"You can't have decentralization, censorship resistance, self sovereignty, ownership of your own stuff without privacy." - Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn, Founder of Zcash.
If anyone wants to give Shielded ZEC a try, get a Zcash Wallet from https://z.cash/wallets
BTC limitation of SegWit/LN stole the Bitcoin brand name and the decade long Plan-B narrative from BCH's block upgrade, Schnorr signature, 0-conf(without Replace-By-Fee).
Bitcoin Cash market cap of ~$4.8B is good enough for it to be used as P2P Electronic Cash System that Bitcoin was built for.
Gavin being silenced is just a tip of the iceberg out of the continual banning and censorship of people discussing ideas around scaling Bitcoin Core chain since 2016. Most of the folks have left for other projects since then and all BTC is left is as a tether propped exchange pair while merchants give up on accepting BTC (thanks RBF too).
Bitcoin Cash on the other hand has been gaining merchant acceptance and I've enjoyed using BCH same like I did enjoy using BTC since 2012. The honeybadger of P2P electronic cash is truly unstoppable.
> wtf. man, stop taking credit for other people's work. Compact blocks were completed and released by Matt Corallo, myself, and the other Bitcoin developers at the time. It had absolutely no involvement from any BCH developer.
Sorry, I did not say or mean to take any credit, all I'm pointing out is that BCH was able to get that tech out in prod.
> BCH's constant hardforks have killed many of those multiple implementations. "Bitcoin XT", "Bitcoin Classic", "Bcoin" to name some of those. Ironically the old BitcoinXT from back when it was Bitcoin software ... happily still works on Bitcoin. So you have it backwards: it's bitcoin that preserves people's freedom to use different implementations.
This is flat out wrong, the BCH developers meet monthly to review roadmap and sync up on development in a decentralized fashion. The clients that were not maintained were deprecated as expected, nothing out of the ordinary here. The Bitcoin XT client was compatible with BCH chain when Core activated the SegWit.
The bi-annual BCH client upgrade actually helps keeping users empowered as to which ruleset they accept, a choice which is not available for Bitcoin Core users as they are held hostage to the code that governs their money.
> was happily using Bitcoin long before creating a company to support it.
His public comments would say otherwise and many doubt that his company is supporting Bitcoin vs handicapping it for private interests.
> Gavin loudly endorsing an obvious scammer
Classic nullc way of putting it.. Gavin simply said that CSW was able to sign a message from one of the keys he had interacted with Satoshi's account. The signing itself has be debunked many a times, Gavin did not endorse CSW as Satoshi himself, like giving bitcoin repo access to CSW..
The entire drama created a path for new folks like Adam who showed up in 2013(from your bitcointalk article) to see opportunity to gain control of the core client.
Bitcoin Cash handles this by making sure to have multiple implementations.
Overall, only time will tell how the Bitcoin story will play out. For a fact though, we have 2 chains developed centrally planned (BTC & BSV) while BCH keeps the checks & balances of power with distributed teams.
Sorry, the real attack was by the group led by Adam Back who himself dismissed Bitcoin initially before having a VC fund him to cater to his plan http://cashbleed.com/
Following which scare tactics ensued which broke the block size increase agreements of 8MB Hong Kong Agreement when Adam himself flew to the meeting overnight(as an individual) to attack the agreement, then when a 2MB NYA agreement was finalized and signed by the groups of miners, again the small blockers attacked it in favor of SegWit, that Bitcoin wouldn't survive a hardfork upgrade even though it had upgraded several times in the past.
The really abusive attack was when those same people removed Gavin Andresen's commit access when he had been leading Bitcoin development alongside Satoshi and testing large block clients on the side.
On-going abusive attacks when discussing about pros/cons of small blocks in r/Bitcoin and DDoS on large block nodes since Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin ABC..
The concerns about the trade-offs with block size have been there for a long time indeed, and we've come a long way with optimizing transactions and still keeping fees low while accessing the ledger via Bitcoin Cash VS forcing transactions to layer 2 side-chains via Bitcoin Core.
Bitcoin SV was another centralized attack(from nChain+CSW) on BCH.
While both BTC & BSV are centrally developed and managed, BCH has decentralized development with multiple implementations.
Bitcoin has a long journey ahead, we are still handing out large miner rewards, we can check back in 3 more halvings by 2028 and see how things unfold.
Absolutely, there is no good reason for private entities who take over an open source project and limit it for private interests when a major chunk of people reject it.
BCH forked off to reject the SegWit+RBF add-on that ain't Bitcoin. Replace by Fee has caused ATM hacks and breaks trust in 0-conf. BCH upgraded version holds consensus among its users & fees are low as P2P Electronic Cash System was designed to have had.
Bitcoin already scaled on the Bitcoin Cash chain all whilst Bitcoin Core dev payroll was taken over by Blockstream co and Chaincode Labs co who's vested interest lies in limiting the core protocol to sell side-chain tech. The market still trades BTC as Bitcoin because of the strong branding and censorship in various online communities.
All that doesn't matter as P2P Electronic Cash is doing well on BCH.
You might want to learn about the country specific caps and how bills like S.386 were passed in congress buy blocked by Sen. Durbin to keep the "casual racism" going.
This is also the reason why people from India enroll in colleges that have weekend classes in order to maintain their legal status while in-between jobs.
0-conf transactions have timestamps and the receiving wallet/node checks for the tree of transactions to even allow the spending of unconfirmed transactions up to a limit of 25 for now, there is on-going research and testing to up this limit to 500 that was sponsored by SatoshiDice https://twitter.com/PeterRizun/status/1181980303033692162
For a list of transactions trying to double spend BCH and failing at it, see this https://doublespend.cash/
There are 2 approaches to Bitcoin Network usage in play. Bitcoin Core team went with RBF(Replace-By-Fee) which gives rise to the double spending problem as the funds can be re-directed before a transaction gets in to a block. And Bitcoin Cash protocol implementation removed the RBF to support trust in 0-confirmation. There are even more optimizations in BCH implementation of Bitcoin, you can review it here https://cash.coin.dance/development
If anyone wants to give Shielded ZEC a try, get a Zcash Wallet from https://z.cash/wallets
This is how fungibility looks like: https://zcashblockexplorer.com/transactions/d51f29739b753683...