Topic: [2017-09-28] Bitcoin Cash Gains More Infrastructur In the Midst of Segwit2x Dram (Read 4145 times)
September 29, 2017, 10:26:08 AM
Thanks for that. It rings true to me.
September 29, 2017, 09:47:29 AM
Being a cheeky little keyboard warrior today, are we?
Since you asked for it, here's a great summary of the whole situation by a user on reddit, who no doubt has a better handle on things than you.
Link: https://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/72zer0/must_read_for_newcomers_my_friend_worked_in_the/
(He first sent this article https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2, then followed up with this reply when someone told him he had no idea what he just read)
"There was a big scaling debate and in the end there were two sides. Those that wanted to scale using bigger blocksize (short term solution that doesn't work long term and also causes more centralization) vs those who wanted to scale using changes in the code to make the network more efficient aka SEGWIT+second layer scaling solutions (bitcoin becomes massive settlement layer, and second layer solutions can take care of verifying your $3.25 coffee payment).
On the big block side you had (most) miners because they were only able to see the short term benefits of increased blocksize and they do not care about network centralization. Also, a chinese miner controlling a sizeable chunk of the network's hashrate had access to (and was in the process of patenting) this technology called ASICBOOST which is an exploit in bitcoin code that allows you to "cheat" and get extra hashing power out of your miners. Essentially they had an unfair advantage and the KEY is that the segwit upgrade fixes this exploit. Alongside these miners you had a couple of misguided (but incredibly wealthy because of early adoption) individuals who either have a reason to see bitcoin fail (like they are heavily invested in altcoins now) or they are too pigheaded to back down when wrong (or some of them I'm sure are not actually intelligent enough to understand they are wrong).
On the Segwit side you had all the core developers (the guys who worked side by side with satoshi to build all this and have been contributing to the code for years every day), the majority of the userbase, AND the vast majority of bitcoin companies. The two sides were basically arguing over who had control over bitcoin - was it the miners, or was it the users? Was it those who chose which software to run (users) or was it those who verified transactions for that software (miners)? (The answer as you will see shortly is Users). So basically these miners were stalling the upgrade because it would mean the end of their unfair (AND patented) advantage. This massive stalemate in the debate caused a community led uprising known as the User Activated Soft Fork movement (UASF). These guys basically said "We're switching our nodes to Segwit software starting Aug 1 and we will be rejecting all mined blocks that do not comply with the new code". This forced the miners' hand as they realized they would either be forked off the network or have to go along with the new upgrade to make sure everything continued to go smoothly (including their profits).
The movement gained enough support to freak out some big money bitcoin CEOs who got together in a room with the miners and made a deal behind closed doors known as the New York Agreement (NYA). This is where Segwit2x was born. The key to note here is that not a single core dev was invited to this meeting (in fact, not a single competent dev in general was invited). The terms of the deal were: You guys agree to implement Segwit now, and then we'll agree to an increase in block size later (November). Deal was made and obviously the majority of the user community was in an uproar because bitcoiners hate closed door deals (and they should for good reason).
That being said, it got Segwit activated because it gave miners an easy way to safe face and go with segwit and the community instead of seeing their profits get wrecked by a messy chainsplit. However, do you remember that sneaky miner who had patented the ASICBOOST technology? Well he was part of the NYA and he decided to fork off anyway and create Ver Ripoff Coin. So stop right here and realize that the only reason we have Ver Ripoff Coin is so that some miner with a ton of hashing power could keep his unfair advantage over the network (he stills mainly mines bitcoin by the way because he would go out of business if he switched entirely to Ver Ripoff Coin). Also at this point, technically the NYA was broken because the whole point of it was to avoid a chainsplit and go with segwit followed by a block size increase whereas Ver Ripoff Coin was a clear chainsplit.
So for a few months everything was ok because we had Segwit, core devs were still with us, and (supposedly) anyone who wanted bigger blocks had forked off to Ver Ripoff Coin right? Wrong. See it turns out that those guys who made that backroom deal with the miners also had their own interests which involve removing the current core developers from their (imagined) seat of power. It is classic old school business politics - they don't care that core the devs are based around principles of meritocracy and peer review. They just want to have more of a say in the direction bitcoin takes. At this point, you might be thinking, "Ok but its fair for companies who use a product to have a say in its development, right?" NO. Not when the "product" at stake is meant to be an incredibly secure, incorruptible ledger that can hold trillions of dollars in wealth and still be hosted online accross the world.
