Topic: Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi? - page 2. (Read 5187 times)

Okay then you were attacking Roger Ver in your comments, but in the following video he articulates a very compelling and simple reason why BCH is superior:

https://youtu.be/cJAAMtqXc5I?t=181

It’s a fact which I have stated many times. LN payer can’t send to everyone who has a BTC address. First the recipient must open+maintain a channel (which doesn’t scale well and will essentially end up as fractional reserve Mt. Box hubs). BCH payer can send to anyone who has an address and it has MUCH lower fees right now.

Pontificate about future scaling as much as you want (neither scale decentralized!) but here and now, Ver is factually correct.

---

Users will signup at Mt. Box banks for a fractional reserve account.

And imagine when all that SegWit shit is stolen and all the fractional reserve accounts go poof! Will teach that n00bs about the death of the fractional reserve banking system, so they can learn what cryptocurrency really is!

Regarding everyone supporting Core, thus Core must win. The majority has to be wrong most of the time. The question is just when do they get pushed over the cliff. For Europe, that is coming very soon. For SegWit, maybe not until 2019 or so.

Do you now understand why my project is still not too late?


They’ve committed to being the scaling coin, so they don’t anticipate political problems with increasing the block size. Of course if true, that means it’s centralized, but so is every coin. Who cares about the future. Everything will change. Here and now, BCH has lower fees (and doesn’t have the one confirmation block period slowing down to MUCH higher than 10 minutes, irreparably for more than two weeks).

It’s the only exact Satoshi protocol blockchain (except for the larger blocks) with major miner support.

I don't care for having the last word. I think both of us have explained our thoughts on the matter thoroughly. We are effectively just wasting time here, but this is historically how I have learned everything I know since I joined the crypto world in 2012... by debating intelligent and knowledgeable individuals like yourself. So thank you for that. I have learned some things, started considering some things that I hadn't before, and have adjusted my thoughts accordingly. Admittedly, the latter takes a while for me because I am somewhat stubborn (and smarter than most people I debate... but probably not you), but I usually come to a realization eventually if I am wrong on something.

You are correct that we both have better things to do, such as working on our own projects. Good luck with everything- I'm sure we will be debating something or another sooner or later again.    

It doesn’t make any sense to argue that small blocks are more decentralized when you justify small blocks by pairing it with an insecure offchain protocol that settles onchain.

As I already stated upthread, that doesn’t mean I am arguing that BCH is more decentralized. They’re all centralized.

All proof-of-work and proof-of-stake blockchains will be run by oligarchies. Period.

So at least I prefer that Bitcoin be immutable and secure during the time the “Zionists” are building it to be their NWO reserve currency.

Because I need my BTC to not be stolen while I am working on a better blockchain design that could possibly remain decentralized while volume scaling.

Any way, this forkathon circus is just part of the process. I don’t really care that much other than the annoyance of not being able to HODL Bitcoin with 100% confidence of it not being stolen by the a reorganization. I don’t have a preference for the personalities of Core or BCH. Yet I do have a preference to see all those who believe in the lie of democracy (tyranny of the mob) to be destroyed and lose everything. As I explained upthread, I think the only social consensus should be to maintain immutability. If you want to experiment with a new design, then fork an airdop as BCH did.


It will “work” technically in terms of demoing payments but the Mt. Box game theory means it will be fraught with manipulations we do not want on the reserve currency.

Let LN run on LTC. We can use LTC for payments for coffee.


More insecure shit. Please you’re not a technological expert.


Incorrect as usual.

Sorry I do not have time to refute more of your naive ramblings.

You realize I have programming work to do, which is much more important than arguing with you. Could you at least stop repeating the same things over and over. I already understand you’re infatuation with technobabble buzzwords that you don’t understand the technological and game theory implications of deeply.


They are both lying. There will be no decentralization.

You’re just sticking your finger in the wind and guessing because you do not know how to create these technologies. You are not down in the trenches. You lack detailed understanding.

So what you see merit in, is irrelevant.

You’re not stupid. You read a fair amount. You’re somewhat informed (and probably read more current events than I do). But you lack technological depth. That is a big handicap, and you should be slightly more circumspect when throwing around proclamations about technology + game theory which is very detailed and complex.


That has been my point all along.

They will be punished by having their BTCSegWit “pay to anyone” donations stolen by the blockchain. Lol. Just what they (and you) deserve for believing in Core’s lies.


BCH does not donate all the SegWit transactions to “pay to anyone”.

They did not mutate Satoshi’s protocol in egregiously insecure ways with ridiculous BIPs!


Quoted for the (story of the) ”witless and the woodchipper” outcome.


The whales are destroying STEEM just as I predicted.

I’m very busy trying to beat EOS to launch, so please stop.

Let’s both go quiet and work. We’ll observe what happens.

You can have the last word for now.

---

CoinHoarder I will reply later to your most recent post.

First, I’m going to start another thread about the whether a crypto winter is now impossible or not. Interested to discuss analogous to the DOW stopped having deep, drawn out crashes after 1929 Great Depression and only goes to new plateaus with minor, short-leveled corrections. Will BTC stop having crypto winters? I will start a new thread to discuss this.

I would hold no less BCH than I hold BTC if trading for maximum short-term gains (and at current price ratios I would want much more BCH than BTC for short-term trading). But if wanting a HODL forever strategy (such as because of tax implications discussed in the prior post), then I am not sure how much BCH I would hold, probably much less. But I absolutely would not hold BTC long-term that was obtained after July. SegWit theft risk is not small enough.


The CME/CBOE futures markets just launched could enable the miners to make a hell of a lot of money when/if they attack BTCSegWit. They could earn profits on (and finance their massive chain reorganization with) massive shorting, on “stealing” (partaking the SegWit “pay to anyone” donations of) BTC, and on the rise in their BCH bags which they trade back for cheap BTC being dumped like scalding potatoes.

They could consolidate much the BTC taking it from inexperienced/naive fools into the hands of the experienced wise elders (which thus increases the value and reliability of the reserve currency), and ride off into the sunset as kings, because crypto will not die and not go away because of such an attack would be justifiable to restore immutability to Bitcoin so we do not have this insecure SegWit shit on the reserve currency. SegWit can run on Litecoin instead. We do not need it on Bitcoin because Bitcoin is a global reserve currency not a medium-of-exchange for the masses as explained below:

Afaics, ShapeShift.io and Changely don’t have any daily limits. Limit per transaction is about $5K or so. But the problem is taxation differences.

