BCHETH
Bitcoin Cash / Ethereum
crypto Composite

> I've only read the Finnish version and that is the only one I have. Seems you have not read the book, although you lied you have.
> If you cannot list anything substantial not already covered in Bier's book that is your loss – since you haven't read the book.
>You are pathetic and certainly do not any good for BCH. Note that I don't really care neither BTC nor BCH. I would see a lot of potential in BCH unless the community would be filled with paranoid nutheads like yourself.
So, straight to ad hominem without being able to even provide a direct quote from Bier's book to cover your claim that Roger's book is a subset?
That is an immensely poor performance after I busted your game. I expect a little better from you, but alas. You are back in the same category of others who try to smear BCH and Roger Ver.

I've only read the Finnish version and that is the only one I have. Seems you have not read the book, although you lied you have.
If you cannot list anything substantial not already covered in Bier's book that is your loss – since you haven't read the book.
You are pathetic and certainly do not any good for BCH. Note that I don't really care neither BTC nor BCH. I would see a lot of potential in BCH unless the community would be filled with paranoid nutheads like yourself.

Funny thing BCH is Bitcoin. If you can name one technical differences why it wouldn't work with BCH you will have my attention.

You are wasting time. I have read Bier's book. It's full of misinformation.
Segwit code was removed from BCH code because the repository was forked in early 2017, not in August when BCH activated and the _chain_ was forked.
Before the chain split, BCH developers removed various things that were undesirable on a p2p cash system, like RBF, most of the Segwit code, etc.
> BCH developers did not have write authority to the repository
Stop trolling please.
BCH developers did not need write authority to BTC repo make a code fork. I thought you understood open source.

Dude, you say above fork was done after BCH developers removed most of the SegWit code.
Who of the BCH developers had write authority to the Bitcoin Core repository so they’d been able to remove anything from it before the fork?
Now I doubt your understanding of software development and how version control works is too limited so you would understand the story “better” than me or to understand at all how things went in the first place.
This is your words: “The 'fork' happened on August 1, 2017. By that time, BCH developers had removed almost all the SegWit code, because when you start off, you want to eliminate as much technical debt as possible, and Segwit was junk code for the most part (except certain malleability fixes which BCH retained as part of its signature modifications).”
You can’t remove anything before you do the fork unless you have write authority the repository you are forking. First fork, then remove the parts you don’t want on dev branch and then push to the main branch (in short).
So, you too do not understand how this works and yet you claim you understood SegWit and bunch io other very complex development paradigms. I’m not a person to judge is SegWith currently good or bad. Totally beyond my understanding.
Taproot at least gets lower fees compared to no TapRoot and no SegWit. I believe we have currently third version of SegWit going on plus Taproot and you quote articles from 2016 implementation.

Typo. Fork was done before activation. Not before addition. No SegWit code was removed before the fork. Who would have removed it without first forking? BCH developers did not have write authority to the repository.
Have you read Bier’s book?

I know the story better than you, and it's not changed.
> you said the fork was done before SegWit was added.
I didn't say that. I said the BCH fork happened before Segwit activated, and BCH devs removed the SegWit code (at least the main parts) before the split.
You just have issues reading what I wrote, or accepting it.

Stacks STX seems to be doing pretty well. But something as pure as BTC / BCH? Probably LTC the close cousin.

There are other viable options for cash to BTC which most of here seem to be stuck with.
Please first educate yourself on what is open source development, since that seems to be totally unclear for most. The best solution wins. Hijacking would mean someone would take over the main branch without authorization to do so. That did not happen.
After BCH was created there has been several other options for BCH as cash. No one can say BCH has been successful as SoV and that train went already.
I would think BCH would be much more successful if it would let BTC be and concentrate on BCH.
I know very well what has changed in BTC since 2017 but I have absolutely no idea what are the improvements on BCH after 2017. Only thing I’ve found here is embrace for Ver’s biased book. Like said, it is a sub set of much more neutral book from Bier. The only addition from Ver is to add on conspiracy theories totally impairing any reasonable discussion about BCH.
Where is discussion on how could the adoption for crypto be higher on everyday cash? What would be the benefits? How does BCH perform better compared to stable coins (let’s not go to dollar is a scam talk)?
Now that there’s several options to link credit card with crypto I personally would see BCH would be great on that. Instead the only one I used is impaired by outrageous ETH gas fees when bridging USDC from chain to another.
Would there be CC linked to my BCH I would be happy start using it immediately. Instead of reading anything about these sort of things I read about high BTC fees which I’m totally aware and victim of. No need to tell me that once a day. But, I’m also still happy that BTC has so far being a good as SoV.
These two could live their life both being successful. One as a cash and another as SoV.

>Everywhere – which is nowhere I’m doing my everyday shopping.
Yes that is the big open work that needs to be done, that BTC stopped and never finished because it got hijacked.
>where they accept BCH they typically also accept LTC, DOGE and BTC.
Yes, but none of them is as good as BCH. LTC has the same crippling limitations as BTC, a blocksize limit and segwit. Doge inflates and BTC is not fit as payment network at all.
>You guys spend enormous amount of time bad mouthing BTC
Because BTC is hijacked and controlled opposition. A roadblock on the way to reach p2p cash adoption and people need to understand this if we want to change things for the better.
>Not a word what BCH actually does well and is successful on.
Oh we do, but usually we get critiques like you and the discussion goes back to BTC. If you want to talk about the benefits of BCH, be my guest 🙂
>Just negative news on BTC and how bad it is doing now today being about 240x the value of BCH.
No, we warn that BTC is hijacked and that it cannot provide you with freedom to transact and will force you back into custodians control. You might get rich (but you have to sell for this) but you wont get free.

That's the nice thing about forking: the degree to which value "forks over" will align with the market's conviction *for* the fork. Prior holders will hold value on both chains, so they don't even need to pick a side.
e.g. the price difference following the BTC / BCH fork demonstrated that the market did not value big blocks (BCH) as highly as many at the time suggested

That is something we all know. Unfortunately BTC is succeeding very well on store of value whereas BCH is not used anywhere people use vagus regularly and its value is less than 0.5% of BTC.
This subreddit seldom has any other list except posts telling hue bad BTC is doing. C’mon. 2017 was eight years ago. What has BCH achieved within those eight years?

And how you BCH succeeding on these goals? Be honest.

Oh of course. Some exchanges will still keep them listed, its not as if they will be delisted everywhere. With that being said, Litecoin was delisted in south korea, thats a big market of people excluded from LTC now. Id rather BCH built up first so we have the power over the exchanges rather than the other way round.

> The idea that Bitcoin is "Scarce" because only 21 million exist completely ignores the fact that anyone can clone it and create an alternate blockchain or currency, and that Bitcoin is is divisible such that Trillions of units exist.
Mate you're conflating supply with replicability. Like copying the Mona Lisa doesn’t make your copy valuable a bitcoin clone doesn’t inherit bitcoin’s value. The market has consistently priced clones like BCH at a fraction of bitcoin’s value.
As for divisibility, dividing something doesn’t make it less scarce... i.e. a pizza sliced into 1000 pieces is still one pizza.

Here's a scenario. BTC keeps blocks capped. 99% of users hold their coins with intermediaries like Coinbase. It's discovered that these intermediaries are running on fractional reserves like today's banks. People panic but can't withdraw their BTC to their own hardware wallets because of on-chain congestion. Coinbase and other intermediaries "temporarily" freeze withdrawals. BCH/BSV prices in BTC terms spike. Users sell their BTC for anything liquid and bid for BCH/BSV. BTC was never meant to have a permanent block size cap.

Everyone who has bought at the previous tops are in the black so.... Yes, it actually is smart or at least smarter than buying BCH.

Just wait, aLtSEaSoN is coming and BCH is the real Bitcoin /j

I don't believe Bitcoin (BCH) has anything better than CashFusion currently, however, as it stands, i wouldn't add Monero or MWEB level privacy directly into BCH because it has a likelihood to get the coin delisted from some exchanges. What we're better off doing is keeping momentum going and improving the coin, then when we have a larger market cap or even flip BTC, it would be worth adding the privacy then. At that point no one would dare delist it because too much value would be captured. Just think, if BTC added privacy now, who would delist it?

Typical BCH bag holder comment 😎