On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 09:40:58 -0500 Lee Clagett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 20:08:00 +0000 > Bitcoin Cash Shills Be Like <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I will try to keep my post as easy to digest as possible, but this > > is a lot of information that actually stems back to cpunks and the > > help of a very based anon. > > > > > > 1. Pre-August 2017 - /pol/ anon makes post warning other anons about > > the implications of the User-Activated Soft Fork on Bitcoin's > > blockchain. This User-Activated Soft Fork activates software called > > Segregated Witness, a "scaling solution" funded by a company called > > Blockstream, who happens to be funded by venture capital groups. > > This "network upgrade" initiates on August 8th 2017, and if all the > > miners do not follow the abundance of nodes on the network, a chain > > split results, which looks terrible for Bitcoin. Because of this, > > and previous arrangements that will benefit the miners later on, > > Segwit is activated. Right before activation, Roger Ver states that > > he does not agree with what SegWit claims to do for Bitcoin, and in > > turn hard forks the network in order to preserve Bitcoin's > > ecosystem before this radical upgrade took place. > > Segwit was activated because it was a logical improvement to the > network in several areas. The primary objection I am aware of is how > it was implemented via soft fork. If enough participates are not > enforcing Segwit, then user funds could theoretically be stolen. The > way this is discussed on bitcoin.com in particular is confusing to > the average person. That problem exists with _every_ blockchain. If a > majority of the nodes are skipping signature checks due to the cost, > you are still in the stealing-user-funds doomsday scenario. The only > complications added by Segwit were: (1) how quickly do users upgrade > nodes, and (2) would it encourage more people to skip signature > checks since it would save on bandwidth (miners have been proven to > do this previously due to the CPU latency savings). AFAIK, its > impossible to enforce nodes to check signatures so (2) is only a > problem if the majority of nodes are constrained on bandwidth but not > CPU, and (1) was mitigated by releasing software nearly a year > advance and watching the miners/nodes for self reporting their > version numbers. And even then, people could simply never create a > Segwit address if they were still concerned about the potential > security (i.e. its use is completely optional, and sending or > receiving money from a Segwit address in no way changes your > security). > > This does bring up an interesting point, what happens if the blocksize > is increased to the point where nodes become a little CPU bound? Do a > sizeable portion of the nodes begin to skip signature checks? Has the > security of the system decreased as a result of increasing the > blocksize? > > > > WHAT IS SEGWIT? > > > > Segregated Witness is a software upgrade that forces every-day users > > such as you and I off of the main blockchain. It does this using a > > fee-based "solution". Fees to broadcast to the main blockchain are > > raised x1000, going from less than $1 to $1000 EOY 2018. Instead, > > average users will go through Side-Chains - a patented software that > > allows banks to control their own centralized blockchains, this > > means that they choose the transactions that will and will not be > > allowed to be broadcasted to the main blockchain, while you as an > > individual must pay them a fee to even use the sidechains. This > > means that banks have control over who can and cannot send money, > > something that was previously not possible with Bitcoin. > > Segwit is not forcing people off of the main chain - the limited block > space is forcing people off the main chain. Concerns of a sidechain > patent are also dubious. There are many ways for people to exchange > between crypto-currencies, including one decentralized p2p exchange > "bisq". The adoption of Bitcoin Cash by Coinbase and other parties > seems to indicate that Blockstream has no control over where the > transactions occur. People do not have to use "the main chain" for > settlement at all! This is the worst part of the Blockstream is > ruining Bitcoin narrative, if they push that hard people are just > going to fork to their own variant. I think it would even be possible > to take control of the Bitcoin name away from "core" if they were > deemed that untrustworthy (the Monero community did this with > "thankful_for_today"). I did forget that using a sidechain means you still technically own "Bitcoin". So the situation is a bit different than exchanging to another coin. Although the primary point still stands - Blockstream can try to influence Bitcoin heavily if they want, but it will simply push more people to fork the project out of their control entirely. > > > > 2. Post-August 2017 > > > > Roger Ver splits the Bitcoin blockchain with his hardfork, resulting > > in a new Bitcoin offspring named "Bitcoin Cash (BCH)" - Bitcoin Cash > > follows the original roadmap laid out by Bitcoin creator Satoshi > > Nakamoto, while Bitcoin (BTC) is now a science project of Bitcoin > > Core and Blockstream. Nothing is too bad on 4chan, a lot of people > > talking shit about Bitcoin Cash, but from my perspective it seems > > to be pure ignorance rather than any actual shilling. > > > > WHAT IS BITCOIN CASH? > > > > Bitcoin Cash is the original idea of Bitcoin, laid out by the > > creator of Bitcoin, and using solutions that Satoshi Nakamoto > > explicitly states exist for the future of the currency. These > > solutions allow for Bitcoin to scale according to the amount of > > users on the network, without the high-fee-based scalability model. > > This means that regardless of whether you are rich or poor, if you > > have Bitcoin Cash (BCH) you can broadcast your transaction to the > > blockchain for close to nothing. Censorship-resistant money. > > My primary objection to this