gildings in this subreddit have paid for 13.46 months of server time

I got my Bitcoin Cash stickers finally, thanks Roger! #BCHPLS Now time to actually save up to buy some lol by Saerithrael in btc

[–]Uejji 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I do think it is a lil shady to present yourself as Bitcoin while there is another product already going by that name

Try to let go of thinking that Bitcoin is a "product."

Bitcoin is a protocol. Bitcoin is an effort. Bitcoin is an idea. Bitcoin is a movement.

The moment you try to slap words like "brand," "trademark," "product" on Bitcoin, you cheapen it. You turn it into the kind of centralized authoritarian mess that Bitcoin wanted to break down in the first place.

When someone creates a product or has a brand, they can do whatever they want with it because it follows them, even if they change it completely from what it used to be.

That isn't Bitcoin. Bitcoin is peer-to-peer electronic cash. That's what we're fighting for, and that's what Bitcoin Cash adheres to.

We're not pushing sidechains or complicated extra layers as part of Bitcoin. We're building a cryptocurrency based on what Bitcoin was always defined and meant to be.

ELI5: Why do people hate on BCH on r/CryptoCurrency and other subs? by jdyhrberg in btc

[–]fapthepolice 82 points83 points  (0 children)

/r/cryptocurrency is comprised of:

  1. Paid shills

  2. Useful idiots who see what's upvoted and accept the hivemind mentality, begging for upvotes instead of doing their own research

  3. Whales pumping coins they're heavily invested in

Bitcoin Cash never cost $1, so they were never able to accumulate large quantities of it. Therefore it's of no interest for the pump and dumpers who frequent the sub.

They're much more interested in coins like nano and vechain that provide a x100 potential in a few months just as a result of a shill campaign. So they're comfortable with core's propaganda, as it helps their cause, too.

PSA: Replying respectfully to rBitcoin moderators outside of rBitcoin will also get you banned. /u/StopAndDecrypt Have a nice day. by veryverysalty123456 in btc

[–]chernobyl169 181 points182 points  (0 children)

/u/spez and other Reddit administration:


  • Vote brigades
  • Blanket bans
  • Offsite brigades
  • Pre-emptive bans
  • Hacks of other users
  • Vandalization of competing subs
  • Petty theft of tippr funds
  • Twitter takedown brigading (organized within r/bitcoin)
  • Breaking Reddit (CSS is still broken, years later)
  • Systemic harassment of individuals (Jihan Wu, Roger Ver, Craig Wright)

r/bitcoin is an egregious, blatant, and glowing example of reddiquette and modiquette violations. Everything about r/bitcoin is in clear opposition to the ideals and fundamentals of Reddit. I'VE RAISED THIS CONCERN MANY TIMES, AND PREVIOUSLY WARNED THAT FAILURE TO RESPOND WOULD GIVE THE IMPRESSION OF COLLUSION.

As far as I'm concerned, Reddit administration is in collusion with Theymos and Blockstream to prevent adoption of Bitcoin Cash and crypto awareness that can lead to better decision making by investors. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm certain there's a criminal activity going on here. Reddit, prove me wrong.

BIP70: Either BitPay get rid of it, or all BCH wallets implement it ASAP. by CryptoHiRoller in btc

[–]lcvella 64 points65 points  (0 children)

In my next free weekend, I'll look into adding it to Electron Cash.

Funny. Every crypto-sub freaking out about drop in value and market price. Here, in r/btc everything remains calm and care about adoption. by fulltrottel in btc

[–]xjunda 198 points199 points  (0 children)

It was never about price or getting rich overnight. I joined Bitcoin to:

Bank the unbanked

Challenge Central Authorities

Stop funding wars

Participate developing countries to global economy

Just to name a few.

Lil Windex - Bitcoin Ca$h video by ---Mike---- in btc

[–]realLilWindex 57 points58 points  (0 children)

This thread is great 😂 I appreciate that love guys! Glad y'all enjoy.

P.S The Q-Code in the video is mine and is fully functional 😉 #justsayin

-Lil Windex

Amaury Sechet: "If you have people in charge [i.e. Core Devs] that don't believe that on-chain scaling is possible - it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Therefore, people who say that it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are actually doing it." by tralxz in btc

[–]where-is-satoshi 20 points21 points  (0 children)

It is not just him.

BTC should succeed on its merits of high fees and artificial congestion not on the effectiveness of its censorship and deceit campaign.

If you hold BTC, defend BTC, contribute code to BTC, trade BTC, invested in BTC or are an exchange using BTC as a base pair, you condone this attack on free speech, all the deceit and all the harm it causes. Censorship should not be tolerated

Sometimes I get asked "Why do you support Roger Ver?" To those people I say, @RogerkVer has done more than many of us put together to advance Bitcoin. Also, we share many of the same values and outlook on life. If you don't understand, watch this video. by BitcoinXio in btc

[–]tralxz 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Roger is one of the key people who contributed greatly to Bitcoin's success. So both Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash sides should appreciate that.

