Every new project more times than not, has a ground breaking, revolutionary project, and it is not the reality more often than not.
My first thought when analysing a project; is it feasible and sustainable?
Promises are easy to make, especially when seeking for funds. They are more challenging harder to actualize.
Topic: That made my day, really - page 2. (Read 685 times)
the days of people who are very downturned are where there is a lot of money to invest but do not get a definite advantage so people who do it again are very thinking first.
It reminds me of all those ICO's with fanciful presentations promising lands of milk and honey, and where are they all now?
Bankrupt?
Bankruptcy assumes being legit, at least in the beginning as well as making an honest effort toward the goals stated and then failing for a legit reason too. These were outright scam enterprises for the most part right from the start, so I don't think you can refer to them as bankrupt. They were sort of born bankrupt
Some of the people who are promoting this are really delusional, almost sounding like conspiracy theorists
Or they are really crafty con masters
Just wait, they'll have another fork in a few years when they try to scale blocks too much and some of them realize it's not feasible while others follow the plan at all costs.
In a few years there'll be only one Bitcoin. Only one should prevail and we all know which one it will be
Just wait, they'll have another fork in a few years when they try to scale blocks too much and some of them realize it's not feasible while others follow the plan at all costs.
most of these are just pretty words on paper though!
for example the fees will only remain low if they think their shitcoin is never going to be used enough to fill blocks. otherwise fees will go up similar to bitcoin since the block size is not unlimited.
or for example the cash address which they are advertising as one of the features of this shitcoin is actually SegWit's bech32 addresses which they copied after shittalking about SegWit for months
for example the fees will only remain low if they think their shitcoin is never going to be used enough to fill blocks. otherwise fees will go up similar to bitcoin since the block size is not unlimited.
or for example the cash address which they are advertising as one of the features of this shitcoin is actually SegWit's bech32 addresses which they copied after shittalking about SegWit for months
It reminds me of all those ICO's with fanciful presentations promising lands of milk and honey, and where are they all now?
Bankrupt?
Some of the people who are promoting this are really delusional, almost sounding like conspiracy theorists.
I once went to a meetup in Brussels with the 'president' of Liberland and he was basically saying that BCH was Satoshi's real vision.
Also mentioning that if you supported core, he wanted nothing to do with you.
Needless to say, I left that meetup pretty soon after that. He's sputing the same bullshit all over his Facebook pages.
Same with some people I've met through Steemit, got talking about Bitcoin and they suddenly mention that they believe everything Roger Ver says about Segwit & lightning being evil etc.
Tried going into discussions with them, refuting their points, but it was like talking to a 5 year old toddler.
These guys live in a Utopian dream world, where everyone is filthy rich. 
No, I don't think so
I don't think they really believe in all this crap themselves. Rather, they are trying to make people believe in this, to take this shitcoin seriously and buy it from them. It reminds me of all those ICO's with fanciful presentations promising lands of milk and honey, and where are they all now?
They hardly have more than 50 transactions per Block, so why would they need all that scaling? ^sarcasm^ 
Moore's law will not even be able to keep up with the storage requirements that this scaling would have in the future and the majority of the people running full nodes, will not be able to afford the biggest and fastest hard drives on the market. How many of the people can afford the Samsung PM1633a – 16 TB now? < priced at around $10,000 >
These guys live in a Utopian dream world, where everyone is filthy rich.
Moore's law will not even be able to keep up with the storage requirements that this scaling would have in the future and the majority of the people running full nodes, will not be able to afford the biggest and fastest hard drives on the market. How many of the people can afford the Samsung PM1633a – 16 TB now? < priced at around $10,000 >
These guys live in a Utopian dream world, where everyone is filthy rich.
50 transactions/day for 10 billion people?WTF is this?
If the human population ever reaches 10 billion people,the civilization will collapse.I'm pretty sure that not even 0,001% of those "10 billion" people will ever adopt Bcash or it's forks.