The fact is that no one understands the code better than the core developers and no one has more of an interest in seeing bitcoin stay decentralized and secure than these guys do. These guys < nasal honk > cum buckets everyday to how much they love coding bitcoin. If Satoshi is Cypher Jesus then these guys are his Apostles. And on the other hand you have some severely misguided corporate buffoons who think they have the knowledge to negotiate a compromise with a group who has nothing but short term profit in their sights. And when the core developers are like "wtf dude?" and the community stands behind them, then these guys resort to essentially trying to kick core out of bitcoin by starting a new chain. A new chain which was based on a compromise that no one wants or needs anymore. And the excuse these CEO's are hiding behind is "We don't want to go back on our word." Classic business mindset vs coding mindset.
Now we come to the current situation where there are basically 4 sides
Core developers, and those supporting them
The (remaining) signers of the NYA and those supporting Segwit2x
Malicious third parties who just want to see bitcoin fail (invested in altcoins/Ver Ripoff Coin or they are the Joker and just want to see shit burn)
Innocent bystanders
The core developers are continuing to code and improve bitcoin and they are working on second layer solutions. They haven't stopped development and have actually made a TON of beneficial changes to the code since the Segwit upgrade allowed them to. Being non-political or atleast being shit politicians, these guys do not know how to handle themselves with other people and either don't speak much or come off as pretentious d*bags (trust me I used to hate them before I smartened up).
The remaining NYA signers. I say remaining because alot of companies left when they saw the massive backlash from the community. The only signers left are miners and then a group of around 30 companies which all have ties to Barry Silbert's holding company Digital Currency Group and suprise surprise who do you think got that NYA meeting together in the first place? Silly Silbert indeed. He's basically trying to do a sort of corporate take over of bitcoin where he decides who is writing the code and how they write it. Oh also I should note here that these guys have 1 developer working on the Segwit2x code. Yes 1, Jeff Garzik. Coding ability? Mediocre at best. All he did was copy and paste the entire bitcoin core code (because its open source) and changed the one little value that dictates block size. He changed a 1 to a 2 haha! And when he tried to make other changes he made critical mistakes that had to be fixed by CORE DEVELOPERS hahahaha! So how the f* does that even compare to an army of geeks who have been coding bitcoin for years and coding in general for decades who are all constantly trying to find mistakes in each others' work. SO people supporting Segwit2x are either severely misguided, hate core devs, or don't have all the information to make an informed decision.
Now the malicious actors. These are people who have a vested interest in seeing bitcoin crumble. I'm talking about big altcoin investors and Ver Ripoff Coin supporters (yes the guys who have ASICBOOST and want are the reason for this whole mess in the first place). And Segwit2x has presented them with a beautiful vector of attack. Divide and conquer. Right? And whereas with Ver Ripoff Coin there was replay protection (meaning the split was pretty clean and bitcoin was largely unaffected) this time they haven't got any planned - so should things go through as planned, things could get messy.
Then you have all those innocent bystanders who don't really know what to think anymore. Things have gotten so convoluted and complicated that it is hard to follow who wants what anymore. These are the people who will get the most fucked by something like Segwit2x because they won't understand the risks as it is happening and they won't have the knowledge to know which wallets to support. Imagine Segwit2x happens and one wallet sticks with the core version of bitcoin and the other wallet supports the segwit2x version but they both just say "Bitcoin".
That is why people are soooooooooooooo strongly opposed to Segwit2x more than anything. It is nothing more and nothing less than a hostile takeover attempt. And at this point that should be more than clear because why else would you still support the compromise made with miners who broke the compromise by creating Ver Ripoff Coin? No one wanted Segwit2x in the first place. People wanted bigger blocks, or segwit, not both. Segwit2x was never a faction in the debate. It was a faction that was spawned by those who created the NYA because they saw an opportunity take control of the software development from a group of developers who have been working on it for years and who strongly oppose corporate interests getting involved in bitcoin development."
