qsucvatz

And chlorine in salt!/s

And support by the original developers of Bitcoin, for scaling by blocksize and exponential growth of computing, bandwidth, and storage.

Bitcoin Cash added new utility that SegWit lacked: 8 MB blocks, higher capacity, lower on-chain fees. That new utility is new value for Bitcoin holders.

Another fork will add ZKP privacy, new utility and new value.

Bitcoin can fork to change it's Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm.

Bitcoin can change it's divisibility any time.

That long term stability may be impossible with a central bank.

If mining is too difficult,the difficulty drops, until a single PC is finding every block on schedule. I'll mine, so that won't happen.

Sure thing. BCH scales as Bitcoin was supposed to. It is supported by the original Bitcoin developers. It's electronic cash, directly peer to peer, not hub and spoke like Lightning. Bitcoin is now BCH.

More know BCH is Bitcoin every day.

Because Bitcoin used to work, and now it doesn't. Bitcoin Cash scales appropriately.

0 fee txns don't cause high fees. They are dropped from the mempool as needed.

Fees are skyrocketing in Satoshi: what used to be 1 sat/Byte is now 1000 sat/Byte.

Median fee is a good metric, it avoids the over-paying txns and the miner-accelerated txns.

How does litening work if it takes a transaction to open and a transaction to close, and the median fees are increasing with time?

Bitcoin Cash is closer to the original Bitcoin implementation in code, philosophy, and community. Same thing that worked since 2009, until the blocks ran out of space.

Going to $0 is -Inf% loss.

It was announced at the depths of the financial crisis, October 2008, when cornerstone institutions were declaring bankrupcy every weekend.

It was running by January.

Equation Group.

It's all hinged on SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 being good cryptographic hashes, and ECC being a good digital signature. Crazy town.

The revolution isn't in building niche complications.

Progress looks like tearing things down. Replacement with automatons. Direct transactions.

This form of proof of work, SHA-256, has a scramble shuffle of XORs that quantum computers aren't applicable to.

Proof of work must be impossible to cheat, and easy to verify. Can't make issuing money as easy as printing paper.

In the end, either one does or does not own the property. They choose when to buy and when to sell.

From your perspective, isn't it a massive risk not to sell at this all time high value?

If they hold or sell, do they deserve whatever outcome?

How can we count votes of people who don't have the money for a single transaction fee? I thought Bitcoin was supposed to be better because it was the cheapest?

Bitcoin is Bitcoin Cash. We immediately restored the ability for Bitcoin to be adopted with low fees and fast confirmations by using 8 MB blocks.

The median income for the world is $6/day. High fees are unaffordable and unadoptable. The Core team has done Bitcoin an enormous disservice; like setting autopilot into the terrain.

Quite an opener, do you practice hyperbole often?

Fairness is whatever two people will agree to pay for a service.

Imagine how silly it would be if we all paid the same amount for seats on an airline - which is how it worked before deregulation. Many seats would go empty, the utility would not be maximized, and we'd be missing out on the great transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.