Yes, We Like Bitcoin & Other Crypto Currencies

[hikingpete]

I'm already using Patreon, and would happily add Phoronix there if it were available.

[superstructor]

It you accept Stellar Lumens (XLM), I'll buy a lifetime membership to support the site.

[superstructor]

I recommend putting a good portion of your wealth on bitcoin.

There are good chances we'll see bitcoin at 1M per BTC by the end of 2020.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLzRUFXSQdc

1M. Are you joking ? Do people these days prefer the Nokia 3210[1], one of the most successful phones in history launched in 1999, or iPhones and Androids ?

Bitcoin is the Nokia 3210 of distributed ledger technology. It is obsolete. The iPhone and Androids of the blockchain world will replace it completely, then it will crash in value to almost nothing.

If your serious about cryptocurrency investment check out any of the other top 10 coins on coin market cap, including Stellar Lumens (XLM) or EOS.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_3210

[malkavian]

bcash is a scam, don't use it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI

Bitcoin (BTC) is the real Bitcoin.

Your inexistent argument is the scam. "Bitcoin" is not a registered trademark, sorry. And bcash is not a cryptocurrency, is other thing: http://bcash.gr/

Bitcoin mining fees used to be crazy, but seem to have dropped to reasonable numbers again.

Right now, it's approximately:
BTC: 0.00015 ~ 1.26 USD
BCH: 0.0002 ~ 0.28 USD
ETH: 0.0012 ~ 0.85 USD
LTH: 0.00075 ~ 0.10 USD

¿0,28 USD? That's too much. You are using a bad wallet. Paying 1 satoshi ( 0,00000001 BCH) per byte is enough, wich make an usual transaction cost about 0,01USD. There is no saturation, and the intention is to not having it never so fees are always low.

[cybertraveler]

Your inexistent argument is the scam. "Bitcoin" is not a registered trademark, sorry. And bcash is not a cryptocurrency, is other thing: http://bcash.gr/

I don't think that "ihatemichael" guy knows what he's talking about. I've seen loads of people parroting phrases like "bcash lol" on various places online related to crypto currency. Anywhere where BCH is mentioned they tend to show up and commence making school-yard level remarks about it. It comes across to me as incredibly foolish.

I think these people don't like the fact that Bitcoin Cash is successfully continuing the Bitcoin experiment to produce a world-wide, p2p, electronic cash system. The BTC side of the chain has been taken over by a cult-like force which has re-purposed the chain beyond recognition. BTC is not Bitcoin; not even close. It's not adhering to the design and goals of Bitcoin which is: a p2p, electronic cash system which is cheap, fast, permissionless and reliable. The Bitcoin Core project is attempting to turn the BTC chain into a "store of value" and a "settlement layer" for a currently non-existent (in a usable form) 2nd layer cash system.

I have keenly studied Satoshi's design for Bitcoin and I think it has a good chance at succeeding. Bitcoin Cash is closely following the original design and goals for Bitcoin. It is most definitely not a scam. There are lots of innovative projects and people working in the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem and on the Bitcoin Cash software.

I have keenly studied the Bitcoin Core designs for BTC from both an economics and technical standpoint. I have concluded that it is very unlikely that it will succeed in producing a cash system that is permissionless, cheap and reliable for billions of people to use. The Bitcoin Core team are not practical at all. Despite being warned by many prominent developers within the Bitcoin community of the impending congestion, they failed to produce a modest capacity increase: this resulted in BTC transaction fees reaching, typically, over 20 euros last December. This has been an absolute disaster for adoption. What sane business is going to start work integrating BTC with their business when the system is already running at near maximum capacity and the cost of using the system is unpredictable and at times very expensive (relative to competing crypto currencies and relative to existing payment networks like Swift, Visa and Paypal).

The lightning network is the proposed 2nd layer system that Bitcoin Core want to sit ontop of BTC to provide cash-like functionality (similar to what Bitcoin Cash already has). However the lightning network is currently an incredibly complicated, bug ridden toy project that is absolutely unusable for the average person. It has very low adoption and has almost insurmountable technical problems which are yet to be solved (most notably: the routing problem).

There will be a market correction at some point. The value of BTC is based on two things: the false belief that it is Bitcoin and the false belief that the scaling plans proposed by the Bitcoin Core team will yield a competitive, practical, permissionless, cheap cash system.

¿0,28 USD? That's too much. You are using a bad wallet. Paying 1 satoshi ( 0,00000001 BCH) per byte is enough, wich make an usual transaction cost about 0,01USD. There is no saturation, and the intention is to not having it never so fees are always low.

