Create account

Damn, lost my respect. Bch is now a shitcoin I guess
replied · 182d
Why? Because casino owner and #FakeSatoshi finally gave up? Awww...
replied · 182d
Look at the bigger picture. BCH community will win. When one finally adds replay protection we will have 1 of each. Both of these are better than BTC, ETH, or LTC.Both will survive. $$
replied · 182d
BSV won't survive. It's an attack coin, a killer chain. It was created to conquer an existing coin and as such didn't have any support from any legit exchange.
replied · 182d
BSV will thrive. It is the closest to the original Satoshi vision. It was created to defend against contentious protocol changes that will prevent massive adoption.
replied · 182d
Just curiious. "When have investors flocked to "Because it is the closest to Satoshi Vision"? It's about Cheap, fast, and reliable and adoption. I think Faketoshi is going bye bye.
replied · 182d
Fiat is cheap, fast and reliable isn't it ? I don't get your point
replied · 182d
Fiat is only fast in person. I can't buy stuff off purseIO with fiat. I can't feed the chickens with fiat. I can't send fiat fast to a person in another country. Get it now?
replied · 182d
PurseIO is Amazon, feeding chicken is useless, and banks will solve that last problem in less than 10years (Bitcoin won't be adopted in less than 10years)
Bitcoin is for small usecase
replied · 182d
Yes Amazon with 30% off, Feeding chickens is an example, and I disagree with banks will "Solve that problem" in less than 10 years. Is it a problem for banks? GOOD.
replied · 182d
Lock the protocol have no chance to win, even BTC core is seeking ways to upgrade, they choose Segwit, BCH choose big block, SV choose to lock itself.
replied · 182d
Why do you say "Lock the protocol have no chance to win"? Internet protocol has been locked now for 30 years.
replied · 181d
Excuses excuses, and more excuses.
replied · 182d
No, IPV4 is upgrading many times, for the massive adoption, now it is upgrading to IPV6
replied · 182d
Show me one major IPV4 upgrade.
Again, IPv6 is here after 30 years and nowhere near massive adoption.
replied · 182d
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1340,you can find a lot of RFCs in this site, it depends on the definition of "major upgrade", I think BCH is doing what it should to do, for scaling.
replied · 182d
I don't see one major update there at all. Just a link salad.
I give you a much simpler counter example. The Netscape browser on my ancient 2002 laptop still shows many websites.
replied · 181d
I think BTC is ready for u.
replied · 181d
So, no major updates to IPv4 you can name, huh?
replied · 181d
If you think https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791 defines IPV4, and that's the base of the internet not including any of the extension/ high level protocols, I am not arguing with you.
replied · 181d
Not arguing here, just asking a question you can not answer. And running out of time.
replied · 181d
I am glad SV forked off. So BCH can focus on become the best money, for everyone daily use.
replied · 181d
Being that you are in such a hurry for protocol upgrades, I hear POS is coming to ABC soon! More like 15 weeks rather than 15 years. You'll love it!
replied · 181d
POS is not ready, POW is still the best way to achieve decentralized consensus. BCH will never refuse technologies which can make it better. Scaling is the most important thing.
replied · 181d
Wow. All brick and mortar stores are going to have BCH at Point of Sale? Nice. I knew it was coming soon.
replied · 181d
Shutup troll. I can still see some of your posts. I'll only fix my blocker after memo defo switches to SV.
replied · 181d
Nope. you are the troll spreading FUD.
replied · 181d
Nixon: I am not a troll.

PoS coming to ABC in the upcoming release:
replied · 181d
Douche bag you are a troll.
replied · 181d
Don't feed the trolls. lol
replied · 181d
Can't. there is no SV QR code. LOL
replied · 181d
replied · 181d
Yep it was a big cock. LMAO
replied · 181d
bitcoin runs totally based on software, except the asic miner. upgrade is an easy thing, just change or add a few lines of code will not cause someone lose money.
replied · 181d
If you take a look on every success technology achievement, no technology lock themself. IP protocol upgrade rarely because it relate to hardware. Incompatible change cause greate lose
replied · 181d
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5944,please stop showing arrogance. There are minor and major changes.
replied · 181d
Ok, so a major change to allow for mobile use? Great. After 15 years. I agree this is a mojor change.
But there was a damn good reason for it in 2010.
replied · 181d
Yeah just name one, the biggest major change in your opinion. See how that flies.
replied · 182d
IPv6 would get mass adoption if people destroyed the internet and started over. They should have done that in 2000. Missed opportunity. Let's not miss this one to get the real Bitcoin.
replied · 182d
I am using IPV6 daily.
replied · 181d
IPv6 is 20 years old. Why haven't you upgraded?
replied · 181d
Why do you think the ipv6 has never changed by 20 years? Just because the name is still the same?
replied · 181d
Why do you think Bitcoin v0.1has never changed, just because the name is the same?
replied · 181d
If you think Bitcoin v0.1 can win, just build it. Tell Craig, stop attacking people will make BSV a brighter furture.
replied · 181d
Surprise! It's been here since January 9, 2009.
replied · 181d
If you want 0.1, you should disable p2sh TXs at first. If you do so, most "satoshi" OP_CODEs will be useless.
replied · 181d
Where in Bitcoin paper does it say..
stealing old address funds ?
"SUNKEN TREASURE"?




