Create account

replied · 213d
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 · 213d
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 · 213d
Fiat is cheap, fast and reliable isn't it ? I don't get your point
replied · 213d
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 · 213d
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 · 213d
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 · 213d
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 · 213d
Why do you say "Lock the protocol have no chance to win"? Internet protocol has been locked now for 30 years.
replied · 213d
Excuses excuses, and more excuses.
replied · 213d
No, IPV4 is upgrading many times, for the massive adoption, now it is upgrading to IPV6
replied · 213d
Show me one major IPV4 upgrade.
Again, IPv6 is here after 30 years and nowhere near massive adoption.
replied · 213d
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 · 213d
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 · 213d
I think BTC is ready for u.
replied · 213d
So, no major updates to IPv4 you can name, huh?
replied · 213d
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 · 213d
Not arguing here, just asking a question you can not answer. And running out of time.
replied · 212d
I am glad SV forked off. So BCH can focus on become the best money, for everyone daily use.
replied · 212d
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 · 212d
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 · 212d
Wow. All brick and mortar stores are going to have BCH at Point of Sale? Nice. I knew it was coming soon.
replied · 212d
Shutup troll. I can still see some of your posts. I'll only fix my blocker after memo defo switches to SV.
replied · 212d
Nope. you are the troll spreading FUD.
replied · 212d
Nixon: I am not a troll.

PoS coming to ABC in the upcoming release:
replied · 212d
Douche bag you are a troll.
replied · 212d
Don't feed the trolls. lol
replied · 212d
Can't. there is no SV QR code. LOL
replied · 212d
replied · 212d
Yep it was a big cock. LMAO
replied · 212d
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 · 212d
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 · 212d
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5944,please stop showing arrogance. There are minor and major changes.
replied · 212d
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 · 212d
Yeah just name one, the biggest major change in your opinion. See how that flies.
replied · 213d
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 · 213d
I am using IPV6 daily.
replied · 213d
IPv6 is 20 years old. Why haven't you upgraded?
replied · 213d
Why do you think the ipv6 has never changed by 20 years? Just because the name is still the same?
replied · 213d
Why do you think Bitcoin v0.1has never changed, just because the name is the same?
replied · 213d
If you think Bitcoin v0.1 can win, just build it. Tell Craig, stop attacking people will make BSV a brighter furture.
replied · 213d
Surprise! It's been here since January 9, 2009.
replied · 212d
If you want 0.1, you should disable p2sh TXs at first. If you do so, most "satoshi" OP_CODEs will be useless.
replied · 213d
Where in Bitcoin paper does it say..
stealing old address funds ?
"SUNKEN TREASURE"?




@TeamWinnaar

losing keys != burning coins



@ProfFaustus

Correct

??
replied · 213d
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 · 213d
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 · 213d
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 · 213d
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 · 213d
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 · 213d
Who told you that?
replied · 212d
replied · 213d
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 · 213d
Excuses excuses, and more excuses.
replied · 213d
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 · 213d
Yeah ofc, I'm pro-sv too, but for "minor changes" it's ok I think
replied · 213d
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.