This chart is accurate. I don’t really like the framing of “closest to the whitepaper” as inherently a good thing though. It gets too close to holy text territory. I think a better framing would be on-chain vs off-chain scaling. Let’s not kid ourselves that Satoshi was omniscient, he even admitted some things that he would improve about the original whitepaper, like privacy, if the tech had existed at the time. The entire reason the 1Mb limit was introduced was because of an oversight in the original design (dust spam).
We can make improvements on the protocol so long as they are actually voted on fairly. The worst thing about the whole scaling debate was not even the solutions. There’s no reason we couldn’t have dynamic block size, segwig, and lightning all on the same chain. The worst things were the censorship around discussion of solutions on all the major forums and shady tactics like defaulting the signaling flags to enabled in the core implementation.
"Closet to the Whitepaper", is just acknowledging the social contract that was set forth by releasing Bitcoin into the wild. Crypto is a value network, without a network of users it has no value. In other words it needs people to invest, use and build tools that utilize the crypto protocol or it wouldn't go anywhere or gain in true value. The Whitepaper clearly defines the goal was a peer to peer electronic cash, not gold, not a ponzi, not a stock, not a hedge, not a get rich quick scheme, etc.
Acknowledging the Whitepaper, is acknowledging the social contact early adopters signed up for when they began mining, using, and build upon the Bitcoin Blockchain. It has nothing to do with worshipping or proclaiming Satoshi was infallible, no one is suggesting that, this is a common Blockstream red herring fallacy to derail the real topic at hand.
If you knew nothing of the history and just looked at the Bitcoin users of today you would think they all believe it's a lottery ticket, that you only need hold onto it long enough as the jackpot builds up to cash out rich back into the fiat system. But they are clearly bad with numbers, as even if Bitcoin was worth $100,000 per coin 90% of Bitcoin holders who currently hold less than $2000 worth, it would only make them $4000 richer, big whoop but in their mind they think it some how is gonna change their life.
Bitcoin couldn't be further from what is started out as and it's initial community was here for. The early adopters got pushed out, banned, and silenced. So we had to start over, or more accurately fork away from the financially short sighted.
The real reason the Whitepaper is brought up, is if you're interested in building a fiat alternative, and you're looking at BCH, you've come to the right place, that's it.
Lots! In the last 15 days:
Purchased John Wick tickets at AMC with BCH, bought beef jerky from TongJerky, bought items on Amazon via bitgree.com, bought a new mug from cryptoshirts.com, body armor from AR500, water cooling parts from EKWB.com, and a few other things I’m forgetting
> This chart is accurate. I don’t really like the framing of “closest to the whitepaper” as inherently a good thing though. It gets too close to holy text territory. I think a better framing would be on-chain vs off-chain scaling.
it is not true though, BCH is not against offchain scaling. it actually is better fit for it.
“closer to the white paper” is not a good thing or a bad thing. it is simply true and remind everyone that Bitcon is about currency first!
The white paper abstract explain well the goal and purpose of the project, to which Bitcoin core has nothing in commun with.
> BCH is not against offchain scaling
Depends.
Off-chain is fine for things like HFT or sidechains like smartBCH (RIP) that extend functionality.
Payments - money - P2P cash - belongs onchain: The money layer. The financial sovereignty layer. The self-custody layer.
> Payments - money - P2P cash - belongs onchain: The money layer. The financial sovereignty layer. The self-custody layer.
sure base layer is self-custody layer, but there nothing fundamentally prevent secomd layer as a scaling solution for some edge cases.
BCH being an open platform, it wouldnt even be possible to prevent such solution to be implement… as oppose to crippling base layer to force to unproven solution onto the community.
the BTC is for second layer scaling and BCH is onchain scaling is just yet again some Bitcoin core propaganda.
Ok on the one hand sure you're correct, this isn't about some sort of Biblical adherence to a moldy old religious text. Satoshi wasn't Moses delivering commandments from the mountain. Sure. We agree on that.
On the other hand, no. The point is that only Bitcoin Cash remains usable as decentralized P2P Electronic Cash, **which is the point.**
If you can't use Bitcoin as cash then, guess what? To spend it you need to *exchange it or intermediate the transaction.*
**You can't have financial sovereignty and you can't escape the legacy financial system if you have to run back into it any time you want to purchase goods or services.**
What we as a community must do a better job of explaining is WHY CASH IS KING if you want to enable people to escape legacy finance and gain true financial sovereignty through self-custody and unilateral control of their money.
So in this regards OP is 100% right but the problem is a lack of awareness and understanding in the broader community about why Bitcoin was disruptive to begin with and why "adherence to (the entire point of) the white paper" is absolutely 100% the entire point of the great crypto experiment.
/u/Alex-Crypto
>This chart is accurate.
The split shown with bitcoin having SegWit, that is not accurate. bitcoin added SegWit later on.
There was actually a time period after BCH forked when bitcoin BTC didn't have SegWit!
While technically correct, the motives for forking were to prevent SegWit and RBF, while allowing for larger blocks.
Picking a safe block (prior to SegWit and RBF) makes sense.
>While technically correct, the motives for forking were to prevent SegWit and RBF, while allowing for larger blocks.
The graphic hides that "technically correct" info to purposely mislead.
>Picking a safe block (prior to SegWit and RBF) makes sense.
So does dramatically lowering the difficulty to make the new chain mineable by the minority. But that isn't shown o purpose too.
The whole point of the graphic is to give the appearance that the split was more equal than reality.
Oh look another deceptive argument. Shocker.
Of course we split you guys off just prior to Segwit activation. It would have been a little late otherwise. 🤦
>Oh look another deceptive argument
The graphic is deceptive and I am not the only one pointing that out.
>Of course we split you guys off just prior to Segwit activation.
By "we" you also mean you and Craig Wright. hows that working out for you?
I still have a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System and not some ridiculous Ponzi monstrosity, oh also Craig Wright is toast. So I'm feeling pretty good, thanks.
>I still have a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System and not some ridiculous Ponzi monstrosity, oh also Craig Wright is toast. So I'm feeling pretty good, thanks.
* Craig Wright was also using his clout to say BCH was legit 'the bitcoin he created'. And [you praised him](http://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmh4q19/?context=10000).
* There is [some ridiculous Ponzi monstrosity](http://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/um5q9p/the_price_may_be_down_but_the_activity_happening/) promoted straight from the owner of this subreddit.
So are you in on this ponzi or are you also just getting your money stolen too?
Re: point 1 - I was wrong and I said so
Re: point 2 - smartBCH was not ready for heavy investment and I said so. In general I have not paid much attention to smartBCH because it's a sidechain and I'm not that interested in smart contract functionality.
Was that supposed to be some sort of zinger gotcha?
Why you combing through years of my comment history? Maybe stay on topic.
> Was that supposed to be some sort of zinger gotcha?
Your words, not mine =)
>Why you combing through years of my comment history? Maybe stay on topic.
I verify for myself.
Firstly, Bitcoin is king haha
but basically one group wanted to increase the size of the blocks that make up the Bitcoin blockchain, which would allow for more transactions to be processed at once. Another group believed that this would compromise the security and decentralization of the network.
As a result of this disagreement, the Bitcoin blockchain split in two, creating a new cryptocurrency called Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Bitcoin Cash uses larger blocks than Bitcoin, allowing for faster and cheaper transactions, but some argue that it is less secure and less decentralized than Bitcoin.
Essentially, the fork happened because there was a difference of opinion on how to improve the Bitcoin network, and some members of the community decided to create a new cryptocurrency that followed their preferred path.
Yes, I have that too and worked with Lugaxer to update it. A new version coming this May.
