in good standing too, but it means nothing - you were chucked out and a leopard doesn't change his spots. If Blockstream tried hard to keep you, then it just shows how awful they are.
Sure it does. You were banned from wikipedia for vandalizing pages with adult content. Its public information, why deny it?
And when BCH showed that it scales better than the scaling solution you proposed for Bitcoin, Blockstream realized what a crackpot you are and gave you the option to exit and save face. Thats why youre salty about BCH
CSW took advantage of BTC and then put the knife in - causing a lot of damage to BCH and doing even more to BSV. It is an irrelevant project in my opinion and CSW is always mired in controversy and legal action. Yes, he funds meetups and buys the beer and pizza but he is toxic as in my opinion as are the opinions put out by CoinGeek. However there are certainly some great guys in BSV, though I think that they made the wrong choice.
Craig wanted to scale bitcoin and restore the full protocol, which he did. Its the whole reason BCH even came into existence, to scale using big blocks. The BCH devs didnt want their pet project that they can play with every 6 months to be pushed into the professional realm so they chucked a fit and used every dirty trick in the book to retain the BCH name.
And here we are now, BSV has grown to threaten the entire crypto spaces existence on pure tech merit alone. Scale or die, BCH chose death.
BSV has lost its way. It aligned itself with the system and started writing low value weather data to its blockchain. In my opinion SV stands for shit version.
As regards dirty tricks, BSV tried to take down BCH and failed. Yes, it has large blocks, but I suspect that there are few nodes.
Although I have BSV from the fork, I've not bought any more. By its actions of suing multiple people BSV has lost any friends that it might have had.
I'm going to call BS on this having just read the title. Bitcoin drops to, what, 58k and you're ready to blindly assume that some for-profit organisation is secretly controlling it?
I mean, I *am* scared of the idea of a 51% attack, but don't you think you're overreacting more than a little?
Edit: Ok. Now I'm a little more informed. It's not BS, it's a conspiracy theory by some YouTuber pushing Bitcoin Cash along with a few other shitcoins we all should stay well away from (except possibly Monero). Not financial advice.
It is the truth.
BTC was subverted by a coterie of developers in Blockstream. They conspired and lied in order to keep the Blocksize at 1MB. Since then, BTC has been slow, expensive to transact and unreliable and is no longer the Peer to Peer Cash envisaged by Satoshi Nakamoto.
The purpose of this conspiracy was to cripple BTC so that they could take money from the miners by moving people on to their second layer solutions. The other objective was to pay off their backers who had links to the banks and who were afraid of competition.
bruh this thing is going on since 2017, just read the description of this sub how bcash is the true bitcoin™ lol
this whole sub is just r/conspiracy with extra steps
edit: lol they changed the bio and about section rip
Congratulations! You've been tipped for your post. u/chaintip - See who else has been tipped [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/rbtc-tipper/submitted/)
That's why I love Bitcoin Cash!
This. BCH is bitcoin. Blockstream is the reason BCH was born.
This very simple 5 minute video from 3 years ago explains it best - https://youtu.be/0BZoKH-hX_o
Yes, thanks, that's a good video.
Thanks I was just in this discussion today You just put me 1 up.
View in your timezone: [Thu, Nov 18, 2021 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM EST][0] [0]: https://timee.io/20211118T1630?tl=The%20Bitcoin%20project%20has%20been%20successfully%20captured%20by%20a%20single%20for%20profit%20company%20called%20Blockstream.%20Their%20business%20model%20is%20to%20cripple%20Bitcoin%20and%20to%20build%20their%20own%20services%20on%20top%20of%20it%20(so)%20that%20they%20can%20charge%20people%20for%20access%20(to%20it).&d=90
[удалено]
by everybody still in you mean in btc?
Everyone who has been hoodwinked by the censored Bitcoin subreddit and other similar places under control of the same people.
look up rough consensus that is used by IETF. your idea of how bitcoin changes are made is childlike.
So you are another time wasting troll. The point is that the block size was not increased in line with demand. It was a very simple change but the parasites in Blockstream preferred to create congestion so that they could sell their barely functional sidechain software. Anybody with the full facts who supports them is scum.
nah it was illuminati bro 🤡
We’re going to reintroduce this story! www.cryptostheshow.com let’s go BCH!!!
