Topic: TWO strategies are now challenging bitcoin core (Read 274 times)

We will come out of all kinds of dangerous activities.Another important aspect of education that is community support So I do not think any big impact would be on this false marketing strategy. The truth always shines and remains above.
Many counterfeit crypto customers still think that scams like Bitcoin Cash, Diamond, Gold etc.

People here on the forum did that immature REKT nonsense.  Why lie and blame an entire dev team for the actions of some forum users?  There was a time where I respected your opinions, but that's rapidly fading since you now seem to be making shit up and blaming developers for things they didn't do.



The two mindsets clearly weren't compatible, so yes, a fork was inevitable.  The writing was on the wall.  Honestly, I think there should have been a fork sooner to spare a load of unnecessary drama.  Right at the start, when Gavin first proposed the 20MB plan.  Would have been healthier for all involved.  Could have let the market decide straight away and spared us the years of infighting.  



And one of those networks couldn't find a block to save its life due to a barely noticeable hashrate, so it implemented emergency difficulty adjustments and limped on, despite the fact that only a few people seemed to care about it.  Most of the forum activity surrounding BCH was due to the novelty and controversy of it.  Not because people thought it was a good idea.  Otherwise they would have been running the software and BCH would have had more nodes.  Stop pretending this was an equal split.  BCH would have been stillborn had it not been for the EDA.  Dead on arrival.  Because no one gave enough of a fuck to run the code.  That's what actually happened.  



What is there to defend?  Core made some code.  Many liked it, some didn't.  So a small number of users who didn't agree went off to do their own thing, which is fine.  But then those small number of users started lying for some reason and it makes them look really petty and weak.  They should probably stop lying before they lose what little respect they have left.  

Yes i buy your point because forking bitcoin only gave the coin some characteristics of the true bitcoin yet the silver, the gold, the diamond versions of bitcoin still has some limitations. They are not the true bitcoin. You cannot be superior than your own superior.

Bitcoins will always be the king, I can't see what eth can do to take over that place.

by choice?
lol

users wanted to use XT... core REKT campained it
users wanted to use classic... core REKT campained it
users wanted to use unlimited... core REKT campained it

core devs then demanded the other clients that were not core to not use consensus on the same network. but to split (fork-off)
then
core devs then demanded the other clients that were not core to not use consensus on the same network. but to come to a joint agreement with core to bilaterally split

and guess what happened in august. yep. it was not a consensus upgrade of a single network. it was a bilatral split of 2 networkds that had 2 different rules/netwok topologies and protocols that differ from the original network known as bitcoin(pre summer 2017)

cores segwit protocols are not the same as bitcoin 2009-2016
the block data. the transaction types. etc etc. it all changed. both sides went in separat directions.

and before you even bother saying "backward compatibility"
old nodes cant just take in block data as is. it needs a translator.

its like having an invasion by forigners where the natives are no longer part of society but treated like PoW rfugee's getting handed downstream rations and having translators. but are no longer allowed to WORK(mine/validate) in society.

learn downstream filters (gmax bussword) or bridge nodes(Luke JR bussword). then learn that 2009-2014 nodes cannot relay all current blocks in full current serialisation.
yes the new segwit direction can understand legacy. but the legacy cannot understand segwit

WAKE UP
infact.. take a day off.. have a good sleep and tomorrow. remove the core defense cap. stop thinking from a position of protecting/defending core. if you truly beleived that core are not your king. then dont defend them. instead think of it from a proposition of other nodes that are not just core partners/sheep.
you will start to see why core are so heavily demanding they are called the "core" reference.. because they dont want other nodes competing using consensus. thus it their network. and they pretty much admit it

so either take off the core defense cap or just admit it and say. "decentralisation is dead, long live distribution.."
yep core devs love the new buzword distributed ledger technology(DLT)

With these difference in opinions and in fights the real people behind these propaganda are actually winning, they just knew that dividing the entire bitcoin community to different groups will be an easy job to destroy the real purpose of this entire revolution and they have successfully done that by now. I am sure new users will be confused with the amount of coins in the market with the same name, there is nothing that can be done now.

So you're going to pretend you didn't post in the very thread where it appears Satoshi did have ideas about not broadcasting to the network until the final outcome is reached?

I'm going to be blunt here, I don't think anyone with such limited cognition so as to perceive payment channels as "banks" is capable of judging the intricacies and depth of Satoshi's vision.  If I open multiple payment channels with other users, that doesn't give me the status of a "bank".  I'm not creating money out of thin air.  I'm not engaging in fractional reserve.  I'm not conducting KYC/AML checks.  I'm not gambling on a $1.2 quadrillion toxic derivatives market.  Categorically not a bank.



The users have said that Bitcoin is going to follow the roadmap that has been laid out by Core.  That's all that matters.  If that wasn't what the users wanted, it wouldn't be what we currently have.  Now stop trying to twist events to suit your skewed narrative.  Developers can't force changes upon users.  I have and use bech32 SegWit addresses.  Not because a developer made me, but because I chose to.  You follow whatever fork follows your desired roadmap, no one's forcing you to stick around and follow this one.

---

Constantly repeating your backwards, regressive opinions doesn't make them true.  At any time and for any reason the users could decide they don't want to use Core's software.  But that hasn't happened yet.  The users happily continue to use that software.  By choice.

Yes ETH is doing good in the current trend. But I think BTC will do better than any other altcoins in future. I think since btc is the pioneer in the industry, it will hold some extra acceptability than others. please make me clear, if I am wrong in my view. Thanks.

Satoshi Vision was to Remove Banks (Middle Men) from money transactions.

Bitcoin Core LN Network Places Banks/LN Hubs directly in the middle of money transactions.

Hate to break it to you , but that is one Major fuck up, if their goal was to follow satoshi vision.  

But no one ever said , Bitcoin Core had to follow Satoshi,
recent history , Bitcoin Core choose to follow G.Maxwell and the Axa Banking cartels, which is why you have LN.  

You should give credit where credit is due, G.Maxwell is the Father of Bitcoin Core not Satoshi.

satoshi only wanted the influence of the national bankers over society reduced, not to create the ultimate supercoin, as new world currency. for the next 200 years

bitcoin is a good weapon against the banksters and their financial inquisition but its not a good technical coin as its wasting quite a lot of ressources. and it is making the collective poorer through it.

bitcoin stays good as long as the banksters have to much power over the societies, after that its not as good anymore, and need better quality replacement, that is better designed.

You are right, but both of them have happened in the past. Almost many people have started making Altcoins. Many people are trying to convert Bitcoin to other precious metals like Dimond, Silver etc. There is no difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum. Both complement each other.

It is true that many coin coin now imitate bitcoin and you are absolutely right that it is better to move in an ethereum that has very good potential.

I think there meaned bitcoin core how native bitcoin code, not bitcoin cash and other forks.
bcore challenging with network scalability

Bitcoin is a protocol with a consensus, Bitcoin Core is a client based on that protocol.

your still not getting the big picture..

before the bilateral split. the community beleived that many nodes could happily run on one network and core had no power.
this was done by bing in control of the other node devs.

core and its paid devs got its fundraiser to pay other devs to create altrnate clients.
(gavin is part of the clan.. not against it.. xt/classic were drama events to pretend their was decentralisation and free choice)

 so that it would cause drama. purely to incite a degree of the population to start cheering core as a leader. they then went a stage further by starting REKT campaigns to push out any "competition" against core and have the community slowly get used to the idea that core should not have consensus competitors.

and then when core only got 35% vote on a proposal(segwit) the core paid devs had to ramp it up a notch. and get a team to make a bilateral split proposition that threw all the opposers of core off the core network. thus making core a monarchy

gavin and jgarzic (bitcoin cash creators) are funded by the same people that fund gmaxwell and p.wuille.
even the lightning "teams" are paid by the same too.. rusty russel is one example


segwit/lightning is the "product" that the bankers NEEDED activating to control peoples funds. it was not about malleability. it was about multisig control and also part of it still in the works (schnorr) which then hides who the 'managers' are so even the bank2.0 customers dont know who has signing privelidges

this whole last few years was not a throw the sheep into boiling water and see how many jump out and ram the chef.. it was dip the sheep in comfortable water and slowly incrase the temperature until they boil to death without realising.

core have the network all in their protocol controlling hands. core is not just a wallet. they are now deemed as the sole controller of the rules.. they are centralised.

now even if you play the 2 team game of bitcoin core vs bitcoin cash.. to dcg.co it doesnt matter. they own both coins and if bitcoin cash becomes more popular. dcg.co will just transfer dev priorities to manipulate cash.
so see beyond the 2 team game as the two team game is a farse.

above was about the network/protocol....as for the clarity of the currency.
no one should own "bitcoin"
both "teams" should not play the game .. and instead just clarify to users when the user asks for bitcoin. the community should ask
is that bitcoin core or bitcoin cash

I don't really think this has as much of a bearing on the future success of bitcoin as you think. Didn't the prospective lawsuit just not raise enough funds to take the case further?

Some are trying to take the musk like bitcoin but fortunately no one can succeed. All the forks are being trashed. But you are right that there must be some propaganda regarding the issue to avoid any unwanted situation.

well you will have to defend that notion,

What a load of shit. Every fork that goes nowhere strengthens Bitcoin and demonstrates why you can't magic up long term trust out of nothing. And if everyone did switch to ETH they'd be hit with an avalanche of forks too.

ETH is like every other alt. It's had the luxury of being shielded while BTC takes hit after hit on its behalf.

From my perspective I think there are no difference ethereum and bitcoin. Both are similar but they effect each others value.