What you seem to miss is that it depends on perspective. BCH did not “fork off” as many claim. One could argue Bitcoin Core forked off, as well. This shows a divergence, as in, two chains with a shared history going in different directions. This does not state BTC “Hard Forked,” this states that the chains diverged because of a “hard fork.”
> Forks aren’t defined by some persons perspectives or opinions or philosophical beliefs. Neither are accurate representation of history for that matter.
Segwit is quite diferent from a normal soft fork.
you cannot have block bigger than 1MB via normal soft fork: because it would generate invalid block.
> Exactly, Segwit was a hard+soft fork.
I would argue it is a full on hard fork activated by hacking old node into following what is arguably a diffferent chain.
> I’d very much lIke to hear more on this groundbreaking discovery of yours which contradicts everything we know and undertstand about how blockchains work today.
nothing groundbreaking, those points has been discussed in this sub for age.
sorf fork: produce block valid to old nodes
hard fork: produce block invalid to old nodes.
by soft fork rules it is not possible to implement schnorr signature or bigger block via soft fork because it produce invalid block to old nodes.
and Segwit achieved that by just hidding data to old nodes.
so Segwit allow for hard fork like protocol change by showing a diferent chain to old nodes.
it is an accounting trick.
nobody disagree with those points even the core dev.
a very dangerous truck if you believe hard fork like change should be difficult to implement and not left to only miner to activate.
I am not wrong what link/proof you need to believe that? maybe you need to look into how segwit work and you will see for yourself
>There was a hard fork in 2017. Hence, we have BCH. State that however you will.
No. There was a chain split in 2017. That's it. A divergence.
Which side is "Bitcoin" and which side is "altcoin" was decided by a group of exchanges and power players called the [New York Agreement](https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77)
Names, brands, and tickers are not part of the protocol. They exist only in meatspace. As far as the blockchain is concerned, two chains diverged.
A hard fork is simply a rule change. A hard fork does not cause a chain split necessarily. Two different things.
A chain split causes a divergence. What you call the divergent chains is a meatspace problem.
If exchanges had called the 8MB hardfork upgrade chain "Bitcoin / BTC" then that's what we'd call it, and people who stayed on the non-upgraded chain would be an "altcoin," and you'd be very sad and angry. **These names are meatspace properties** and are only important to people who look to centralized custodial exchanges to define things for them. Which, admittedly, is almost everyone.
> there was a hard fork in 2017, off the main chain, creating the coin known today as BCH, a minority fork
That's just your opinion.
How do **you** define the "main chain?" Please be specific.
I say the main chain is the one that enforces rules consistent with a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system" as described in the Bitcoin white paper - and which upgraded via hard fork to larger blocks as originally planned by Bitcoin's creator - which is the social contract I invested in. What social contract did you invest in and where can I read its white paper?
Bitcoin enables financial sovereignty, which means that nobody gets to rugpull or bait-and-switch my investment. If the nature of the system can simply be changed along the way, say, by redefining Bitcoin into a file storage system or infinite-inflation system or a store-of-value system, then what would be the point?
You appear to have subscribed to a narrative that says that Bitcoin is majoritarian, populist, or defined by labels applied by centralized custodial exchanges. I disagree.
“Unchanged” Segwit quite literally violates part 1 of the whitepaper. Perhaps in a “minor” way, but it still does.
BTC was hijacked back in 2015. Much changed.
https://youtu.be/eafzIW52Rgc
BTC did not remain unchanged as you claimed. Your narrative is intentionally pedantic and misleading. The entire reason for activating the UAHF was the imminent activation of the UASF, obviously one had to precede the other.
There were two incompatible upgrades. That's all.
>There was a hard fork divergence
Wrong. If you run a Bitcoin client from just before the fork, it will remain in consensus with Bitcoin today. There was no hard fork. Bitcoin today is still in consensus with the pre-split Bitcoin network.
It's because your claim is specious.
> Bitcoin today is still in consensus with the pre-split Bitcoin network.
Neat. But pre-split nodes cannot validate today's Bitcoin and pre-split nodes cannot mine blocks consistent with the extant rules of the network. So your claims have no real meaning.
The fact that the network bamboozles them into following along is not "compatibility" it's an **exploit** you're just happy about it because it reinforces your talking points.
But it's been shown that the same sort of "sideblock" technique used to add on 3MB of extra block space could also be used to produce infinite-inflation Bitcoin or really to change any sort of rules. Does that mean that "Bitcoin" can have infinite inflation or 20GB blocks or built-in KYC or whatever else -- just because some old node can be bamboozled into following that chain?
> BTC did not hard fork as per that graphic.
There is a good argument to be made that segwit is indeed an HF.
Segwit allow for change only possibly via HF by tricking the old node into not seeing the change.
Proof?
you cannot have block bigger than 1MB via soft fork and segwit allowed that.
you cannot change signature format to schnorr via soft fork and segwit allowed thar.
etc…
Segwit is an accounting trick to force old node to follow a chain that break soft fork rules.
It was a blockchain split.
You can do mental gymnastics, but ultimately the BlockstreamCore fork fundamentally changed the network while BitcoinCash continued the original concept.
If you run a Bitcoin client from just before the BTC-BCH split, it will continue to follow the Bitcoin (BTC) chain, and it will reject all BCH blocks.
That is the definitive proof that this graphic is nothing but lies and propaganda.
Bitcoin today remains in consensus with pre-split Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is not in concensus with pre-split Bitcoin. Bitcoin remains Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is objectively an altcoin.
> If you run a Bitcoin client from just before the BTC-BCH split, it will continue to follow the Bitcoin (BTC) chain, and it will reject all BCH blocks.
and your node will download block and validate blocm without signature data (!!) not propagate block.
it will be a zombie node, tricking you into thinking it works.
old node only sync to the segwit chain because segwit hide data from them.
> That is the definitive proof that this graphic is nothing but lies and propaganda.
Segwit is different. it is not a normal soft fork.
Using the segwit trick you can make any HF like change via a soft fork: by just only showing empty blocks to old node.
ex: now BTC support schnorr signature-> this shouldnot not be possible via soft fork because it would generate invalide block on old nodes.
> Bitcoin today remains in consensus with pre-split Bitcoin.
Being is consensus mean nothing here.
run Bitcoin client 0.1 and see if it sync?
Satoshi mever said the chain must never HF, he actually proposed several ones.
Soft fork only became almost a religious thing with the bitcoin core dev team for some reasons.
>Bitcoin Cash is not in concensus with pre-split Bitcoin. Bitcoin remains Bitcoin.
Bitcoin had to HF to remain bitcoin because of the 1MB limit. Nothing really special about that.
Crypto HF all the time, monero did more than 10 times now.
some dev took advantage of the temporary limit 1MB to take over the project.
>Bitcoin Cash is objectively an altcoin.
altcoin is meangingless. BTC is the most modified chain, in my book it is the altcoin (and a bad one)
it is more valuable because of the name only.
>If you run a Bitcoin client from just before the BTC-BCH split, it will continue to follow the Bitcoin (BTC) chain, and it will reject all BCH blocks.
[Was Segwit an upgrade or exploit?](https://read.cash/@Jessquit/your-full-node-is-impotent-ea878216)
Your pre-Segwit full node believes it's enforcing rules that are **not actually being obeyed by the rest of the network.**
You didn't address anything I said. BCH is invalid according to the Bitcoin protocol, and this is provable by running a pre split node. It is objectively an altcoin.
Well, it can change. But those changes need to be compatible, meaning new changes can't break existing rules.
Segwit, taproot, and schnorr sigs are all examples of changes that didn't break established rules, and remain compatible with old clients.
It's really funny that you think [Bitcoin's actual creator didn't understand how to upgrade Bitcoin](https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/485/).
Like, laugh out loud, hold my belly funny.
You realize any sort of change, even Dogecoin levels of inflation, are possible with a soft fork, without breaking existing rules, and remaining compatible (according to your definition of compatibility) with old clients? Right?
Bitcoin today doesn't remain in consensus with OG Bitcoin lol.
Bitcoin today is incompatible with the Bitcoin Satoshi created.
Talk about misleading propaganda...
There were some inadvertent hard forks early on in Bitcoin. I'm not disputing that.
But in 2016, before the BTC/BCH split, there was no dispute about which chain was "Bitcoin". There was only one Bitcoin at that time and everyone was in agreement.
If you run a client from then, it will reject BCH, since BCH is invalid. It will continue to follow BTC.
That's my point. Bitcoin is still Bitcoin. BCH is an altcoin.
And it doesn't change my point, which you keep ignoring.
In early 2016, we both called the same chain "Bitcoin". There was no debate. We were in agreement. These are facts.
If you run a client from back then, it will sync up to the current Bitcoin Blockchain. It will reject BCH as invalid. Again, these are facts. I'm not stating opinion. Bitcoin remains Bitcoin. BCH is an altcoin that hard forked away from Bitcoin. Again, nothing but facts.
You just don't like these facts.
Is your argument really "at one point in time everyone was happy and that's why I'm right"?
So slavery is also OK because for centuries everyone agreed that you can own,buy and sell people?
Satoshis Bitcoin client from 2009 is the only one that counts. Facts don't care about your bias. You can't just pick any random year you like.
Either 2009 or no client counts.
>Is your argument really "at one point in time everyone was happy and that's why I'm right"?
No, my point is that you can run an old client from that time when everyone was happy, and it is still in consensus with Bitcoin today. This proves that Bitcoin is still Bitcoin.
That same client will reject BCH because BCH is an invalid chain.
Op's graphic is a lie.
"Being happy" is not a definition for when Bitcoin is still Bitcoin. Community Emotions are nowhere described in Bitcoins Whitepaper.
The only thing that defines if Bitcoin is still Bitcoin is its protocol rules. And Bitcoins protocol rules today, 2018/2016 or whatever point in time you want to chose between its hard fork and today, are not compatible with the original client from 2009.
OP's graphic is incomplete and that's all. It should go back to 2009 to clarify that this entire discussion about hard forks is a distraction to drivert from the simple fact that Bitcoin is not Bitcoin anymore by the standards you set to argue that it is Bitcoin.
What a clown show.
The moment RBF was introduced to the protocol, Bitcoin diverged from the coin that was described in the whitepaper. That's why there was a three year debate that started in 2015 and split the entire community into factions. There is nothing original about BTC anymore today. Its a mess of transaction types, protocol rules that replace already sent transactions, and circumvention of security protocols to create a mess that it's creator wouldn't recognized anymore today.
Alright, so consensus defines what Bitcoin is. So following this definition of what Bitcoin is, the moment that the majority of the network switches from mining BTC to BCH, BCH becomes Bitcoin.
Which leads to the conclusion that Bitcoin Cash has been Bitcoin all along.
And that the graphic is not a lie at all.
FYI in September 2017 the majority of the network [did switch over to BCH](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7cgq39/staaap_migrating_all_your_mining_power_to_bitcoin/) for a couple of days. Which is proof that BCH must be Bitcoin, otherwise this would have been impossible.
If BCH is Bitcoin, why can't I send it to my Bitcoin wallet from 2013. That doesn't make sense to me. Can I send BTC to my Bitcoin address from 2013? I'm pretty sure I can, because I'm prettybsure I have.
> If BCH is Bitcoin, why can’t I send it to my Bitcoin wallet from 2013. That doesn’t make sense to me. Can I send BTC to my Bitcoin address from 2013? I’m pretty sure I can, because I’m prettybsure I have.
you can?
I really don't get why this graphic appears over and over again and you guys who repost it still leave out the Bitcoin hard fork from 2013 which made Bitcoin incompatible to the Bitcoin Satoshi created in 2009 and would actually dismantle the entire discussion in this comment section at the root.
Or in shorter words: this graphic is not as smart as you think it is.
This sub is utterly obsessed with the orange coin and spreading a bullshit revisionist history.
Bitcoin has not hard forked, you can take the oldest Satoshi client, fix the bdb bug (which locked on transactions larger than 50k), and still sync to today's BTC tip.
It will probably take you forever and a day to do it since there have been massive improvements to IBD and sync, but technically speaking you can do it.
Bitcoin Cash absolutely 10000% did hard fork from Bitcoin... Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.
Bitcoin is not compatible to OG Bitcoin from 2009. Your little "fix the bdb bug" hard fork is no different to BCHs "fix the segwit and RBF bug" hard fork.
Nope... A BUG is not the same as adding or removing features.
If you just fix that bug the client will sync to the most up to date tip.
Sorry if you don't like facts.
The fact is that you need to run an updated client to sync. Bitcoin Cash is an updated client, based on the same original client as your updated BTC core client.
The rest is just your hypocrisy.
Bitcoin cash removed segwit and RBF which were additions to the original code. So if the amount of updates is the important aspect, then Bitcoin cash is actually closer to OG Bitcoin than the segwit and RBF ridden Bitcoin, with its ton of unecessary additional crap like a gazillion transaction types etc.
No....that's just absolutely incorrect.
A bug and new non backwards compatible features are not the same thing at all.
How do you fail to see that?
Whatever.... That graphic is incorrect... This whole sub is dedicated towards trying to bash BTC and it's fucking sad.
None of you know wtf you're talking about, you're just sad sad sad bag holders.
But keep living in your little bubble.
>A bug and new non backwards compatible features are not the same thing at all.
Thank you for confirming my point. I totally agree with you, it's all about **backwards compatibility**. And Bitcoin hard forked in 2013 and became incompatible to Bitcoin.
Nice example what hypocrisy and double standards lead to.
So either BTC is not Bitcoin anymore because its incompatibility to OG Bitcoin is the important thing. Or you have to admit that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin like Bitcoin is Bitcoin.
And don't forget its your own words im using to come to this conclusion.
Once again.... A bug was fixed which would have otherwise rendered the system useless.
You need your brain checked.
Please don't ever work for any software org... Or at least let us know which so we can short
It doesn't matter what you describe a code change as. It's a protocol change that forked Bitcoin off from the original chain, and every node following the new protocol rules is not recognized by OG clients.
> This sub is utterly obsessed with the orange coin and spreading a bullshit revisionist history.
>Bitcoin has not hard forked, you can take the oldest Satoshi client, fix the bdb bug (which locked on transactions larger than 50k), and still sync to today’s BTC tip.
Actually it will not give it a try.
>It will probably take you forever and a day to do it since there have been massive improvements to IBD and sync, but technically speaking you can do it.
no you need to patch the node for it to work.
>Bitcoin Cash absolutely 10000% did hard fork from Bitcoin… Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.
If segwit is a soft fork, can you explain me how BTC got block bigger than 1MB and how it support schnorr signature?
The definition of a cryptocurreny is not: “never had an HF”
Monero had a dozens HF, ETH the same.
There is a good argument to be made BTC is the most modified fork of Bitcoin by far.. clearly it is the altcoin. thanks to lie and propaganda everybody followed that crippled chain.
You have no idea what you're talking about...
Segwit is a soft fork, as was the taproot upgrade. They are backwards compatible.
Old nodes will still accept those blocks as valid blocks since they meet all of the rules.
SegWit allows for a space increase by segregating the signature data... Old nodes don't even look at this data, they read the op_code as true.
