Is Bitcoin Cash the most "Bitcoin" of the competing Bitcoins?

Thoughts on this?

SegWit is clearly the result of Gov intervention. There is no logical reason for the current valuations other than speculation, and manipulation by those with TRILLIONS to play with. THEY have a lot of experience manipulating silver and gold and maintaining the petro-dollar.

The larger problem with B/bitcoin is the vulnerabilities from 51% attacks OR (simpler route) control of CORE DEV.

Enjoy the ride!

Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin.
There are also miners losing millions of dollars a day because they are choosing to mine BCH/BCC instead of BTC.
That cannot last for too long.

Ok, but that whole article gives reasons why they say Bitcoin Cash is more bitcoin than the others. You saying it’s not doesn’t provide any meaningful information as to why not. So, why isn’t it?

It’s the bitcoin most in line with Satoshi’s vision. Doesn’t mean it’s going to be worth anything. I’ve posted elsewhere that I think Satoshi’s vision is dead, leaving us with just this nifty software. Best possible scenario is segwit fails spectacularly, and everyone flocks to BCH.

That website’s, in specifically that article’s, position confuses people.
That site, named oddly enough, BITCOIN dot COM, is anti-Bitcoin and pro Bitcoin Cash.

bitcoin.org is the right address people should be directed to.

Some responses to the article

  • “Not having replace-by-fee does not make unconfirmed transactions safe.”
  • “Confirmed transactions are irreversible even with SegWit.”
  • “SegWit signatures are not removed from the transactions.”

…

  • SegWit is not a required
  • True to white paper or not, bitcoin needs to be advanced as technology does but obviously has to tread very, very carefully. It cannot stay true to the paper word-for-word.
  • ~18 % of all bitcoin transactions are taking place to SegWit addresses. http://segwit.party/charts/

I also seriously question the motives of the group of people who were good for bitcoin community for so long trying to take total control of it.

The development stays in the Core devs hand, as they are the core developers.
This fighting will continue, sadly.

I can certainly understand the concern about change specially when it comes to one’s own wealth. But this is why Bitcoin doesn’t trust, it verifies.

Are you saying replace-by-fee does not do what the article claims, that is to allow a destination address to be changed prior to a confirmation? That always sounded like a horrible idea.

1 Like

I’d say not only is it “more Bitcoin,” but we’ll be glad it’s around after all the segwit nonsense “matures.” It may be moot when this fork occurs, though, because if S2X cripples BTC, the general public may lose faith in all “Bitcoin,” and maybe crypto in general.

Still, crypto is too good an idea not to survive. I just hope the Blockstream people finally lose influence. They should have dominated an altcoin instead of Bitcoin.

Those comments in quotes are from Charlie Lee. From reading in more detail here makes sense: https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/

I used RBF the other day, I set a cheap fee at around 35 cents for consolidating all my btc in to 1 wallet, it wasnt going anywhere. I was using a wallet that allowed me raise the fee and I did so to 70 cents lol. And 15mins later confirmations started coming in. For maybe 10 minutes it looked like a double spend but after confirmation it was fine.
Satoshi himself had put RBF, but pulling it back out due to ddos attacks.
Later it was proposed again a different way, which secured against ddos and its now optional.

Lol the most Bitcoin-est Bitcoin there is.

That’s cool that you used it honestly. Is it true though that it could be used to scam by changing the destination of the tx before it confirms?

I dont know. I used it in electrum wallet and can’t recall seeing an option in the GUI for that.
I’ll have to see if there’s a way in the cli.