the whole thing is a farce - maybe DOGE will turn out the be the real bitcoin in the end!
I mean it was also a fork of bitcoin, so why not?
Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees - page 85. (Read 704506 times)
I mean it was also a fork of bitcoin, so why not?
You're so bright
Why thank you. It does take brains to lead a nation of millions.
if BCHSV fully adheres to the bitcoin whitepaper with orginal opcodes and all, then it is bitcoin. ABC is not bitcoin, you have been fooled by their WHC/plasma and shitcoin agenda
ABC isn't bitcoin. It's BCH.
Bitcoin is BTC.
SV is BSV.
Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.
But current ongoing drama is that which is original BCH and this have been proved both BCH ABC and BCH SV are now useless low value coin. Hash war is still going on but in the end both will be big losers.
yep - completely follow that - the whole thing is a farce - maybe DOGE will turn out the be the real bitcoin in the end!
IMO this has totally put a dampener on a potential December bull run.
That is a question you should ask the mods/devs of bitcointalk.org
He could, but I know you wouldn't like the answer.
ABC isn't bitcoin. It's BCH.
Bitcoin is BTC.
SV is BSV.
Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.
Bitcoin is BTC.
SV is BSV.
Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.
No, bitcoin is bitcoin, BTC is no longer bitcoin. SV=bitcoin, tickers dont mean shit. It is the code underneath them that matters.
Then why are we in the Alternate cryptocurrencies > Announcements (Altcoins) section?
That is a question you should ask the mods/devs of bitcointalk.org
ABC isn't bitcoin. It's BCH.
Bitcoin is BTC.
SV is BSV.
Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.
Bitcoin is BTC.
SV is BSV.
Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.
No, bitcoin is bitcoin, BTC is no longer bitcoin. SV=bitcoin, tickers dont mean shit. It is the code underneath them that matters.
Then why are we in the Alternate cryptocurrencies > Announcements (Altcoins) section?
You're so bright
Why thank you. It does take brains to lead a nation of millions.
if BCHSV fully adheres to the bitcoin whitepaper with orginal opcodes and all, then it is bitcoin. ABC is not bitcoin, you have been fooled by their WHC/plasma and shitcoin agenda
ABC isn't bitcoin. It's BCH.
Bitcoin is BTC.
SV is BSV.
Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.
But current ongoing drama is that which is original BCH and this have been proved both BCH ABC and BCH SV are now useless low value coin. Hash war is still going on but in the end both will be big losers.
You're so bright
Why thank you. It does take brains to lead a nation of millions.
if BCHSV fully adheres to the bitcoin whitepaper with orginal opcodes and all, then it is bitcoin. ABC is not bitcoin, you have been fooled by their WHC/plasma and shitcoin agenda
ABC isn't bitcoin. It's BCH.
Bitcoin is BTC.
SV is BSV.
Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.
No, bitcoin is bitcoin, BTC is no longer bitcoin. SV=bitcoin, tickers dont mean shit. It is the code underneath them that matters.
You're so bright
Why thank you. It does take brains to lead a nation of millions.
if BCHSV fully adheres to the bitcoin whitepaper with orginal opcodes and all, then it is bitcoin. ABC is not bitcoin, you have been fooled by their WHC/plasma and shitcoin agenda
ABC isn't bitcoin. It's BCH.
Bitcoin is BTC.
SV is BSV.
Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.
Lmao you just linked it to me, "The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network."
Uneeded changes to the protocol are an attack on bitcoin
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network."
Uneeded changes to the protocol are an attack on bitcoin
Let me regale you with another tidbit from 2 messages down the convo:
If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
Minority version = BCH and now = SV.
Uneeded (sp) changes = BCH and now = SV.
You're in the minority of the minority. You lost, twice.
Also I don't believe for a second that you actually "laughed your ass off."
You're so bright, if BCHSV fully adheres to the bitcoin whitepaper with orginal opcodes and all, then it is bitcoin. ABC is not bitcoin, you have been fooled by their WHC/plasma and shitcoin agenda
Lmao you just linked it to me, "The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network."
Uneeded changes to the protocol are an attack on bitcoin
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network."
Uneeded changes to the protocol are an attack on bitcoin
Let me regale you with another tidbit from 2 messages down the convo:
If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
Minority version = BCH and now = SV.
Uneeded (sp) changes = BCH and now = SV.
You're in the minority of the minority. You lost, twice.
Also I don't believe for a second that you actually "laughed your ass off."
Roger Ver has gone full blown shill mode. Shills for ABC and WHC/Plasma, on this route ABC will destroy bch
Your lack of awareness of your irony is breath-taking/mind-numbing.
First you were calling BTC "Core," now you're calling BCH "ABC." When Wright forks the code again from Ayres, what will you call SV?
Hey buddy, read the white paper.
I assume you mean the Bitcoin white paper, by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Total number of references to "Bitcoin Cash": 0.
But what does the white paper have to do with price of petrol in Paris?
You can translate it to fit your cause any way you see fit, as would a schizophrenic monk translate the Old Testament. Still doesn't mean you have a point, or are even sane.
The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.
Clearly you haven't read it enough to understand it then, bitcoin is an economic system not just a cryptocurrency. If BCH fully adheres to the white paper then it is bitcoin, if BTC butchers the white paper then it is not bitcoin, is that too hard for you to understand?