Thanks for correcting him. I don't know who made that chart but it's very misleading. I don't think there has ever been a point where it cost over 1 cent to produce a typical transaction on the BCH chain which would be confirmed within 1 or 2 blocks. I expect the chart is the product of one of these "bcash lol" types.

[cybertraveler]

You don't know what you are talking about, I do, I have BTC.

I know I'm right because I have some BTC. Great argument. Let me try it:

I know I'm right because I have some some BCH and BTC.

I'm double right because I have double the crypto coinses

/s

BCH is an altcoin, if it were bitcoin, you would be able to send me BCH and my bitcoin wallet would accept the transaction, which is not the case. BCH have changed the protocol, the block size, etc. It's not in consensus, plain and simple.

Another great argument: I know I'm right because my wallet software says BTC is Bitcoin. Because my wallet software says it, it must be true!

Let me try it:

"I know I'm right because my wallet software says BCH is Bitcoin. Because my wallet software says it, it must be true!"

/s

You might not be aware of this, but BTC has also "changed the protocol" too (changed the consensus rules since the Genesis Block). Segwit is a consensus change that is incompatible with the previous rules. If you attempt to mine blocks with a pre-segwit version of the Bitcoin Core software, your blocks will be rejected. If someone has told you otherwise they are misinformed or lying. There have been numerous other changes to Bitcoin's consensus rules since its inception too, including 1 hardfork in 2013. Luke JR (a Core Developer) will confirm it: https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/statu...32996412850177

You also don't seem to be aware that Segwit changes the block size. The theoretical maximum block size for BTC is now 4MB, whereas before Segwit it was 1MB.

Also: Satoshi, made it very clear that the consensus rules of Bitcoin (including the intended-temporary block size cap) could be changed when necessary. In the event that there was a chain split during a consensus change, he stated that the system can handle it via Nakamoto Consensus. IE the chain with the most accumulative proof of work is the real chain. You may feel compelled to point out that the BTC has the most accumulative proof of work, so during the August 1st 2017 chain split, BTC won. To this I would say:

1. BTC does not meet the definition of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is very clearly a p2p, electronic cash system. It was designed to be that and promoted to be that throughout its entire life. The Bitcoin Core developers do not claim or plan for BTC to be a p2p, electronic cash system. They intend for it to be a "store of value" or a settlement system for layer 2 systems. On August 1st of 2017, the Bitcoin chain split in two. One one side, you have BTC, which is run by a centralised development team and which has decided to experiment with a design to replace Satoshi's design for Bitcoin. On the other side you have BCH, which is a continuation of the Bitcoin experiment and is following the designs and goals laid out by Satoshi and promoted for many years by Bitcoin supporters after Satoshi left the project.

2. BCH will likely have the most accumulative proof of work in the future when its price per coin exceeds that of BTC.

You accuse others of parroting but you are the one doing that, Roger Ver have educated you well, how much is he paying you?

I was actually wondering how long it would take you to invoke Roger Ver's name. This is the next most popular thing that you guys say after "bcash lol".

By saying "how much is [Roger Ver] paying you?" you're implicitly making a claim that Roger Ver is paying me. This is a claim that I am a stooge and am acting disingenuously. If you're setting a standard that making unfounded, disparaging claims against a person you disagree with is OK, then my question for you is: how much profit have you made robbing old ladies?

For the record: I came to my conclusions on my own after careful study. I have not been paid to speak these words by Roger or anyone. I also don't believe you have robbed any old ladies; I have no evidence of that and unlike you I do not need to rely on ad hominems to make up for a lack of good arguments.

[cybertraveler]

BCH (bcash) is not bitcoin, beware of scammers.

Bitcoin Gold, Segwit2X, Bitcoin Diamond and all the other minor forks are insignificant by every measure (community involvement, market cap, size of development teams, industry support, usage). They make no claim of being Bitcoin and they do not have the most accumulative Proof of Work.

Your diagram could be re-arranged to show BCH has the original chain in yellow and BTC as a fork in purple. Your diagram is a simple re-assertion of your erroneous belief that BTC is Bitcoin. BTC is Bitcoin Core. It's a project to replace Nakamoto Consensus with an a centralised development team called Bitcoin Core, change the system from being a cash system to being a settlement system and change the community from being an emergent grass roots community to one that is created and maintained through censorship, propaganda and primitive school yard style repetition of mindless phrases like "bcash lol", "chinese miner scam coin" and "Roger Ver sock puppet".

Keep trying.