The USA has something called like-kind exchange, meaning no capital gains tax event if trading between liked-kinded assets.

https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/74789/do-altcoin-trades-count-as-like-kind-exchanges-deferred-capital-gains-tax

So 99.9% gold coins are like-kinded with 99.9% gold bars. But coins with some copper and gold are not like-kinded.

https://klasing-associates.com/possible-1031-exchange-bitcoin-ethereum-electroniccrypto-currencies/

https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/3632491-is-an-exchange-between-bitcoin-and-altcoin-considered-like-kind-exchange

Here is the key phrase: A truck cannot be exchanged for a car without going through fiat.

So the theory is that when trading on an exchange everything is an IOU that is exchangeable without going through fiat. Even the fiat balance on the exchange is an IOU issued by the exchange (even if it is USDT), thus not really fiat. And the tokens are not really tokens just an IOU, as evident by the fact that exchanges often fail to pay those IOUs (e.g. Mt. Gox). So there is no actual differentiated (potentially non-like-kinded) exchange until withdrawing from the exchange an actual token or fiat. For those willing to keep their investment on tokens and risk the losses if the exchange blows up. In short, all trading within an exchange is trading fungible IOUs in an online game and there is no taxable event until some crypto or fiat is pulled out of the exchange. Exchanges only issue IOUs (e.g. Mt. Gox). Unless you have the private keys or the fiat at a bank in your name, then you have only IOUs. (Note; IANAL and I am not providing tax advice)

However, apparently FinCEN requires all transactions within the exchange to be tracked else the cost basis will be the one that maximizes tax burden.

But when trading on ShapeShift and Changely, you immediately exchange tokens, thus potentially a taxable event unless the tokens exchanged are correctly construed to be like-kinded. It’s not clear whether trading between tokens on different ledgers is like-kinded or not. The IRS has not ruled on that yet.

If the 99.9% gold content makes coins fungible with bars (i.e. you can trade them fungibly without going through fiat because they have a common basis of purity which is not fiat), then does having the same original source for the case of competing forks of Bitcoin make them fundamentally fungible? I think not. However, if we can trade them in pairs without going through fiat does that make it a like-kinded exchange and essentially fungible? I think no. Meaning I deliver payment in BTC but pay with BCH because there is an instant liquid exchange between BCH and BTC. This works the same with forex and barter, but afaik we still must pay taxes on barter and exchanging foreign forex without involving our nation currency. For those jurisdictions where Bitcoin is ruled a currency (e.g. Germany but only if held over a year presumably before cashing out of the currencies not just trading between currencies, but not available to corporations), then when buying another altcoin, then the purchase is not a taxable event, but when selling the forex (i.e. the alt which is not ruled a currency), then it could be a taxable event. Since the EU has ruled that Bitcoin is a currency (not an asset), thus if trades between currencies within an EU country are not a taxable event then only when cashing out to an asset would a potentially taxable event occurred depending how your nation taxes gains on the value of currency. Note I heard that a high ranking official in Finland stated that trading between altcoins in Finland is not a taxable event.

The tax implications of exchanges for those who are in tax jurisdictions that require assessing taxes on trading between different tokens. So if hodling a token on a wallet, then transferring the token to the exchange is a taxable event because the token has been converted to an exchange IOU. To avoid taxation, according to our aforementioned rationale that exchange trading is all like-kinded IOUs, the tokens would have to have been held on the exchange the entire time and not withdrawn in order to avoid a taxable event. Bummer!


A controlled demo really says nothing about the game theory of Mt. Box centralization of the hubs of LN. And the fact that most users will simply choose to have an account with a hub and thus be given fractional reserves. And the failures of hubs like we have failures of exchanges  now. And the runs on the bank. And the surge spikes of settlement load on the main chain. Etc..

We’re a long way from knowing which electronic currency people are going to want to use to buy coffee. Even if LN worked perfectly it would not necessarily win the adoption race for uptake.

I can’t predict whether SegWit will be a failure mode for BTCSegWit. We’ll have to wait and see.

Looks to me that BCH is going to bottom around $1100. But there is a lesser chance it could decline to as low as $850. Difficult to buy the exact bottom or top when trading.

I am basing pricing on alts.com or coinmarketcap.com which is similar to the weighted average pricing employed by ShapeShift and Changely. Asian exchanges have higher prices.

There is less network latency, less bandwidth requirements, and less hard drive space requirements with smaller blocks. Those three things combined result in a more decentralized network. Small block solutions being more decentralized than big block solutions once they are both massively scaled is not a lie, and not worth debating as there's a lot of research (plus simple common sense) that backs up that reasoning.

Although you are harping on small blocks, it sounds like you ultimately have more of an issue with Segwit/LN. Where things get a little murkey is when you start comparing The Lightning Network with big block solutions, but IMO arguing that the centralized PBOC on-chain payment channel is more "decentralized" than multiple LN payment channels ran by many entities is a lie.

Even if LNs end up not working (which I don't think will be the case), or even working but not being the most ideal solution, there are also payment channels available by utilizing Atomic Swaps and ALT coins. A small block solution plus alt coin payment channels via atomic swaps is extremely more decentralized tham any big block solution (no LN is necessary). Point Blank. Period. It is alarming to me that you are claiming to have everything all figured out, but you haven't even looked into Atomic Swaps... c'mon man.

There are two sides to the argument, but I personally see more merit in Core's roadmap than Bitcoin Cash's road map when it comes to decentralization (even if it's dumb luck that atomic swaps end up being more fruitful than the LN). To call them liars when there is legitimacy to their claims and bullies when they (at least think) that they are acting in Bitcoin's best interest is rediculous.

Saying that Core is forcefully anointing its roadmap while the big blockers are noble and peacefully protesting in support of their roadmap's legitimacy is naive. Sure, the big blockers solution was defeated by the small blockers , but it wasn't for lack of trying. They tried multiple times to take over with Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic. These efforts were largely rejected by the community. On the other hand, Segwit/LN was mostly embraced by the community. At the end of the day it was the community that had the final say through Social Consensus. Just as Social Consensus killed Segwit2x, it embraced the Segwit/LN roadmap. Blaming that wholly on Core is disingenuous. The users and community should share in the blame, because at the end of the day they had the final say.

You must not visit Twitter very often. You should because that is where most of the crypto debate is taking place. Twitter even patted themselves on the back for it.
You act like Bitmain is the most vocal proponent of Bitcoin  Cash... he is not. Although Jihan is probably the most reasonable and level headed person on both sides of the debate (probably because he will be just fine no matter which SHA256 chain thrives), but he himself can acknowled the propaganda that is being spread, and the attacks BCH proponents have waged. BCH proponents have claimed that BCH is the real Bitcoin on numerous occasions across multiple platforms. Roger Ver, Craig Wright, and John McAfee are probably the most prominent and vocal propogators of the attacks, but there are also 100s of shills doing so as well. Maybe you are living under a rock?