(I will name and shame the main malicious\misguided actors and add details based on personal discussion with him and add articles for further reading)
Barry Silbert
legit wants btc to succeed but he is also a corporate fool: used to be an investment banker and doesn't know dick about coding
hates core developers because they are pro decentralization over ease of use for businesses
misguided
further reading: https://medium.com/@charlescmackay/barry-silbert-and-the-cost-of-bitcoins-malfeasance-culture-f83d15ad07d1
Erik Vorhees
similar situation as Barry Sillbert
misguided
https://www.DumbIt.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/72x8m6/an_open_letter_to_erik_voorhees/ (check out the post and the critiques in the comments)
Jeff Garzik
already talked about in the post
misguided
Roger Ver
former "btc jesus", early adopter, hardcore libertarian
got into altcoins and now became "btc antichrist". uses wealth and power to try and ruin btc whenever he can
always came across as a "huge fake pussy" even before he revealed himself to be a bitcoin basher
malicious actor, "fraud"
https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/roger-ver-from-bitcoin-jesus-to-bitcoin-antichrist-69fc7a17c622
Jihan Wu (the miner mentioned) - only wants more money and power
controls shitload of hashing power, got all sorts of alternate agendas (conspiracy theory he is aligned with the Chinese government\subsidized by them)
tried to exploit ASICBOOST to get unfair advantage and dominate hashrate even harder
malicious actor
https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/asicboost-the-reason-why-bitmain-blocked-segwit-901fd346ee9f
there you guys have it, a comprehensive rundown of bitcoin politics from the point of view of someone who supports the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto to the core. I hope it informs those of you who got confused by the FUD.
Bitcoin belongs to the community, always and forever
Quote
Or it just looks like a biased news article, something which you frequently see on all sides of an argument. There's no reason to point out the obvious fact that the news article supports a specific side - rather, you could actually argue against the article.
Since you asked for it, here's a great summary of the whole situation by a user on reddit, who no doubt has a better handle on things than you.
Link: https://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/72zer0/must_read_for_newcomers_my_friend_worked_in_the/
(He first sent this article https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2, then followed up with this reply when someone told him he had no idea what he just read)
"There was a big scaling debate and in the end there were two sides. Those that wanted to scale using bigger blocksize (short term solution that doesn't work long term and also causes more centralization) vs those who wanted to scale using changes in the code to make the network more efficient aka SEGWIT+second layer scaling solutions (bitcoin becomes massive settlement layer, and second layer solutions can take care of verifying your $3.25 coffee payment).
On the big block side you had (most) miners because they were only able to see the short term benefits of increased blocksize and they do not care about network centralization. Also, a chinese miner controlling a sizeable chunk of the network's hashrate had access to (and was in the process of patenting) this technology called ASICBOOST which is an exploit in bitcoin code that allows you to "cheat" and get extra hashing power out of your miners. Essentially they had an unfair advantage and the KEY is that the segwit upgrade fixes this exploit. Alongside these miners you had a couple of misguided (but incredibly wealthy because of early adoption) individuals who either have a reason to see bitcoin fail (like they are heavily invested in altcoins now) or they are too pigheaded to back down when wrong (or some of them I'm sure are not actually intelligent enough to understand they are wrong).
On the Segwit side you had all the core developers (the guys who worked side by side with satoshi to build all this and have been contributing to the code for years every day), the majority of the userbase, AND the vast majority of bitcoin companies. The two sides were basically arguing over who had control over bitcoin - was it the miners, or was it the users? Was it those who chose which software to run (users) or was it those who verified transactions for that software (miners)? (The answer as you will see shortly is Users). So basically these miners were stalling the upgrade because it would mean the end of their unfair (AND patented) advantage. This massive stalemate in the debate caused a community led uprising known as the User Activated Soft Fork movement (UASF). These guys basically said "We're switching our nodes to Segwit software starting Aug 1 and we will be rejecting all mined blocks that do not comply with the new code". This forced the miners' hand as they realized they would either be forked off the network or have to go along with the new upgrade to make sure everything continued to go smoothly (including their profits).
The movement gained enough support to freak out some big money bitcoin CEOs who got together in a room with the miners and made a deal behind closed doors known as the New York Agreement (NYA). This is where Segwit2x was born. The key to note here is that not a single core dev was invited to this meeting (in fact, not a single competent dev in general was invited). The terms of the deal were: You guys agree to implement Segwit now, and then we'll agree to an increase in block size later (November). Deal was made and obviously the majority of the user community was in an uproar because bitcoiners hate closed door deals (and they should for good reason).
