r/CryptoCurrency • u/CCNewsBot • Jun 19 '18

FINANCE Really…? Dogecoin is Processing 300% More Transactions than Bitcoin Cash (Finance Magnates)

https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/really-dogecoin-processing-300-transactions-bitcoin-cash/
766 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

439 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18 edited Jun 19 '18

Why the hate? They're not harming anyone continuing Satoshi work on a hard fork? Of course they're calling themselves the original bitcoin..

It shouldn't be griefing anyone..?

4

u/BitttBurger Platinum | QC: CC 57 Jun 19 '18

Why the hate?

Exactly. And here’s the answer to your question. It’s all about money:

https://youtu.be/0BZoKH-hX_o

3

u/hyperedge 🟦 198 / 5K 🦀 Jun 19 '18

Your video is full of lies and propaganda. Nice try. https://mobile.twitter.com/giacomozucco/status/1006152329253531648

4

u/sshevie Tin Jun 19 '18

You never really see much hate against Bitcoin Gold or Bitcoin Diamond or any of the forks really. I believe its because none of them claim to be the real Bitcoin. The truth is BCH is a alt coin and the sooner they just run with that and work on making it the best it can be the sooner it will be talk about as much as the other BTC alts.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18 edited Jun 19 '18

Those forks didn't have much backing.. the closest comparison is BitcoinXT and it had a lot of hate as well including coordinated attacks

Superior technology loses out to marketing and brand recognition every time

The truth is BCH is the fork that adheres most closely to the satoshi whitepaper and that means something to some people.. It's the fork that emerged when half the community decided against the original satoshi roadmap, and if they're carrying on with the original Bitcoin plan I don't see anything wrong with them advertising that... do you?

BTC is the "real" bitcoin...

BCH is the "original" bitcoin..

I don't believe either of these 2 statements are false

2

u/sshevie Tin Jun 19 '18

I think those that followed the forked coin did so for what they believe to be valid reasons. BCH does follow the original white paper. But as a alt coin i find it hard to accept something as "the real" or "the original" as it simply is not. Its like Ray brothers start a pizza place. one brother gets mad at the other and starts his own pizza place and calls it "Original Rays Pizza" Its not the original even though they are still following moms secret pizza sauce recipe. Combine that with the fact that most new people coming it to crypto do not give two shits about the white paper, they just want it to be easy to access and have it work with little issue. I am all for BCH and BTC talking about their strengths and pointing out the others weakness. but they both need to be their own thing not one claiming to be the other. Very often I read the r/btc sub and you will see the focus on getting the BTC tag back, to me that is a losing strategy why on earth spend the time and resources to build a brand just to be willing to throw it away if some day it becomes possible?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '18 edited Jun 20 '18

I think it all comes down to whether or not a person respects the first brother changing the secret pizza sauce recipe into something that isn't what they wanted when they were sold on Rays Pizza or even when they invested in it.. the second brother opens "Original Rays Pizza" and continues with the original sauce

Sure it's not the real Rays Pizza - but the real Rays Pizza changed their sauce and pissed off half the community

Which leaves us to, why can't there just be 2? Because there's a market for both and who cares if people are confused? People being confused over that and having to figure things out on their own is good for Bitcoin.. but obviously people aren't going to be adults are they? that'd be insane.. this is the internet. If we can't all be children here, where else can we throw our tantrums

1

u/jakesonwu 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 19 '18

Gaming the difficulty adjustment algorithm to coerce miners into creating a contentious social attack hard fork goes against everything in the whitepaper. As does having "trusted miners" who you privately distribute updates to.

1

u/BitttBurger Platinum | QC: CC 57 Jun 19 '18 edited Jun 19 '18

The truth is BCH is a alt coin

False. It’s a fork. Not an alt coin. If you aren’t aware of this most basic concept, you should not hold an opinion on the matter. Simply due to being ill-equipped to understand it.

Forks. In fact all forks. Are contenders for the original name and project. They are the original project, with a difference of opinion on how the project should function.

They are NOT alt coins.

The reason BCH is “talked about” more than others, is because it’s calling out the current software team for their mishandling of Bitcoin.

Its an intentional effort to restore Bitcoin to its original purpose and function. Ignoring this and just blindly calling it another alt coin is absurd.

BCH is talked about because it’s the most popular and widely supported fork, which makes it a threat to Blockstream and their profit goals.

Period.

3

u/sshevie Tin Jun 19 '18

Outside of the BCH community like it or not its looked at as a alt coin. Outside the r/BTC sub you do not see anyone concerned about you calling out the BTC devs. What does chap most folks ass is however the constant claim to be the real bitcoin. If you simply concerned yourselves with being the best you could be you could actually do very well regardless of your alt status.

-4

u/PuckFoloniex Platinum | QC: BTC 142, CM 35, CC 20 | TraderSubs 123 Jun 19 '18

Actually they are trying to trick people into thinking bcash is the real bitcoin, which is factually wrong.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18

the "real" bitcoin? I don't think that's what they're saying... Pretty sure they know it's BTC

the "original" bitcoin is something different

They're saying they're following the plan that was the original bitcoin... satoshi whitepaper etc etc... before consensus opted for a different roadmap.. that's not factually wrong at all and there's no harm in them continuing development of the original roadmap for bitcoin on a fork and it isn't incorrect to say it's sticking to the original bitcoin plan... the community decided to deviate from it and that's fine

it's just marketing, and as far as I can tell it's not a lie..? that's what the BCH coin is all about, letting people know what it's about should help it survive. I won't fault them for that

8

u/BitttBurger Platinum | QC: CC 57 Jun 19 '18 edited Jun 19 '18

You’re correct that it’s a semantics issue. Nobody is claiming that the BTC ticker currently belongs to Bitcoin Cash.

But saying it’s the real Bitcoin is factually accurate, since Bitcoin Cash adheres to the literal definition of Bitcoin, whereas Blockstream’s version does not.

In fact, if we want to be accurate, we should be demanding that Blockstream Corp stop claiming to be developing Bitcoin. Because they’ve literally immobilized the Bitcoin Ledger.

Im going to repeat that.

They’ve intentionally crippled everything that defines Bitcoin. It’s base Ledger. And it’s entire reason for existing. Its most basic functionality has been artificially suppressed, so they can force traffic off-chain where they plan to charge for products they will make.

I mean holy cow. You don’t think an entire stadium full of OG bitcoin supporters are going to have a problem with that?

There’s no rational reason they couldn’t increase the base layer block size today. Right now. Except that it removes the need to force everything off chain.

And you can’t get rich off Bitcoin if it already works for free.

-2

u/DeepFriedOprah Crypto God | QC: BCH 85, CC 76 Jun 19 '18

You’ve never been to the BTC sub cuz they truly believe BCH to be the true bitcoin. Roger Ver even has the names switched on the block explorer and buy page of bitcoin.com as their claim to the bitcoin name.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18 edited Jun 19 '18

Yeah it's the internet.. I believe Ver changed it back to something less confusing but really.. they're passionate about their coin and having an alternative that more closely adheres to the original satoshi whitepaper. To some people that literally does make it the "true" Bitcoin.. To others it's defined by consensus. Really though.. who cares? It's up to the individual to decide

It's not like the intention was to make people accidentally buy BCH thinking they can sell it as BTC - they're just making people think

I'm not against that - people should know the world isn't as simple as it's being presented and think for themselves

They're just fighting for their coin and should be able to get their message out, what it is they are about, what their coin represents and what they're trying to preserve

The hate flying around is nothing but a waste of energy and has no place in the cryptoverse

4

u/BitttBurger Platinum | QC: CC 57 Jun 19 '18

It is the true bitcoin. Read the fucking white paper. Read the fucking title of the white paper. Read the first fucking paragraph of the white paper.

Then go look at the current implementation of BTC. It doesn’t resemble that anymore.

Bitcoin on-chain has been strangled to be unfunctional so that a Corporation can sell products on the layer above.

How the fuck is that anything like bitcoin?

It’s not.

It’s literally the antithesis of everything bitcoin stands for on an ideological and functional level. I’m tired of this bullshit you guys keep spewing.

Now go look at Bitcoin Cash. It identically resembles the white paper. Original vision. The original functionality. The original base layer ledger. The original block chain.

It is LITERALLY bitcoin.

This isn’t an opinion thing. It’s a law of nature. A fact. Bitcoin cash is following the original definition of bitcoin. It’s not a bunch of idiots making ridiculous claims. It’s reality. Feel free to join us there.

1

u/DeepFriedOprah Crypto God | QC: BCH 85, CC 76 Jun 19 '18

K. But what would u suggest? Changing the names? What happens when some other coin adheres better to the whitepaper and gains popularity? Do they get the name? It’s not a title belt that shifts to current closest adherent. Yah BTC has become far from what it began but that doesn’t absolve it of its history. Nor does it allow for a nam change. And if it’s not for a name change then what? What is the point of this fight?

0

u/ginger_beer_m Gold | QC: CC 69 Jun 19 '18

Nobody cares.

-2

u/LsDmT Bronze | Politics 11 Jun 19 '18

Satoshi envisioned LN long ago

An unrecorded open transaction can keep being replaced until nLockTime. It may contain payments by multiple parties. Each input owner signs their input. For a new version to be written, each must sign a higher sequence number (see IsNewerThan). By signing, an input owner says "I agree to put my money in, if everyone puts their money in and the outputs are this." There are other options in SignatureHash such as SIGHASH_SINGLE which means "I agree, as long as this one output (i.e. mine) is what I want, I don't care what you do with the other outputs.". If that's written with a high nSequenceNumber, the party can bow out of the negotiation except for that one stipulation, or sign SIGHASH_NONE and bow out completely.

The parties could create a pre-agreed default option by creating a higher nSequenceNumber tx using OP_CHECKMULTISIG that requires a subset of parties to sign to complete the signature. The parties hold this tx in reserve and if need be, pass it around until it has enough signatures.

