Thank you, by looking at the list of nodes at the source that you provide, it is clear that not all nodes are connected to Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd. - as falsely portrait in that last image you've previously posted. That is why I called it out for what it is, namely manipulation.
Wrong. The image doesn't explicitly say "all nodes are Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.", it just points out at how an huge amount of BCash nodes are centralized in the hands of few actors, which is useless centralization wise. You could have 1 million BCash nodes hosted by a few parties vs 5000 nodes hosted by widespread independent parties in Bitcoin, and all things else equal, the Bitcoin network is an objectively stronger network.
The Segwit hack will never be part of Bitcoin. In addition, beyond successful phishing attempts and willing participation in outright scams - I didn't claim that it is even remotely possible to steal funds from Segwit addresses. In fact, applying the same standard that you're applying - there is a $540,602,054 bounty in Bitcoin Cash waiting for you here: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/address/19hZx234vNtLazfx5J2bxHsiWEmeYE8a7k
Segwit is part of Bitcoin since 21th August '17, particularly ever 10 minutes, as your blocks must be compatible with segwit transactions to qualify as a Bitcoin block. Segwit has never been compromised. As far BCash, BCash is too small for anyone to bother, the problem is that short-sighted BCashiers don't see is that dead end for a coin that raises blocks "as big as needed" is a mining AND transaction validation monopoly inside datacenters easily bribeable/easy to just launch a missile at if you must, in other words, a centralized system, vs a bunch of random nodes scattered across the globe, impossible to bribe and nuke, therefore, a decentralized system.
All of those independent development teams mean little considering that Blockstream owns/controls Bitcoin Core. Starting one's own node also mean very little given the structure of the Lightning network and the fact that it doesn't even remotely resemble what is supposed to be the Bitcoin system. Pertaining to the rest, we will also have to agree to disagree.
Wrong, Blockstream doesn't own/control Bitcoin Core. This is the same BCashie rhetoric we've been hearing for a while, debunked a million times:
https://medium.com/@whalecalls/fud-or-fact-blockstream-inc-is-the-main-force-behind-bitcoin-and-taken-over-160aed93c003
The same rethoric could be applied to your supposed "6 development teams" on BCash, all funded by Bitmain/Ver.
Yes, nobody is forcing anyone to use Segwit (or Bitcoin Cash for that matter). This however doesn't mean that we will allow the Segwit hack and LN to get away with the ongoing deception. We will do everything in our power to place all facts on the table so that people can make an informed decision free of manipulation and censorship. Segwit for one is not what Satoshi Nakamoto envisioned.
In addition, Bitcoin was never intended to be purely used as a store of value. It was foremost supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system as envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto - a system that could empower millions of people around the world, even those who earn less than $5 a month. Given Blockstream's stronghold on Bitcoin Core, you're kidding yourself when you claim that you "value a decentralized network with nodes as widespread as possible above paying coffee with it. I couldn't care less." Yes, it is very clear that the supporters of the Segwit hack, couldn't give two fcks about poor people and the original aim of Satoshi Nakamoto. It is better to be blinded by bankster fiat and their half-assed crypto hacks.
Make no mistake though, the time will come when the price of Bitcoin Cash will go up and up - as the network effect kicks in - while the price of the Segwit hack will stagnate as less and less users will find it useful. It is just a matter of time. Once people learn the truth and find out that the Segwit hack has very little utility value - and how they intend to force us into 3rd party side chains run and/or controlled by banksters via the Lightning network - they will drop the Segwit hack like a hot potato.
In addition, Bitcoin was never intended to be purely used as a store of value. It was foremost supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system as envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto - a system that could empower millions of people around the world, even those who earn less than $5 a month. Given Blockstream's stronghold on Bitcoin Core, you're kidding yourself when you claim that you "value a decentralized network with nodes as widespread as possible above paying coffee with it. I couldn't care less." Yes, it is very clear that the supporters of the Segwit hack, couldn't give two fcks about poor people and the original aim of Satoshi Nakamoto. It is better to be blinded by bankster fiat and their half-assed crypto hacks.
Make no mistake though, the time will come when the price of Bitcoin Cash will go up and up - as the network effect kicks in - while the price of the Segwit hack will stagnate as less and less users will find it useful. It is just a matter of time. Once people learn the truth and find out that the Segwit hack has very little utility value - and how they intend to force us into 3rd party side chains run and/or controlled by banksters via the Lightning network - they will drop the Segwit hack like a hot potato.
