Bitcoin.com Lists Ponzi Token, Hex, to the Dismay of Bitcoin Fans
cryptobriefing.com
cryptobriefing.com
Rabid fanaticism goes back to the early cryptocurrency days.
If anything, it's why us skeptics have a hard time taking ANYTHING the coiners say seriously.
The second is monetary. Asset values inflate beyond intrinsic values as a result of monetary demand for them by users that acquire them not for their intrinsic properties but for their potential capacity to be redeemed for value in the future. This monetary demand lives on top of intrinsic demand and drives overal value of the asset up the supply / demand curve.
My comments applied specifically to the monetary user base of any asset. This base's choice of their monetary base is entirely elective, socially constructed and reinforced. And their particular choice will gain favor if they can convince people to get on same the band wagon. Under this specific use case, they will tend to exhibit the perfectly understandable behaviors I've described.
BCH is Bitcoin Cash, a fork organized/promoted by Roger Ver, among others. It’s currently trading at $180.67, which is 2.3% of the current Bitcoin (BTC) price.
Ver owns and operates Bitcoin.com.
Confusingly, /r/btc is where BCH is discussed/promoted, while /r/bch was quickly taken over by BTC proponents after Ver failed to get exchanges to recognize BCC as the ticket symbol for Bitcoin Cash. (BCC was already in use by Bitcoin Connect, a ponzi/exit scam that imploded shortly after BCH forked).
Please note that using the otherwise innocuous “bcash” moniker will get you branded as a troll in the Bitcoin Cash community. I’ve forgotten the specific reason for this.
It's because they desperately want you to call it "Bitcoin" to further their ploy. Shortening "Bitcoin Cash" to a name that isn't "Bitcoin" exposes them.
Well before Bitcoin Cash ever came into existence, /r/btc was created as a response to alleged censorship in /r/bitcoin, mostly as part of the block-size debate. As a choice emerged to fork to a big-block version of Bitcoin, a principle /r/btc in generally already supported, it made sense to follow that coin.
When BCH launched, there was some confusion around the ticker, /r/bch was quickly colonized by trolls, and the community continued to use /r/btc.
Bitcoin Cash was created because Bitcoin didn't scale, not because of technical reasons. Instead they used a massive social engineering campaign (censorship, trolls and fake news) to block the development. Roger wasn't even involved in BCH back then.
This can be verified by anyone who cares to, and you'll see that the parent is still forwarding the same troll narrative.
They use newspeak with terms like "bcash" to try to distance Bitcoin Cash from Bitcoin. Because Bitcoin Cash is proof that their arguments against "big blocks" and the impossibility of hard forks were, and are, bullshit.
I do respect people in both projects for being intellectually honest about their work and goals.
I have unmitigated contempt for Bitcoin SV and the shills who promote it (and am disappointed in those I used to respect who've hitched their wagons to it), but I do appreciate the entertainment value of following the drama.
Being critical to Bitcoin as money is of course fine.
I can join in on your contempt for BSV though.
HEX is a lulzworthy new issuance stretching the imagination of the market by someone I’m not even sure could pass KYC with any bank
It’s like if WeWork actually did become publicly traded by issuing shares at different prices over 365 days. It would be a non-sequitur for an outside observer to dismiss the problems - and some actual religious affinity towards Adam Neumann - as why the US markets won’t go anywhere. Itd would be A) what are you talking about and B) nonsense drivel like that is just giving WeWork a pass by criticizing the whole market instead of a shitty offering and organization
I feel like the cryto has a different story. There is a struggle to find utility because the structure of the system has too many holes.
For bitcoin electrical usage is the true currency + specialized gpus. Anyone who has unlimited power + boards can take all. The side effect is wasting resources for no reason.
For other coins each has there own story.
At the core we want people to do something valuable as side effect of obtaining prove. I'm not sure we're close.
So, nobody can take all, then. Even putting aside power, nobody has unlimited boards. The supply of GPUs is very tightly limited by real-world factors, as anybody who tried to buy an AMD GPU a few years ago found out.