That being said, it got Segwit activated because it gave miners an easy way to safe face and go with segwit and the community instead of seeing their profits get wrecked by a messy chainsplit. However, do you remember that sneaky miner who had patented the ASICBOOST technology? Well he was part of the NYA and he decided to fork off anyway and create Ver Ripoff Coin. So stop right here and realize that the only reason we have Ver Ripoff Coin is so that some miner with a ton of hashing power could keep his unfair advantage over the network (he stills mainly mines bitcoin by the way because he would go out of business if he switched entirely to Ver Ripoff Coin). Also at this point, technically the NYA was broken because the whole point of it was to avoid a chainsplit and go with segwit followed by a block size increase whereas Ver Ripoff Coin was a clear chainsplit.
So for a few months everything was ok because we had Segwit, core devs were still with us, and (supposedly) anyone who wanted bigger blocks had forked off to Ver Ripoff Coin right? Wrong. See it turns out that those guys who made that backroom deal with the miners also had their own interests which involve removing the current core developers from their (imagined) seat of power. It is classic old school business politics - they don't care that core the devs are based around principles of meritocracy and peer review. They just want to have more of a say in the direction bitcoin takes. At this point, you might be thinking, "Ok but its fair for companies who use a product to have a say in its development, right?" NO. Not when the "product" at stake is meant to be an incredibly secure, incorruptible ledger that can hold trillions of dollars in wealth and still be hosted online accross the world.
The fact is that no one understands the code better than the core developers and no one has more of an interest in seeing bitcoin stay decentralized and secure than these guys do. These guys < nasal honk > cum buckets everyday to how much they love coding bitcoin. If Satoshi is Cypher Jesus then these guys are his Apostles. And on the other hand you have some severely misguided corporate buffoons who think they have the knowledge to negotiate a compromise with a group who has nothing but short term profit in their sights. And when the core developers are like "wtf dude?" and the community stands behind them, then these guys resort to essentially trying to kick core out of bitcoin by starting a new chain. A new chain which was based on a compromise that no one wants or needs anymore. And the excuse these CEO's are hiding behind is "We don't want to go back on our word." Classic business mindset vs coding mindset.
Now we come to the current situation where there are basically 4 sides
Core developers, and those supporting them
The (remaining) signers of the NYA and those supporting Segwit2x
Malicious third parties who just want to see bitcoin fail (invested in altcoins/Ver Ripoff Coin or they are the Joker and just want to see shit burn)
Innocent bystanders
The core developers are continuing to code and improve bitcoin and they are working on second layer solutions. They haven't stopped development and have actually made a TON of beneficial changes to the code since the Segwit upgrade allowed them to. Being non-political or atleast being shit politicians, these guys do not know how to handle themselves with other people and either don't speak much or come off as pretentious d*bags (trust me I used to hate them before I smartened up).
The remaining NYA signers. I say remaining because alot of companies left when they saw the massive backlash from the community. The only signers left are miners and then a group of around 30 companies which all have ties to Barry Silbert's holding company Digital Currency Group and suprise surprise who do you think got that NYA meeting together in the first place? Silly Silbert indeed. He's basically trying to do a sort of corporate take over of bitcoin where he decides who is writing the code and how they write it. Oh also I should note here that these guys have 1 developer working on the Segwit2x code. Yes 1, Jeff Garzik. Coding ability? Mediocre at best. All he did was copy and paste the entire bitcoin core code (because its open source) and changed the one little value that dictates block size. He changed a 1 to a 2 haha! And when he tried to make other changes he made critical mistakes that had to be fixed by CORE DEVELOPERS hahahaha! So how the f* does that even compare to an army of geeks who have been coding bitcoin for years and coding in general for decades who are all constantly trying to find mistakes in each others' work. SO people supporting Segwit2x are either severely misguided, hate core devs, or don't have all the information to make an informed decision.
Now the malicious actors. These are people who have a vested interest in seeing bitcoin crumble. I'm talking about big altcoin investors and Ver Ripoff Coin supporters (yes the guys who have ASICBOOST and want are the reason for this whole mess in the first place). And Segwit2x has presented them with a beautiful vector of attack. Divide and conquer. Right? And whereas with Ver Ripoff Coin there was replay protection (meaning the split was pretty clean and bitcoin was largely unaffected) this time they haven't got any planned - so should things go through as planned, things could get messy.
