Jimmy won the debate once and for all.
The arguments were so overwhelming Roger threw himself overboard in shame.
Calvin picked him up with his yacht, Asian women in bikinis welcoming him with an overly filled glass of red wine.
They sailed off into the Carribean.
The end. https://t.co/QbehKLyEEy
RT @theonevortex: From Jimmy's latest article:
"BTC is classically liberal, anarcho-capitalist and Austrian, befitting its cypherpunk roots and is a sound money. BCH is interventionist, paternalistic and Keynesian befitting its corporate roots and is a fiat money."
Anyone else feel like Jimmy making the rules and not telling Roger felt like the part in The Sword and the Stone when Merlin and Mad Madam Mim have a wizard duel and Mim states the rules and then cheats the whole time?
Who thought it would be a good idea to have a "debate" without a moderator? This could have been a good discussion if both knew how it was going to go (and how long, so Jimmy couldn't just take his ball and run home)
Newer to Reddit, wasn't sure how else to attach the image... :/
This guy repeatedly misuses the following terms: Keynesian, fiat, communism, socialism.
All of these words have actual meanings. To Jimmy, they mean "boogeyman," so he uses them interchangeably. This shows that he knows nothing and any fund that relies on him for technical advice is doomed.
He keeps coming back to this "Roger Ver is a loser who is crying over the fact that he lost" argument. This argument only works when the BCH price is lower than the BTC price. Once that changes, his arguments fill flip against him.
These show how completely disengenuous Jimmy Song is as an individual. He makes point after point where he is either being completely ignorant of reality or is being intentionally moronic.
Here is my favorite example:
Further, by keeping transactions “free”, this changes mining incentives. The only rewards a miner gets are mining rewards and fees. By 2028, 3 halvenings and 10 years from now, fees will presumably still be 0 and rewards will be 1.56 BCH. At current BCH prices, that is about $750 per block. This reduces the security of the network significantly. Without fees, a 6-block double-spend can then be executed for $4500. You may be able to sell a $3 coffee on BCH, but you certainly won’t be able to sell a $1000 laptop without some serious risk.
If the BCH price is still what it is today in 10 years then BCH will have failed. But he doesn't make this same false equivilancy when talking about BTC. That's because he knows BCH won't be the same price in 10 years. But that doesn't stop him from making that argument.
A perfect example of intellectual dishonesty and fact cherrypicking.
If you're going to do it then why don't I tell you how in less than 1 year BCH went from 0 to $460 while BTC took three years to reach that amount.
Well written and perfect summation of the core arguments.
I think the "bch development is centralized" is quite weak argument, considering the ongoing feud between development teams right now. Notice how he didn't mention miner centralization because anyone can check and verify that both BTC and BCH are about equally decentralised on this point.
The point about Gavin and co not cutting it is quite weak, considering Gavin's ongoing support with impressive concepts such as graphene.
Where he really shoots himself in the foot is in the section "Free transactions aren't free". This whole argument applies to BTC...except worse. The way BCH is escaping this halvening conundrum is exactly the way Satoshi described: VOLUME. High volume with low fee's replaces the block rewards - either there will be high volume or no volume.
"Being heard on a private forum is not an entitlement". Free speech is not a law, it is a philosophical principle that can be upheld in any domain of discourse, on any platform! It produces favourable outcomes for projects which engage it.
I'm only upvoting this so more people can see this.
I don't think I ever saw such a big propaganda piece, and I really don't have any idea how it's possible to write and/or say so much bullshit in one article. Seriously, it was painful to read through all that.
I could make a rebuttal to disprove basically everything in this article but I am not sure I want to read this pos article again.
Pro Tip: Almost no one does, and the ones that do are mostly disingenuous about the concept because they have financial incentivization to further its existence and/or are keynesians themselves and know full well that at the end of the day it will all collapse, as designed.
Calling the BCH development team incompetent is a little strange, first of all there isn't a single team, there are several teams or solo devs in open-source. Especially now in preparation for whatever November will bring. Some people that have contributed to BCH have also contributed to BTC.
Second, both the EDA (Emeregency Difficulty Adjustment) and the consensus bug (caused by a mistake while refactoring) have been fixed. Things like these happen when you have a project that tries to improve and over time there will be more eyeballs on BCH to check code before they get merged. In the end what resulted after the EDA fix is a better difficulty adjustment algorithm than what BTC have, things turned out well and we just have to make less mistakes in the future.
Third, that thing about there being an elite group that decides what the users must upgrade to. It's the exact same situation on BTC. Miner votes are non-binding opinion polls and can be completely ignored. Just a few people have access to merge code on GitHub. If they do something that most don't agree with everybody will just bite the bullet and are forced to upgrade. Or not. But they will if exchanges upgrade, else they can't sell what they mine. Just like how things work on BCH. Naturally there's a hidden path though: Fork the open-source bitcoin project due to disagreements, with enough people both forks have legitimacy...
Saying that BCH is fiat is really reaching. I bet even a lot of hard core BTC supporters will what-the-fuck to this claim, no matter how you define fiat in text books or how you try to spin Bitcoin Cash's "governance" into fitting that definition. Legacy Bitcoin has the exact same "governance".
Edit: Since Jimmy did this video on September 6:th https://youtu.be/83tH--5L1sA he knows perfectly well that BCH isn't as centralized as some would like to believe. There are heavy disagreements and instead of talking about them for years without anything happening and letting bitcoin stagnate there will most likely be a competition to see which way the miners will go. This is actual miner voting with hashpower on BCH instead of the non-binding opinion polls on BTC.