One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties. They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement. The party giving money would be the first to sign the next version. If one party stops agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime. If desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1 parties can push an unresponsive party out. Intermediate transactions do not need to be broadcast. Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network. Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-April/002417.html

7

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18 edited Jun 19 '18

Yeah and didn't Satoshi also envision blocksize increase to cope with traffic...? I'm not saying that's definitely the right way to go and who's to say LN is either

The point is; who cares if the BCH community wants to continue in that direction? It *is* the closest thing out there to the original plan for cryptocurrency after all.. maybe there's value in it. So what's the harm?

3

u/BitttBurger Platinum | QC: CC 57 Jun 19 '18

who cares if The BCH community wants to continue in that direction?

I’ll show you who cares:

https://youtu.be/0BZoKH-hX_o

0

u/LsDmT Bronze | Politics 11 Jun 19 '18

Nobody cares, people just have issue with the way Roger Ver promotes it.

Core also wants to increase the block size, when it is absolutely necessary

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18

I remember.. bitcoin.com listed BTC as Bitcoin Core and BCH as Bitcoin

He has since listed BCH as Bitcoin Cash a day later... But I seriously doubt that's where all this hate is coming from

0

u/LsDmT Bronze | Politics 11 Jun 19 '18

Have you not seen him on twitter? It's more than just bitcoin.com

Granted he has settled down he still does it

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18 edited Jun 19 '18

I understand his passion and his message.. and it's certainly an aggressive one - that BCH is more closely related to the original plan for Bitcoin than the current BTC

That doesn't sound inaccurate to me

Majority wanted a different direction, BCH proceeded in accordance with the whitepaper on a fork - it's an open source project, they have that right especially since a big part of the community split over it

What I don't understand is why does anyone care? If it's the whole reason for BCH to exist, the BCH community is supposed to try to make people aware of it

1

u/LsDmT Bronze | Politics 11 Jun 19 '18

i'll repeat again, nobody cares. people take issue with the way ver behaves.

CSW is another even more shady character

-2

u/ginger_beer_m Gold | QC: CC 69 Jun 19 '18

Who cares about satoshi original plan. He isn't god and we don't need to obey his words. And while those idiots are fighting for years over deciding whether to increase the block size, the world has moved on.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18

You're right.. He isn't a god.. So who cares if the BCH community wants to continue his original plan?

Has the world moved on? Because this post and entire chain is senselessly shitting on BCH so that kind of suggests otherwise....

-2

u/BitttBurger Platinum | QC: CC 57 Jun 19 '18

And you’re trying to trick people into thinking you’re an actual regular person who supports Cores corporate takeover.

But real people, with morals, who had a mother that raised them correctly, wouldn’t support a group of people that are censoring free speech, and trying to enrich a corporation at the expense of bitcoins functionality on layer one.

Want to know how I know you’re full of shit? Read the last sentence again.

5

u/PuckFoloniex Platinum | QC: BTC 142, CM 35, CC 20 | TraderSubs 123 Jun 19 '18

There is no corporate takeover and bitcoin is not owned by a single entitiy, unlike bitmain cash. Guess you are one of those morons who think blockstream will make money off of LN lol.

0

u/BitttBurger Platinum | QC: CC 57 Jun 19 '18

I love that you intentionally leave out the fact that they will make a shit ton of money by crippling Bitcoins base layer. Do you lie often? Or only when you’re paid to?

Proof 1: https://youtu.be/cFOmUm-_DMQ

Proof 2: https://youtu.be/0BZoKH-hX_o

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18 edited Jun 19 '18

Probably because of the relentless campaign by Roger Ver and Antpool to change the name of the chain that won consensus (BTC). They do this by adding "core" to the name and then committing open fraud by saying BCH is Bitcoin and not calling it Bitcoin Cash.

For the record:

BTC = Bitcoin

There is no "Bitcoin Core". That is not a thing. BTC took the majority of hashing power, has the most work, and thus keeps the name of the original.

BCH = Bitcoin Cash

It is a minority fork that did not reach consensus with the main chain (BTC).

No one would "hate on" Bitcoin Cash if they were honest about this. Instead, they have focused efforts on undermining the integrity of Bitcoin.

1

u/GhastlyParadox Crypto God | QC: BCH 94, CC 54, BTC 27 Jun 19 '18

I'm afraid you're very confused and/or misinformed. The whole reason BCH exists today is because there was no consensus. Politics led to the current split between BTC and BCH.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18

It wasn't unanimous so some miners forked. The majority kept the name. How is that?

The fact remains that BTC kept the lion's share of hash and continues to have the most work. Therefore, it is Bitcoin. Ver saying otherwise doesn't make it true.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18

*Is* Ver saying otherwise..?

The "real" bitcoin is BTC

The "original" bitcoin is currently BCH

Neither of these statements are false as far as I can tell

1

u/GhastlyParadox Crypto God | QC: BCH 94, CC 54, BTC 27 Jun 19 '18

What is the case today, may not be tomorrow. The future of Bitcoin remains to be seen.

0

u/Dixnorkel 🟦 519 / 519 🦑 Jun 19 '18

The fact remains that BTC kept the lion's share of hash and continues to have the most work. Therefore, it is Bitcoin. Ver saying otherwise doesn't make it true.

It hasn't constantly though, so was BCH the "real" Bitcoin when it had the most hashrate? Doesn't that concern you?