portion is this statement: > > allow for Bitcoin to scale according to the amount of users on the > network, without the high-fee-based scalability model. > > Increasing the blocksize allows more transactions in a block, but it > also increases the network/cpu/memory/storage costs to miners and full > node operators. Right now the costs are low enough where light=weight > based wallets can connect to a full node for free to retrieve the > necessary information. Raising the blocksize faster than the relative > costs of running a full node likely will result in node operators > requiring payment from light-weight type wallets to provide that > service. There is no "free lunch" here; either the costs of processing > on-chain transactions is so low that the light-weight wallet services > can be provided cheaply, or more revenue needs to be generated for > those nodes to offset the larger cost of processing the transactions. > The first test to see what happens in this regard might be Ethereum, > as running a node seems to have high costs already. > > > Also this statement: > > Censorship-resistant money. > > was likely intended to be an objection to the higher transaction fees > that could be effectively pricing people out of the market. I suppose > this is a form of censorship, albeit in a way different than most > think about it. I think mining centralizing is a bigger concern - no > amount of money can technically offset a "banning" in the worst case. > Perhaps my scenario is less likely to happen? It seems like people > can move to another crypto-currency if either is that problematic. > > > > > 3. Bitcoin Cash Gains A Foothold > > > > As Bitcoin's (BTC) fees grow in price, less people begin to use it, > > the promise of Lightning Network and Sidechains are still being > > worked on, according to Core and Blockstream, but as of now, there > > is no immediate solution to these people. Raising the blocksize > > past 1MB is not possible. In turn, many businesses begin to drop > > Bitcoin, some turning to Bitcoin Cash, which results in newfound > > confidence and a new floor @ $1000 USD. At this point, 4chan begins > > to see many people shilling against Bitcoin Cash and either > > attempting to point people's attention toward alt-coins as the > > successor to Bitcoin, rather than Bitcoin Cash, which shares the > > same Genesis Block with Bitcoin. > > > > WHAT COINS ARE BEING SHILLED? > > > > With the failure of BTC being just around the corner, shills see > > this as an opportunity to begin their attack. They choose very > > specific coins for a VERY specific reason. Ethereum and Litecoin > > are the main alts being shilled. > > Are you not shilling for Bitcoin Cash right now? > > > WHY ETHEREUM? > > > > Ethereum Enterprise Alliance - search it. > > > > WHY LITECOIN? > > > > Litecoin, created by Charlie Lee, is a fork of Bitcoin created in or > > around 2013. What is so special about Litecoin? Nothing anymore. The > > most notable feature though, would be Segregated Witness, which was > > activated on Litecoin FAR before it was activated on Bitcoin. Since > > Segwit is software owned by Blockstream, if the majority of > > Bitcoin's market cap were to flow into Litecoin, banks would have > > won regardless of whether BTC dies or not. Either way both have > > Segwit activated, so Blockstream and banks win. > > Why would banks win if Segwit adoption spreads? This is such an > obvious falsehood to anyone who understands the technology that the > sentence reads as complete incomprehensible garbage. > > > > > 4. Bitcoin Cash Begins to Suck the Life Out of Bitcoin > > > > As of Nov 15th 2017, Bitcoin Cash has begun to absorb Bitcoin's > > market dominance at a rapid rate, swinging between .1 and .3 > > Satoshi in comparison to BTC. Eventually Bitcoin Cash is projected > > to be at a 1:1 ratio with BTC, and afterwards will kill BTC > > completely, as they both work using the same hardware and mining > > algorithms. Bitcoin Cash has some added features including an > > adjusted DAA that stop miners from being able to kill the network > > by making it to expensive to mine at a loss when hashpower is > > removed. In other words, Bitcoin Cash's blockchain is a lot > > stronger and more resistant to the chain-death spiral that could > > completely (and will) kill Bitcoin. > > I cannot grok the phrase "making it expensive to mine at a loss when > hashpower is removed". If they removed the hashpower, what are they > mining? Anyway, the Bitcoin Cash algorithm was designed to react > quicker to a loss in hashrate. It can cause oscillation problems as > miners move between different networks due to changes in > difficulty/price of various coins with the same PoW. I don't see this > as a positive or negative for Bitcoin Cash, the programmers appeared > to make a best effort judgement call to keep the network going. > > > > > 5. Coinbrase adds Bitcoin Cash > > > > As of Dec 20th 2017, Coinbrase announces that it will add Bitcoin > > Cash as a USD pair, shaking confidence in BTC and bringing the > > market down for a short period of time. Due to not enough > > liquidity, the price of Bitcoin Cash shoots from $4000 USD to $9000 > > USD within 6 minutes, and coinbrase disables trading, as they do > > not believe the price is healthy and may be manipulated. > > > > > WHY IS ANY OF THIS IMPORTANT? > > > > As Bitcoin Cash has grown, BTC has began to die, which ultimately > > was the plan of banks anyway, they never wanted Bitcoin to work. > > They want to kill it or control it, now they have a big issue to > > deal with. > > The banks planned for Bitcoin to die? Then why allow open-source code > that can easily be copied and forked to do what Bitcoin Cash is doing? > I realize that you are clearly shilling non-sense for Bitcoin Cash, > but the rhetoric was so over the top in this post I couldn't help but > respond to the stupidity. > > > POINT? > > > > Anyone calling Bitcoin Cash "Bcash" is doing so in an attempt at > > shifting the narrative and pulling Bitcoin Cash away from the > > "Bitcoin" name. > > Lee
