Topic: The 'real' Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 1007 times)

Searching for the "real" Bitcoin is a pretty weird thing to do, as all things develop, expand and obtain new characteristics. All these 3 versions are valid and real, as each of them stems from the original. I personally welcome forks that are solving real problems, as is the scalability issue.

Let's see,
Core has most advance dev team, but that doesn't mean they have/know/use best way to scaling/upgrade bitcoin, especially if they're corrupt.
2x has most mining power isn't representative of which chain is the real bitcoin since it's matter of how much money how you can invest on mining hardware.
Cash following Satoshi White Paper is interesting idea, but i think some of the ideas are outdated or not relevant with current condition such as "one-cpu-one-vote".

I think none of them are 'real' bitcoin and the chain with biggest community support is close to the 'real' bitcoin.

I'm not sure I agree with the bolded. Segwit is fully compatible with Bitcoin as it is today. It is not a radical departure at all; it is just a slight change to the way blockchain data is verified and stored which addresses transaction malleability. Old transactions work as they did before. New transactions are compatible with the original network.

Bitcoin Cash may follow the original idea of Bitcoin in your mind, but it is incompatible with Bitcoin.

lol.  That is pretty funny.  You might not believe this but the 'biggest mining companies' and Core are about to go two separate ways.  Then who will you choose? 

Core has most advance dev team
2X has most mining companies\
Cash is most like the White Paper.

Will the 'real' Bitcoin please stand up?

The real bitcoin is that mined by the biggest mining biggest companies, that is by Hashnest. Why would someone say that BCH or 2x or whatever would be the real and good bitcoin when all people know which bitcoin the biggest companies are mining? My guess is that some people want to have the control of bitcoin, but this will not happen.

Bitcoin Core, or 'SegWit(not)2X' is core's version and they want you to believe they are the 'real bitcoin' so they will carry the 60+$B value onto their system.  However the majority of hashers will go with SegWit2X (distinct from (not)2X). 

Because Bitcoin Core and SegWit2X is a radical departure from the white paper.  SegWit is the fork.  Bitcoin Cash follows the original idea and it is the same thing that Satoshi called 'Bitcoin'.  SegWit is not Bitcoin.  SegWit is not even like Bitcoin.  SegWit might be interesting science and a good approach to scaling - but it is not Bitcoin.

Why we need to know the 'real' bitcoin? Just keep in mind that bitcoin is a payment method that can be used online and in the real world as well. 

What does "share the same genesis block" mean exactly? Neither Bitcoin Cash nor Segwit2x will be compatible with the genesis block. I'm not even sure that Bitcoin Core is compatible with the genesis block --- there was talk recently that Satoshi implemented hard forks very early on in Bitcoin's history.

Sharing the history doesn't mean much. Any fork can just copy the UTXO set. What matters is the actual network of users and their economic activity. That's what ultimately drives demand for any given coin.


Why does Bitcoin Core (status quo / Segwit soft fork) cease to be Bitcoin, just because some hard forks were created?

Why are these three bitcoins mesty contested?
Whether the three bitcoins have differences?

Because huge disagreements and different opinions are to be expected in a decentralized platform. It's pretty much like the first half of the community says they prefer apples, whereas the 2nd half prefers oranges. And no, if you're actually a bitcoin user you would know that the original bitcoin is NOT working great. I wouldn't call high transaction fees and high transaction times " working great".

Yes, expect alot more forks in the future. If I remember correctly the next fork would be in November. Only time will tell which bitcoin version will be at the top.

What?  If you don't like high fees and slow transaction times, use Bitcoin Cash - not SegWit.  Bitcoin Cash has very low fees and quick confirmation.  SegWit is complex with soon to be two versions and loads of overhead for adoption at coupled systems (wallets, etc).  SegWit is a disaster waiting to happen.  It is a radical departure from the original white paper.  It is an alt coin. 

"There can be only one" - Highlander



All the others are Alt coins and a cheap ripoff of the original design. The Bitcoin network will determine the winner in the end and the users will decide what they want to use. Would we see Bitcoin Cash be used for micro payments and Bitcoin Core for store of value? Time will tell. ^smile^

Realistically, after Segwit is activated most people will switch over to it. Why? Because it allows for Lightning Network which we desperately need in order to reduce transaction fees which are currently outrageous. IT will also speedup transaction times as well. I don't know why some people dislike Segwit. It makes perfect sense.

I don't understand why there would be confusion in anyone's mind although for newbies, it might create some amount of confusion aside that I see no issue and with proper amount of information, their ignorance is cleared. But for everyone who is already involved even if there are 5 forks we all know the platform I mean the original body they are coming out from and those are the ones that decides what happen afterwards.

Agreed. If anything, all this fighting has taught us that variations of Bitcoin can exist. And I do think more time needs to go by for us to see the real consequence of the forks but would there not be an immediate break down if one were to occur at all?

The fighting needs to stop. If people want to change things they can drop an ICO and see how it goes.

They each have different performance advantages that some members of the community believe are important to the future uses of their respective networks.  

The 'original' Bitcoin was working horribly.  The transaction capacity was topped out.  The fees were exploding.  Something needed to change to scale.  All three versions agree with this.  But all three versions chose a different solution for scaling.  

Forks are good.  Don't fear the fork.  They allow everyone to really see how the performance works in the real world.  Pre-fork, everyone merely speculates what would happen if certain rules are adopted.  They usually miss the mark by a mile.  Once a new network (prong of the fork) is launched, we can really see whether these predictions are true or not.  

Only short sighted profit mongers worry as a fork can reek havoc with price stability.  But really fucking smart guys like Andreas Antonopolous welcome the fork because we get to see what really happens instead of merely listening to a-holes like Greg Maxwell who like to tell everyone how the world should fit his personal vision.  Maxwell wants you to just listen to him and his fancy PhD and do whatever he says - backed by continuous manipulation via censorship and DDOSing the opposition.  AA wants the system to naturally find its way.  AA wins everytime. Thank god we have Jesus to save us all; Roger Ver is giving the fork an opportunity to work.  

Why do we even need all these separate versions anyway? It seems like the original Bitcoin was working great. Doesn't seem like Bitcoin Cash is doing much of any good.

I would be interested to see if more forks happen in the future. We're less than 10 years into Bitcoin so in 100 years who knows how many potential forks or splits can happen.   

So everyone is fighting to argue that their prong of the fork is the 'real' bitcoin.  But that distinction is clearly behind us now.  There is no 'real' bitcoin.  Rather there are 3 prongs each of which share the same genesis block and early history.  Bitcoin now includes:

• Bitcoin 1 : Bitcoin Cash
• Bitcoin 2 : Bitcoin SegWit2X
• Bitcoin 3 : Bitcoin Core

To help all members of the community, it is beneficial that everyone stop fighting over who will be the 'real' bitcoin and clearly distinguish between all three viable networks.  Further fighting over the 'Bitcoin' brand is damaging to all three.  When writing about your favorite prong, please use the designators above.