RT @nikzh: The author states that he (or she) is a “Bitcoin maximalist”, that PoW “is a way of life” which “implements free market capitalism”, yet somehow despite that Bitcoin has waay more hashpower than Bitcoin SV, he states that “Bitcoin SV is the Real Bitcoin”. Waaaaaaat! https://t.co/VdOByQRs7X
Your submission has been flagged for removal because it pertains to an incompatible derivative of Bitcoin. Bitcoin derivatives and other altcoins (such as Bcash) are not Bitcoin and will never be Bitcoin. Therefore they are off topic for the Bitcoin subreddit. If you require assistance in claiming these airdrops from your Bitcoin savings, we recommend posting this to the /r/BitcoinAirdrops subreddit for more info. Thank you.
No it isn't, unless you include MobTwo's post with the title and leading introduction that completely misrepresents the article. But even that one is well below all the 'responses' including "Unwriter is a plant"...
So, many people didn't see it. The harsh reality of censorship by downvotes.
BitcoinXioModerator - Bitcoin is Freedom2 weeks ago
Ah so you’re intentionally spamming the sub in attempt to push your narrative. Sad!
Not on the front page unless you count having to scroll down past reams of pointless posts as "front page".
It's not about like or dislike, it's about the misinformation being louder than the message. It's something that's been prevalent on this sub for months.
Not even 24h have passed and the link to the article has already been erased from /r/btc front page (to be honest I'm surprised it made it there at all). I expect that soon Jonald's shitty rebuttal attempt will be gone too, as well as all the other related talk. Hush hush. This didn't happen. There's no cartel, follow clients, spineless devs who seek unfair advantage by sucking up to Bitmain, no no no..
the central argument at the heart of such discussion comes down to this...
ABC and SV camps both agree that we need the respective code+laws-of-governance protocols locked down ASAP
BUT let's have some commitment from both sides as to what will be the nature of their respective base protocols... so that the finalized protocols can be locked down ASAP
my best guess is this
ABC soon-to-be-locked-down-code will be 0.3.2 + CTOR +DSV ?
ABC soon-to-be-locked-down-laws-of-governance .. still to be clarified ?
SV soon-to-be-locked-down-code will be 0.3.2 + removal of fork-id [for replay protection] ?
SV soon-to-be-locked-down-laws-of-governance will be NC [ winner to be declared x-days [21?] after contentious hard-fork]
the sooner both camps put the constituents of their soon-to-be-locked-down-nucleus on the table the sooner can the undecided/ sitters-on-the-fence make an informed decision as to which nucleus of code+laws they should choose to follow
IMO this part was the strongest point of the article and I didn't see any of /r/btc's favourite Twitter celebs even attempting to debunk it:
While everyone on team ABC seems to be very happy that they got the BCH ticker and proudly say the war was over even before it had started because of their coordination with the exchange cartel, they don’t realize it is EXACTLY this point that makes Bitcoin ABC a deal breaker for any pragmatic application developer.
They have effectively turned themselves into crony capitalism blockchain.
What ABC has done by very successsfully pulling off this “capture the ticker” mission is they have demonstrated a textbook example of how a protocol developer can conspire with outside actors (a cartel of exchanges and centralized miners) to enforce centralized consensus, and do it so effectively that it even overrides the competition with a decentralized hash power. There exists no checks and balances, only the illusion of it.
This means now you have to play politics and play nice with exchanges, miners, and the companies that control access to these actors such as Bitcoin.com, Bitmain, and Bitcoin ABC— they are effectively the consensus makers.
It is exactly like the world you live in today, full of corruption. And Bitcoin was supposed to fix that.
But now in order for me to operate in this new reality of ABC regime, I will need to play nice with bitcoin.com, bitmain, and several exchanges who effectively own the chain. Even if I do play politics, suck up to them and gain influence, this is all illusion because ultimately these gatekeepers are the ones with all the power to morph the protocol at will anytime if it makes sense for them.
This is EXACTLY the thing that needs to disappear from the face of earth, and Bitcoin was supposed to be the solution.
I liked his article. What becomes apparent, as it does when reading Wealth of Nations, is that the weakness of human beings is what stops the perfect system from operating. Capitalism as Adam Smith describes it is fantastic and all boats rise when it is practiced. But then there is government and people who will manipulate government to achieve their own ends to gain competitive advantage in whatever market they are in. This is the same in crypto. There are still human beings involved tweaking software here and there for their own ends. There is no utopia only trade offs of choices made.
quick points to respond to from article: I side with ABC generally, although also don't like the changes. I am ignorant on how the protocol works but if a third pre-ABC changes fork were possible, that might be best solution. The article alludes to a possible fork by BU in the future if ABC keeps on the path it's on. Ironically, BSV complains about the ABC additions, but it provoked them by threatening attacks and then forking; it could have otherwise probably not threatened attacks, and/or worked towards some mutual understandings to resolve conflict. I do not see the appeal of BSV as it sounds just like Core did last year when I asked what's wrong with BCH and they just said "BTC GOOD BCH BAD". Many of the criticisms of ABC in the article apply to BSV as other commenters posted here, so I find the article to be unpersuasive. The anonymous write (or "un"writer) assures us he isn't a shill, which isn't really relevant to the discussion as we can't verify one way or the other and would have to evaluate what he says based on the words themselves. The article sounds like CSW/BSV talking points, and I agree with some criticism of ABC but do not agree with BSV as some kind of solution immune to many of same criticisms.
Also, regarding "maximalism", I don't know when people will give this up. A free market allows competition, and that competition can "flippen" the #1 spot. You certainly can cheer for whatever project you like, BTC or BCH or BSV, and I cheer for BCH a bit, but I have no idea what the future will bring. I believe maximalism distracts people from possible positives that competition offers, like Monero's (hypothetical) privacy offering which isn't offered by BCH. I know some criticize privacy coins as fostering crime, although if bitcoin is supposed to be like cash, well, actual paper cash is able to be traded somewhat anonymously so in that sense it seems more like cash than bitcoin is. Other crypto projects may possibly implement better designs that are competitively more useful over time, and competing cryptos act as a check and balance which forces a currency to keep innovating and to compete to stay valuable. I have no idea where maximalism fits in to this necessary structure of non-maxmalism which is the free market, unless you are of the tempered maximalist who cheers for a coin but recognizes it may be replaced (which I am totally fine with). A view that there is only one coin and that the rest are "alts" just seems bizarre to me. I doubt anyone will ever want to use just one coin if they have the freedom to compete (especially judging by how many crypto projects there are currently as an example of this tendency).
Monopoly only exists in a Keynesian world or under crony capitalism, both of which Bitcoin Cash ABC has become. -unwriter
BCHers believe that spending is what makes their coin valuable. As I outlined here, they are Crypto-Keynesians who believe that their network increases in value when more people use it as a method of payment. -@jimmysong/lord-keynes-would-be-proud-a225fec9cf6a">Jimmy Song
BCH ("ABC") has not accused the others of being Keynesians
"the users will not even care that you’re dead, they will witch hunt you and even try to silence you because they don’t want to stir the pot and make the coin price go down. They will prefer the gatekeepers just win the war and carry on with no hiccup to the outside world. You can already see a glimpse of this in Reddit r/btc today."
100% explains the anti sv down voting suppression. R/btc is just full of dumb speculators
Just because mempool becomes faster, doesn’t mean you’ve succeeded. If the mempool synchronization becomes 1000 times faster but it completely messes up the economics of Bitcoin, it’s effectively a useless ledger.
South Park's underpants gnomes make more sense than this.