Hacker News Reader

Comment by gressquel | Hacker News Reader

The article sounds like a propaganda for BCash. For common peoples information, BCash is supported by chinese miners, Satoshi Nakamoto impersonator, a convict named Roger and other types of dubious characters.

View on HN

What about it sounds like propaganda? They link to a source that currently shows an $18 fee to have a transaction in the next Bitcoin block, which seems to rule out the sort of transactions they are trying to do.

If Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash are decentralized, why should it matter who supports them? Shouldn't they be judged on technical merits alone?

(I have no holdings in either one)

You don't have to pay $18, you can wait a little for multiple confirmations instead. By the time you're done waiting, volatility in BTC's price may put you $18 ahead. Or $18 in the hole. /s

How are Chinese miners dubious characters? Also, Roger Ver got convicted of selling varmint-grade firecrackers on eBay. Who cares.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roger_Ver#Explosives_vs_f...

'As for fireworks vs explosives, the current limit on firecracker size in the US is 50mg of flash powder. The "Pest Control Report 2000" was 1000mg'

This is what everyone resorts to when you know they can't win the argument. They have to attack the messenger. It never works in the end.

Really dude? This is not /r/bitcoin.

> Bcash

It’s Bitcoin Cash. You’re just making the community look like a cult.

That's why I left /r/bitcoin. Too much people just shilling like crazy and the mods are openly banning anyone who talks anything bad about bitcoin. No joke.

It's bcash.

From /r/bitcoin:

>Starting a new company called Apple Unlimited! Please don't confuse this with our competitor, Apple. We did "borrow" all of their code, but we claim to follow the wishes of the great Steve Jobs, because the new guys that took over are ruining everything and censoring everyone!

Bitcoin Cash is closer to original Bitcoin than Bitcoin Core. What makes one more worthy of the name than the other? Both are forks.

You can still run a 0.8 node on the bitcoin network if you are so inclined, because changes have been implemented via soft-forks. Bcash is a hard-fork of bitcoin. It is not bitcoin, or you would be able to use your existing wallets with it.

Soft doesn't mean it's still Bitcoin. This word doesn't grasp the true difference between these fork kinds. What is it? Softfok is a coercive change. You can't oppose it unless you make some counter-hardfork (this is what happened in Bitcoin Cash). Softfork is a sneaky change that non upgraded nodes don't notice. Meanwhile, hardfork (especially with replay protection) leaves everyone the freedom of accepting it or not and make it obvious to nodes that it happened.

These are technical terms that were fine when used technically by technical people who understand them. But they are kind of loaded what can be used to trick nontechnical people into believing that 'hard' means 'big' and 'soft' means 'small'. And 'big' means 'abandonment of true bitcoin' while 'soft' means 'still following the true bitcoin'.

Easy thought experiments can prove these is not the case. Let's think of some possible changes that can be made as softforks and are clearly a violation of the original idea:

- a requirement that every transaction has an additional output for tax collection

- a requirement that every transaction contains KYC/AML tag. - addresses blacklist

- decreasing the max block size to 10 kB

- lowering the block reward to 0 from tomorrow, miners get only tx fees (it is possible because the protocol defined the max block reward rather than exact block reward)