I've tried to refer to them using the less loaded "BTC" and "BCH" symbols instead; but it's kindof getting tiring, hearing people insist "Bitcoin Cash is Satoshi's True Vision". It's like somebody starting a "Apple Phone LLC" and saying it's Steve Jobs' true vision, ignore that other "Apple" company.
Just because the first generation of bitcoin was the beginning doesn't mean it still reflects the original vision.
Bitcoin : Peer-to-peer cash.
You went right over the first part, and only talk about the second part, even though in the first part, the word 'peer' is used twice.
If suddenly someone spins up a million bitcoin cash nodes will you call it bitcoin? If total PoW exceeds core will you? If core finally hard forks to increase the blocksize will you stop calling it bitcoin?
But that you'd compare it to Apple, that's just weird.
There is no reason that the name of an unauthorized fork of a cryptocurrency should use the name of the original within it.
In a decentralised system based wholly around cypherpunk distrust of central authorisation, you call something unauthorised?
I'm not sure if that's hilarious or just sad.
There has to be some acknowledgement that if you take someone else's work and modify it, you shouldn't then be allowed to claim you are them.
It is by definition a decentralised, anarchic system. The idea of authorisation or ownership of the one true core is hilarious.
That's great, but it's not what I wrote. What "one true core"?
Taking someone's software, modifying it, and touting your change as the next version of their software is wrong. Regardless if the code is meant for a block chain, or anything else.
Which is true, so what's the problem?
God knows what Satoshi thinks about all the stuff going on around bitcoin...
I guess I've decided - it's just sad.
I'm sorry you don't see that.
All I can do is guess that you are talking about users not only being inundated with forks, but not even being able to tell one fork from another, or even one coin from another because they all use the same names. And this is all fine for you because of anarchy or something.
It's an abbreviation. Bitcoin Cash = Bcash/BCH. This acronym is not confusable with Bitcoin or the BTC acronym at all.
Why is this considered remotely offensive? People are incredibly reactive to this and I don't understand why. It's a pretty straightforward mechanism of acronyms that has been going on for hundreds of years.
Why is this actually considered a serious point of discussion, at all?
(and the thing is, it's not even the bcash people who are bothered by the term - it's the BTC people! it's like you got insulted when someone recognized me enough to call me PMD... which is what I suspect it comes down to.)