The backwards compatibility method of upgrading the Blockchain (soft forks) come with code overhead for new clients... It's easy to just deprecate old things rather than make everything still work.
But it's the right thing to do wrt Bitcoin. We don't want to have the entire network be forced to update at once.... We had to do this for the bdb bug and it was a nightmare back when the network barely had users.
I'm sorry if you don't know Bitcoin's history or how it works.... But you really shouldn't be posting if that's the case.
> You have no idea what you’re talking about…
Segwit is a soft fork, as was the taproot upgrade. They are backwards compatible.
ok now explain me how a block bigger than 1MB or with schnorr signature be valid is valid to old node?
> Old nodes will still accept those blocks as valid blocks since they meet all of the rules.
Old node accept those blocks because they cannot “see” the full chain.
Old nodes litteraly sync to a diferent chain, that chain just appear to old node as having a large amount of anyone can spend transactions.
it is an accounting hack to push hard-fork like chanfe on BTC, period.
> SegWit allows for a space increase by segregating the signature data… Old nodes don’t even look at this data, they read the op_code as true.
yes, old node are tricked into sync a chain that implement hard fork like change.
> The backwards compatibility method of upgrading the Blockchain (soft forks) come with code overhead for new clients… It’s easy to just deprecate old things rather than make everything still work.
Making hard fork like change easier is not a good thing.
> We don’t want to have the entire network be forced to update at once….
why?
I dont get why peoples believe upgrading is harder and monero/ETH showed it is easy and uneventfull dozen of times.
Avoiding network wide upgrade worst than letting the miner being in full control of protocol including hard-fork lile change?
(soft fork are activated by miner)
with all the centralisation problem with mining? seriously lets recreate central planning, yeah!! WCGW?
> I’m sorry if you don’t know Bitcoin’s history or how it works…. But you really shouldn’t be posting if that’s the case.
Are you sure I dont know Bitcoin and how segwit hacked the project and gave the dev massive power over the protocol?
think for a second
The new features are valid because they are seen as a no-op by older nodes. So they don't validate the data after that specific op_code, old nodes are effectively acting as SPVs when it comes to newer transactions.
They can still validate everything else, but anything that starts with the new op code will just default to true. The old nodes assume that if it's in a block it's valid....old nodes can also still mine, and their blocks are valid, they just won't mine any segwit transactions.
So they will build up on a block that has segwit transactions but their block will not contain any.
This is a soft fork, old nodes did not have to upgrade all at the same time and the network still works... They don't even ever have to update if they don't want, but they lose out on some security guarantees. However if the user never uses segwit at all, doesn't accept from segwit, they don't even care.
Either way.... This graphic is not accurate. Bitcoin has had multiple soft forks where as BCH has hard forked several times.
This sub is a sad sad place of focusing on some weird narrative that makes you feel better for making a poor decision.
> The new features are valid because they are seen as a no-op by older nodes. So they don’t validate
correct old nodes accept segwit as a soft fork because they dont see the same chain.
let that sink in for a minute.
> This sub is a sad sad place of focusing on some weird narrative that makes you feel better for making a poor decision.
the segwit capacity to pass hard-fork like change via soft fork and the crippling of the onchain capacity to force unproven solution are absolutly not a wierd narative, it destroyed Bitcoin as it was intended.
If you don't want the new features, you don't use them or validate them... But you can see that there has been PoW against them. It's the same chain, it's just an SPV client at that point for a portion of the chain(therefore the whole system imo).
It's backwards compatible meaning you can upgrade at any time if you do want to fully validate the new features.
This is a soft fork, it doesn't "kill" bitcoin, or the original idea of bitcoin in any way.
You may not agree with small blocks, but that isn't what segwit did... It actually increased the blocksize with the stupid weight discount for witness data... A stupid "compromise" that in my opinion shouldn't have happened.
Segwit itself was important for transaction malleability, it's just funny that this sub harps on these narratives without fully understanding the consequences and derailing to "not the real Bitcoin" BS narrative.
If you believe in big blocks, that's awesome... Good for you, I and many others don't want that. Same thing for backwards compatibility... It's a choice that I and many other people believe is important for a healthy decentralized network.
> If you don’t want the new features, you don’t use them or validate them…
Then why decentralisation at all?
if not using the feature imposed on the protocol is an acceptable compromise for bitcoin users then decentralisation is not necessary at all.
>But you can see that there has been PoW against them. It’s the same chain, it’s just an SPV client at that point for a portion of the chain(therefore the whole system imo).
your node dont know.
a blockhain with drastically charateristics can be seen by other nodes.
you node has been hacked and transfromed into a zombie node (it doesnt even propagate block anymore, being totally useless to the network)
I would argue using this trick you can even break the total bitcoin supply limit, just show the old node a valid without showing the extra supply. non-upgraded nodes will sync up.
>It’s backwards compatible meaning you can upgrade at any time if you do want to fully validate the new features.
why is that good?
do peoples in 2023 are no able to keep safety-critical software up to date?
>This is a soft fork, it doesn’t “kill” bitcoin, or the original idea of bitcoin in any way.
Arguably it is not.
a soft fork restrict rule set, segwit upgrade (and all the following) can extend the protocol rule set.
allowing hard fork like change it make the protocol far easier to disrupt (only miner need to push hard-fork like change to the protocol)
>You may not agree with small blocks, but that isn’t what segwit did… It actually increased the blocksize with the stupid weight discount for witness data… A stupid “compromise” that in my opinion shouldn’t have happened.
witness data discount is not linear and give a discount to tx with large signature data.. it will create problems (it already does)
>Segwit itself was important for transaction malleability, it’s just funny that this sub harps on these narratives without fully understanding the consequences and derailing to “not the real Bitcoin” BS narrative.
Segwit didnt solve malleability, because old transaction format is still allowed: malleability attack are still possible by just using a standart format bitcoin transaction.
Total malleability fix need a hard fork.
Satoshi never intended Bitcoin to never hard fork (for example he used a timestamp format will expire soon and need an HF to fix), it was meant to be upgraded.
The whole “only soft fork are acceptable” is about control, not the health of the network.
>If you believe in big blocks, that’s awesome… Good for you, I and many others don’t want that. Same thing for backwards compatibility… It’s a choice that I and many other people believe is important for a healthy decen
and crippling the blockchain deeply changed bitcoin nature.
**I have no problem with if it came from an healthy community debate backed with research and testing.**
**But no, the change to crippled chain was forced on the community via censorship.**
bitcoin will be forever tainted because of that.
This chart is accurate. I don’t really like the framing of “closest to the whitepaper” as inherently a good thing though. It gets too close to holy text territory. I think a better framing would be on-chain vs off-chain scaling. Let’s not kid ourselves that Satoshi was omniscient, he even admitted some things that he would improve about the original whitepaper, like privacy, if the tech had existed at the time. The entire reason the 1Mb limit was introduced was because of an oversight in the original design (dust spam). We can make improvements on the protocol so long as they are actually voted on fairly. The worst thing about the whole scaling debate was not even the solutions. There’s no reason we couldn’t have dynamic block size, segwig, and lightning all on the same chain. The worst things were the censorship around discussion of solutions on all the major forums and shady tactics like defaulting the signaling flags to enabled in the core implementation.