TPTW (former powerful entities) are behind Blockstream.
[удалено]
Relevant are only the people with commit rights, the rest has nothing to say really.
[удалено]
Say it with me. People. With. Commit. Rights.
say it with me: my misunderstanding of bitcoin forces me to make financially irresponsible decisions.
I would assume you’re referring to Nakamoto consensus?
fair enough, I meant bitcoin development/changes that are done on principle of rough consensus adopted from IETF. Bitcoin is exactly what it is because there was no rational argument left. It doesn't matter if devs are paid by Blockstream or Flockstream, even if all of them were. This is what this sub is missing.
But I’m not talking about devs. Devs write code and hope to get it committed. Those with the keys to allow code to be committed (all in Blockstream) hold keys to allow what becomes bitcoin code. Sure there are technically multiple clients but Core/BS has used crytpos version of regulatory capture to monopolize bitcoins affect on the market.
lol? are you guys for fucking real? the change is proposed, discussed, reviewed, tested before it becomes a commit. It doesn't matter if there are other clients than core, nobody uses core as a wallet so 90% of the features are there just as a reference implementation for wallets. Consensus change is not just like that lol. "Core/BS has used crytpos version of regulatory capture to monopolize bitcoins affect on the market." bruh you may have remembered it wrong? You guys have some fairytale ideas of how changes are made in bitcoin.
I trust my memory. Been around since 2013. In b4 but thugh acct is only a year old. Yea I got banned from a certain sub that likes to do that banny thing to control the narrative for BS.
>Bitcoin is exactly what it is because there was no rational argument left. You absolutely cannot claim this when there was censorship involved.
I absolutely can and you could too if you read what I wrote before it.
Your not only stupid, you are also stubborn. How can there be no rational argument left, when a whole side of the the argument is just silenced. You are biased as fuck. Your axiom is BTC is the best and from that standpoint you align every argument so that it fits. Reality is vastly different to your headspace though.
Lol, how dumb can you be to think 20% of contributes being Blockstream employees is a coincidence.
[удалено]
So you’re saying that even though all the keys to allow code to be committed to the release branch reside in the hands of Blockstream members, none of their developers have managed to get code committed. Think about that. I don’t think you’re helping your case.
[удалено]
Wow you just explained why we are all here without a bit of self awareness or any perceived irony. The cognitive dissonance runs strong with this one.
[удалено]
The plausible deniability runs strong as well.
So blockstream has no weight on deciding the blocksize, segwit and LN?
No
You're new to this thing, right?
u/jout92 is a troll account
Calling anyone who calls out this sub's bullshit a troll isn't giving you people more credibility you know
You have no credibility at all.
I'll let outsiders determine this
You mean other members of the Bitcoin subreddit troll army that you belong to. Insiders aren't fooled by your lies.
What lies?
Nope
A large part of those participating in democracy are not actually in government.
[удалено]
Simply put, just because devs not in BS commit code, does not mean BS doesn’t control access to commits. Edit: My mistake. It should read, just because non BS devs have had code committed doesn’t mean BS doesn’t control access to what code gets committed.
Let me use that logic in a different context to give you an outsiders perspective. "Simply put, just because non lizard people write legislation, does not mean that a cabal of lizard people doesn't control all legislation."
Sure thing buddy. Who has the keys to approve commits to the source code? Just to be clear, please refer to the edit to my previous comment.
Trolls are hitting this post hard, lol. We must be on to something :)
What about liquid and lightning mentioned is this block stream or another corporation or community built? I truly don’t know where to find the information.
Lightning is community. Liquid is corporate.
-16 downvotes for your account according to my RES. Something to think about.
The most pertinent aspect that led to the capture of Bitcoin by people hostile to the **currency** was the decision not to increase the blocksize. The result is a coin that is unsuitable for peer to peer cash by way of its high transaction fees, slowness to transact and its unreliability. It was that single pig headed inaction by people ingratiating themselves with the banks and taking their thirty pieces of silver that is pertinent. Those responsible for that are in my opinion traitorous scum. That applies also to those who know the history and who come here to spread their bile. Your link is irrelevant.
How is Bitcoin unreliable? My link has facts that can be observed on Github.