If the human population ever reaches 10 billion people,the civilization will collapse.I'm pretty sure that not even 0,001% of those "10 billion" people will ever adopt Bcash or it's forks.
this is just a publicity stunt because they know that many of the altcoin investors are dumb people who only judge the book by its cover. for example they look at how much transaction the coin can handle per second (aka TPS) then think if the number they show is higher then it must be better. they forget that promising to handle that much is not the same as being able to do that.
one way of doing this is to increase the block size, decrease the block time,... to fake the numbers and as long as nobody uses the coin to its capacity nobody will ever find out whether it can or not.
right now they do NOT have 32 MB,... blocks. what they have are 100-500 kilobyte blocks. so nobody cares. increase it to 10 trillion terabytes as long as only 100 kilobyte of it is only used people will run the nodes easily and there is no need for a central server and the shitcoin will pump for a while!!!
one way of doing this is to increase the block size, decrease the block time,... to fake the numbers and as long as nobody uses the coin to its capacity nobody will ever find out whether it can or not.
right now they do NOT have 32 MB,... blocks. what they have are 100-500 kilobyte blocks. so nobody cares. increase it to 10 trillion terabytes as long as only 100 kilobyte of it is only used people will run the nodes easily and there is no need for a central server and the shitcoin will pump for a while!!!
will BCHABC make the centralized concept in the future? if it is a BCHABC problem, I think they should look for supporters who are ready to back up the prospects for BCHABC in the future.
they will have difficulties, but if their plan is successful, BCHABC will have a very good development.
they will have difficulties, but if their plan is successful, BCHABC will have a very good development.
What strikes me on the chart is the number of completed things. It's just 10% of it all which is almost nothing. With those 1TB blocks maybe they are planning to merge with one of those HDD coins like storj or burst. They would borrow space from them and pay them in Jihancoin or Bitmain stocks when they go public.
The next bestselling book: How to become a millionaire and lose it all in 5 years.
The next bestselling book: How to become a millionaire and lose it all in 5 years.
It's so clear that this proposal is unrealistic,and I do not know if their trying to supposedly solve scalability issue to taunt the bitcoin or so.
It doesn't take a few days to be able to come up with an effective measure to curb scalability,as we've seen with the bitcoin.
Bch is definitely going nowhere
It doesn't take a few days to be able to come up with an effective measure to curb scalability,as we've seen with the bitcoin.
Bch is definitely going nowhere
Well, looking at the pic below you can actually see and understand how delusional these dudes are. Or rather the ones whom they are trying to feed this bullshit to:
They are going to have 1 terabyte blocks in the future, and they call that scaling, wow. I'm curious as to who's going to save all this data and where exactly unless they switch to a central server model? But then they wouldn't need miners, blocks, or blockchain itself. This is a dead-end, by any margin imaginable
Am also utterly curious if anyone takes this seriously
They are going to have 1 terabyte blocks in the future, and they call that scaling, wow. I'm curious as to who's going to save all this data and where exactly unless they switch to a central server model? But then they wouldn't need miners, blocks, or blockchain itself. This is a dead-end, by any margin imaginable
Am also utterly curious if anyone takes this seriously
maybe they think that in 20-30 years, an avarage hard disk will have 1M terabyte...
to mee is pretty unrealistic, but if is it only a possibility, what's the problem?
Their scaling solution rely too much on :
1. Moore Law, where they think all technology capability is doubled everywhere, even though most of technology improved slower
1. Moore Law, where they think all technology capability is doubled everywhere, even though most of technology improved slower
Honestly, after looking at this pic, I'd rather say they are no more than established con artists, the whole bunch of them, since anyone technically savvy understands that there are limits to processing frequencies, storage capacities, network bandwidth, etc, and we are pretty close to these limits, if not already there. In other words, all this bullshit is intended entirely for persuading general public to believe something which is not true and cannot in the least be guaranteed to come true in the future. Besides, 50 transactions per person as an ultimate goal for the whole shebang is laughable
And they call that "mankind scale", wtf
Well, looking at the pic below you can actually see and understand how delusional these dudes are. Or rather the ones whom they are trying to feed this bullshit to:
They are going to have 1 terabyte blocks in the future, and they call that scaling, wow. I'm curious as to who's going to save all this data and where exactly unless they switch to a central server model? But then they wouldn't need miners, blocks, or blockchain itself. This is a dead-end, by any margin imaginable
Am also utterly curious if anyone takes this seriously
They are going to have 1 terabyte blocks in the future, and they call that scaling, wow. I'm curious as to who's going to save all this data and where exactly unless they switch to a central server model? But then they wouldn't need miners, blocks, or blockchain itself. This is a dead-end, by any margin imaginable
Am also utterly curious if anyone takes this seriously
Jump to: