Everything from that site has an insane amount of bias towards their bcash garbage. If they felt their shitty fork version is the real Bitcoin, why is no one using it then? Because no one other than their own shills believe that.

They can't accept that their bcash garbage is an altcoin, where on top of that, it doesn't offer anything new or meaningful. In other words, bcash isn't any different than the other +1000 similar shitcoins.

If bcash didn't had Bitcoin in its name, and those behind it didn't had deep pockets to sustain its price, it would be a sub 0.01BTC coin by now, just like how BTG is slowly being dumped down to the bottom.

Exactly!
I am going to add the domain to my blacklist used for parental control, Bitcoin.com is harmful.

There are a lot of shitcoins but a lot of them are better than Btrash. Just for the record Dogecoin, the "joke coin" has more transaction than Btrash. As an excuse they like to say, well it's only 5-6 months old. I told them well, you are the one bragging it's the bigger coin, so what...

They rarely have a valid argument. I mean, ok, the debate is open, but stop to tell me useless points give me some substance. I don't want to hear you telling me, Bitcoin core uses Bots, while you are the one using it. Don't tell me Bitcoin core is using the sockpuppets, while Btrash openly admits using it.
I even remember the case when Jamie Lee ( a Bitcoin.com writer I think) used his wrong account to tweet. He tried to delete it after but too late, someone archived it. And they spend the whole days on Twitter to do it

And while I am at it, me I don't know the name "Bitcoin core", I don't know who invented it, I only know Bitcoin. And Bitcoin is Bitcoin, no matter if people think it's a good or bad coin. We are not going to decide the name depending on the percentage of people liking it or not..
A lot of people like to say Bitcoin is bad but a lot of them copy (or try to copy) it. So I suppose it isn't as bad as they say...

And one of their problems is this: they can't admit they failed and can't admit Btrash is just an altcoin. They will try everything to keep faith in.
Look at @Bitcoin on Twitter, so desperate than he posts manipulated screenshots from Blockstream website with the hope to confuse people.
Use bots to comment his tweets (posting generic posts, like "great project sir"  sometimes I feel I am  on Bitcointalk)

Btrash should rather learn from other coins how to properly market their (useless) product. Because right now, they are going nowhere

@franky1
Where have you been all this time?

Well, regarding your post, what about the evolution, isn't Bitcoin allowed to evolve? The Darwin theory can only be applied to what the person likes?
No. You don't call yourself a homo sapiens.

We can notice and have a need to change some things here and there, GNU/Linux (to compare) would not be what it is today without
the literally thousands of upgrade-forks
But one thing for sure, you don't see Lubuntu claiming to be the original Debian.

Again, Bitcoin is Bitcoin, no matter who is the dev. no matter who likes it or not. If people don't like Blockstream, then can say I don't like Bitcoin because of Blockstream. But can't say Btrash is the real Bitcoin because I don't like Blockstream

By that logic the original Bitcoin ceased to exist as soon as the first people other than Satoshi started contributing.



Bickering about which implementation is closer to the "original" vision is pointless.

Bitcoin is what the community decides it is. At one point in the future it may be a different fork by a different development team. Currently the majority of the community has decided that Bitcoin as implemented by the Bitcoin Core development team is the canonical protocol version.



I personally chose BTC over BCH as the canonical Bitcoin blockchain due to assessing its scaling approach as the more viable one. This has little to do with the development team behind it, although Bitcoin ABC's incompetence in some parts of the development process didn't bode well either -- at least in my book. Other members of the community may have different motivations, of course.

Please expand on what you mean by distributed vs decentralized in terms of software development.



Bitcoin is just a name. If an alt is viable, it will thrive long term, regardless of whether it's a Bitcoin hardfork, softfork or a different coin altogether.



Bitcoin's evolution worked out just as intended. The market decided. No need for trust, faith or control. Just permissionless currencies, competing on the free market. Nothing more, nothing less.


Regardless of where you stand in the blocksize debate and how Bitcoin should govern itself -- Many of the statements made in Bitcoin.com's Bitcoin Academy are simply factually incorrect. And that's what this thread is about.

i stand on neither side of any camp. which was the funny part of many years.. those standing on cores side kept trying to pigeon hole me into "the other camp" .. to me. there should be no camps.. if anything needs to be decided consensus will decide..
but consensus was not used.

as for your first statement.
"By that logic the original Bitcoin ceased to exist as soon as the first people other than Satoshi started contributing."

no. because they were contributing.
funny part is the github now moderated by a single team is not the same codebase as satoshi's sourgeforge codebase. yep satoshi never used github.. but even though satoshi used sourceforge and others used github they all agreed and found compromises to work on the SAME RULES and evolve equally at the same time on the same network.

no altcoin was created because of indicision between the contributors back in satoshi's day. even when there were many codebase sources on many different platforms and many different languages.

but now that many deem only bitcoin core is the 'trusted' source of network protocol rule selection... thats all changed
as soon as the band camp aruments of 'if its not core its not bitcoin' started.. thats when decentralisation died

I just got an idea

Creating a coin and call it Bitcoin core $BCC, just to disturb btrash, I wonder how will they call Bitcoin then

theres already a group of core devotees wanting to call LN.... wait for it....  bitcoin 'cache' to disrupt bitcoin cash
afterall opening a channel is like putting funds into a vault(cache)..

i think it was kimdotcom that first 'coined'(pun) the phrase because he wanted to use LN for his megaupload, and the core fanboys took it a stage further

You cannot blame them since it is a marketing strategy made by them so that they can gain more holders and supporters. Their effort of replacing bitcoin did not bear fruit and that is why they will make plans and programs so that they can market their coin. If they will not do it then there will be no movement on their coin and it will mean no profit.

you mean obviously couldnt have "gigabyte blocks" and "segwit".. but then there was never actually a proposal for "gigabyte blocks" that was project fear designed by core..
however the network could handle segwitx2, which was a compromise that the community could agree on and did agree on in 2015, before alot of core members backtracked out of due to the roadmap.

thus the AVOIDANCE of using consensus and instead the employment of BLOQ to make an altcoin to throw all the x2 offtrack.

i think you need to look up what the consensus mechanism for bitcoins evolution actually is.. because it certainly is not altcoin creation.

consensus is if you can imagine a country.. about finding an agreement to change rules the community can agree on.(democracy) . yet what actual events happaned was more like deportation of those opposing a monarchy, and if you do your research it was not the opposition that decided to split. it was the monachys cousin(bloq) that arranged the deportation.

even the king of the monarchy realised that his opposition would refuse voluntary deportation

hense needing to use BLOQ to implement the deportation and avoid a democratic agreement, thus a monarchy wins by default by suddenly going from 30% at the poles to 95%


i dont need your signature to send you funds onchain. onchain is a PUSH method.. or more like a throw money at you method
LN is not a PUSH. its a handshake method.
time it seems that many need to do their research and realise just how much bitcoin has changed and will change that has gone against the ethos of bitcoin.
but hey i bet many wont because all they care about is FIAT profits.

so lets word it this way. if bitcoin loses tomuch of its original purpose(take scarcity: the idea of adding millisats which then expands sharable units to then make sharing units of bitcoin less scarce)
no one will want it, because it becomes no better than fiat, no more scarce than fiat

anyway. it seems many people still think core should remain king. and thus decentralisation is dead, but long live distribution

though i think you should really do some research on the matter, you can have small blocks and big blocks
for instance. segwit has (though they hid it with their new "serialised" and "weight" buzzwords) do have both small and big blocks
for legacy transactions. they are limited to 1mb of blockspace. but segwit transactions have upto 4mb of blockspace..

but the funny part was about the politics. that no 'other team' ever proposed "gigabyte blocks" which was the fear campaign of core members.
the compromise was where legacy AND segwit could sit side by side with 2-4mb blocks.. something that the network could handle (even core admitted 8mb was deemed safe and prudent)

again the 2015-2016 proposals were in a evolutionary and feasibale and able to function amounts. not out of the realm of anything that would break the network.
.. im guessing project fear worked too well as it seems even now people still have not looked beyond the curtain vail to see the light of day


first of all, LN wont solve spam. those spammers who are predominently mixers will continue to spam onchain. for multiple reasons. plus LN's niche utility is not going to be a solution for everyone. LN does have limitations and is not the utopia its presented as. its really worth doing some research

secondly segwit, as proposed as a softfork (the community consensus evolution without splitting the community.. failed with only 30%-35% of the vote. segwit did not get activated via a soft fork. it was BLOQ who were employed to create a hard fork(deportation of opposition) along with core that got segwit its 95% of the vote by casting out 60%


altcoin creation is not consensus.
"agreement, harmony"

altcoin creation is a political strategy. but is not the consensus mechanism of bitcoin.
the consensus mechanism of bitcoin relates to code, and orphans.. altcoin creation is about IP/node banning and human argument

Hence LN not being more permissioned in a meaningful way.
LN channels requiring an opening handshake doesn't make them any less censorship-resistant or trustless than on-chain transactions.
[/quote]
its not just opening a channel.. every  payment in LN is a handshake. its also requires each participant in a route to agree to giving away an amount of funds to hop payments. all requiring their signature.

it is permissioned. think of it in simple terms
instead of a simple cash payment to pay a milkman by leaving a bank note inside a empty milk bottle for when the milkman does his deliveries. you have to sign a contract and when you make a payment the milkman has to knock at your door and hope your home for you to both sign cheques for who owes what in a joint bank account you both set up.. its then up to one of you to decide when to empty the bank account by cashing out the cheques.

its not as simple as just handing a random person cash. its really worth you doing some research



firstly. splitting the units of measure has nothing to do with fungibility.. fungibility and scarcity are 2 separate things

secondly. if there were only 21mill units to share there would be true rarity/scarcity.. but because of splitting up the units, anyone can afford a small amount. so not many are actually buying whole bitcoins.
its actually got to such a point that due to the extra cost of 'satoshi's' being most around(byte per tx to sweep the satoshi dust) that core have implemented rules to ignore certain transactions of dust..

so not only have they made owning a whole bitcoin less appealing. but they then made it hard/impossible to own dust.
.. but take gold. with only ~175,000 tonnes.. do you see 170,000 richguys saying they each own 1 tonne of gold.  OR do you see BILLIONS of people who can claim that they own gold.. think about it

but anyway this conversation has meandered away from the topic of suggesting that core have/have not killed decentralisation.. answer is they have killed decentralisation. as there is a vector of attack that can halt development. .. but they will continue with the illusion by making people think distribution of final code is the same as decentralisation of control.. (its not the same thing)

but have a nice day and i hope you spend some time doing some research. it will help you in the long run