Meet Bitcoin XT, the Precursor to Bitcoin Cash by paycomnow in btc

[–]btcfork 15 points16 points x2 (0 children)

Let's dissect this poor article by TheMerkle, for it is severely lacking.

So, for the benefit of those who would otherwise gain a false impression of some facts...

Since its inception and launch last summer, Bitcoin Cash has maintained the attention of everyone in the cryptocurrency community. For better or worse, the Bitcoin hard fork has assumed a major role as the leading dissenter to the Bitcoin protocol.

Bitcoin Cash affirms the Bitcoin protocol as laid out in the whitepaper. We dissented the contentious changes imposed by the SegWit softfork on the original design, and even moreso its attempted introduction by the UASF. Reminder: SegWit never gained more than ~30% support without the NYA agreement. Its activation was a direct result of the NYA agreement, whose hardfork part was later reneged upon by some signatories, leading to the present situation where Segwit has been activated without the agreed upon blocksize increase.

While most individuals currently involved in cryptocurrency have some knowledge of the sentiments and events associated with Bitcoin Cash (BCH), most are unaware of the historical antecedents of the August 1 hard fork. Prior to the Bitcoin Cash campaign, there was another potential fork of Bitcoin known as Bitcoin XT. Like BCH, Bitcoin XT sought to solve scalability issues through larger blocks and realize Satoshi’s vision by presenting an open and non-censored community.

So far so good. But don't forget that after XT, there came other previous forking clients, before Bitcoin Cash. These were Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited, taking somewhat different approaches.

While the article wishes to focus only on XT, bear in mind that it is giving only an incomplete picture of the history.

Bitcoin XT was the evolution of the June 2015 BIP 101 presented by Gavin Andresen, the former lead Bitcoin Core developer, that provided a solution to the scalability problem through a block size increase to 8MB and a function to automatically double the block size indefinitely every other year. In August 2015, after incorporating solutions proposed by Mike Hearn, the Bitcoin XT code base was created. Bitcoin XT implemented a modified version of BIP 101, which instead called for a block size increase to just 2MB, and which would activate when 75% of mined blocks supported XT.

On the surface level, both forks are similar in that both addressed speed and cost issues by immediately and frequently increasing the size of the transaction blocks. Beyond that, both coins sought to “decentralize” the discussion taking place in regards to Bitcoin by moving activity away from Bitcointalk and /r/Bitcoin, which are both run by the same operating team and have had controversial positions in moderating discussions.

Interesting that the article calls this "the same operating team". This confirms overlap of multiple people, not only Theymos.

Bitcoin XT saw its maximum level of support when Theymos, the admin of Bitcointalk and /r/Bitcoin, was under heavy criticism for practices and statements made.

No direct mention of censorship of the debate by Theymos and other moderators, which is what the community was most outraged at.

The pinnacle of this was an announcement that reinforced his position in deleting dissenting discussion and urged everyone who disagreed with the practices in place to leave the community outright. BCH saw a lot of support from individuals who similarly sought a more free, open community for discourse and discussion.

Thanks for admitting to the censorship here under the softened version "deleting dissenting discussion".

Beyond this, however, the two forks vary significantly. This is most evident from the leadership of the respective campaigns. While XT was led by major contributors to the Bitcoin code base in Hearn and Andresen, BCH is headed by individuals of questionable integrity: the evangelist Roger Ver, Bitmain CEO Jihan Wu, and self-proclaimed “Satoshi” Craig Wright.

Article calls the integrity of these people into question without providing any backing evidence, and then uses this ad hominem (I've seen it being called Ad Rogerem in this sub) as a way to detract from the merits of the Bitcoin Cash fork. That is a disappointing level of journalistic presentation of arguments against the fork. See if you can locate the level of argument on Graham's hierarchy of disagreements.

Additionally, the launch of these forks followed completely different schedules. XT’s launch was predicated on supermajority support of at least 75% of all miners, while Bitcoin Cash was slated to fork on August 1 regardless of its overall support.

Segwit's failure to activate at even 95% prior to the NYA showed that activation via BIP9 was subject to minority veto.

The criticism against other forks (incl. XT, Classic and BU) was that they did not provide for replay protection, and for XT and Classic specifically the 75% threshold was deemed to low (being lower than BIP9's 95%). BU did not rely on an activation threshold, the previous 75% forks having been proven unsatisfactory to the miners who did not wish a fork which activated at only 75%, and in any case it was doubtful that even such a supermajority consensus would be reached, making a split without replay protection too messy.

It is on these differences in organization and implementation that much of the legitimate criticism of BCH is based.