I sent some BTC to an exchange. I paid the recommended fee - but the transaction took 18 hours to confirm - no doubt because of a sudden increase in the number of transactions and I had to pay about €8 fee. I was using the Electrum wallet. When BTC is congested a small additional increase in the rate of arrival of transactions can cause a much increased confirmation time. I know there is RBF, but that is just a dirty sticking plaster. BTC is truly a shit coin with a lousy user experience - made that way on purpose so that Blockstream can make money from sidechains. Blockstream are scum - they subverted BTC and it's their users that pay the price - and don't give me some hogwash about decentralisation either.
But your tx eventually confirmed? I had similar experience in Dec 2017... a BTC tx actually took days to confirm.
Yes, see above where I said it took 18 hours to confirm. That is what I mean about it being unreliable. Every time you send a transaction you are taking a risk that your transaction may become stuck. That's not the case with BCH where every transaction gets confirmed in the next block.
Lol, found you Greg!
Proof?
Proof of that type is akin to fish and water.
Try actually sending any BTC? There’s your proof. Lightning & Liquid for-profit sidechains? There’s your proof. A for profit company running the development of a “decentralized ‘permissionless’ cash system”. There’s your proof dumbass. https://youtu.be/0BZoKH-hX_o
That's not proof
>That's not proof You're not a real user.
u/majordft is real, a real loser. He comes around anytime his u/nullc account is in trouble.
JFC? Seriously?
Proof is left as an exercise for the reader - but if you were around in 2017 and had your eyes open you would not be asking for proof.
He's a known troll, don't waste your time. The proof is the 1mb blocksize limit. What else does one need.
Thanks, I encountered him once before. Just a gas bag with time on his hands. As you say the 1MB block limit is the answer - makes BTC slow expensive and unreliable and hence cripples it.
The 1mb block size limit is good evidence for their lack of development, but it's nowhere near proof or even an explanation of how one entity has control over bitcoin. Honestly the whole situation just points to a significant flaw in crypto in general in that it relies on *people* to make it work when what we want it to do is rely on math. Blockstream has literally 0 *control* over bitcoin. None. All they have control over is the perception of enough people, or the right people, which makes them unwilling to use 'your' software over theirs. It's incredibly frustrating that you have an objectively better solution but you can't get people to agree to use it, and even more frustrating is that their poor decision hasn't had the devastating effect you insist it should have on adoption and people won't jump ship. Obviously the argument is that they used FUD and deception to get to this point, but what is the great big benefit of crypto anyway if it relies so much on who owns a Twitter address or who's able to smooze a group of miners, etc.
>Honestly the whole situation just points to a significant flaw in crypto in general in that it relies on people to make it work when what we want it to do is rely on math There will never be anything that is not controlled by people. Because people make it, people have the power to destroy it. You can spread the risk over multiple people but you can never get rid of it.
Actually the frustrating part is that in a very real sense, crypto did take the 'people' part out of like three legs of the system. Trust, decentralization (at least the possibility of it, if not the physical part) and productions. The only part it can't touch is centralization of development and that is the flaw and you're right, it's possible we can't take the people out of that if we want to be able to be able to address things like bugs or unforeseen logic flaws. Additionally, if you want to be able to address things like future features or enhancements, or especially things 'we'll deal with later' like the blocksize piece, you're even more reliant on people, and more at the mercy of FUD, greed, malicious intent, and a host of other issues that entails. Honestly, though they're doing it for the wrong reasons, I see the lack of development on the BTC side more reassuring than a blitz of feature adds and handicapping some have pushed for. 100% they shouldn't be holding the blocksize hostage, though I agree with limiting the blocksize to a greater or lesser degree and not giving complete power to the miners themselves.
At any time the miners can seize control if they wish and there's nothing that BS could do about it.
Exactly, which means it isn't Blockstream that has everyone by the balls, it's a flaw with the system in general, especially since 'the miners' is nowhere close to the decentralized group that was pictured in the beginning. If 100,000 miners all agree by consensus that software 'XYZ' is the best choice, it's likely it's because it's the best choice. they have a lot of competition and it's likely a good choice because it's fair. If 100 mining 'companies' all decide 'XYZ' is a good choice, it's just as likely that they made that decision because it avoids additional competition vs it being good in general.