Furthermore, the BCH proponents are spouting off lies themselves by claiming BCH is peer-to-peer decentralized cash, and arguing that scaling via raising the block size infinitely does not eventually centralize the network too... even more centralized than multiple competing LNs. That is deceiving, and those are lies or ignorance. Either way, the BCH can not take the high road here... they have no grounds to stand on.

Core has stated that they are not opposed to raising the block size if it has to be done. Just that raising block size infinitely like big blockers want is not ideal, and that Bitcoin should be made to be more efficient with as small of blocks as possible.

I do not deny that vulnerabilities and doomsday scenarios exist, however unlikely they may be, but you are acting like similar attack vectors don't exist on BCH too by only arguing one side of the argument. That is misleading to your readers.

Furthermore, you have always overstated the relevancy of extremely low chance attack vectors that no one else really worries about. Most of the vulnerabilities with dPoS for instance that you claimed would kill Bitshares and Steem remain a non-factor. You are effectively a blockchain technology hipster. Nothing is ever good enough or secure enough. Don't get me wrong because that is good to a point, but you need to be realistic when it comes to practical expectations of the tech and its algorithms. All facets of technology (not just cryptocurrency tech) have vulnerabilities and pitfalls.

You need to understand that at the end of the day cryptocurrencies are distributed software programs, and if these problems that all cryptocurrencies face collectively are solved, then they will be updated to address the new twchnological breakthroughs. You've got to deal with what you got though. You can't live in fantasy land where everything is legit decentralized and no vulnerabilities exist...

This is the real world, and the revolution can not wait for an ideal state of perfectness because such perfection will never exist. If we wait for such unobtainable perfection, then the revolution will never occur.

What would the price of BTC need to be for such an high fee ($5000) to make it viable? I presume it would need to be really high, otherwise at some point even the rich would find other ways to move the wealth?



It looks like news of LN transactions on mainnet happened yesterday when the pump started, I wonder if it's related. The video got a lot of views:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a73Gz3Tvx3k

15,300 views, same as current price lol, and in less than a day. Must have created buzz and pumped the price further.

Im not gonna lie tho, it looks pretty slick.

What if it ends up working well? Let's say it catches on and the average Joe end user happily can buy coffees with BTC finally (they don't care about any of the technical details anyway), and there is no segwit attack and we all get rich from holding BTC? It's a possibility.

Also the problem from going from coin to coin is that if I want to put $50k worth of BTC in some altcoin to hedge, and this altcoin pumps and you double your money... you are going to need some serious verifications on the exchange to withdraw $100k worth of money. Poloniex only allows $2k daily, so you would be withdrawing daily one month and a half. Not looking forward to give my dox to some exchange, I don't trust them. There's also the taxes problem from trading between coins (if you want to buy some real estate you are going to need to explain how did you made all that money, and in some countries trades increase the tax). I just get an headache thinking about it and decide just hold through it, maybe some minor altcoin trading but nothing that would leave me months of withdrawing on exchanges. Too stressful considering exchanges can disappear at any time.

Yet Core lies and tries to convince everyone that we need SegWit and small block size because they’re fighting for decentralization. It’s the lies and bullying.

No we sold the free BCH at $800. Then repurchased from $450 down to $300, wherein in this thread I wrote it would go to $1500. We sold at $1500 as predicted. Now we’re nibbling again with BTC at $14,500 and BCH at $1400 (i.e. below 0.1 BTC again and right at the upward trendline on BCH-USD chart as support, i.e. not likely to go much lower unless that trendline fails or I’m it drawing wrong).

I’m looking for 0.3 - 0.5 BTC again on a moonshot when the BTC difficulty resets at these higher prices, so then as BTC corrects, I presume the big blockers are going to pump BCH again, and it will more profitable to mine BCH than BTC so a self-feeding moonshot cycle again.

I had two scenarios last week (if you read my other posts in Speculation). One was BTC would stall after recovering to $11k, and alts would run up. Or BTC would moonshot to $20k in December (because the CME and SBOE futures markets launch this month) and alts would pause first. So looks like the second scenario was the correct one. Remember I cautioned some days ago that it might be too soon to buy BCH. So now we’re getting closer to the time to buy BCH again.


At least Bitmain doesn’t lie about it. They make it quite obvious in fact. And they don’t try to lie and claim they are the official BTC. Instead they forked and let the market decide without putting blinders on n00bs and newbies with all that BS you and the Core jerks are shoveling. (But thanks to y’all for doing that obfuscation, because it has enabled the meteoric bubble, so thank you Core!)


Yet all the Mt. Box all have to settle onchain and thus they can overload the chain anytime they want to. Combine that with CME futures and the ability to short BTC to hell, they can have lots of fun fucking with the difficulty recomputation, transaction fees, and slowness of blocks, etc..

You’re not really thinking this out clearly from a technological and game theory perspective.


I will need to study the technological security of those instant offchain  “cross chain” swaps. I expect to find security weakness of the sort of game theory attacks I mentioned about Mt. Box settlement spikes on chain. In any case, any altcoin which enables Lightning Network (LN) is going to subject to the threat of volume spikes due to Mt. Box. If an altcoin is not threatened by that (because it can handle nearly any volume such as the design I am working on), then it doesn’t need LN any way!

Yes altcoins can already do transactions much cheaper than Bitcoin and that doesn’t matter. Bitcoin’s transaction volume demand will always continue to increase because BTC is the reserve currency of crypto and so everyone wants to bank their profits in their unit-of-account which is BTC.

Bitcoin’s transaction market share will drop precipitously, but its share of the economic pie of crypto will remain very significant and grow because of the reason I stated. BTC miners/whales do not care about transaction volume, they care about value of the transactions and thus the amount of fees that those whose transacts fit within 1MB block size can afford to pay. For example, when every BTC transaction is $10 million, then a $5000 fee per transaction will not be a problem.

---

Presumably only transactions with had SegWit in their lineage would be at risk of being stolen with a massive chain reorganization.

And obviously its cheaper to only reorganize back in time to the point where enough BTC could be stoken to pay for the cost of the proof-of-work mining cost.

Also there is my crazy theory that BCH whales (who also include BTC miners) may have been trading BTC for BCH on exchanges, and they could also steal back those BTC while keeping the BCH, thus wrecking havoc on exchanges and on anyone who withdrew BTC from those exchanges.

I do not think there is any safe BTC unless you’re obtaining it from an address from before August. And if you trust that payer to not be colluding with the miners/whales who will steal BTC with the hypothetical chain reorganization.


That may not be sufficient if the theft occurs (which is granted possibly a small chance or maybe a large chance, I dunno).

After selling out of BTC to alts and the alts moon, then maybe better to buy gold and wait for this matter to be settled?

I‘m thinking a max price for BTC before any such theft to be in the range of $25 – $40k (although someone I know threw out an outlandish possibility for $100k).

So if I can take profits into gold at after trading that to alts (from BTC at $20k) for another double or so (so $40+K effective selling price), then I will not feel like I’ve lost any opportunity on a risk vs. reward basis.

Looks like the regression chart indicated BTC should be about $10K right now. So according to that theory, we’re already above the level it needs to correct back down to after it peaks. Apparently long-term support for BTC is around $4 – $6K right  now.


Well what if the SegWit attack never happened on Litecoin. Maybe Litecoin would become the offchain scaling coin, so all that potential insecurity of Mt. Box attacks on the chain, aren’t burdening BitcoinSatoshi any more.

However, there are other chains coming which scale to very high transaction volume such as EOS and my own project.

Also there is Raiden for offchain on Ethereum and perhaps they did not design it to have the same “pay to anyone” flaw.

We’re enjoying the clusterbubblefuck actually. Been fun trading back and forth between BCH, LTC, BTC and compounding the gains.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.  

Bruh... saying stuff like this is really misleading. You're so anti-core, and probably still holding BCH bags, so it almost seems like you're doing it intentionally.

All cryptocurrency's eventually lead to oligarchies (if they don't start out that way). BCH is no different and nor is BTCSatoshi for that matter. ASIC mining oligarchies own all of them. Please don't say "but my super secret design doesn't" because we will never know for sure without you publishing it to be peer-reviewed...

The LNs bring additional oligarchies to the mix.... at least 4 of them (ACINQ, Blockstream, Lightning Labs, Blockchain's Thunder). There will be more LN implementations, and at the end of the day... you can still use the PBOC payment channel (on-chain transactions) if you wish. That is a good thing because competition breeds economical efficiencies. With BCH or BTCSatoshi... there is only one payment channel, the PBOC on-chain payment channel.

Atomic Cross Chain Swaps will become normal in 2018 and beyond, which will generate even more competition. Instead of competing against only LNs and on-chain transactions, these payment channels will also be competing against ALT coins. If an ALTs can do transactions cheaper, then Bitcoin's transaction market share will dwindle. Since miners will be relying increasingly more on transaction fees in the future, they will eventually be forced to keep fees as low as possible. Right now until LNs and Atomic Swaps are normal, they can pretty much charge whatever they want... and they have been by spamming the network and raising the fees.

Thanks, you too. I still don't feel like either side budged, but we at least we both got to explain our arguments. It will indeed help others understand all of the dynamics because I think we brought up a few things that haven't really been talked about much.

I still don't get how (if the supposed segwit hack/attack/thieft happens) the transition into BTCsatoshi would be like...

Considering that "the most serene whales" aren't for sure going to support BCash or any other altcoin, and considering we aren't going to simply roll back to August 1st and act as if nothing happened... I assume that if you just avoid storing and accepting segwit addresses you are good to go? that's what I've been doing.

I also assume after such a disaster nobody would use segwit ever again, so we wouldn't even need to remove it from the network. In any case, how could it be removed? through another softfork? or maybe it cannot be removed? (and I doubt a hardfork to remove it would happen). It is a real clusterfuck of a situation to be honest. Let's just hope nothing happens, im enjoying the bull market.

SegWit and LN (Lightning Networks) makes Bitcoin insecure and fragile. That insecurity and fragility forces Bitcoin towards an oligarchy of mining (wherein the Mt. Box and the miners are in the oligarchy), which is quite ironic since that is precisely what Core claims it’s focused on preventing.

Just because most of you are ignorant about technology and thus believe any lies you’re told by the deluded, doesn’t make any of you correct about your irrational idealism about Core.

Search this page and the prior one for the term “Mt. Box” (not Mt. Gox) for more about this. Actually click “All” search the entire thread, which contained some links to the some of the technical arguments about that.


Irrational emotions and inferior comprehension of reality/markets/details is how greater fools get fooled and fleeced.


And that doesn’t include that the only microcap altcoin I ever recommended was Byteball when it was $1 million marketcap. So 72 x 250 = 18000 BTC for every 1 BTC you had put to work following my insight. I understood what made Byteball’s consensus protocol very unique, because I read and understood entirely the whitepaper. Technological expertise matters.

Oh but I’m looney.  

P.S. The term “Mt. Box” was first used as best I can tell by one of the original inventor or key people involved with the development of Lightning Networks.

were on the same boat. at first ive always hated bitcoincash and i think it was a worthless coin that came from a bitcoin fork but after i see that it was  pump recently i instantly changed my mind and im loving it now due to the fact that bitcoincash has also some advantages and advance features that bitcoin dont have. that is why there were still majority of people and miners are supporting and backing the bitcoincash. though i dont think it can kill btcsegwit because segwit has been a part of bitcoin phoenomenon. segwits can add innovation and upgrade or improvements to bitcoin, in order to make it faster , better and stronger.

I’m not predicting there will be a SegWit theft. I’m intending to raise awareness of the (possibly small) possibility. I would need to do a lot more in depth study if I wanted to attempt to compute the probability and potential timing. I do not have time to waste on that.


I’m trying to influence you to be a bit jaded, but not totally so. There’s still virtue (i.e. method in the madness) in the process which will fleece so many. Remember the big fish don’t control the climate or what we eat for breakfast (i.e. the minions matter but only decentralized, they’re never organized).

Here’s one philosophical stance:


Those mumbling at TMSR (trilema.com) represent millions of BTC.

It actually doesn’t matter who is running their client now. What matters is that millions of BTC believes Bitcoin has no value if it can be mutated, because the smart people understand that Bitcoin is more valuable as a reserve currency of the wealthy, because the wealthy matter and the masses (sheep to be harvested) do not (in a paradigm that is not decentralized, which proof-of-work can never be!). That is just economics. Even Trump understands it:


However, the “bigger fish eat the little fish” paradigm doesn’t scale to only one big fish that ate everything (this is why the Zionists ultimately fail), i.e. even though wealth is power-law distributed, still 50% remains with the minnows (but they can’t organize themselves politically and thus precisely why we need true decentralization). Thus I still continue working on my altcoin protocol.


Congratulations on a discussion that managed to not go off the rails and afaics actually stimulated both of us to write down points that may be interesting for other readers.

You know... I've been thinking a lot about this today.

You could be right, and you could be wrong. It doesn't matter really.

There is no use fighting against BCH. There is no virtue in the crypto world.

Dash - premined centralized scam worth $5,928,105,783
Bitcoin Gold - premined scam fork worth $5,400,901,809
Bitconnect - centralized ponzi worth $989,740,286
Tether - fractional reserve peg worth $812,719,804
Bytecoin - premined scam worth $356,343,828

I will cease and desist, and withdrawal from the "war". It is futile.

I read multiple posts on Twitter that all of the new sheep Coinbase is onboarding are all saying something along the lines of:
"I didn't know which coin to buy, so I bought all 3"
"I bought Litecoins because they are cheaper"
Etc.

Well, guess who will be right there with them in January? That's right... BCH.

Furthermore, it is stupid not to hedge your crypto portfolio. Therefore, owning some BCH will be a decent hedge against a Bitcoin doomsday or BCH flippening.

I still think you are way off on your BTCSatoshi theory though. It is dead and buried IMO.

Can you even run a node for it? Is anyone mining it? Is it being traded anywhere?

I haven't seen any evidence of it, just a few mumblings about it here and there from maybe 3 people total...

Many of them know it’s technologically possible, but they don’t want to publicly admit it because it would make them look irresponsible, they think it’s implausible (because they presumably believe in the same democracy and miners/whales won’t dare do it BS you do), and because of the peer/group-think phenomenon:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand[admit] something, when his salary depends on his not understanding[admitting] it.” ― Upton Sinclair

That is precisely an example of fragility in the aforementioned Taleb’s antifragility math sense of overcommitting to top-down error.

I’m not predicting the SegWit “pay to anyone” loot mega-theft (chain rollback) will happen. However, I’m wary of hodling BTC that have any SegWit/LN lineage as the SegWit booty grows in value.


Disagree. Bitcoin Cash is not anointing itself to be the official Bitcoin. It forked from Satoshi’s protocol. Whereas, Core forked Satoshi’s protocol and attempted to anoint their fork as the official Bitcoin.

The truth is that both BitcoinSegWit and Bitcoin Cash are not Bitcoin. They are both forks of the real Bitcoin.

Bitcoin Cash is for big blockers who have a valid argument that to gain more near-term transaction volume scaling and keep transaction fees low, then a block size increase is more sensible because:

• Proof-of-work will end up as a centralized oligarchy any way, no matter what we do we can’t prevent that outcome!
• LN is an insecure Rube Goldberg machine in many ways which will end up crashing Bitcoin and causing a great amount of losses. It’s not just the SegWit loot, but it’s also the garbage collection spike attacks on the block chain that the Mt. Box enables. None of the LN variants can avoid this outcome. None. It’s fundamentally baked into the fractional reserve banking economic centralization of the paradigm of off-chain time locked contracts.

Also the miners/whales are just creating a circus on purpose so they can teach of all you a lesson about being a greater fool.

They will of course teach you in the end that Satoshi’s protocol is immutable (thus BitcoinSegWit is also a fork) and that they control it and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. Welcome to the NWO. But of course, they will wait for the right timing. Have to maximize the effect first.

I’m looney in the eyes of greater fools. And of course they’re witless and will fall into woodchipper from my perspective. The experts win and the idiots lose. That’s the way life works.

Your Core “experts” are actually often witless (and/or in groupthink mode) when it comes to the big picture. They’re experts in narrow technological fields but otherwise mostly naive in terms of real-world understanding. For example, an analogous example that reminds me of Adam Back or Gregory Maxwell, there is the child prodigy genius Luboš Motl who is knowledgeable about the field of theoretical physics, but doesn’t seem to comprehend (archived in case he deletes it) that the debasement paid to miners in proof-of-work is not equal to the market cap. I’ve caught Gregory Maxwell making obvious errors like that (I’ve linked to it numerous times, so no need for me to link it again). That doesn’t mean I’m perfect (and I do often make mistakes but I’m always willing to accept corrections). It means exactly what I wrote, that Core is in a delusional trap bolstered by their non-antifragile estimate of their own power. The bankster/Zionists put them into this position by funding them (go look who funded Blockstream!) and helping to anoint them, but I’m seeing that as usual bankster/Zionists are constructing a future false flag effect and employing the concept of compartmentalization¹ (i.e. they’re maintaining leverage for the future).

1	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security) https://www.truthcontrol.com/articles/compartmentalization-lie-different-every-level

They don’t control everything, such as the climate or what you ate for breakfast.

The Zionists control all major monetary systems of the world. All. No exceptions.

Unless you think Bitcoin is some silly shit that will have no significant impact, then the Zionists control it. Period.

If they didn’t control, they would take control of it, which they can do given they control every national security agency (NSA, CIA, GCHQ, etc) in the world.

Who the heck has the power to keep “Satoshi Nakamoto” anonymous from the NSA, CIA, GCHQ, etc? Duh.

---

That’s the plan. The miners/whales take all the money from the greater fools. I already told you that is the way all passive speculation markets work.

Your idealistic youth is clouding your objectivity. You’ll get more jaded with age, or you’ll swallow the blue pill like most of the masses.


The network effect is all those greater fools piling in to be fleeced by sheep. Bitcoin is a giant Tulip bubble.

But at the end, perhaps it will actually be used for some real use cases, analogous to the aftermath of the Dot.com bubble. Decades hence we actually have profitable Pets.com type website.

All of you sheep are far too idealistic. Bitcoin is destined to have $10,000+ per transaction fee and be used as a reserve currency of the elite. The rest of us will be pushed off on to fiat electronic currencies, which is what LN is all about.

Bitcoin was created to help bring about the NWO.


No big blocker fork of Bitcoin was supported by the major Bitcoin miners before. And again, you’re missing the point that entire circus is a manipulation of the idealism of the greater fools. Split you two into camps and fleece you both in different ways.

Both Bitcoin Cash and BitcoinSegWit will perish in the end game (I do not know how many months or years away that is) and give way to Satoshi’s Bitcoin which is what the whales will use.


Monero has even worse transaction scaling due to the huge transactions. And it’s tail reward and algorithmic block size scaling doesn’t ameliorate the fundamental irreparable problems of proof-of-work. And it’s probably a honeypot of the Zionists as I explained and defended successfully in great detail in my Steemit blogs and in the blog comments discussion therein (and there was a thread in Altcoin Discussion that covered many of those arguments).

Note I’m not trying to say Monero is worthless. I don’t trust its anonymity against the NSA, but that’s not the only use of privacy.


I explained (and successfully defended) some where in my archives that Satoshi intentionally designed ASICBoost into Bitcoin.

The origins of Bitcoin are sleazy, so don’t be surprised that even the banksters are the financiers of Blockstream.


Ditto LN as a scaling method. It also requires continuous ongoing block size increases.

Why do you think I work still on my Bitcoin Killer altcoin project (meaning I’m still not too late).


I’m delighted you went scouring in another thread and brought this up. Because you’re advertising for me. Thanks.

You correctly rebutted yourself. The key distinction is using social consensus to keep a protocol immutable, not for changing it. And to do that requires that each individual can act independently to defect from mutations. Also of course it requires that the protocol meet the needs of most users and not need changes.


I can’t prove who did 9/11, yet I’d have to be a complete idiot to believe the Zionists didn’t do it after reviewing all the evidence. Most people just don’t have the time to catch up with all the presentations by PhDs in the past several years.

Ditto about who created or controls Bitcoin.


Are you willing bet your entire crypto networth on that? I dare you to hold all only BTC with SegWit lineage. Put your money where your mouth is.


The entire crypto ecosystem is for fleecing humanity, including BitcoinSegWit and Core.


The masses are not supposed to end up using Bitcoin. My stance is your foundational assumption is incorrect. I don’t have this idealistic view of Bitcoin. Yet I also see Bitcoin as helpful in other ways and part of a process. My perspective is more nuanced.

The masses are supposed to be fleeced in a massive Tulip bubble.


I had sent you in the past the links to my explanation and successful defense of the evidence that Satoshi intentionally designed Bitcoin to enable ASICBoost.

Do I also need to send you the link to where Satoshi explained to the world the idea about time-locked contracts?

I still have a hard time believing that 100s of competent developers, researchers, and interested parties can't at least admit that your doomsday Segwit booty theory is a possible (no matter how slightly possible) attack vector. You are not going to convince me that your theory is possible without convincing at least SOME people that have a high amount of knowledge as to the inner workings of Bitcoin and Segwit. We might as well stop arguing about it.

I consider my "expertise" to be more on the side of cryptocurrency economics with a heavy focus on the game theory of such. At least, that is where I have spent most of my time researching and debating about with cryptocurrencies over the years. Yet, my technical merit is sufficient enough to understand almost all technologies (if I invest the time to understand them fully) based on my technical background since my teenage years. Reading "Happy Hacker" and "Steal This Book" at 15, and going down that rabbit hole. Earning an A+ certification at 17. Learning Java and C++ at 18. Building and running large mining farms. Self taught HTML/CSS/Javascript, Etc... Although I have never had a job in such because the money I used to make in the oil industry lured me away from computer science (you can't say no to $350 a day at 18 years old). I know you like to peg me as clueless when it comes to technology, but I'm not nearly as clueless as you think.

Yes, BCH is sleazy because:
1. It's riding off of Bitcoin's coattails. If an alternative cryptocurrency can't stand on its own two feet without using the Bitcoin brand in its name, then it is likely not as great of an idea that it's proponents think.
2. Piggybacking off of #1, it is confusing to noobs. With every "hype wave" (a new term for bubble, because the word bubble infers to something that pops and never rises again), noobs enter the space at orders of magnitude more than the last. Having 20 cryptocurrencies with Bitcoin in their name is confusing, and economic losses due to errors will be had as a direct result of having Bitcoin in the name.
3. Piggybacking off of "noobs entering in orders of magnitude more so than before": those noobs are buying Bitcoins. They are not buying BCH, and nor are they buying any other alternative cryptocurrency in any meaningful amounts. Bitcoin's supremacy is secured by The Network Effect. There have probably been more Noobs brought onboard in the past months since BCH split off compared to the entire existence of Bitcoin before that fork. These people are Bitcoin's army. These are the people that will ensure Bitcoin will never die. Bitcoin's Network Effect will never ever be trumped by the much lesser network effect of BCH (or BTCSatoshi for that matter). These people, the majority of users, will be fleeced if your supposed doomsday actually happens. Thus, the wishful thinking that BCH will kill Bitcoin is indeed sleazy.
4. There are many ALT coins that have existed long before BCH that could perform the same functionality as BCH, and there was no need to create the BCH alternative cryptocurrency fork. IMO, the only reason why it was created was that the Bitcoin whales wanted a large stake in a cryptocurrency that operates similarly to the aforementioned already existing ALT coins without risking much of their own capital. Thus, they forked Bitcoin and keep their Bitcoins (or more likely spend a small percentage of their Bitcoins to pump BCH and bring it relevance), resulting in a lot of valuable yet free new tokens when similar scaling tech has existed in other ALT coins for years. At least the speculators in alternative cryptocurrencies have had to use a large amount of capital to speculate on the value of such technology. BCH just printed the value out of thin air.
5. It's not even the best design for the peer-to-peer electronic cash that they champion it to be. For example, I think something like Monero is a much better design. It's more fungible, more private, tail emission reduces longterm hoarding incentives, tail emission increases longterm security by further incentivizing it, and there are no arbitrary block size limits that have to be changed via a hard fork... only bandwidth/latency/propagation issues inherent with a distributed network.
6. It is backed by a shady (all for different reasons) cast of characters. Fake Satoshi Wannabe (Craig Wright), ASICBoost Owner (Jihan Wu), Grey/Black Market Online Gambling Tycoon (Calvin Ayre), and Bitcoin Brand Theif (Roger Ver).
7. Their proposed way of scaling by infinitely raising the block size in perpetuity is a centralized dead end due to network propagation, network latency, and bandwidth issues, but they champion it to be a form of decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash. Decietful...
8. Competing LNs ran by different parties with different fee structures are much more of a free market solution than a big block monopoly. BCH is promoting a roadmap with more anti-free market tendencies (a communist agenda... it is mandatory to transact on the PBOC payment channel) than Bitcoin's free market driven LN roadmap (a capitalist agenda... with multiple competing parties with whom it is optional to use, and you can still make on-chain transactions via the PBOC payment channel if you wish.)
9. It is an obvious pump and dump (see below).

And this is just off the top of my head... I'm sure I'm forgetting something, or at least I feel like I am.



You contradict yourself regarding forming a democratic utopia when it is convenient to do so to support your arguments. In the above quote in a separate thread, you compose an argument for what I have been arguing all along ITT... leveraging Social Consensus to keep a protocol static. If you believe such Social Consensus can be obtained to keep a protocol the same (IE. BCH), then surely the same Social Consensus can be reached to change a protocol for the betterment of the protocol (IE. Bitcoin). You can not castrate political influence altogether, because cryptocurrencies are a contract, and political influence is baked into the contract at the time of inception. That remains true regardless of any changes that may be made in the future (or not.)


BS. Don't put words in my mouth. I have extensively argued three points ITT:
1. You can't prove who did or didn't create Bitcoin, and therefore any argument you form off of any assumptions as to who created Bitcoin are purely speculatory hubris-fueled diatribes.
2. Bitcoin will not be attacked by your purported Segwit Booty doomsday theory.
3. Bitcoin will remain Bitcoin, BTCSatoshi is long since dead and buried, and BCH in the longterm (because that's all I care about) will be a worse investment.

I would never ever argue that there aren't profits in trading cryptocurrencies, no matter how bad/scammy I think a certain cryptocurrency is, because I realize that the markets can stay irrational for long periods of time. I have realized for a long time that trading BCH would likely be profitable because of the FUD/propaganda the BCH supporters are spreading everywhere relentlessly, and also because of the backing of the shady billionaires. I chose not to do so because I think it is a pump and dump scam, and I can't on a good conscience knowingly participate in such. Fleecing greater fools is not in my wheelhouse.

LOL.

Step 1: Own a lot of Bitcoins
Step 2: Create a fork that leverages Bitcoin's brand
Step 3: Spend a small percentage of your Bitcoin stash to create a large amount of value out of the low value forked tokens
Step 4: Hodl
Step 5: Spread propaganda and FUD
Step 6: Slowly dump the forked tokens on the masses whenever you're happy with the value of the scheme.

It is a very easy to understand and sensible plan, and a very well orchestrated pump and dump. There may be some speculation from greater fools that the whales have fooled, and some participation from people that don't have any moral culpability for participating in a pump & dump, but there's no one else sensibly speculating on Bcash.

And your reasoning is emotionally flawed by your stubbornness, and by your conflating of technical analysis & facts with speculation based on incomplete information...

There are ways to profit greatly off of Bitcoin (and the cryptocurrency ecosystem) without destroying Bitcoin. You have failed to realize that in this entire thread. The masses will never trust or use cryptocurrencies if the elites go through with your purported doomsday theory. Practically 80% of the poll's respondents agree with me on that. They can profit off of the pumping and dumping of Bitcoin Cash greatly, and they will still be able to keep their Bitcoin stashes very valuable while doing so as a bonus.

The doomsday theory doesn't seem to have any technical merit to it anyways, because if it did then there would be more people yelling it from the rooftops.

More hubris-filled speculation based primarily on conspiracy theories...

What do you mean I don't understand it? I explicitly stated so in my reply. Just replace Zionists in your post with Bankers in mine, and we effectively came to the same conclusion. The only difference is that I reject the conspiracy theory that the Zionists control everything in the world, and that they are the one's that created Bitcoin.

I disagree with you here. You completely ignored the last part in my previous reply about multiple LNs resembling more of a free market than BCH (which was IMO the most sound argument in my reply). That on top of the aforementioned sleaziness makes BCH much sleazier.


I can agree with you there- but on a different basis. Those that promote and participate in the pump and dump of BCH will certainly make some monetary gains. Those that invest in BCH for the long haul will certainly take some monetary losses.

I was there debating @nullc (Gregory Maxwell) at Reddit.

You’re the one who started the name calling by declaring BCH sleazy. I’m just reminding you that the entire paradigm is sleazy. You seem to not understand the big picture of crypto is a system for the TPTB to rape the masses yet again.

The early adopters will profit. The masses will be fleeced. I explained how in my prior post.

Your foolish idealism about the lie of democracy and user supported soft/hard forks is being utilized against you.



Backsplaining again. Review the thread. You railed pretty hard against BCH in this thread. If you want to spin that as not arguing, then so be your spinmastery.

This thread is not about BCH replacing/overtaking BTC, so do not use that lie as an excuse. Read the thread title again “Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi?”, it is not that many words. Surely you can comprehend the thread title if you read it multiple times?



Just because some hyperbolic nonsense pops into your brain, doesn’t make it a sensible estimate of reality. You’re trying to paint a picture that there is no widespread speculation participation in BCH.

You’re reasoning is emotionally influenced by your desire for a community driven idealism. You really believe the community of fools could achieve decentralized governance and that this would make a better world. Ah to be age 20-something and delusional again…


The entire point of Taleb’s antifragility math is that the fragile systems overcommit to the past and thus lack degrees-of-freedom to handle the reality that was unseen. The unseen reality is for example the fragile timebomb of SegWit and LN. As well, the futures markets on Wallstreet being created presumably first for BTC and not BCH, meaning although a lot more liquidity also a huge incentive to front run manipulation of the BTC price.

Remember the majority always has to be slaughtered in financial markets. That is simply the way markets for passive investing/speculation function. The experts steal the candy from the fools.

None of you entirely understand LN. I’m not going to argue the deep technical issues of LN with someone such as yourself who is incapable of having such a discussion. LN undeniably will create a Mt. Box scenario and the fragility I have alluded to.

Satoshi (i.e. the Zionists) entirely predicted LN. In fact, he was the first one who explained conceptually about hashed time-locked contracts for Bitcoin. They (the Zionists writing under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto) knew damn well why he had set the block size at 1MB and various other aspects in the game theory and design of Bitcoin.

Who do you really think controls the national security agencies apparatus throughout the world?


And that you do not even understand that is also what I wrote in the post you were replying to, speaks volumes…

I will tell you again that TPTB (i.e. the Zionists) pulling the strings are in control of (or funded) both Core and Bitmain (i.e. both BTC and BCH). The entire Hegelian dialectic crisis is a dog & pony show to make us fools believe we have something new and innovative. We don’t. It’s just another speculation and enslavement paradigm to fleece the majority.

This entire notion of BCH being evil and Core being the savior, is so naive. We’re being played from all directions.

Some amongst us will reap some monetary gains in the process. The vast majority who come into crypto will be fleeced.

The entire reason the Zionists created proof-of-work is so they can create a globalized monetary system they can control technologically in order to enslave the nation-states and move towards the NWO, and of course they will set up futures markets which they can front run. Of course the feigned resistance from the nation-states is part of the deception (although that resistance is easy to make appear to be valid via the compartmentalization¹ employed, i.e. bureaucrats and politicians may actually believe they’re important). The truth about politicians and beaucrats (i.e. those who run the nation-states, ignorant that they’re compartmentalized and controlled like puppets by the leverage of the Zionists):


Also I want to reiterate that on the prior page I cautioned against reentering BCH too soon.