[cybertraveler]

This is false, segwit was activated as a soft-fork, thus it's a backwards compatible protocol change.

It's only backwards compatible if you ignore the reduction in security that non-mining nodes get and the increased risk of having blocks orphaned if you're a mining node.

Without modification non-mining nodes can be fed a block which is invalid under the new rules. The block could contain a transaction which is double spent in a later valid Segwit block. The victim's wallet software would see the transactions has one confirmation. If it's an automated system it may release goods. If it's a human watching the software they may do similarly. In order to fix this reduction in security the user is forced to upgrade their software and make it aware of the new Segwit consensus rules.

Without modification, mining nodes can be fed a block which extends the chain but is invalid under the new Segwit rules. These mining nodes will then continue mining this block until the chain is extended by 2 blocks starting before the invalid block. Again, to fix this newly introduced issue the mining node software has to be updated to be aware of the new Segwit consensus rules.

In both cases, the software doesn't have to completely implement the new rules to mitigate the new issues, but it does have to be updated to some extent.

It does meet this defintion, I don't pay more than a few satoshis for my transactions and it confirms in a matter of minutes.

This is an extremely disingenuous point to make and you know it. What you have said is only true on some days and at some times. It is absolutely not true all of the time. In-fact, it hasn't even been true for a number of hours of today.

Anyone can check that you're being disingenuous by checking any site that monitors the BTC mempool:

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#1,24h

https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/

Furthermore, it is well within the realm of possibility that during the next crypto market boom, BTC will once again get a multi-day backlog of transactions which results in average users having to pay large sums of money to transact on the BTC network.

Lightning Network fees are even lower than BCH fees.

The Lightning Network is not ready for end users to use as a practical mechanism for transacting and you know it. The wallet software is not considered secure. The routing algorithm that has been implemented is only temporary and not capable of handling large numbers of users. Most importantly, there are very few places you can spend BTC using Lightning.

Bitcoin (BCH) on the other hand is accepted in 1000s of stores. Here is a sample of them:

https://acceptbitcoin.cash/

Most stores that use Bitpay for processing accept Bitcoin (BCH) too.

With BCH you really can make transactions at one satoshi per byte and they will almost always go through and it will stay that way for the foreseeable future.

Keep dreaming.

No need. It's just a matter of time. Fundamentals always win out eventually.

Sorry, but it's a known fact that Roger Ver have a lot of sockpuppets he pays to influence others, BCH is his project and he even agreed to this in the interview I linked earlier.

So is it a fact Roger has lots of sockpuppets just like it's a fact that I'm paid by him? Where's your evidence?

BCH isn't his project. He wasn't even backing BCH until after the Segwit2X hf fell through.

He has a bad reputation of scamming people and committing crimes, I'm not sure if you're aware but even coinmarketcap removed bitcoin.com and BCH links from the bitcoin page.

More accusations without evidence. Who did Roger scam?

The only truth here is that BCH/bcash is trying to sabogate bitcoin, it's simply another attack that has failed.

You're spreading misinformation. You're slandering people. Your arguments are weak and at times childish in nature. I've shown you to be disingenuous.

If you're not a psychopath, then I expect you feel quite a bit of self hate. I personally couldn't do all those things and still feel OK with myself. It's not to late to change.

[cybertraveler]

I previously said: ". If you attempt to mine blocks with a pre-segwit version of the Bitcoin Core software, your blocks will be rejected." Sorry. That statement isn't true as it's highly unlikely that old software will produce blocks which violate the new rules. I had to re-read the Segwit specs to verify.

However, my comments in my post above about the new risks for miners and reduced security for non-upgraded nodes are true.

[cybertraveler]

It's really fascinating to me how similar you are to all the other "bcash lol" group members. The very simple answer is that you're all working together as a team from a centrally administered script. That would certainly explain things perfectly. I think there may be some truth to that. Your group does have figure heads that it takes queues from: people like Greg Maxwell. I don't think that explains everything though: It seems too easy. I think the truth might be there is some kind of psychological commonality you all have and this recent BTC cult thing that has happened has an appeal to that thing which is common to you all. I don't know what the thing or the appeal is; other than the obvious appeal of making profit (you all hold a token that you want to go up in value). It has to be more than that though, because there are lots of people that invest in things that don't act in such a primitive, vitriolic way. Maybe I'll meet one of you guys one day and I'll get a chance to see what makes you tick.

I recognise my own commonalities with people who share my views.

What are your commonalities? Do you know? It's amazing. I hope you're not simply being paid by some shady force: that would be boring.

Bye