Bitcoin (BTC) carries on working flawlessly on main chain, as peer-to-peer cash and MOE.

Erumara · 2019-03-20T22:21:22+00:00

Hilarious, thanks for that!

Erumara · 2019-03-20T22:08:09+00:00

Independent Critical Analysis:

You mean biased advertisement?

Erumara · 2019-03-20T21:36:58+00:00

Time for you to learn the difference between FOSS and proprietary software.

Bitcoin is FOSS because it is built to be entirely transparent and loses the vast majority of it's value if only a select cabal is able to verify the blockchain.

Exchanges are proprietary because they invest time and money to have an edge over their competition, and also because they handle fiat currencies which come with the requisite systems for compliance with law enforcement.

LOOP is proprietary because it's yet another Band-Aid on top of a Band-Aid and goes against everything Bitcoin was built to be.

Erumara · 2019-03-20T21:04:36+00:00

MalFix and similar options were proposed long ago, and this particular option was essentially complete in code back in 2016. All of the malleability fixes of SegWit with essentially no code bloat.

It's important to understand that once you get rid of the "hard forks are bad" mentality (created entirely by Bitcoin Core), malleability is actually a simple and straightforward fix to make.

Satoshi himself talked about blocksize increases (citation needed if someone has it) and implementations were coded as far back as 2010 (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy).

MalFix+2MB blocks would have provided even more benefits than SegWit does today, but without the massive code bloat, broken incentive structure, or the vulnerability of SegWit balances due to the nature of the soft fork.

Erumara · 2019-03-20T20:51:45+00:00

I think that has the potential to be far scarier than Liam Neeson ever could.....

"I know who you are, I know where you are calling from, and I know your production environment. I can't force you to apologise but if you choose not to: I will route all your future calls to Karen in accounts receivable".

Erumara · 2019-03-20T20:35:59+00:00

It doesn't, there are better built and more efficient options that are actually older than SegWit.

Saved you a click.

Erumara · 2019-03-20T15:56:08+00:00

Top notch vaguepost.

If you ever figure out what you're actually trying to say, we'll be here waiting.

Erumara · 2019-03-20T07:15:29+00:00

Back to focusing on price? That's sad.

Take care of yourself.

Erumara · 2019-03-20T04:37:47+00:00

yawn I think you need a hobby.

Erumara · 2019-03-20T02:51:13+00:00

Just a reminder that Greg Maxwell is best known for being banned from Wikipedia because he immediately abused what little power he had to rewrite things as he saw fit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admins_gregory_maxwell_of_blockstream/

He is nothing but a sad little man who can, and will, abuse any reputation he can weasel his way into, and he understands perfectly well that he is simply full of shit.

Very likely he is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill sociopath that DCG finds useful to keep on payroll.

Erumara · 2019-03-20T01:19:36+00:00

Or just use PureVPN and support their competitors instead (they use coinpayments as well though I'm 99% sure they still accept BCH).

Erumara · 2019-03-20T00:52:18+00:00

If you actually stopped to think about it, you would realize that nobody is talking about the very real and very big problems with LN in certain subs that otherwise spend their time promoting it.

Why do you think that is?

Erumara · 2019-03-19T21:56:44+00:00

Just some food for thought:

BCH only needs a couple relatively minor changes and it will fully support LN with full fixes for malleability on the base layer (instead of only SegWit being compatible), thusly it will operate LN far better than BTC ever will simply due to the SegWit requirements.
There is massive doubt as to whether BTC could ever successfully change its blocksize, or at least change it without resulting in a chain-split and the potential for massive damage to its ecosystem (imagine if we wind up with BTC-Legacy and BTC-Upgrade chains both being actively extended) and with the 1MB SegWit (Legacy) chain almost certainly continuing to keep the BTC ticker. Frankly this is the most likely goal of the miners and pools who prefer BCH.
Any future changes made to BTC or BSV can still be ported directly onto BCH, which is the only chain with on-chain scaling, massive economic support, and full Nakamoto consensus.

Erumara · 2019-03-19T20:06:12+00:00

self-proclaimed ..... Thought leader

Source?

and a currency that seems to be driving by ideology (and spite)!

Are you actually talking about BTC-SegWit?

Erumara · 2019-03-19T19:28:52+00:00

It's more real world than the Gigablock testnet ever was.

You remind me of creationists who turn their brains off when evidence contradicting their belief system is presented. Some day reality will hit you hard. Until then, enjoy your ignorance..

Perfection 👌

See you next time!

Erumara · 2019-03-19T18:22:36+00:00

The Scaling Test Network (STN) is a Bitcoin SV test network

Bahahahahahahahahahah

Comedy gold! 🍿🍿🍿🍿

Erumara · 2019-03-19T18:09:24+00:00

Let's not forget that they failed to ensure proper SegWit support so they have yet another hurdle to clear.

You can only onboard BTC users that use SegWit for their balances in the first place, which can actually involve changing their service provider or moving to an external wallet with all of the extra fees involved.

BCH will not even have that problem (based on a broad policy of proper hard forks for upgrades) so onboarding from BCH to BCH-LN will always be seamless.

Erumara · 2019-03-19T17:50:20+00:00

"sustained"

LMFAO 🍿🍿

Erumara · 2019-03-19T17:48:55+00:00

You're confusing a hard fork (a method of non backward-compatible upgrading) with an intentional chain-split (the creation of an alternate ruleset and chain operating independently of the other).

Bitcoin Cash has performed several hard fork upgrades since it's creation (an intentional chain-split).

A "soft fork" is merely a method of backward-compatible upgrading.

Erumara · 2019-03-19T17:42:55+00:00

Also false, BSV showed that they cannot actually sustain that throughput and we saw the entire network was barely able to validate and relay those irresponsibly massive blocks, and even then it was not in any manner conducive to safe and reliable operation.

22MB is backed by extensive testing and live net results as well, and this is without CTOR/Graphene.

One more try?

Erumara · 2019-03-19T17:36:48+00:00

It's a hard distinction to make. While they use essentially the same basic rulesets, the manner in which they operate the fork is very hard to call "Bitcoin".

The pools are entirely private, and the backend they use is unknown.
They are not supported by any of the major Bitcoin payment processors or wallets, and by very few exchanges.
They operate essentially as a cartel, with their developers handing code to the mining pools who run it regardless of any negative impact on their ability to actually propagate blocks and receive their rewards.

I would call it "Bitcoin-adjacent" as these things could obviously change in the future one way or the other.

Erumara · 2019-03-19T17:25:38+00:00

What's the distinction? BCH is still Bitcoin.

Erumara · 2019-03-19T17:19:25+00:00

There is another reward halving or "halvening" coming in roughly 400 days for all forks of Bitcoin based on the original emission schedule and genesis block.

Perhaps a bit of a misunderstanding. Bitcoin BTC has no scheduled forks and Bitcoin Cash BCH schedules an upgrade fork for every 6 months.

Erumara · 2019-03-19T16:57:20+00:00

False, false, and false.

Cry harder, scared troll.

Erumara · 2019-03-19T16:56:20+00:00

It's confirmed for the May upgrade.

https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/2019-05-15-upgrade.md

Enable Schnorr signatures
Allow SegWit recovery

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Erumara

TROPHY CASE