BCH is Fitna currency
On the day of the epic battle Jimmy’s song and Roger’s Faith in CoinsBank Blockchain Cruise Jimmy published on Medium the main points that he wanted to present in the discussion. If Ver is not interrupted.
My main goal is to hold a civilized discussion about BTC and BCH. I’ll start, and my opponent will continue. The time frame will be 10 minutes for each in the first round and 5 minutes for subsequent rounds.
First, I want to thank the organizers and all those present at the conference. I would also like to say thank you to Roger Faith for his early preaching about bitcoin. Today we are discussing, but there is much we agree philosophically, and I admire his contribution to the common cause.
I’ll start with the following statement: Bitcoin Cash — is Fitna currency.
You may think I Troll. But no. To prove to you that the BCH — Fiat, take a look the meaning of the word “fiat” in the Merriam—Webster dictionary:
command or act of will that creates something without or as if without, further effort;
authoritarian or arbitrary setting.
Thus, Fiat currency is created by:
a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without, further effort;
authoritarian or arbitrary installation.
I believe that BCH fits perfectly into this definition.
I said that I admire Roger for his efforts to liberate us from the state of authoritarianism. We both agree that from state custody need to get rid of. But there are two ways:
To change one government to another.
To decentralize power.
BTC and BCH have a different philosophy. Bitcoin — classical liberal, anarcho-capitalist, following the principles of the Austrian school of Economics and true to its cyberpunk roots. It is a healthy money.
BCH — interventionist, paternalistic, Keynesian, true to its corporate roots. It is Fiat money.
BTC is a decentralized hard currency
Bitcoin grew out of the movement ripropongo. It originated from the idea of self-managing their own money. There is no Central controller, each person runs the software that want, uses those functions he needs. In other words, bitcoin is decentralized. This money is for people who want to have property rights in their money.
Its economic philosophy is based on the libertarian principle of non-interference of the Central authorities in the activities of the market. Bitcoin market itself finds solutions to any problems. There is no Central government that will say: “We know what’s best for you”.
This makes the system Bitcoin uncensored and protected from taking control over it. A bitcoin cannot be controlled because control is another way to take control of the system. Failure segwit2x was a demonstration of this quality. Users — sovereign owners of their money. In this respect bitcoin is unique because all other altcoins there is a point of failure and the ability to control them.
BCH is a Fiat
BCH — product of Bitmain. BCH is centralized and controlled by a select group of people that define its road map. They decide what is implemented and what is not, with authoritarian hardforce — forced updates, the decision on which accepts the Central authority. Everyone who wants to stay in BCH, must obey. Hardforce show at least that the economic priorities change.
The economic model BCH is the Keynesian — that the Central government determine when it is necessary to “stimulate innovation” or “solve problems”. Method of payment here is subsidized by the Central authorities through large blocks, despite the fact that the market signals that no need to do so. Smart contracts are also subsidized by the Central authorities, despite the fact that there is no meaning, no need. The system BCH is very paternalistic in nature.
All this has led to what we are seeing now is the struggle for power. Bitmain and Craig Wright are fighting for control of BCH. Perhaps they will eventually share the BCH on two different coins. So that BCH is not a system where users are completely independent.
Bitmain is the Central Bank BCH. Bitmain tried to lock on to its reserve currency — BTC, but they did not. Bitmain was not able to save any rate of 0.15 BTC, neither of 0.12 BTC, and recently surrendered already to the level of 0.1 BTC. It is the Central Bank, eating up reserves to support its currency. But what’s worse — these reserves come to an end. When artificially inflated the value of BCH will become apparent, it will start to fall.
BCH is Fitna currency, as the main attractive features which say that it is not run by the usual Central banks. BCH wants to be your benevolent ruler, not giving you the right to dispose of their funds. This is the main difference between BTC and BCH, BCH and therefore no different from any other alithina.
At BCH there is no reason for the existence of
There are many altcoins with the same features as BCH. They, like BCH, are centralized, and many of them have ways of transactions more efficient.
During the last debate my opponent claimed that altcoins have no such history transactions, like the BCH, which is recorded in the registry of BTC. But this is a false argument.
Today the blockchain Bitcoin occurred 74 hardporno, including:
Bitcoin Gold, which has a different algorithm proof-of-work, another office and another road map;
Bitcoin Interest, in which consensus is achieved on the principle of proof-of-stake.
Bitcoin Private where the main concern is privacy and interchangeability;
Lightning Bitcoin, the main priority of which is ultra-fast transactions.
Bitcoin Clean, which is supposed to be very eco-friendly.
