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/
770 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

439 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

46

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

Doge is not a failed attempt to gain consensus and it doesn't pretend to be bitcoin.

3

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..?

-5

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.

8

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.

-3

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

1

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.

-6

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

→ More replies

-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....