@TeamWinnaar

losing keys != burning coins



@ProfFaustus

Correct

??
replied · 181d
Anyway, BSV is an attack coin which automatically makes ABC the only chain that is possible to support unless you want to destroy Bitcoin.
replied · 181d
Unfortunately BAB is not Bitcoin, it is an oracle coin or a gambling coin, your pick.
No gambling codes here http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
replied · 181d
This is part of "Blockstream's Vision" propaganda that is inconsistent. Prof Faustus claims the Bitcoin script is Turing complete which includes gambling - not that it matters anyway.
replied · 181d
Ridiculous assertion. It's like saying a flintlock is an assault rifle. That's why we have juries and judges to determine intent and spirit of law.
replied · 181d
Also unfortunately, in law, intent matters. When a miner includes a DSV code, he could be held liable. I'd rather not take that risk with a coin.
replied · 181d
Who told you that?
replied · 181d
replied · 182d
I'm not sure that protocol changes prevent mass adoption. If Mastercard change somehow its protocol it doens't prevent the user from using it
replied · 181d
Excuses excuses, and more excuses.
replied · 182d
One of the problems that Mastercard never had/will have is introducing gambling codes like SPV into the protocol. Imagine being known as Mastercard, "card for the gamblers"
replied · 182d
Yeah ofc, I'm pro-sv too, but for "minor changes" it's ok I think
replied · 182d
Yes, you are talking about code changes, that's fine, for optimization, bug fixing. The other word is "protocol changes" these would radically change the incentives of the coin.
replied · 182d
On it's own I think it will. But it does have an uphill battle starting from scratch. No way it survives with this hash battle bullshit. I personally would use both being seperate.
replied · 182d
How would the market react if ABC attacked BSV or any other coin? The market and exchanges should penalize BSV to lower the chance for such attacks in the future.
replied · 182d
The "market" poisoned the Bitcoin Cash wallets (with incompatible opcode) and making fake "futures" for a coin that didn't exist. I have no idea how the SEC will look at that.
replied · 182d
The market would react the same way it just did. A big dump. It would also depend on how long CSW has control of SV. Whether bigger miners come in or not. They may just deem it toxic
replied · 182d
Bigger miners? BSV is mining at a great loss, you won't see any other miner for a long times, maybe a year, maybe never. A honest miner mines for gains made by the coin, not from
replied · 182d
Of course it would take a long time. BSV has no foundation. They would have to try and get Bitpay,, coinbase, many exchanges, a promoter, etc.
replied · 182d
canibalizing an ecosystem, which is the BSV model.
replied · 182d
It's called fighting for what you love. It's not about profits, it's about profitability.
replied · 181d
He didn’t concede anything. He loves the original Bitcoin and still fights for it.
replied · 182d
Why? What fundamentals changed?
replied · 182d
I don't know. If they think it's not worth fighting for it's just .. Weird somehow
replied · 182d
If they get ABC to add replay protection they can claim the royal blood line later. They clearly plan beat BTC as well as BCH.
replied · 182d
Adding replay protection signals defeat like it was with BTC.
replied · 179d
Now go bury your head in the sand and celebrate.
replied · 177d
Nah, we're just glad you toxic people are gone while you burn your finite bitcoins and lawyer up for your ICOs.
replied · 179d
You are right. LOL
replied · 182d
That would be like getting a dog to chase a ball while you are holding a piece of meat.
replied · 180d
Maybe not, also to consider BCH changed the difficulty algo, so really the "royal blood" was already contaminated. So BTC could always claim that neither BCH nor BSV have it.
replied · 180d
But segwit was such a change that BCH can claim closest to white paper. Now SV can say it's even closer due to checkpoints.
replied · 182d
BTC is a bit harder to beat
replied · 180d
I'm not a shill, but I am curious to talk to a person who thinks BTC is not broken. Lighting network is a piece of shit, Segwit took signatures out of the chain of signatures
replied · 180d
0 Conf doesn't work, and the core people really think they can scale globally with a 1mb block size. Honestly I want to know, what part of this cluster fuck do you see as valuable?
replied · 180d
BTC segwit breaks the model, it's no longer bitcoin. It's junk. I would love to have a real debate about this. There is no way BTC can claim it's best. It's just using the brand.
replied · 180d
I think btc is broken too, but somehow LN might work or BTC might become a store of value like gold (and be usefull for some usecase, like Komodo DPoW)
Id love to see a real debate too
replied · 182d
BTC will fail by itself. There will be no more fake stablecoin pumps.
replied · 182d
I still think BCH is the most valuable coin in the market.