Then you have all those innocent bystanders who don't really know what to think anymore. Things have gotten so convoluted and complicated that it is hard to follow who wants what anymore. These are the people who will get the most fucked by something like Segwit2x because they won't understand the risks as it is happening and they won't have the knowledge to know which wallets to support. Imagine Segwit2x happens and one wallet sticks with the core version of bitcoin and the other wallet supports the segwit2x version but they both just say "Bitcoin".
That is why people are soooooooooooooo strongly opposed to Segwit2x more than anything. It is nothing more and nothing less than a hostile takeover attempt. And at this point that should be more than clear because why else would you still support the compromise made with miners who broke the compromise by creating Ver Ripoff Coin? No one wanted Segwit2x in the first place. People wanted bigger blocks, or segwit, not both. Segwit2x was never a faction in the debate. It was a faction that was spawned by those who created the NYA because they saw an opportunity take control of the software development from a group of developers who have been working on it for years and who strongly oppose corporate interests getting involved in bitcoin development."
(I will name and shame the main malicious\misguided actors and add details based on personal discussion with him and add articles for further reading)
Barry Silbert
legit wants btc to succeed but he is also a corporate fool: used to be an investment banker and doesn't know dick about coding
hates core developers because they are pro decentralization over ease of use for businesses
misguided
further reading: https://medium.com/@charlescmackay/barry-silbert-and-the-cost-of-bitcoins-malfeasance-culture-f83d15ad07d1
Erik Vorhees
similar situation as Barry Sillbert
misguided
https://www.DumbIt.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/72x8m6/an_open_letter_to_erik_voorhees/ (check out the post and the critiques in the comments)
Jeff Garzik
already talked about in the post
misguided
Roger Ver
former "btc jesus", early adopter, hardcore libertarian
got into altcoins and now became "btc antichrist". uses wealth and power to try and ruin btc whenever he can
always came across as a "huge fake pussy" even before he revealed himself to be a bitcoin basher
malicious actor, "fraud"
https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/roger-ver-from-bitcoin-jesus-to-bitcoin-antichrist-69fc7a17c622
Jihan Wu (the miner mentioned) - only wants more money and power
controls shitload of hashing power, got all sorts of alternate agendas (conspiracy theory he is aligned with the Chinese government\subsidized by them)
tried to exploit ASICBOOST to get unfair advantage and dominate hashrate even harder
malicious actor
https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/asicboost-the-reason-why-bitmain-blocked-segwit-901fd346ee9f
there you guys have it, a comprehensive rundown of bitcoin politics from the point of view of someone who supports the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto to the core. I hope it informs those of you who got confused by the FUD.
Bitcoin belongs to the community, always and forever
September 28, 2017, 10:50:59 AM
This smells like Roger Ver's PR machine.
Or it just looks like a biased news article, something which you frequently see on all sides of an argument. There's no reason to point out the obvious fact that the news article supports a specific side - rather, you could actually argue against the article.As far as on-chain scalability is concerned, the development team says research is underway to allow massive future increases.
Seems like their attitude is fairly simple. If the block size gets even slightly close to being filled, it's likely to be increased. I suspect they'll go for some sort of experimental consensus model for a flexible block size eventually, possibly something like Bitcoin Unlimited's Emergent Consensus system. At that point it's possible that more big-block supporters might give up on SegWit2x based on the idea that it could take a long time for the block size to be increased on the main chain.
In addition to a few businesses supporting BCH or allowing withdrawals, the project also has a revamped website.
The website is pretty unprofessional. They've still got a dodgy stock photo of a modern city in the background. September 28, 2017, 09:49:22 AM
This smells like Roger Ver's PR machine.
Bitcoin.com - where the story originates, is owned by Roger Ver, who is the main huckster behind BCrash.
The other two domains listed in the "article" were registered using privacy proxies, so no contact details other than the registering agent.
"Gaining infrastructure every day", and "lifeboat in the sea of BTC Drama" is the real tip-off. Honestly, its like they don't even try to conceal the spin.
What's funny is how BCrash wasn't able to maintain its lofty price even when there were few trading it. Now that more people are able to convert their BCrash into Bitcoin, price has seen massive downswings. I'm sure Ver is holding out for November, when his "Seg2x" attempt at another hostile fork will occur.
Miners and businesses have wised up however, declining to honor the backroom "New York Agreement", which puts Roger in the barrel.
Can't wait to see the result.
Bitcoin.com - where the story originates, is owned by Roger Ver, who is the main huckster behind BCrash.