Bitcoin Cash as a minority fork came about as a contingency measure against the UASF which threatened to activate Segwit by soft-fork without safe mining consensus and risked a chain wipeout.

The article neglects to mention any of this.

However, Bitcoin Cash was designed to be a minority hashpower hardfork from the outset, and advertised itself as such (hence the need for difficulty adjustment, replay protection etc).

Therefore, criticism about not adhering to > 75% (e.g. to BIP9's 95% threshold) is simply invalid. Had Bitcoin Cash gone with a BIP9 activation, it would have never activated (just like Segwit was easily opposed by > 5% of the mining power). The activation threshold is simply a strawman argument.

That seems to leave the "integrity" argument in this article. There isn't much to discuss as the article does not elaborate in any way on how the integrity of the named persons is "questionable".

Bitcoin XT wouldn’t launch unless the community supported it, as the supporters of XT were legitimately attempting to create a more virtuous, pure Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash, on the other hand, was seen by many as a ploy by Jihan Wu to maintain superior mining algorithms which were eliminated by SegWit, and by Roger Ver to maximize his net worth through malicious market making and manipulation.

This veiled allegation of ASICboost use and claims of insider trading are likewise lacking in evidence. It is repeating Core propaganda constructed at practically the last minute to tarnish the Bitcoin Cash fork.

Although Bitcoin XT never saw the support of even 25% of the overall mining power, the method in which it was to be implemented represented a just approach, beneficial to all. BCH, on the other hand, has sparked an arguably malicious trend of constant, often needless, forks of Bitcoin as well as other cryptocurrencies.

It is also disingenous to the extreme to insinuate that BCH has sparked the malicious forking trend.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that a fork war of attrition was launched as a way to dilute public recognition of the Bitcoin Cash effort.

In fact, the Bitcoin Cash chain came under attack by the Bitcoin Clashic fork which tried to preserve a chain with rules prior to the 13 November 2017 upgrade.

Hardforks were painted as mere "airdrops" to cement their delegitimization as a mechanism to determine consensus on Bitcoin, instead they were relegated to a way to get quick "dividends" on holding Bitcoin.

A subreddit, /r/BitcoinAirdrops, was founded by a long-time /r/Bitcoin poster and presumed strong Core supporter, /u/ForkWarOfAttrition. The username already bodes of intent.

Hardforking Bitcoin was declared as an avenue of attack on the ecosystem as a whole (exchanges and other service providers) by Core supporters like Jimmy Song in his talk at the Breaking Bitcoin conference.

Core supporters publicly declared how they expected a large number of forks to arise, which promptly ensued.

Forks like Bitcoin Gold were conducted by entities with known affiliation to opponents of Bitcoin Cash.

Often times, these forks falsely attributed Bitcoin Cash related developers (without their consent) in what appeared to be either attempts to gain credibility for the forks, or to damage the reputation of big block and Bitcoin Cash supportive developers.

These forks also prominently displayed other questionable behaviors, like wallet software that would steal users private keys, allocate enormous pre-mines to themselves etc.

In other words, try to be scammy in almost every possible way. For reference, many of the blatant scam behaviors are documented in /r/BitcoinScamCoins - the forks listed in the sidebar are just a small fraction of the overall number of forks launched or planned so far.

Clearly, an outcome of this was to damage the reputation of forking, and further make people shy away from anything that was supposedly not "the one true Bitcoin" (BTC).

Furthermore, the speed and efficacy with which these dubious forks were churned out suggest a professional organisation behind the effort.

None of the teams of Bitcoin Cash developers involved themselves in these forks. To blame the deluge of forks on BCH seems, again, disingenuous and a tactic to malign BCH.

Bitcoin Cash is not a scamcoin. Clearing up the FUD. (crosspost /r/cryptocurrency) by thepaip in btc

[–]s_tec 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Segwit does weaken some important Bitcoin security assumptions, at least in theory.

Basically, there is a scenario where certain miners skip downloading witness data, since they can safely assume that the previous miner validated everything. This gives the non-validating miner a performance edge, since they can start mining new blocks sooner while still collecting fees for new transactions. This creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop where more and more miners have to adopt the optimization to remain competitive. Once this process reaches 51%, nobody is validating witness data on the longest chain, and segwit funds suddenly become "anyone can spend" in the Nash equilibrium.

The fee part is important, since the same optimization trick doesn't work for non-segwit transactions - until the miner downloads the list of transactions in the new block, they can only mine empty blocks, which forfeits fees. The attack only works because the segwit witness data isn't a part of the txid hash, which breaks a key aspect of Satoshi's original transaction security model.

Peter Rizun gives a talk where he explains all the nitty-gritty details I glossed over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY Again, this is all theoretical, and real-life miners might altruistically decide not to let this happen. I would rather not keep my coins in a transaction type that depends on altruism for security, which is why I personally will not keep any BTC in a segwit wallet.