There are many other non-trivial forks: Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Super, BitcoinX, Bitcore, Bitcoin2x, File Bitcoin, Bitcoin Atom, a Vote for Bitcoin, Bitcoin World, Bitcoin Pay Bitcoin Faith and my favorite – Bitcoin God. Latest direct reports that manage them centrally. All currencies that formed after these forks is their road map, they have intangible value, each have unique properties and their stored blockchain transaction history of BTC.
As in the case of BCH, they all require giving up sovereignty. Instead of having to give evidence, the proponents of these hardforce want us to just trust them.
And that’s the main thing that stands behind every hardforum and Aldona. They rely on controlled people. Because of that, many of them, including the BCH, spend so much money on marketing, which essentially is propaganda. They want us to just trust them and didn’t control yourself. My opponent spent a lot of money and effort to promote BCH, giving interviews left and right, and engaging in debates with anyone who was not against it. He even does not hesitate to play dirty, he argues that “the BCH is a true bitcoin”. He continues to holdit BTC, but says that “reversal is inevitable.” He continues to tell of the terrible conspiracy theories: about Blockstream, Bildeberg, Gavin Andresen, Mike Herne and “censorship” on a private forum. He’s acting like a used car salesman trying by any means to sell their goods.
Blockstream does not control Bitcoin Core
As someone directly involved in the development of the project, authoritatively declare that the process of development in Bitcoin Core has nothing to do with how he describes Roger Ver. It is clear why this “conspiracy theory” about the controlling and all of the company BlockStream – so fascinating tale. But, as in the story of “Baghdad Bob” is only a fiction created by the unfortunate losers in an attempt to save his ego.
Look at the actual participants of Bitcoin Core. Yes, there are two developers of Blockstream. But there is, and the developers of many other companies, including Chaincode Labs and MIT Digital Currency Initiative. There are even developers from companies invested in Blockchain.info owned by my opponent. The process of Core development is a meritocracy and is based on consensus. My opponent is not a coder and greatly misses it, describing how it works, according to him, Core.
My opponent characterizes open meritocratic process, as something terrible, because he chose a different path. He lost the argument, and because the mood of the market and its preferences are quite obvious, decided to explain his loss conspiracy theory.
I am glad that my opponent found a use for their ideas in the BCH, where they were in demand. This is the essence of the free market. But it’s unfair to say that just because Bitcoin Core did not agree with his proposals, it proves that the process is centralized or goes wrong. He doesn’t know how the process is organized, he is not versed in the subject, so he came up with the theory to denigrate opponentov and emphasize the advantages of his point of view. There is no conspiracy. Just the market doesn’t like your ideas.
Gavin, Mike and Jeff will not help here
Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn and Jeff garzik’s were Core developers, and I thank them for what they did. All three still have the opportunity to contribute. I suspect that they do this simply because do not have the same impact on the project as before. But they should blame themselves and not the team Core.
What my opponent did right, it’s the fact that these people really lost that authority which they had before. Good reputation among the community Core is not something that is awarded for life. Bitcoin Core is not a bureaucratic system, where you can relax, do nothing and not be afraid of dismissal.
Bitcoin is a meritocracy, and it means that you not only have to continue to work well, but also to improve, to improve code quality and development. These three men have simply ceased to be that which asked the new members of the project. This was the main reason why they have lost their credibility.
There were other factors. Mike and Gavin wanted the dictatorship. They wanted to make Mike a dictator with an unlimited term of office. They wanted to transfer power to Mike Hearn is. When the majority said “no”, Mike with the scandal are gone. Gavin joined the Union with scameron Craig Wright, who, because of their technical incompetence can’t even verify a simple signature transaction. Jeff went to ICO and altcoins.
Whatever the reasons, these three have lost their influence and no longer contribute to the common cause, although the possibility they have. Bitcoin is not a centralized system and no one can hold the office for life.
My opponent accuses Bitcoin Core is that, because it is a meritocracy, you can influence the process only if your contribution is really significant. If meritocracy credibility to earn is very difficult and losing is easy. The real reason for the discontent of my opponent is that the impact of lost those developers who were interested in his ideas, and this weakened his influence. He believes that the main reason they lost. He is ready to call many more reasons, except that his ideas do not work and do not need the market. He did not like the prospect to admit they were wrong.
Free transactions are not actually free
My opponent likes to talk about “free” transactions. If he thinks he has the right to free transaction only because it was in the past, so he does not understand the laws of Economics. BCH subsidizes transactions through large blocks. Yes, it is nice when the user can Transact for free. Any man will be glad when he gets something valuable for free, but Economics is the science of cause and effect.
Free transactions are not free. As coupons for free meals. Their cost is paid, but not by the user. If you look at the remuneration system in the BCH, you will see that each node pays for the free transaction that transfers, validates and stores data about these transactions. In other words, free transaction constitutes a tax, which is levied on all other nodes. This prevents a full node, users are increasingly losing control, and there are more single points of failure, making BCH vulnerable. The “free” transaction is a government grant BCH, collected from other people through taxes and control.
In addition, the “free” transactions affect the motivation of miners. The only sources of income of the miners is the reward of mining and fees. By 2028, there are three halving and 10 years later, the Commission probably will still equal 0, and the reward per block will decrease to 1.56 BCH. At current prices — about $750 per unit. This will significantly reduce network security. No charge for the transaction double-spending in the sixth unit can be arrange for $4500. That is, you will be able to sell coffee for $3 for BCH, but to sell a laptop worth $1000 without any serious risk is already difficult.
The situation will only deteriorate as the reward for the block will continue to decline. By 2040, the reward per block will be $93, and then the transaction amount over $100 will also be risky. You will have to obtain not less than 11 confirmations before you’re sure payment of $1000 was held. By 2060, even buying coffee for $3 will be risky, since the reward per block will be $2,90. Transaction $1000 will require not less than 350 evidence!
BCH now has two options: to abandon the free transactions, or to prevent inflation of currency. Fiat currency is very often in a situation when you have to make a choice between rights and taxes (remember that inflation is a tax), and it is clear that none of the options will not add BCH popularity.
Like the state budget, which shifts current expenditures to the next generation, free of the transaction will lead to problems in the future. As the current social insurance system, BCH today handing out free what you will have to pay later. Don’t be fooled by “free” transactions is a snap from BCH.
Centralization leads to inflation
In BCH was a lot of forced hardforce and updates, initiated by the select group. In BCH are allowed to lobby only centralized power. BCH does not entitle users to own their money regardless of anyone. Management by Fiat. It’s run by the authoritarian. Interventionism is innovation and development. As I said, the BCH is Fiat money.
Any Fitna currency experienced crises. This is due to the fact that the Central government can always print more money. The government believes that such actions will not lead to what has happened with many other currencies. Inflation BCH is not a question of “Yes or no?” it is a question of “when?”. All Fiat money is subject to inflation.
All the arguments of my opponent are reduced to the mantra “Trust us, inflation will not be”. It’s an infinite number of times repeated all of the government creates Fiat money, and none of them escaped the inflation. And who would you believe: the story or the person who is clearly trying to sell something?
The team BCH incompetent, and yet she makes decisions for all community members. Algorithm EDA was a complete disaster. In their hard forks, which occurred earlier this year, I found a bug in the mechanism of establishing consensus the worst of all possible bugs.
Management BCH centralized. Only a select group decides on the updates that users are obliged to follow. They “listen” to users, but ultimately make decisions for yourself. The management process is totally opaque and the road map defines the elite. These people make decisions about hardporno BCH and force everyone to upgrade. They choose winners and losers in the market. Their priorities — the method of payment and smart contracts, they subsidize them.
All of this leads to vulnerabilities. The Central office is still able to fight them, but may be a new elite group, which seized power, will offer its new rules. It seems that this is trying to do now Craig Wright with Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision.
Ask yourself why this community came to this obvious scammer as Craig Wright? Yes, because he realized they can make money. The crooks go where they are allowed to cheat.
As I said, there are many altcoins that are managed centrally. There are many coins that are faster, more anonymous and easier to use if we’re only talking about a centralized coin. BCH has not added anything new.
Satoshi is not God
My opponent cites Satoshi, like it’s Holy Scripture. But bitcoin is government and the right of possession of their own money, and not the deification of a man. If he wants to create a coin Satoshi-Is-God — good luck, but to appeal to the authority of Satoshi illogical. This is nothing more than emotional manipulation.
Many people don’t realize that Satoshi has repeatedly made mistakes in the Bitcoin Protocol. In OP_CHECKMULTISIG the error is unaccounted units. Hence the difficulty of calculating adjustments every 2016 blocks. Satoshi constantly confused forward and reverse byte order. Satoshi had to add the nonce to the block header and make the box timstamp 8 bytes.
Technically competent hardwork could solve these problems. But hardwork BCH they are not decided.
In any case, Satoshi was not the perfect man who knew everything. And in fact my opponent is just trying to pretend that Satoshi would agree with his opinion. It is popular in trade tactics to increase sales using the links on authoritative opinion. The opponent is very upset that he did not become authority and instead use logic, appeals to Satoshi. It is clear that a centralized currency is a reference to the authority absolutely necessary.
Users want to manage their money. We don’t want to share our property rights and money with anyone, even with Satoshi.