Topic: Fight between BTC and BCH communities drive away people from cryptos itself. - page 3. (Read 864 times)

Though I haven't seen any fight between BCH and BTC community, maybe only BCH owner claimed BCH is better than Bitcoin. A true bitcoin supporter won't fight with any other coins, because at the end of the day, we all know, we need bitcoin more than anything in the crypto field.

Roger once addressed that by simply saying that the total fiat value of the transactions themselves and the trading volumes of Bcash were higher in both aspects, which is true but there are more ways of looking at this.

Roger also believes small transactions are important, which is what most people use dogecoin for, but he completely ignored it which just shows how he's cherry picking just to 'validate' his own points.

There are more than a dozen of coins with more on-chain transaction activity than Bcash, and he keeps ignoring all of them. He must be so high on his own supply that he really believes Bcash is the best on-chain money.

Any smart investor coming to Crypto will first and foremost knock at the door of BTC before any other coin. Well the fight for supremacy between BTC and BCH shouldn't be a factor to repel any investors. The battle will always be there.

I think it's a complex issue. To me, it boils down to ethical considerations, particularly around hard forks.

On one hand, you can take the position that no hard forks are legitimate. Since a hard fork removes rules and is therefore incompatible, consensus requires every node operator to agree to the changes -- they need to change software to affirmatively agree. That's completely impossible to accomplish prior to a fork, and harder yet everyday as Bitcoin's network grows. As a result, hard forks depend on the economic majority coercing the minority into accepting incompatible changes. If you take the position that hard forks are altcoins, then I think you can legitimately say that "BCH can't be called Bitcoin."

On the other hand, you can accept that hard forks are legitimate. That is, you believe the Bitcoin software can be hard forked and still be called "Bitcoin." If that's the case, things can get a lot more complicated. Can't you imagine a situation where two groups might disagree on a proposed consensus change? If incompatible changes are on the table, why should any one group have the authority to say, "only we, the chosen disciples, get to decide how to interpret the holy whitepaper?" What if the economic majority is on the side of the more radical change from the original protocol?

It's a lot easier when we can stick to questions of validity when deciding what Bitcoin is.

Fanaticism will only make us become stupid and easily offended, which usually leads to fight, they’re not aware or don’t even care of the impact may occur. Actually without even having to interfere each other there will be no problem between BTC and BCH because they already have their own markets and let this competition runs sportive and peacefully, because we are civilized and knowledgeable people.

What fight? BCH is not like one of the fleas riding a dog (BTC) that thinks it's bigger and stronger than the rest because it's on a dog's head. Imagine a tiny flea with Ver's face  jumping and screaming: "Look, I'm on top of the world, I'm even higher than the dog!"
Speaking of dogs, I've seen the number of transactions on a couple coins and dogecoin had more of them than BCH. Something around 25k vs 14k of BCH. What a joke.

Anything that spurs conflicts between any community relating to crypto will inevitably confuse people so it makes sense that any conflicts between BTC and BCH will play a negative role for crypto.

To me that is not a problem, new people that want to enter in this market are not really that informed about all of what is happening so for them that is not a factor that they consider when they think about investing in bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, and for the people that are really informed about this such a small disagreement is not going to keep them away from this market, so as you can see I do not see either of those groups been affected too much by such a fight.

The investment in the market of cryptocurrencies has gone down because people are afraid, people are afraid that they're going to lose their money if the market of cryptocurrencies crashes again, but as soon as the market begins to show a recovery you will see all of those people coming back.

The longest running chain + the network with the most POW running is Bitcoin. If people (aside from the BCash camp) thought that BCash was it, they would switch to that coin. In other words, BTC is the only Bitcoin.

Initially nChain might have some ground to stand on IF Coingeek is willing to side with them. Coingeek minted over 33% of the blocks in the last 24 hours, so they are quite a significant player. I however don't believe that Coingeek is willing to support something that has no economical viability to it.

They are barking right now, but it's a money matter at the end of the day, and I'm pretty sure that they are willing to shut up as long as they can be a major player on the dominant chain. If you go with nChain, you can be sure of the fact that another split will occur within 12 months, because these idiots won't rest before they can claim 100% of development and have everyone bend over for them.

Jihan even labelled Craig as a Blockstream spy. Some others even say that Craig's side is worse than what the Core developers stand for.

Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin SV... However will we decide which one is the "Real Bitcoin" when they can't even decide themselves?

Maybe, just maybe, the real bitcoin is... bitcoin?

And you have to add now Bitcoin SV (Satoshi Vision) which will be the client developed by Craig Wright's group. I think he will also provide mining, how much hashrate are they willing to bet on it? that I don't know, but apparently Craig Wright has some "some computer miners".

It doesn't look to good for BCash camp, now that they will have a split within the split and not only in terms of the reference client, but for the hashrate itself, since they will actually fork for Bitcoin SV into a new token...

I agree with you that these fights can not bring a good feeling to potential investors. Both sides have strong power and difficulty, but we all know  the attraction and support of the community its normal.

In the same childish way the coin they call Bitcoin Cash, can be called Bitcoin ABC or Bitcoin Unlimited since these full node clients are by far dominating the distribution.

1202 Bitcoin ABC nodes.
739 Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
24 Bitcoin XT nodes.

In the end, BCash isn't worth much without Bitmain's deep pockets artificially offering buy support to sustain the price and thus the value of their own +1 million BCash holdings. If they end up splitting in November, it's already clear that the chain having Bitmain on its side will be the real winner. The other chain will turn into the next BTG after a while.

While it is true that discrepancies and infighting have been going on for ages within the development of bitcoin, this was never a problem and something to be expected in a decentralized project without a clear leader dictating how things should be.

However the BTC and BCH situation made it palpable to even the average newbie. Before this, the average Joe just had no idea there were controversies, but now they look at two tokens and go like, "what, there's two Bitcoins now?" so you have two tokens competing to be Bitcoin, with very vocal people with their big twitter megaphones confusing the newbies, because anyone that is not a newbie obviously know BCH is as much Bitcoin as Dogecoin is, or any other altcoin that claims to be Bitcoin. But for the inexperienced it's a way to lose money, specially the ones that go into bitcoin dot com.

For me BCH is doing some foolish activities. BCH promote their product through BTC media. So I can not compare bch with btc. Btc is huge and its not creat anything bad in this crypto world.

Sure, they can call their coin anything they want. But the fact that they have to steal the name of a more successful coin, that they have to trick people in to buying it because no one wants to buy it based on its own merits, should be alarm bells and red flags to anyone with half a brain.

But this is their debate, which I sometimes see myself agreeing with. "No one owns the name Bitcoin, everyone is free to use it". This is very true, BUT it will not matter because what the "real Bitcoin" is is a social construct. "Bitcoin" is the people.

But they have the right to call it "also" Bitcoin, but it would not be right for them to call it the "real" Bitcoin.

"rivalry" is when you create a new altcoin from 0 and try to create it in a way that it does things better than bitcoin and then compete with it to reach the same goal: a decentralized currency.
what BCH does is far from "rivalry", it was attempts of hostile take over of bitcoin which failed. which is why they created an altcoin from bitcoin and are now calling it "bitcoin".

That's exactly what they are doing. They call "Bitcoin Cash" "Bitcoin", and they call "Bitcoin" "Bitcoin Core". Bitcoin Core is software, not a coin, as everyone knows. They deliberately obfuscate the matter to trick newbies in to buying Bitcoin Cash.

Would it be fraud if newbies were manipulated to believe that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin, and they bought something that they thought was worth $6200, but what it's truthfully worth is only $450? Hahaha.

Is the bitcoin.com website doing that kind of manipulation?