I worked for a crypto startup in ~2017. Our product wrote a decent number of transactions to the Bitcoin blockchain, so when transaction fees went from a dime to $20 it caused a lot of headaches and I ended up dealing with it. When I asked questions online about managing transaction fees, I inadvertently wandered into a holy war and was thoroughly flamed for my trouble. It was the least pleasant experience I've had trying to get help as a dev. How can such a toxic community grow and achieve anything meaningful?
But it seems like the primary use cases are speculation, criminal and terrorist funding schemes, tax evasion, and money laundering.
If I buy Apple stock, technically that's tied to a corporation named Apple that has assets and revenue (more or less, maybe less these days than you might assume). But bitcoins are just numbers, some more valuable than others.
But more to the point, hoarders were encouraging the use of bitcoin as a store of value, lying about their true use cases (speculation), hoping the big fish would start investing so the early people would cash out. It turned out to be one massive pump and dump scheme, but with cryptography, so that makes it okay.
You can only vote with your feet so many times, and if the choice is always to flee instead of demanding accountable government, eventually there will be no place to go. By providing a workaround for government non-accountability, Bitcoin encourages people to avoid the issue instead of engaging with it.
You could say that about every defense-in-depth based approach to a problem. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're a net negative.
It's not perfect, but you have higher odds of moving 10k+ in Bitcoin out of an oppressive system than you do any other asset.
Most of my thinking you can read crypto as bitcoin i.e. some general payment system, where in bitcoin's case its stated purpose is sort of this inexorable transaction system, it feels intuitive that the meaningful use space is intrinsically going to be fringe/taboo, because it's outside government, outside permission. I know its cliche that freedom isn't free, but what is the honest practical value of freedom unless it's scarce i.e. its impossible or someone it trying to stop you?
But the point is that crypto may be an inherently fringe construct, it may provide no benefit to society because its value add might solely live in activities outside the confines of society at large. Now you can argue whether that is a net positive or negative for humanity, but I think that if "that's it", you know, I think that is a meaningful use.
https://etherscan.io/address/0x2b591e99afe9f32eaa6214f7b7629...
The initial airdrop amounts are totally arbitrary though, with a founder getting more than everyone else. But that doesn't make something a ponzi scheme.
To qualify as a ponzi scheme you need to directly use newcomers investment money as return for old investors. There is absolutely no line of code in the contract that does this.
When one side says the other is a scam but goes to enormous lengths to stop technical discussions while saying that throughput below a 144p YouTube video is too much data, people should start to question whether they are being fed propaganda.
That's a gross simplification of the issue. The problem with large block sizes isn't with bandwidth, it's with the storage requirements of running a full node, and the time it takes to bring up a full new node.
And none of these limits have been tested or examined by those who oppose it. The claim is, it seems, that the current limit is perfect.
Or that hard forks are "too dangerous", despite coins like Ehereum, Monero and Bitcoin Cash proving that to be false again and again. And Bitcoin also had an emergency hard fork fix (which never split the chain) when they fixed the recent infinite inflation bug. Oh and they've had a hard fork once before too.
Also with storage being so cheap it's not a valid argument. Time to propagate blocks between miners is the biggest, with initial sync coming in at a distant second.
People say this stuff as some sort of FUD theoretical, but who out there is actually having problems with a reasonable computer or internet connection? A $35 raspberry pi is overkill, this is not a real problem.
One delightful thing about cryptocurrency is everybody thinks their coin is the good one and all the others are “shitcoins”. With slightly more introspection, they might realize that their chosen coin is just as scammy as the rest.
>HN is getting full of people with some serious chips on their shoulder. Any article with the words "cryptocurrency", "Bitcoin", or "Ethereum" in it will be flooded with, to be blunt, a bunch of garbage posts. Not a good insightful, intellectual discussion. Just people with massive chips on their shoulders flooding the comments with noise.