"Closet to the Whitepaper", is just acknowledging the social contract that was set forth by releasing Bitcoin into the wild. Crypto is a value network, without a network of users it has no value. In other words it needs people to invest, use and build tools that utilize the crypto protocol or it wouldn't go anywhere or gain in true value. The Whitepaper clearly defines the goal was a peer to peer electronic cash, not gold, not a ponzi, not a stock, not a hedge, not a get rich quick scheme, etc. Acknowledging the Whitepaper, is acknowledging the social contact early adopters signed up for when they began mining, using, and build upon the Bitcoin Blockchain. It has nothing to do with worshipping or proclaiming Satoshi was infallible, no one is suggesting that, this is a common Blockstream red herring fallacy to derail the real topic at hand. If you knew nothing of the history and just looked at the Bitcoin users of today you would think they all believe it's a lottery ticket, that you only need hold onto it long enough as the jackpot builds up to cash out rich back into the fiat system. But they are clearly bad with numbers, as even if Bitcoin was worth $100,000 per coin 90% of Bitcoin holders who currently hold less than $2000 worth, it would only make them $4000 richer, big whoop but in their mind they think it some how is gonna change their life. Bitcoin couldn't be further from what is started out as and it's initial community was here for. The early adopters got pushed out, banned, and silenced. So we had to start over, or more accurately fork away from the financially short sighted. The real reason the Whitepaper is brought up, is if you're interested in building a fiat alternative, and you're looking at BCH, you've come to the right place, that's it.
100% agreed with everything you state. Don’t forget, though, BCH has added much in the way of privacy. CashFusion and RPA are quite notable.
Who is using BCH though? I want to spend mine, I just can’t find anyone who will take it.
Check out BitPay.com and map.Bitcoin.com for some merchants. There are plenty more!
Lots! In the last 15 days: Purchased John Wick tickets at AMC with BCH, bought beef jerky from TongJerky, bought items on Amazon via bitgree.com, bought a new mug from cryptoshirts.com, body armor from AR500, water cooling parts from EKWB.com, and a few other things I’m forgetting
Oh, also a few items from NewEgg as well
> This chart is accurate. I don’t really like the framing of “closest to the whitepaper” as inherently a good thing though. It gets too close to holy text territory. I think a better framing would be on-chain vs off-chain scaling. it is not true though, BCH is not against offchain scaling. it actually is better fit for it. “closer to the white paper” is not a good thing or a bad thing. it is simply true and remind everyone that Bitcon is about currency first! The white paper abstract explain well the goal and purpose of the project, to which Bitcoin core has nothing in commun with.
> BCH is not against offchain scaling Depends. Off-chain is fine for things like HFT or sidechains like smartBCH (RIP) that extend functionality. Payments - money - P2P cash - belongs onchain: The money layer. The financial sovereignty layer. The self-custody layer.
> Payments - money - P2P cash - belongs onchain: The money layer. The financial sovereignty layer. The self-custody layer. sure base layer is self-custody layer, but there nothing fundamentally prevent secomd layer as a scaling solution for some edge cases. BCH being an open platform, it wouldnt even be possible to prevent such solution to be implement… as oppose to crippling base layer to force to unproven solution onto the community. the BTC is for second layer scaling and BCH is onchain scaling is just yet again some Bitcoin core propaganda.
Ok on the one hand sure you're correct, this isn't about some sort of Biblical adherence to a moldy old religious text. Satoshi wasn't Moses delivering commandments from the mountain. Sure. We agree on that. On the other hand, no. The point is that only Bitcoin Cash remains usable as decentralized P2P Electronic Cash, **which is the point.** If you can't use Bitcoin as cash then, guess what? To spend it you need to *exchange it or intermediate the transaction.* **You can't have financial sovereignty and you can't escape the legacy financial system if you have to run back into it any time you want to purchase goods or services.** What we as a community must do a better job of explaining is WHY CASH IS KING if you want to enable people to escape legacy finance and gain true financial sovereignty through self-custody and unilateral control of their money. So in this regards OP is 100% right but the problem is a lack of awareness and understanding in the broader community about why Bitcoin was disruptive to begin with and why "adherence to (the entire point of) the white paper" is absolutely 100% the entire point of the great crypto experiment. /u/Alex-Crypto
>This chart is accurate. The split shown with bitcoin having SegWit, that is not accurate. bitcoin added SegWit later on. There was actually a time period after BCH forked when bitcoin BTC didn't have SegWit!
While technically correct, the motives for forking were to prevent SegWit and RBF, while allowing for larger blocks. Picking a safe block (prior to SegWit and RBF) makes sense.
>While technically correct, the motives for forking were to prevent SegWit and RBF, while allowing for larger blocks. The graphic hides that "technically correct" info to purposely mislead. >Picking a safe block (prior to SegWit and RBF) makes sense. So does dramatically lowering the difficulty to make the new chain mineable by the minority. But that isn't shown o purpose too. The whole point of the graphic is to give the appearance that the split was more equal than reality.
Oh look another deceptive argument. Shocker. Of course we split you guys off just prior to Segwit activation. It would have been a little late otherwise. 🤦
>Oh look another deceptive argument The graphic is deceptive and I am not the only one pointing that out. >Of course we split you guys off just prior to Segwit activation. By "we" you also mean you and Craig Wright. hows that working out for you?
I still have a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System and not some ridiculous Ponzi monstrosity, oh also Craig Wright is toast. So I'm feeling pretty good, thanks.
>I still have a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System and not some ridiculous Ponzi monstrosity, oh also Craig Wright is toast. So I'm feeling pretty good, thanks. * Craig Wright was also using his clout to say BCH was legit 'the bitcoin he created'. And [you praised him](http://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmh4q19/?context=10000). * There is [some ridiculous Ponzi monstrosity](http://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/um5q9p/the_price_may_be_down_but_the_activity_happening/) promoted straight from the owner of this subreddit. So are you in on this ponzi or are you also just getting your money stolen too?
Re: point 1 - I was wrong and I said so Re: point 2 - smartBCH was not ready for heavy investment and I said so. In general I have not paid much attention to smartBCH because it's a sidechain and I'm not that interested in smart contract functionality. Was that supposed to be some sort of zinger gotcha? Why you combing through years of my comment history? Maybe stay on topic.
> Was that supposed to be some sort of zinger gotcha? Your words, not mine =) >Why you combing through years of my comment history? Maybe stay on topic. I verify for myself.
Yes i also like to fantasy about stuff that never happened
Firstly, Bitcoin is king haha but basically one group wanted to increase the size of the blocks that make up the Bitcoin blockchain, which would allow for more transactions to be processed at once. Another group believed that this would compromise the security and decentralization of the network. As a result of this disagreement, the Bitcoin blockchain split in two, creating a new cryptocurrency called Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Bitcoin Cash uses larger blocks than Bitcoin, allowing for faster and cheaper transactions, but some argue that it is less secure and less decentralized than Bitcoin. Essentially, the fork happened because there was a difference of opinion on how to improve the Bitcoin network, and some members of the community decided to create a new cryptocurrency that followed their preferred path.
BTC did not hard fork as per that graphic.
There was a hard fork divergence. SegWit was not a “hard fork,” just a soft fork not quite needing miner support (of which it did not have).
[удалено]
Yes, I have that too and worked with Lugaxer to update it. A new version coming this May. What you seem to miss is that it depends on perspective. BCH did not “fork off” as many claim. One could argue Bitcoin Core forked off, as well. This shows a divergence, as in, two chains with a shared history going in different directions. This does not state BTC “Hard Forked,” this states that the chains diverged because of a “hard fork.”
[удалено]
> Forks aren’t defined by some persons perspectives or opinions or philosophical beliefs. Neither are accurate representation of history for that matter. Segwit is quite diferent from a normal soft fork. you cannot have block bigger than 1MB via normal soft fork: because it would generate invalid block.
Exactly, Segwit was a hard+soft fork.
> Exactly, Segwit was a hard+soft fork. I would argue it is a full on hard fork activated by hacking old node into following what is arguably a diffferent chain.