Please indulge me: how did bitcoin "butcher" the white paper? Where does it say in the white paper that off-chain transactions shouldn't happen, or that systems like SegWit shouldn't be introduced to fit more transactions per block?
Personally I wouldn't have minded 2 MB blocks. However, I'm not torn in rage that it didn't happen last year. I am, however, pleasantly surprised at the technological adaptations that have been built around the block size limit, keeping the blockchain girth down to a manageable level so that the commonfolk who were meant to benefit from bitcoin technology can still run a full node on their hard drives if they so choose.
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network."
Uneeded changes to the protocol are an attack on bitcoin
Roger Ver has gone full blown shill mode. Shills for ABC and WHC/Plasma, on this route ABC will destroy bch
Your lack of awareness of your irony is breath-taking/mind-numbing.
First you were calling BTC "Core," now you're calling BCH "ABC." When Wright forks the code again from Ayres, what will you call SV?
Hey buddy, read the white paper.
I assume you mean the Bitcoin white paper, by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Total number of references to "Bitcoin Cash": 0.
But what does the white paper have to do with price of petrol in Paris?
You can translate it to fit your cause any way you see fit, as would a schizophrenic monk translate the Old Testament. Still doesn't mean you have a point, or are even sane.
The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.
Clearly you haven't read it enough to understand it then, bitcoin is an economic system not just a cryptocurrency. If BCH fully adheres to the white paper then it is bitcoin, if BTC butchers the white paper then it is not bitcoin, is that too hard for you to understand?
Please indulge me: how did bitcoin "butcher" the white paper? Where does it say in the white paper that off-chain transactions shouldn't happen, or that systems like SegWit shouldn't be introduced to fit more transactions per block?
Personally I wouldn't have minded 2 MB blocks. However, I'm not torn in rage that it didn't happen last year. I am, however, pleasantly surprised at the technological adaptations that have been built around the block size limit, keeping the blockchain girth down to a manageable level so that the commonfolk who were meant to benefit from bitcoin technology can still run a full node on their hard drives if they so choose.
How do these forks enrage me ... Roger Ver was so confident in his coin, and now what? So it can happen to any coin .. Today it is, and tomorrow it will die? Horror
Roger Ver has gone full blown shill mode. Shills for ABC and WHC/Plasma, on this route ABC will destroy bch
Your lack of awareness of your irony is breath-taking/mind-numbing.
First you were calling BTC "Core," now you're calling BCH "ABC." When Wright forks the code again from Ayres, what will you call SV?
Hey buddy, read the white paper.
I assume you mean the Bitcoin white paper, by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Total number of references to "Bitcoin Cash": 0.
But what does the white paper have to do with price of petrol in Paris?
You can translate it to fit your cause any way you see fit, as would a schizophrenic monk translate the Old Testament. Still doesn't mean you have a point, or are even sane.
The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.
Clearly you haven't read it enough to understand it then, bitcoin is an economic system not just a cryptocurrency. If BCH fully adheres to the white paper then it is bitcoin, if BTC butchers the white paper then it is not bitcoin, is that too hard for you to understand?
Roger Ver has gone full blown shill mode. Shills for ABC and WHC/Plasma, on this route ABC will destroy bch
Your lack of awareness of your irony is breath-taking/mind-numbing.
First you were calling BTC "Core," now you're calling BCH "ABC." When Wright forks the code again from Ayres, what will you call SV?
Hey buddy, read the white paper.
I assume you mean the Bitcoin white paper, by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Total number of references to "Bitcoin Cash": 0.
But what does the white paper have to do with price of petrol in Paris?
You can translate it to fit your cause any way you see fit, as would a schizophrenic monk translate the Old Testament. Still doesn't mean you have a point, or are even sane.
The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime...
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.
Roger Ver has gone full blown shill mode. Shills for ABC and WHC/Plasma, on this route ABC will destroy bch
Your lack of awareness of your irony is breath-taking/mind-numbing.
First you were calling BTC "Core," now you're calling BCH "ABC." When Wright forks the code again from Ayres, what will you call SV?
Hey buddy, read the white paper.
The war is each others hate for the other coin.
It is Wright who said he wouldn't accept other chain to survive and will commit every resource to kill it even for months/years. He has already lost the hashwar, now let's see if he go on guerrilla war and commit his threats of attacking the ABC chain... Something which could have clear legal implications btw.
Is there any estimated time for the hashwar to end, or could it continue for months or for as long as both camps want to keep up with the war ?
I supposed it was meant to be like a race, where maybe the first mine a certain amounts of blocks wins ? Am I wrong ?
War is war. It is not over until both sides stop warring.
True. Shout out to be the winner too early might be a weakness.
WHY PIGs from bittrex have bchABC priced at 0.054?
and what will happen to BCHSV price if deposits enabled , will it affect price?
Price on both will go down massively
Jihan and Roger will be waiting to dump SV
CSW and Ayre will be waiting to dump ABC
The real question is who will dump first and will it ever regain
Some exchanges may just drop BCH all together and just allow you to withdraw funds and the others may keep trading suspended for months or even years of nChain/coingeek remain true to their threats and the hashing remains around 50:50
WHY PIGs from bittrex have bchABC priced at 0.054?
and what will happen to BCHSV price if deposits enabled , will it affect price?
Jump to: