MUH COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOINS !

[Lee Clagett]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 09:40:58 -0500
Lee Clagett <forum at leeclagett.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 20:08:00 +0000
> Bitcoin Cash Shills Be Like <bitcoinapwalletisf at nuke.africa> 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