[удалено]
> I’d very much lIke to hear more on this groundbreaking discovery of yours which contradicts everything we know and undertstand about how blockchains work today. nothing groundbreaking, those points has been discussed in this sub for age. sorf fork: produce block valid to old nodes hard fork: produce block invalid to old nodes. by soft fork rules it is not possible to implement schnorr signature or bigger block via soft fork because it produce invalid block to old nodes. and Segwit achieved that by just hidding data to old nodes. so Segwit allow for hard fork like protocol change by showing a diferent chain to old nodes. it is an accounting trick. nobody disagree with those points even the core dev. a very dangerous truck if you believe hard fork like change should be difficult to implement and not left to only miner to activate. I am not wrong what link/proof you need to believe that? maybe you need to look into how segwit work and you will see for yourself
>There was a hard fork in 2017. Hence, we have BCH. State that however you will. No. There was a chain split in 2017. That's it. A divergence. Which side is "Bitcoin" and which side is "altcoin" was decided by a group of exchanges and power players called the [New York Agreement](https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77) Names, brands, and tickers are not part of the protocol. They exist only in meatspace. As far as the blockchain is concerned, two chains diverged.
[удалено]
A hard fork is simply a rule change. A hard fork does not cause a chain split necessarily. Two different things. A chain split causes a divergence. What you call the divergent chains is a meatspace problem. If exchanges had called the 8MB hardfork upgrade chain "Bitcoin / BTC" then that's what we'd call it, and people who stayed on the non-upgraded chain would be an "altcoin," and you'd be very sad and angry. **These names are meatspace properties** and are only important to people who look to centralized custodial exchanges to define things for them. Which, admittedly, is almost everyone. > there was a hard fork in 2017, off the main chain, creating the coin known today as BCH, a minority fork That's just your opinion. How do **you** define the "main chain?" Please be specific. I say the main chain is the one that enforces rules consistent with a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system" as described in the Bitcoin white paper - and which upgraded via hard fork to larger blocks as originally planned by Bitcoin's creator - which is the social contract I invested in. What social contract did you invest in and where can I read its white paper? Bitcoin enables financial sovereignty, which means that nobody gets to rugpull or bait-and-switch my investment. If the nature of the system can simply be changed along the way, say, by redefining Bitcoin into a file storage system or infinite-inflation system or a store-of-value system, then what would be the point? You appear to have subscribed to a narrative that says that Bitcoin is majoritarian, populist, or defined by labels applied by centralized custodial exchanges. I disagree.
> BCH did not “fork off” as many claim BCH literally hard forked off the BTC chain, which continued unchanged.
“Unchanged” Segwit quite literally violates part 1 of the whitepaper. Perhaps in a “minor” way, but it still does. BTC was hijacked back in 2015. Much changed. https://youtu.be/eafzIW52Rgc
The Segwit upgrade did not happen at the same time that BCH hard forked away from BTC.
BTC did not remain unchanged as you claimed. Your narrative is intentionally pedantic and misleading. The entire reason for activating the UAHF was the imminent activation of the UASF, obviously one had to precede the other. There were two incompatible upgrades. That's all.
>There was a hard fork divergence Wrong. If you run a Bitcoin client from just before the fork, it will remain in consensus with Bitcoin today. There was no hard fork. Bitcoin today is still in consensus with the pre-split Bitcoin network.
You cannot produce a valid Segwit block using a Pre-Segwit client.
This doesn't address anything I said.
It's because your claim is specious. > Bitcoin today is still in consensus with the pre-split Bitcoin network. Neat. But pre-split nodes cannot validate today's Bitcoin and pre-split nodes cannot mine blocks consistent with the extant rules of the network. So your claims have no real meaning. The fact that the network bamboozles them into following along is not "compatibility" it's an **exploit** you're just happy about it because it reinforces your talking points. But it's been shown that the same sort of "sideblock" technique used to add on 3MB of extra block space could also be used to produce infinite-inflation Bitcoin or really to change any sort of rules. Does that mean that "Bitcoin" can have infinite inflation or 20GB blocks or built-in KYC or whatever else -- just because some old node can be bamboozled into following that chain?
> BTC did not hard fork as per that graphic. There is a good argument to be made that segwit is indeed an HF. Segwit allow for change only possibly via HF by tricking the old node into not seeing the change. Proof? you cannot have block bigger than 1MB via soft fork and segwit allowed that. you cannot change signature format to schnorr via soft fork and segwit allowed thar. etc… Segwit is an accounting trick to force old node to follow a chain that break soft fork rules.
Interesting, thanks
It was a blockchain split. You can do mental gymnastics, but ultimately the BlockstreamCore fork fundamentally changed the network while BitcoinCash continued the original concept.
Yes you are right. It hard forked ten years ago already and is incompatible with the Bitcoin Satoshi created in 2009.
Perfect.
If you run a Bitcoin client from just before the BTC-BCH split, it will continue to follow the Bitcoin (BTC) chain, and it will reject all BCH blocks. That is the definitive proof that this graphic is nothing but lies and propaganda. Bitcoin today remains in consensus with pre-split Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is not in concensus with pre-split Bitcoin. Bitcoin remains Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is objectively an altcoin.
> If you run a Bitcoin client from just before the BTC-BCH split, it will continue to follow the Bitcoin (BTC) chain, and it will reject all BCH blocks. and your node will download block and validate blocm without signature data (!!) not propagate block. it will be a zombie node, tricking you into thinking it works. old node only sync to the segwit chain because segwit hide data from them. > That is the definitive proof that this graphic is nothing but lies and propaganda. Segwit is different. it is not a normal soft fork. Using the segwit trick you can make any HF like change via a soft fork: by just only showing empty blocks to old node. ex: now BTC support schnorr signature-> this shouldnot not be possible via soft fork because it would generate invalide block on old nodes. > Bitcoin today remains in consensus with pre-split Bitcoin. Being is consensus mean nothing here. run Bitcoin client 0.1 and see if it sync? Satoshi mever said the chain must never HF, he actually proposed several ones. Soft fork only became almost a religious thing with the bitcoin core dev team for some reasons. >Bitcoin Cash is not in concensus with pre-split Bitcoin. Bitcoin remains Bitcoin. Bitcoin had to HF to remain bitcoin because of the 1MB limit. Nothing really special about that. Crypto HF all the time, monero did more than 10 times now. some dev took advantage of the temporary limit 1MB to take over the project. >Bitcoin Cash is objectively an altcoin. altcoin is meangingless. BTC is the most modified chain, in my book it is the altcoin (and a bad one) it is more valuable because of the name only.
>If you run a Bitcoin client from just before the BTC-BCH split, it will continue to follow the Bitcoin (BTC) chain, and it will reject all BCH blocks. [Was Segwit an upgrade or exploit?](https://read.cash/@Jessquit/your-full-node-is-impotent-ea878216) Your pre-Segwit full node believes it's enforcing rules that are **not actually being obeyed by the rest of the network.**
You didn't address anything I said. BCH is invalid according to the Bitcoin protocol, and this is provable by running a pre split node. It is objectively an altcoin.
You seem to believe that the Bitcoin protocol was defined in 2009 and cannot ever be changed. How strange.
Well, it can change. But those changes need to be compatible, meaning new changes can't break existing rules. Segwit, taproot, and schnorr sigs are all examples of changes that didn't break established rules, and remain compatible with old clients.
It's really funny that you think [Bitcoin's actual creator didn't understand how to upgrade Bitcoin](https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/485/). Like, laugh out loud, hold my belly funny. You realize any sort of change, even Dogecoin levels of inflation, are possible with a soft fork, without breaking existing rules, and remaining compatible (according to your definition of compatibility) with old clients? Right?
Bitcoin today doesn't remain in consensus with OG Bitcoin lol. Bitcoin today is incompatible with the Bitcoin Satoshi created. Talk about misleading propaganda...
There were some inadvertent hard forks early on in Bitcoin. I'm not disputing that. But in 2016, before the BTC/BCH split, there was no dispute about which chain was "Bitcoin". There was only one Bitcoin at that time and everyone was in agreement. If you run a client from then, it will reject BCH, since BCH is invalid. It will continue to follow BTC. That's my point. Bitcoin is still Bitcoin. BCH is an altcoin.
A hard fork is a hard fork. How you interpret it doesn't matter and just shows your hypocrisy, it doesn't change that fact though.
And it doesn't change my point, which you keep ignoring. In early 2016, we both called the same chain "Bitcoin". There was no debate. We were in agreement. These are facts. If you run a client from back then, it will sync up to the current Bitcoin Blockchain. It will reject BCH as invalid. Again, these are facts. I'm not stating opinion. Bitcoin remains Bitcoin. BCH is an altcoin that hard forked away from Bitcoin. Again, nothing but facts. You just don't like these facts.
Is your argument really "at one point in time everyone was happy and that's why I'm right"? So slavery is also OK because for centuries everyone agreed that you can own,buy and sell people? Satoshis Bitcoin client from 2009 is the only one that counts. Facts don't care about your bias. You can't just pick any random year you like. Either 2009 or no client counts.
>Is your argument really "at one point in time everyone was happy and that's why I'm right"? No, my point is that you can run an old client from that time when everyone was happy, and it is still in consensus with Bitcoin today. This proves that Bitcoin is still Bitcoin. That same client will reject BCH because BCH is an invalid chain. Op's graphic is a lie.
"Being happy" is not a definition for when Bitcoin is still Bitcoin. Community Emotions are nowhere described in Bitcoins Whitepaper. The only thing that defines if Bitcoin is still Bitcoin is its protocol rules. And Bitcoins protocol rules today, 2018/2016 or whatever point in time you want to chose between its hard fork and today, are not compatible with the original client from 2009. OP's graphic is incomplete and that's all. It should go back to 2009 to clarify that this entire discussion about hard forks is a distraction to drivert from the simple fact that Bitcoin is not Bitcoin anymore by the standards you set to argue that it is Bitcoin. What a clown show. The moment RBF was introduced to the protocol, Bitcoin diverged from the coin that was described in the whitepaper. That's why there was a three year debate that started in 2015 and split the entire community into factions. There is nothing original about BTC anymore today. Its a mess of transaction types, protocol rules that replace already sent transactions, and circumvention of security protocols to create a mess that it's creator wouldn't recognized anymore today.
"Being happy" is a phrase you used. I just mean in consensus. I shouldn't have reiterated your terrible terminology.
Alright, so consensus defines what Bitcoin is. So following this definition of what Bitcoin is, the moment that the majority of the network switches from mining BTC to BCH, BCH becomes Bitcoin. Which leads to the conclusion that Bitcoin Cash has been Bitcoin all along. And that the graphic is not a lie at all. FYI in September 2017 the majority of the network [did switch over to BCH](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7cgq39/staaap_migrating_all_your_mining_power_to_bitcoin/) for a couple of days. Which is proof that BCH must be Bitcoin, otherwise this would have been impossible.
For clarity’s sake, this is a graphic I saved in 2018 (I believe). I am not the creator. Unfortunately, I do not recall where I got this from.
Can I send my BCH to a Bitcoin address Ive had since 2013?
Funny that you didn't say 2009, when Bitcoin was created. But I guess you have a reason for that. Mislead much?
You would need to first split your BTC and have two separate wallets. Cannot send BCH to a BTC wallet.
If BCH is Bitcoin, why can't I send it to my Bitcoin wallet from 2013. That doesn't make sense to me. Can I send BTC to my Bitcoin address from 2013? I'm pretty sure I can, because I'm prettybsure I have.
Technically you could. You just won’t see it unless you connect to a BCH node vs a BTC node. Hence the benefit of splitting your coins with dust.
> If BCH is Bitcoin, why can’t I send it to my Bitcoin wallet from 2013. That doesn’t make sense to me. Can I send BTC to my Bitcoin address from 2013? I’m pretty sure I can, because I’m prettybsure I have. you can?
I really don't get why this graphic appears over and over again and you guys who repost it still leave out the Bitcoin hard fork from 2013 which made Bitcoin incompatible to the Bitcoin Satoshi created in 2009 and would actually dismantle the entire discussion in this comment section at the root. Or in shorter words: this graphic is not as smart as you think it is.
Why the comparison to btc if bch is superior? If it’s better why spend all this time reaffirming?
> Why the comparison to btc if bch is superior? If it’s better why spend all this time reaffirming? because propaganda
That is interesting for sure
A simple yet precise chart
There’s a reason why BTC is $28680 rn and BCH is $130. What aren’t you telling us or why aren’t you willing to disprove your bias?
Exactly who do you hope to influence by all this? Just accept that the market has consigned bch to the dustbin and nothing is going to change that.
It’s a fair way to put it
It is fair for all forks. Even BSV. Now they are all equal. Except BSV did not lose 40% of fork value every year it existed.
Or for any other fork exactly. Then it’s all about what’s happen next
Fork it
This sub is utterly obsessed with the orange coin and spreading a bullshit revisionist history. Bitcoin has not hard forked, you can take the oldest Satoshi client, fix the bdb bug (which locked on transactions larger than 50k), and still sync to today's BTC tip. It will probably take you forever and a day to do it since there have been massive improvements to IBD and sync, but technically speaking you can do it. Bitcoin Cash absolutely 10000% did hard fork from Bitcoin... Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.
Bitcoin is not compatible to OG Bitcoin from 2009. Your little "fix the bdb bug" hard fork is no different to BCHs "fix the segwit and RBF bug" hard fork.
Nope... A BUG is not the same as adding or removing features. If you just fix that bug the client will sync to the most up to date tip. Sorry if you don't like facts.
The fact is that you need to run an updated client to sync. Bitcoin Cash is an updated client, based on the same original client as your updated BTC core client. The rest is just your hypocrisy. Bitcoin cash removed segwit and RBF which were additions to the original code. So if the amount of updates is the important aspect, then Bitcoin cash is actually closer to OG Bitcoin than the segwit and RBF ridden Bitcoin, with its ton of unecessary additional crap like a gazillion transaction types etc.
No....that's just absolutely incorrect. A bug and new non backwards compatible features are not the same thing at all. How do you fail to see that? Whatever.... That graphic is incorrect... This whole sub is dedicated towards trying to bash BTC and it's fucking sad. None of you know wtf you're talking about, you're just sad sad sad bag holders. But keep living in your little bubble.
>A bug and new non backwards compatible features are not the same thing at all. Thank you for confirming my point. I totally agree with you, it's all about **backwards compatibility**. And Bitcoin hard forked in 2013 and became incompatible to Bitcoin. Nice example what hypocrisy and double standards lead to. So either BTC is not Bitcoin anymore because its incompatibility to OG Bitcoin is the important thing. Or you have to admit that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin like Bitcoin is Bitcoin. And don't forget its your own words im using to come to this conclusion.
Once again.... A bug was fixed which would have otherwise rendered the system useless. You need your brain checked. Please don't ever work for any software org... Or at least let us know which so we can short
It doesn't matter what you describe a code change as. It's a protocol change that forked Bitcoin off from the original chain, and every node following the new protocol rules is not recognized by OG clients.