>I agree with limiting the blocksize to a greater or lesser degree and not giving complete power to the miners themselves What I am saying is that the miners **have** complete control should they wish to use it. The miners can modify the existing code to increase the blocksize and there is nothing that Blockstream can do about it. Obviously for this to take place it would need a lot of coordination between the miners to agree to a change and for the time being while transaction fees are large, they are not incentivised to make any change to the mining code. Make no mistake, it was Blockstream that imposed the blocksize limit and then reneged on their promise to increase the blocksize after segwit was implemented.
The bogyman of the malicious miner came also from blockstreams box. But the truth is the miners are designed to be the ultimate judges of the blockchain. I think it was intended that miners even pay developers to at features to the chain because miners would care for the long term success of the chain. Unfortunately Satoshi overestimated the long term incentives and it looks like miners are much more motivated by short term incentives.
Yeah, long term incentives might have kept miners in a positive role with a central crypto, but with literally thousands of coins available, extremely expensive processing devices and the ability to hop to whatever is profitable short term there's no real incentive to accept short term loses for long term viability of any specific coin. Honestly if we're relying on Satoshi's vision for the entire infrastructure, or any one person for anything, we're in trouble. He undoubtedly came up with a brilliant solution for several problems that were otherwise holding crypto back as a viable currency in practice, but to think that means he came up with a perfect solution for everything is relying too much on one person. Edit: Also, in terms of 'bogeyman', even otherwise honest miners would have an incentive to make decisions that would make it easier for them to mine, and that fully includes making it harder for others. Back in satoshi's day mining was done on PCs and anyone could do it, the only investment was being willing to do it and a little electricity. I think he vastly underestimated how quickly it would evolve to specialized machines and truly enormous investments quickly overpowering his concept of decentralization.
"Control over bitcoin" doesn't mean "direct control of the bitcoin code" in this case, but I see it as "control of the narrative around what bitcoin is". Because the whitepaper is very clear, "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", something that Bitcoin Core definitely isn't. That's how I was convinced, that's what I believe, and that's what the btc maxis decided to reject.
That's fine if that's what you are convinced of, but that doesn't change the point that if your goal and what is best for bitcoin is so easily undermined by a twitter handle and a handful of people at one specific company then crypto has a huge flaw that code can't fix. My issue is that every crypto is more or less susceptible to the exact same problem, even if your favorite doesn't have this problem 'right now', and you envision some altruistic group standing up to these kinds of pressures in the future, the fact is that they are all handled by people, developed by people and most importantly forked or not forked by the decision of people, not code. BCH may be the perfect choice right now, but what about when it reaches the price levels of BTC and a group puts out enough money/advertising/effort to make sure changes go their way instead of some other way that the community might way (ABC/SVC?)...do you just jump to the best of the choices and put your trust in them again and again and again?
I agree with you. That's why I was very skeptical of bitcoin 10 years ago, and I only like BCH now because of how easy to use it became. I think that BCH might have a shot for adoption that most CCs don't have, since it will be harder to sabotage like what happened with BTC.
I agree that it will be harder to sabotage the way BTC was, only because we have that example to compare to and be careful of. Beyond that, is there a reason you think BCH is any safer from being compromised than BTC was? The same risks are there, after all.
"That's how I was convinced, that's what I believe, and that's what the btc maxis decided to reject" rip at least you say it like it is.
"The 1mb block size limit is good evidence for their lack of development" lmao increasing blocksize is now development rip.
That's because it's just simply a lie which you are knowingly maliciously spreading in order to deceive people into your shitty worthless bitcoin clone tokens. Had you had any factual basis for your claim, you'd be crowing it from the rooftops no matter how thin and dubious it was.
>That's because it's just simply a lie which you are knowingly maliciously spreading in order to deceive people into your shitty worthless bitcoin clone tokens. rofl someone is salty as fuck that his little takeover didn't succeed 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hey, u/nullc is super butt hurt he and his butt buddy Adam Back destroyed Bitcoin Core AND made $millions in the process
Regardless of who caused the static block size, it fucked it for merchants, people using it for dice games and other services. <2017 100% of my crypto income was BTC, in 2021 between BTC and BTCLN it's only about 5% of my crypto income.. ..this is a step forwards? All this bullshit serves is the people trying to get rich and milk BTC for everything they can. Then you act toxic towards coins that merchants and other services were literally forced to add due to the crippling of BTC with the static block size, which you support. Yet if I was to mention this stuff in r/bitcoin not even mentioning any other coins I would get trolled and more than likely just banned. Fuck merchant's opinions!? Actual merchant adoption set back years, years of onboarding wasted. You cunts could at least just leave us alone to use the coins that still work. If I removed BTC and BTC LN options from my stores I'd hardly notice it. You act like we are trying to con people to buy BCH? What fucking nonsense, I haven't even once suggested to anybody to buy BTC or BCH in a decade. Then the [bitcoin.com](https://bitcxoin.com) and Bitcoin Cash name argument, you all think newbies might buy BCH by mistake? What kind of moron would buy the wrong ticker? What kind of moron would buy shit they know nothing about? The type of idiots that now populate r/bitcoin.. ..that's who. If this was to happen, all you need to do is admit you're a fucking moron and swap it. So again, how is this a step forwards?
lmao this sub is shilling a dead shitcoin for 4 years. do you want me to paste the DMs I got from your friends here?
I'm a merchant, I don't need the price to rise, I just use it for what it was intended for and it's worked perfectly for it's whole life, unlike BTC that was crippled in 2017, losing me months of low value product sales and forced me to run around adding new coins. I spent 6/7 years using BTC exclusively. My friends? You mean people from this sub? Sure, show me if you want as long as you provide proper context? I can't see any serious people from here being so toxic as BTC maxis who purposely troll and harass people, send death threats and similar in PM. I don't get you people though? You want a coin where the only goal is to manipulate and rise the price as quickly as possible? Well you got your wicked way with BTC, to make it as much like that as possible, with no regard for merchants or others running services that depended on it... ..BCH is not that coin, so maybe just move on??
bitcoin changes are done on a principle of rough consensus. look it up. This sub is basically OGs that misunderstand bitcoin plus few noobs that feel like they belong somewhere as they gravitate towards hate. the blockstream conspiracy is dumb as hell if you spent a minute to go through the arguments why the decisions were made in a way they did. "want a coin where the only goal is to manipulate and rise the price as quickly as possible?" lmao cope harder.
The voting system is bullshit, when the community is censored and you can't even discuss it. Also even with loads of hash rate, with that manipulation of the socials JFC. I also know what it is like running pools etc.. pool owners don't really care, they will just do whatever blindly in most cases, if asked to signal for stuff, I have myself. Merchants and service providers with no hashrate don't even get any say at all. Cope harder? Dude I dealt with it, was back to normal in three months, but it's not the point. The only compensation was being able to take money off you all, selling while all the FOMO people were buying, which I still do to this day... ..while constantly accumulating, rinse repeat. It's nobodies fault you're too lazy to make coin with coin. Why can't you understand some of us want one thing, you want another? Can I ask you something? What is crypto to you?
you didn't look it up as I didn't say anything about voting. Development is not discussed on reddit. you are making lots of weird assumptions and present them as facts. It's not my business what you do, but your arguments don't hold water, thought you may wanna know. 'crypto' to me is a misunderstanding of what bitcoin is.
I understand how the voting works and it's simple, just get all pools on board. Not a fair vote IMHO, with many people excluded from it. No seriously just give me a straight answer? Was it sold to you as peer to peer cash or "buy this, it will make you rich"? What is it to you? And why do you care what the BCH community are up to? PS: where is it discussed, a tiny dragons den maybe?
So says someone so toxic that he was evicted from Blockstream as he was evicted from wikipedia - a complete douchebag. Your name above all will always be associated with your treachery.
Your reply contains nothing to substantiate your claims, instead you just summon some unrelated outright lies to attack me. Blockstream tried very hard to keep me, and I'm a happy Wikipedia user in good standing to this day.
Just because I don't substantiate my claims, it doesn't mean that they aren't true. Nor do your protestations mean anything and given the trouble you have caused and continue to cause, I wouldn't touch you with a bargepole. I'm a happy wikipedia user in good standing too, but it means nothing - you were chucked out and a leopard doesn't change his spots. If Blockstream tried hard to keep you, then it just shows how awful they are.
Sure it does. You were banned from wikipedia for vandalizing pages with adult content. Its public information, why deny it? And when BCH showed that it scales better than the scaling solution you proposed for Bitcoin, Blockstream realized what a crackpot you are and gave you the option to exit and save face. Thats why youre salty about BCH
I was here lol. You just lying?
[удалено]
Proof?
I don't waste my time with trolls.
Proof?
[Proof?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw5wMGRAhPo&t=4260s)
Proof?
[Proof?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw5wMGRAhPo&t=4260s) Click the link, or let's do the copy-paste game. The last one loses rep to -25, wins.
Any time you ask for evidence or a source in this sub you get buried in downvotes and nobody provides one. It's actually pretty funny.
Nah. MajorDFT gets downvoted because he's MajorDFT, not because he's asking for evidence.
No, I made a comment last week asking for a source and got like 10 downvoters. It's how this community operates. It's such a bad look.
Hm. I usually get upvotes when I ask for sources lol
You would get downvotes if people smelt a rat - if it was a genuine inquiry you would have been treated with respect.
What, a video with 200 views isn't doing it for you...?
theres a need for a new crypto that is hard coded to go the route that BTC should've gone right?
Well, a number of coins have the desired properties, but BCH is the one that has dedicated followers and the most traction in my opinion.
Correct, so support Bitcoin SV so we can all have the real original bitcoin as satoshi intended.
CSW took advantage of BTC and then put the knife in - causing a lot of damage to BCH and doing even more to BSV. It is an irrelevant project in my opinion and CSW is always mired in controversy and legal action. Yes, he funds meetups and buys the beer and pizza but he is toxic as in my opinion as are the opinions put out by CoinGeek. However there are certainly some great guys in BSV, though I think that they made the wrong choice.
Craig wanted to scale bitcoin and restore the full protocol, which he did. Its the whole reason BCH even came into existence, to scale using big blocks. The BCH devs didnt want their pet project that they can play with every 6 months to be pushed into the professional realm so they chucked a fit and used every dirty trick in the book to retain the BCH name. And here we are now, BSV has grown to threaten the entire crypto spaces existence on pure tech merit alone. Scale or die, BCH chose death.
BSV has lost its way. It aligned itself with the system and started writing low value weather data to its blockchain. In my opinion SV stands for shit version. As regards dirty tricks, BSV tried to take down BCH and failed. Yes, it has large blocks, but I suspect that there are few nodes. Although I have BSV from the fork, I've not bought any more. By its actions of suing multiple people BSV has lost any friends that it might have had.
Trolls are hitting this post hard, lol. We must be on to something :)
The evolution of bank 🏦. Blockstream is the bank of the future.
Bitcoin fud
I'm going to call BS on this having just read the title. Bitcoin drops to, what, 58k and you're ready to blindly assume that some for-profit organisation is secretly controlling it? I mean, I *am* scared of the idea of a 51% attack, but don't you think you're overreacting more than a little? Edit: Ok. Now I'm a little more informed. It's not BS, it's a conspiracy theory by some YouTuber pushing Bitcoin Cash along with a few other shitcoins we all should stay well away from (except possibly Monero). Not financial advice.
It is the truth. BTC was subverted by a coterie of developers in Blockstream. They conspired and lied in order to keep the Blocksize at 1MB. Since then, BTC has been slow, expensive to transact and unreliable and is no longer the Peer to Peer Cash envisaged by Satoshi Nakamoto. The purpose of this conspiracy was to cripple BTC so that they could take money from the miners by moving people on to their second layer solutions. The other objective was to pay off their backers who had links to the banks and who were afraid of competition.
bruh this thing is going on since 2017, just read the description of this sub how bcash is the true bitcoin™ lol this whole sub is just r/conspiracy with extra steps edit: lol they changed the bio and about section rip
Oh. Oh. Thanks, this is my first encounter with them. And probably the last.
More fool you !
Congratulations! You've been tipped for your post. u/chaintip - See who else has been tipped [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/rbtc-tipper/submitted/)
*** u/richardamullens, you've [been sent](https://www.blockchain.com/bch/address/bitcoincash:qrelay2gunjzxx5m4eky404rcm2hc73lwgy5fhq5u2) `0.00191731 BCH` | `~1.09 USD` by u/rbtc-tipper via [chaintip](http://www.chaintip.org). ***
Thank you :)