Comment by jamoes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamoes | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Gold has had a widely agreed upon definition for thousands of years. Bitcoin is a ~decade old open source project with a clearly established philosophical divide between small-blockers and big-blockers. In other open source project variants, small name changes like adding/changing a suffix or prefix are common, why would Bitcoin be the exception?

Given that you accepted that BCH is the continuation of big-blocker's vision of the Bitcoin experiment, your comparison of it to gold-plated tungsten is flawed. BCH has a legitimate reason to exist. Your comparison might be more apt if BCH weren't born out of the block-size debate, but that's simply not the reality.

Ultimately, the market has spoken on this issue. The Bitcoin Cash name has been accepted as valid. It's not a trademark violation and it's not fraud akin to gold-plated tungsten. It's a legitimate continuation of big-blocker's vision of the Bitcoin experiment.

The term "bcash" on the other hand is quite clearly a pejorative and a transparent attempt to manipulation language. I'd expect better on a forum like this, but of course there will be some low-brow argumentation style anywhere you go. I'm frankly surprised you're still defending its use at this point.

I disagree with your statement that bcash is manipulative language. I now understand where you are coming from after reading your posts but there is a community out there referring to bitcoin cash as bcash since its short and succinct and easy to speak.

Also might I suggest to reflect on your posts? The tone sounds quite angry and seems to stem from frustration which can lead to reading bad intent where is none.

Open source projects often fork. To take one such example, years ago X.org forked from XFree86. Both projects considered themselves implementations of the X Window System. Can you imagine if XFree86 supporters insisted that X.org not be allowed to use "X" in their name? If these supporters invented their own name for X.org, say "Zorg", made outlandish claims that "X.org" sounded offensive to them, and that they earnestly believed that "Zorg" was a better name for the project, even though no one in the project itself referred to it by that name. Would you not agree that those using the term "Zorg" in this example are using manipulative language?

Another way to look at this: the difference between small-blockers and big-blockers is a deep philosophical divide, much like what often occurs in politics. Imagine trying to have a civil political discussion with someone that has different political beliefs than you, and that person keeps using loaded terminology, rather than neutral terminology. You can imagine that under these circumstances, it would be increasingly difficult to keep the conversation civil, and you'd be well within your rights to ask your interlocutor to use neutral terminology. If they refused, it would be a reflection on their lack of civility, not yours.

How is it even possibly pejorative? BCH has the problem that it's read by many people as "bitch", and is even used that way by by developers (the nodes software gets called BCHN 'bitching'), and more than a few people find that offensive.

> market has spoken on this issue

I just checked a half dozen exchanges-- none call it "Bitcoin Cash" in their interfaces, BCH yes. Calling it "Bitcoin Cash" has a well understood problem of tricking people so serious businesses avoid it.

Of course, the fraud goes further than having a confusingly similar name. https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/981908565307764736

> I just checked a half dozen exchanges-- none call it "Bitcoin Cash" in their interfaces

Which exchanges did you check? I just checked some myself, and Coinbase, Kraken, Binance, and Gemini all use the full name "Bitcoin Cash".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com