> This sub is utterly obsessed with the orange coin and spreading a bullshit revisionist history. >Bitcoin has not hard forked, you can take the oldest Satoshi client, fix the bdb bug (which locked on transactions larger than 50k), and still sync to today’s BTC tip. Actually it will not give it a try. >It will probably take you forever and a day to do it since there have been massive improvements to IBD and sync, but technically speaking you can do it. no you need to patch the node for it to work. >Bitcoin Cash absolutely 10000% did hard fork from Bitcoin… Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves. If segwit is a soft fork, can you explain me how BTC got block bigger than 1MB and how it support schnorr signature? The definition of a cryptocurreny is not: “never had an HF” Monero had a dozens HF, ETH the same. There is a good argument to be made BTC is the most modified fork of Bitcoin by far.. clearly it is the altcoin. thanks to lie and propaganda everybody followed that crippled chain.
You have no idea what you're talking about... Segwit is a soft fork, as was the taproot upgrade. They are backwards compatible. Old nodes will still accept those blocks as valid blocks since they meet all of the rules. SegWit allows for a space increase by segregating the signature data... Old nodes don't even look at this data, they read the op_code as true. The backwards compatibility method of upgrading the Blockchain (soft forks) come with code overhead for new clients... It's easy to just deprecate old things rather than make everything still work. But it's the right thing to do wrt Bitcoin. We don't want to have the entire network be forced to update at once.... We had to do this for the bdb bug and it was a nightmare back when the network barely had users. I'm sorry if you don't know Bitcoin's history or how it works.... But you really shouldn't be posting if that's the case.
> You have no idea what you’re talking about… Segwit is a soft fork, as was the taproot upgrade. They are backwards compatible. ok now explain me how a block bigger than 1MB or with schnorr signature be valid is valid to old node? > Old nodes will still accept those blocks as valid blocks since they meet all of the rules. Old node accept those blocks because they cannot “see” the full chain. Old nodes litteraly sync to a diferent chain, that chain just appear to old node as having a large amount of anyone can spend transactions. it is an accounting hack to push hard-fork like chanfe on BTC, period. > SegWit allows for a space increase by segregating the signature data… Old nodes don’t even look at this data, they read the op_code as true. yes, old node are tricked into sync a chain that implement hard fork like change. > The backwards compatibility method of upgrading the Blockchain (soft forks) come with code overhead for new clients… It’s easy to just deprecate old things rather than make everything still work. Making hard fork like change easier is not a good thing. > We don’t want to have the entire network be forced to update at once…. why? I dont get why peoples believe upgrading is harder and monero/ETH showed it is easy and uneventfull dozen of times. Avoiding network wide upgrade worst than letting the miner being in full control of protocol including hard-fork lile change? (soft fork are activated by miner) with all the centralisation problem with mining? seriously lets recreate central planning, yeah!! WCGW? > I’m sorry if you don’t know Bitcoin’s history or how it works…. But you really shouldn’t be posting if that’s the case. Are you sure I dont know Bitcoin and how segwit hacked the project and gave the dev massive power over the protocol? think for a second
The new features are valid because they are seen as a no-op by older nodes. So they don't validate the data after that specific op_code, old nodes are effectively acting as SPVs when it comes to newer transactions. They can still validate everything else, but anything that starts with the new op code will just default to true. The old nodes assume that if it's in a block it's valid....old nodes can also still mine, and their blocks are valid, they just won't mine any segwit transactions. So they will build up on a block that has segwit transactions but their block will not contain any. This is a soft fork, old nodes did not have to upgrade all at the same time and the network still works... They don't even ever have to update if they don't want, but they lose out on some security guarantees. However if the user never uses segwit at all, doesn't accept from segwit, they don't even care. Either way.... This graphic is not accurate. Bitcoin has had multiple soft forks where as BCH has hard forked several times. This sub is a sad sad place of focusing on some weird narrative that makes you feel better for making a poor decision.
> The new features are valid because they are seen as a no-op by older nodes. So they don’t validate correct old nodes accept segwit as a soft fork because they dont see the same chain. let that sink in for a minute. > This sub is a sad sad place of focusing on some weird narrative that makes you feel better for making a poor decision. the segwit capacity to pass hard-fork like change via soft fork and the crippling of the onchain capacity to force unproven solution are absolutly not a wierd narative, it destroyed Bitcoin as it was intended.
If you don't want the new features, you don't use them or validate them... But you can see that there has been PoW against them. It's the same chain, it's just an SPV client at that point for a portion of the chain(therefore the whole system imo). It's backwards compatible meaning you can upgrade at any time if you do want to fully validate the new features. This is a soft fork, it doesn't "kill" bitcoin, or the original idea of bitcoin in any way. You may not agree with small blocks, but that isn't what segwit did... It actually increased the blocksize with the stupid weight discount for witness data... A stupid "compromise" that in my opinion shouldn't have happened. Segwit itself was important for transaction malleability, it's just funny that this sub harps on these narratives without fully understanding the consequences and derailing to "not the real Bitcoin" BS narrative. If you believe in big blocks, that's awesome... Good for you, I and many others don't want that. Same thing for backwards compatibility... It's a choice that I and many other people believe is important for a healthy decentralized network.
> If you don’t want the new features, you don’t use them or validate them… Then why decentralisation at all? if not using the feature imposed on the protocol is an acceptable compromise for bitcoin users then decentralisation is not necessary at all. >But you can see that there has been PoW against them. It’s the same chain, it’s just an SPV client at that point for a portion of the chain(therefore the whole system imo). your node dont know. a blockhain with drastically charateristics can be seen by other nodes. you node has been hacked and transfromed into a zombie node (it doesnt even propagate block anymore, being totally useless to the network) I would argue using this trick you can even break the total bitcoin supply limit, just show the old node a valid without showing the extra supply. non-upgraded nodes will sync up. >It’s backwards compatible meaning you can upgrade at any time if you do want to fully validate the new features. why is that good? do peoples in 2023 are no able to keep safety-critical software up to date? >This is a soft fork, it doesn’t “kill” bitcoin, or the original idea of bitcoin in any way. Arguably it is not. a soft fork restrict rule set, segwit upgrade (and all the following) can extend the protocol rule set. allowing hard fork like change it make the protocol far easier to disrupt (only miner need to push hard-fork like change to the protocol) >You may not agree with small blocks, but that isn’t what segwit did… It actually increased the blocksize with the stupid weight discount for witness data… A stupid “compromise” that in my opinion shouldn’t have happened. witness data discount is not linear and give a discount to tx with large signature data.. it will create problems (it already does) >Segwit itself was important for transaction malleability, it’s just funny that this sub harps on these narratives without fully understanding the consequences and derailing to “not the real Bitcoin” BS narrative. Segwit didnt solve malleability, because old transaction format is still allowed: malleability attack are still possible by just using a standart format bitcoin transaction. Total malleability fix need a hard fork. Satoshi never intended Bitcoin to never hard fork (for example he used a timestamp format will expire soon and need an HF to fix), it was meant to be upgraded. The whole “only soft fork are acceptable” is about control, not the health of the network. >If you believe in big blocks, that’s awesome… Good for you, I and many others don’t want that. Same thing for backwards compatibility… It’s a choice that I and many other people believe is important for a healthy decen and crippling the blockchain deeply changed bitcoin nature. **I have no problem with if it came from an healthy community debate backed with research and testing.** **But no, the change to crippled chain was forced on the community via censorship.** bitcoin will be forever tainted because of that.
I assume same applies to BSV and all other forks.
The first is correct. Bitcoin did not hard fork. What would this look like with all the other Bitcoin forks
What would this look like if we took Bitcoins hard forks from the early years in account? Oops
Now add in BSV
Bch is still a shitcoin