The other two domains listed in the "article" were registered using privacy proxies, so no contact details other than the registering agent.
"Gaining infrastructure every day", and "lifeboat in the sea of BTC Drama" is the real tip-off. Honestly, its like they don't even try to conceal the spin.
What's funny is how BCrash wasn't able to maintain its lofty price even when there were few trading it. Now that more people are able to convert their BCrash into Bitcoin, price has seen massive downswings. I'm sure Ver is holding out for November, when his "Seg2x" attempt at another hostile fork will occur.
Miners and businesses have wised up however, declining to honor the backroom "New York Agreement", which puts Roger in the barrel.
Can't wait to see the result.
September 28, 2017, 01:30:16 AM
This week the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) ecosystem is seeing further infrastructure growth as wallet providers, merchants and exchanges continue to announce BCH support. The entire BCH network is seeing improvements every day, while the legacy chain and Segwit2x supporters argue relentlessly.
Bitcoin Cash Revamps Its Website, While More Infrastructure Support Flocks to the Network
The Bitcoin Cash network is currently closing in on two months of existence, and has so far seen an abundance of infrastructure support over the past few weeks. This week the company Bitpay added BCH support to its Copay wallet giving BCH proponents another credible open source light client. Additionally, the popular exchange Bitstamp enabled BCH withdrawals, and the currency will be available for trade on the platform in three days. Alongside this, Xapo has announced that BCH withdrawals are available and that customers must send the funds to a valid external BCH account before December 14th.
In addition to a few businesses supporting BCH or allowing withdrawals, the project also has a revamped website. Bitcoincash.org has a few new features, like a live feed of the current market value of BCH against USD, EUR, JPY, and CNY. The site also has a large list of full node clients, wallets, services, and exchanges that list BCH for trade. As far as on-chain scalability is concerned, the development team says research is underway to allow massive future increases.
The Accept Bitcoin Cash Initiative
Another website called “The Accept Bitcoin Cash Initiative” was also created for the nascent BCH network. The web portal is a community-curated list of sites/merchants that accept bitcoin cash and users can submit new sites/merchants to the Github repo. Currently, the site has a list of merchants and service providers with categories like food, entertainment, cloud services, social media, gambling, VPN services and more.
“This site was built as a means to connect consumers and merchants, while spreading awareness and promoting global adoption of Bitcoin Cash,” explains the Accept Bitcoin Cash Initiative website. “It is our hope that as time goes on, more and more sites will be accepting Bitcoin Cash as a fast and secure payment method, with the added benefits of low fees, no third-party, atop a very strong decentralized network.”
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-gains-more-infrastructure-in-the-midst-of-segwit2x-drama/
Bitcoin Cash Revamps Its Website, While More Infrastructure Support Flocks to the Network
The Bitcoin Cash network is currently closing in on two months of existence, and has so far seen an abundance of infrastructure support over the past few weeks. This week the company Bitpay added BCH support to its Copay wallet giving BCH proponents another credible open source light client. Additionally, the popular exchange Bitstamp enabled BCH withdrawals, and the currency will be available for trade on the platform in three days. Alongside this, Xapo has announced that BCH withdrawals are available and that customers must send the funds to a valid external BCH account before December 14th.
In addition to a few businesses supporting BCH or allowing withdrawals, the project also has a revamped website. Bitcoincash.org has a few new features, like a live feed of the current market value of BCH against USD, EUR, JPY, and CNY. The site also has a large list of full node clients, wallets, services, and exchanges that list BCH for trade. As far as on-chain scalability is concerned, the development team says research is underway to allow massive future increases.
The Accept Bitcoin Cash Initiative
Another website called “The Accept Bitcoin Cash Initiative” was also created for the nascent BCH network. The web portal is a community-curated list of sites/merchants that accept bitcoin cash and users can submit new sites/merchants to the Github repo. Currently, the site has a list of merchants and service providers with categories like food, entertainment, cloud services, social media, gambling, VPN services and more.
“This site was built as a means to connect consumers and merchants, while spreading awareness and promoting global adoption of Bitcoin Cash,” explains the Accept Bitcoin Cash Initiative website. “It is our hope that as time goes on, more and more sites will be accepting Bitcoin Cash as a fast and secure payment method, with the added benefits of low fees, no third-party, atop a very strong decentralized network.”
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-gains-more-infrastructure-in-the-midst-of-segwit2x-drama/
Jump to: