Yes, it is easy to claim that I am wrong after the relevant image was removed. And no, I haven't said that the image explicitly say "all nodes are Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co." It did however convey the idea that all nodes are connected to Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd. - while it is not the case. The best part: You had the audacity to use it as proof that Bitcoin Cash is not decentralized. If that is not manipulation, what is? Please don't answer.
Ehh, what are you talking about? the image is still here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.35321433The image is just pointing out at the fact that a ton of BCash nodes are hosted by the same party, which in terms of decentralization it's useless. Facts remain.
Segwit was not part of the original Bitcoin system and never will be. It promotes something completely different than what is stated in the Satoshi whitepaper. In addition, if "BCash is too small for anyone to bother" as you claim, why do you bother? Again, you're wrong about Bitcoin Cash being centralized. It is the Segwit hack that is centralized via Blockstream. The bankster funded company that pushed for 'consensus' via censorship and manipulation. It is clear that you've taken a page out of their play book.
Again, cult of satoshi in full effect. I bother with BCash because Roger Ver is misselading noobs into buying an altcoin while saying it's Bitcoin, already happened to some people I know, they told me why my coins are worth 9 times more. This needs to end.
And again, more nonsense about censorship. There's plenty of censorship in BCash's side, on the githubs and on social media. The Bitcoin twitter handle is blocking everyone claiming how BCH is not Bitcoin for instance.
In addition, the whitepaper says "peer to peer cash". When your huge blocks get attacked and the nodes become huge mammoths that people cannot host, it will be centralized inside datacenters, so it will no longer be peer to peer but peer to corporation running a node to peer, and certainly not cash.
As Paul Ramlac stated in response to that article: "I don’t see the link between GitHub contributions and control of a project. A corporate takeover happens through social games rather than code. If anything, you make a stronger case for a Blockstream takeover: with few coders on the team, one might assume other Blockstream members are hard at work on other fronts. For example, persuading the public, and by extent Bitcoin developers who are not part of Blockstream, of the legitimacy of Blockstream’s vision for Bitcoin" (Source:
https://medium.com/@paulramlach_60688/i-dont-see-the-link-between-github-contributions-and-control-of-a-project-c897aa6a597).
Again ridiculous, hilarious to complain against "social attacks" when Roger Ver is the biggest social attacker in crypto, using all sorts of social media to pumps his altcoins. Looks like propaganda is not propaganda if the propaganda meets your agenda.
Yes, it is not God's Word, but it is with reason called the Satoshi or Bitcoin whitepaper. There is zero support in it for Segwit and the Lightning network. No true supporters of a project will sit idle while impostors come in, change things from what is explicitly stated in the project's whitepaper and steal the name via manipulation and censorship. And why would Bitcoin "no longer be a decentralized project" if it was not for the Segwit hack? 1 TB hard drives come pretty much standard nowadays - and it is only the beginning of what is possible.
Bitcoin transactions were cheap before the deliberate attempt to prevent the Bitcoin system from scaling. It is funny that Bitcoin Cash - that scales on the Bitcoin system - offers on-chain transactions that are faster and more than 2245% cheaper (when I checked yesterday) than what the Segwit hack has to offer. The technology exists, but the banksters and their buddies had to move consensus away through manipulation and censorship in order to gain control. Unlucky for them, Satoshi left room for consensus to move as well - so that those who wish to support the Bitcoin as envisioned by Satoshi, have the opportunity to do so.
In short: We support the Bitcoin defined in the Satoshi whitepaper despite its shortcomings - real and perceived. And will stand against all attempts to bring something else in and call it Bitcoin (such as the Segwit hack).
P.S. And in terms of name calling, given that you call us cashies, perhaps we should start calling you seggies and lighties for fun. Grin
I don't care about segwit, I haven't even used it except in a couple of occasions when the sender required me to do so, same goes for LN. I think it's very interesting technology and I will watch it develop, but that's all, Bitcoin #1 priority is a solid, robust gold 2.0, hosted in a battlefield-ready network, not a stupid token to buy coffee with, that is secondary. I wish we could have both, but we can't as of right now. It's how things are. If we can achieve that use through the LN then so be it, but don't fuck up the decentralized, censorship resistant store of value property as a result, because we only have one shot. If Bitcoin fails at being a censorship resistant store of value, no altcoin will ever do it, so anyone attempting to do that will end up facing severe consequences, since you are playing with $billions worth of holder's money. Not smart to piss them off.