What satoshi "envisioned" is not God's word. If you must do only and only what satoshi envisioned, Bitcoin would no longer be a decentralized project, this is what cashies fail to understand for some reason.
In any case, satoshi also didn't envision his project being forked because some people didn't got their way. He wanted all nodes to follow the same rules, otherwise you get an altcoin (that is why BCash is an altcoin). You can compete as an altcoin, nobody is saying you can't, but it is not Bitcoin, think again and you'll understand.
He also predicted people would be against big blocksizes in order to participate in the network (run nodes). Hal Finney (aka Satoshi Nakamoto) also talked about a proto-lightning network (and LN is much better than what Finney envisioned back then).
Satoshi also failed to predict many things, such as pool mining. Some of his stuff is now deprecated.
Also lol at how "we don't care about poor people". I wish everyone could use Bitcoin at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, but once again, this is impossible, physically. And again, just like Soros, certain forces are trying to appeal to the good intentions of the common folk in order to fuck up the blockchain for everyone else. You can thank LN will allow for poor people to participate in Bitcoin, but there's no way everyone is going to be able to use on-chain transactions, you can use any other centralized altcoin for that.
In order to cater for global demand at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, at the security levels Bitcoin delivers currently with his massive PoW+node network, we need a technolgoy that simply doesn't exist currently.
"Wrong. The image doesn't explicitly say "all nodes are Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.", it just points out at how an huge amount of BCash nodes are centralized in the hands of few actors, which is useless centralization wise. You could have 1 million BCash nodes hosted by a few parties vs 5000 nodes hosted by widespread independent parties in Bitcoin, and all things else equal, the Bitcoin network is an objectively stronger network."
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.
---------------------------------------------------
"Segwit is part of Bitcoin since 21th August '17, particularly ever 10 minutes, as your blocks must be compatible with segwit transactions to qualify as a Bitcoin block. Segwit has never been compromised. As far BCash, BCash is too small for anyone to bother, the problem is that short-sighted BCashiers don't see is that dead end for a coin that raises blocks "as big as needed" is a mining AND transaction validation monopoly inside datacenters easily bribeable/easy to just launch a missile at if you must, in other words, a centralized system, vs a bunch of random nodes scattered across the globe, impossible to bribe and nuke, therefore, a decentralized system."
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.
---------------------------------------------------
"Wrong, Blockstream doesn't own/control Bitcoin Core. This is the same BCashie rhetoric we've been hearing for a while, debunked a million times:
https://medium.com/@whalecalls/fud-or-fact-blockstream-inc-is-the-main-force-behind-bitcoin-and-taken-over-160aed93c003
The same rethoric could be applied to your supposed "6 development teams" on BCash, all funded by Bitmain/Ver."
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).
---------------------------------------------------
"What satoshi "envisioned" is not God's word. If you must do only and only what satoshi envisioned, Bitcoin would no longer be a decentralized project, this is what cashies fail to understand for some reason.
In any case, satoshi also didn't envision his project being forked because some people didn't got their way. He wanted all nodes to follow the same rules, otherwise you get an altcoin (that is why BCash is an altcoin). You can compete as an altcoin, nobody is saying you can't, but it is not Bitcoin, think again and you'll understand.
He also predicted people would be against big blocksizes in order to participate in the network (run nodes). Hal Finney (aka Satoshi Nakamoto) also talked about a proto-lightning network (and LN is much better than what Finney envisioned back then).
Satoshi also failed to predict many things, such as pool mining. Some of his stuff is now deprecated.
Also lol at how "we don't care about poor people". I wish everyone could use Bitcoin at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, but once again, this is impossible, physically. And again, just like Soros, certain forces are trying to appeal to the good intentions of the common folk in order to fuck up the blockchain for everyone else. You can thank LN will allow for poor people to participate in Bitcoin, but there's no way everyone is going to be able to use on-chain transactions, you can use any other centralized altcoin for that.
In order to cater for global demand at on-chain levels, fast and cheap, at the security levels Bitcoin delivers currently with his massive PoW+node network, we need a technolgoy that simply doesn't exist currently."
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.
