Bitcoin Cash on the other hand no longer have to fight the highly conservative Bitcoin Core community on every potential upgrade and can explore more advanced consensus games on their own realm.
Srsly? Segwit completely abandons Bitcoin's security model. Segwit redefines Bitcoin consensus all the way down to the mathematical definition of a bitcoin.
Cash, on the other hand, is Satoshi's Bitcoin, exactly. "It's got bigger blocks than Satoshi's Bitcoin!" you say, but that's not true: the original Bitcoin Satoshi made had no block size limit. He added the size limit as an anti-spam measure in 2010, and clearly intended that limit to be raised before it would be reached.
Moreover, nakamoto was not concerned about the growing bandwidth requirements pricing home computers out of the full node game:
Only people trying to [mine] new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.
-- Satoshi Nakamoto
So yes, Bitcoin Cash is Nakamoto's Bitcoin. It changes literally nothing from Nakamoto's; even Nakamoto unilaterally added a block size limit completely arbitrarily, set to way higher than blocks were expected to grow, for years. And reading Nakamoto's posts, it's clear he intended it to be raised or removed long before it inhibited network scaling.
Segwit is not Bitcoin. Segwit is a trojan, designed to subvert the brilliantly simple, elegant, unshakeable security of nakamoto's Bitcoin. It is marketed through deception, confusion, censorship, and FUD; all of which are anathema to the open, transparent nature of Bitcoin. The goal of segwit is to change Bitcoin's open protocol nature where all transactions which appear valid are accepted, to a closed protocol where all transactions, legitimate or not, are potentially valid, based on subjective approval of the miners.
Excellent comment. I've read some of your previous articles and I'm very impressed. I'm holding half my money on BCH as it has to go up. It's simply just better.
Still I'm with Dash for the long run.
Also what do you think about https://platincoin.com/en/9226224018
If they can execute what they are trying to do, they'll be one of the biggest leaders in cryptospace in the future.
Lucky you
" Segwit completely abandons Bitcoin's security model." Yeah I read your article. I don't buy It. I'm having other devs do analysis of it now. Ofcourse, that's part of the challenge, those that can't read the code well enough need to rely on interpreters.
Satoshi is gone. And he was human. He made the mistake of not putting a time lock release mechanism on the block size for example. He probably made other mistakes. Everyone does.
I'll do some name dropping too. Nick Szabo " Coffee Chain TM does not need 'hi as fuck security," to paraphrase a it. Here's a related one.
Adam back is also clearly on the core side, he pretty much invented proof of work.
How do you demonize Adam Back? See there's legends on the other side, and that means a level of confidence that is very visible in the price. Tho we'll see what happens in November. I was pissed I think they should just Hard fork to 2mbs and cut the bullshit. 92% is amazing.
I'm all for innovation, I agree that some kind of emergent consensus is worth exploring, though you still don't have incentives for full nodes on Bitcoin Cash, so its still gonna be less stable the DASH probably.
Let me ask you something.
Is Bitcoin Core's open source development process, meritocratic? If not, how is Bitcoin Cash doing it better?
As far as censorship. The big blockers have had a competitive reddit, and Bitcoin.com publishing for years now. There's hardly censorship anymore. fuck its the time and space with the most freedom of speech ever imaginable in history, The internet, in englisn on western nations.
Ppl need to stop crying victim so much and start competing on the media front if they really have such good arguments and positions.
As far as this.
"The goal of segwit is to change Bitcoin's open protocol nature where all transactions which appear valid are accepted, to a closed protocol where all transactions, legitimate or not, are potentially valid, based on subjective approval of the miners."
As far as this, if it is true then I will join you in denouncing it. If it is really as you put it. But you understand I cant just trust u on something that important. So im having others analyse it. when I have a clear enough picture I'll make an article responding to this.
So what you are implying with your argument is because Satoshi was human Bitcoin was a mistake.
Also note that simplified payment verification was never implemented on Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin Cash implemented, I think that'd be a great triumph.
As far as censorship goes. have you read this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1182118.0
Also srsly. whats "mathematical definition of a bitcoin." ?
I know of some definitions, like Gavin Andressen's. Which segwit is compatible with AFAICT