1	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security) https://www.truthcontrol.com/articles/compartmentalization-lie-different-every-level

I have never argued that trading in BCH wouldn't be profitable, but I have argued extensively that it will not overtake Bitcoin. I am not a day trader... I am a longterm investor. The market can stay irrational for long periods of time, and it's ridiculous that I have to keep repeating this to a "genius", but BCH price movement does nothing to prove your point.

Effectively, I think most of the run-up in BCH price was Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Calvin Ayre and Craig Wright (and likely the PBOC) buying up a large portion of the supply. All of them are billionaires with a large war chest, and they all have been shilling BCH non-stop too.

Calling Bitcoin's network of developers collectively "Bitcoin Core" as a derogatory term is simply Bcash propaganda speak. Anyone can suggest and debate the merits of protocol changes, and also submit pull requests. Where were you when they were debating the merits of Segwit? It seems you are scared to tussle with the big boys for a reason... perhaps your FUD train would be derailed by the real geniuses?

Segwit is not "shit". It solves many issues that Bitcoin had. Technology, software, and protocol are all bound to evolve over time. People who assume Satoshi Nakamoto was omniscient as to each and every game theory and technical aspect back in 2008 is utterly ridiculous. He could not tell the future as to how big Bitcoin would get, or how it would scale best. If he did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The protocol needed to change.

Re: Segwit Booty
As you stated, Bitcoin developers as a whole have the most expertise in the space. If they see no merit in your purported doomsday attack theory, then there is likely a good reason for it. Notice you are the only one pushing such a narrative. I think you must have a very basic misunderstanding of how everything works. At this point, I have completely discredited this argument.

Re: LN Attack Vectors
BCH's on-chain scaling roadmap comes with its own set of pros and cons. No technology or protocol is perfect. Also, you cannot judge LN attack vectors properly because a specification for LN does not exist. Do you not realize there are at least 5 competing LN implementations which all work a little differently? That is what will take the most time for LN to come to fruition... arguing over specifications... there are already working LNs on testnets and mainnets (although still in a development environment). Also, who's to say that a LN couldn't be crowdfunded, decentralized, and autonomous with funding from an ICO?

I think you misunderstand who the miners are. They are likely banksters themselves... the PBOC has probably been balls deep in mining since 2013. Jihan Wu is just a talking head. By spamming the network and mining their own transaction fees, then they can then force as high of fees as they want.

The difference though is that there will be competing implementations of the LN which compete with different fee structures. There will be many banksters with the LN instead of one with BCH. The LN banksters will have to compete with each other, and the users will win from the resulting economic efficiencies. The banksters will have to compete with venture funds will have to compete with ICO-backed ventures.

To transact on the PBOC payment channel is mandatory with BCH, but to transact on the bankster/venture/ico payment channel of your choosing via LN via Bitcoin is optional.

The LN roadmap resembles much more of a free market than the BCH roadmap.

What is so funny is you think that the abomination which violates Satoshi’s immutable protocol and enables SegWit to “pay to anyone” is somehow named “Bitcoin”.

You’re easily fooled by the optical illusions of a magician or politician.

Who anointed that SegWit shit to be the official Bitcoin? The economically irrelevant lunch money investing tyranny-of-the-mob users and the tyranny of bankster financed Core? Core might be just a misdirection plan to suck in all the fools who believe in democracy and tyranny-of-the-mob. In the end, the whales and miners will decide which fork is the real Bitcoin. Perhaps they patiently wait for the SegWit “pay to anyone” loot to pile up, get their new CME, CBOE, and Nasdaq futures markets ready for that SegWit shitcoin so they short the hell out of when they plan their massive theft of BTC and anoint the real Bitcoin while the tyranny-of-the-mob-believing fools with unwarranted high pride lose everything. My popcorn is still waiting…

I would never design a crypto project wherein the individual users (aka the tyranny-of-the-mob) could vote or otherwise be involved in mutating the protocol. The users should only be able to enforce the protocol, and never mutate it. Because users are dumb and have many conflicting needs they want to meet, which may have nothing to do with objectivity, i.e. the reason democracy is a clusterfuck. Satoshi designed proof-of-work such that the miners and whales decide. Period.

---

You were wrong when I predicted in this thread that buying BCH at $300 would soon go to $1500. And you will be wrong again. BCHBTC is the only token in the Top 10 other than BTC (note I have not analyzed BTG yet) which is bullish over the next months relative to BTC, in terms of the current chart picture.

How many of you ignored me when I said buy LTC at 0.006 and then it went to 0.022, and ditto again here in this thread for BCH at 0.05 just days before it went to 0.3+. That is like 24X more BTC y’all could have had if you had listened to me. So who is loony?

Heck even I dislike the EOS $2 billion money grab, I said to buy it at $1 a few weeks ago and now it is at $3. Add this trade and that is 72X more BTC if you’d not diversified (or still significantly more BTC even if you had diversified).

Core is no less sleazy. Core does have more expertise, but we do not need fucking expertise and instead need wisdom. We need for the mofos to stop mutating the protocol and bloating the reference code base with endless shit. The ecosystem should bit all those fancy wallets and shit. The reference implementation of the protocol should be as simplistic as possible so that more the protocol is clearly implemented. Then more sophisticated (e.g. more performant) versions in the free market ecosystem can test themselves against the reference protocol.


Once LN is live then not only with the SegWit loot of fools who will lose everything pile up much faster, but also all sorts of new attacks on Bitcoin because possible, such as flooding the system with transaction volume when settling in LN channels delayed and all-at-once by the Mt. Box nodes. More opportunities to front run the shorting on the upcoming CME, CBOE, and Nasdaq futures markets. You see the entire Bitcoin ecosystem system is yet another financial means for TPTB to steal everything from the people.

Democracy is a lie. Democracy exists to fool the masses into thinking they have rights. You have no rights. They own you.


Satoshi’s proof-of-work does not scale decentralized. Period. Not with LN nor with big blocks. The fight is over who will control it. Miners want big blocks and banksters want LN so they can do fractional reserve banking and take control over it.

It doesn’t matter to me who will control it. I just want to make the correct investment decisions. And I would much prefer the stability of Satoshi’s immutable protocol than the potential creative self-destruction chaos (REKTing) of those Rube Goldberg machines created by Core in order to violate the entire principle of Satoshi’s protocol.

As for the idealism of a truly decentralized protocol…