Reddit User Account Overview


Redditor Since April 9, 2019 (532 days old)
Karma Posts: 384,128 Comments: 26,080 Combined: 410,208
Active in

I've been into Bitcoin Cash for a while now, and I've noticed that a lot of big people and companies that support it, but are not very public about their support for it. Some of the biggest examples being bitpay, Coinbase, Bitmain, [](, Gavin Andresen, and Mike Hearn. Excluding, the rest of these people and companies have given indication that they support Bitcoin Cash as a cryptocurrency, but haven't been very vocal supporters of it. There has been the occasional sign that they definitely favour and support Bitcoin Cash over Bitcoin, but they haven't bothered putting a great deal of resources towards promoting it, or being very vocal about their support. Gavin Andresen has said some good things about Bitcoin Cash back in 2017, and to my knowledge done some work on graphene, but he does not really talk about BCH anymore, and is mostly doing work on Ethereum. It was pretty clear that he really supported the big-block ideology, but he wasn't active in promoting BCH. Bitpay and Coinbase are also pretty big supporters of Bitcoin Cash, but they're not very vocal about their support for it either. Does anyone know why these companies are silent about their support for BCH despite the fact that if they did actively put resources and time into supporting Bitcoin Cash, it could mean a big difference for the future of Bitcoin Cash?

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 21:11:23

From the looks of it, it seems like there is eventually going to be further division in the Bitcoin Core community in the future, though that division may not be obcious right now because of the censored discussion on r/Bitcoin, and the fact that everyone at this moment is okay with full blocks and high fees. At some point, Bitcoin absolutely will have to raise its blocksize limit because on-chain fees can't be hundreds of dollars per transaction. Even with transaction batching for Lightning, it still doesn't seem viable to keep the blocksize limit so low... I've talked to other Bitcoin supporters and maximalists about increasing the blocksize, and it usually boils down to a few views/perspectives on the whole congestion situation with BTC: ​ * "Increasing the blocksize (hardfork) is only acceptable if there is near 100% consensus among the community and hashpower since hardforks create a chain with new consensus rules" ​ * "There is no need to increase the blocksize because almost all activity will happen off-chain with Lightning Network transactions. Institutions and banks will pay the high on-chain fees if and when they have to make high-value settlement transactions" ​ * "The blocksize is already too large and should be softforked to be lower so that sync times improve, and more people can run full-nodes." ​ Right now the fee situation on Bitcoin is pretty bad, but it will only get worse with adoption. It already seems like the idea of achieving consensus for a hardfork is near impossible due to the nature of discussion on the Bitcointalk forum and r/Bitcoin subreddit (both owned by theymos). It directly states in the subreddit rule section that: >Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted. The issue with this is the fact that this also includes even proposing a hardfork. I've seen discussions about even putting forward a BIP that proposes bigger blocks get completely censored or deleted by r/Bitcoin mods. So the first idea that hardforks will happen later on seems extremely unrealistic. The second idea is in direct conflict with the first one because it asserts an argument that opposes the first one. If blocksize doesn't and shouldn't be increased (and are fine the way they are), this will also cause division in the community. The third idea is also in conflict with the first and the second, which will also likely result in division. When will this division become much more evident in the Bitcoin Core community, causing another split for Bitcoin? It's bound to happen at some point, but maybe not today.

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 9, 2020 01:33:15

We already know that a lot of the hashrate on BTC (in terms of pools) is pro-BCH, but I was thinking for a while about 2017, and the crazy price-action between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. We know that an overwhelming majority of the hashrate supported the SegWit 2x fork of Bitcoin (B2X), but people were unsure if 2x would actually activate. In November, when SegWit 2x failed to activate, Bitcoin started dumping, while Bitcoin Cash was pumping, and was on pace to overtake Bitcoin. From this, it was clear that a large part of the community was disappointed in B2X's failed activation, but I did some more research, and something caught my attention: One day before, SegWit was activated on Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash came VERY close to overtaking Bitcoin in hashrate. This to me means that miners definitely wanted an increase in blocksize, and were likely in favour of it over SegWit. I also found it interesting how on the date that B2X failed to activate, a lot of hashrate suddenly appeared on Bitcoin Cash, and was also close to overtaking Bitcoin at the same time that Bitcoin was dumping, while Bitcoin Cash was surging in price. Just curious, was this change in hashrate a sort of threat from the miners to core, and a way of "saying" that if Core doesn't deliver in the future, their hashrate will move over to Bitcoin Cash?

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 28, 2020 14:36:34

I've seen the markets since 2017-2018 ever since the big crashes. Whenever Bitcoin goes up or down in price, it seems extremely convenient that other cryptos go down too, despite there not really being a reason for it to happen. Not only do they also happen to go down in price, but they specifically seem to go down in BTC value. So far, I have had a few theories for this, but I would like a more conclusive answer to the question. A few of my theories are: 1. Bitcoin has higher liquidity, and therefore that makes it harder to move up and down. This economically makes sense, but it doesn't explain the extremely weird correlation other coins have in comparison to Bitcoin. Just because Bitcoin goes up/down, it doesn't mean anything about other cryptocurrencies. 2. The whole BTC trade-pair coupling. To me, this seems somewhat plausible, but it doesn't give a full explanation of the story. Price coupling with BTC implies indirectly that BTC is a digital gold, and gives people the mindset of only using other cryptos to gain more BTC. Therefore, when the price goes down, they are more set on selling their coins to get more BTC at a "low" price. In some ways, this might stifle innovation, and not make people realize that other coins have their merits. 3. Market manipulation. Tether obviously has some shady business going on, and almost everyone can agree that price manipulation is definitely taking place. While wash-trading and pumping are trade practices that Tether is allegedly actively taking part in, it still wouldn't explain the correlation between the coin prices. At least, not directly. 4. Exchange manipulation. The idea behind this one is that exchanges are intentionally trading against their customers and therefore suppressing prices. As long as BTC remains #1, that means that their wealth is preserved. That would mean that exchanges actively dump coins when Bitcoin dumps so that BTC can maintain its dominance and not worry about competition potentially taking over. I don't know exactly why these price correlations happen because it seems like this wasn't an issue before (looking at web archives, or even general price history). Ever since the bull-run of 2017, it seems like every coin is conveniently correlated to the price action of Bitcoin, despite the fact that these coins have had their own growing communities, and some have even more hype/support surrounding them than Bitcoin itself. That would completely toss the "Bitcoin brings value to alts" theory. Can anyone explain why exactly this happens? It's definitely not a coincidence, and has been happening for way too long to just be happening by pure and sheer luck.

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 03:42:06

I have seen a few posts here with users wondering what the price of Moon tokens on this sub are worth, and while they're "technically" not worth anything, I thought it would be fun coming up with an estimate as to how much each token is roughly worth. To do this, I measured using a metric called "Metcalfe's Law". Metcalfe's Law states that the value of a network is *n log(n)* of the number of participants within the network. For the calculations and statistics I'm using here, I'm getting my information from []( I figured to start with measuring this metric through the number of active users on this subreddit. For these metrics, I think it is fair to take the statistics of the last week into consideration, so that there are no outliers in this data set. Since these tokens are technically on Ethereum, that means I will be using some Ethereum statistics in this to get as accurate results as possible. Now for determining the active number of users on the network, I took the top post for this entire week (which has 3,200 upvotes + 300 comments), and assumed an engagement rate of 2.5% (This is the average engagement rates of posts on social media). Using this, the number of active users in the sub can be calculated to be \~140,000. Using this figure, and entering it in the equation v = *n log(n)*, we get a network value of \~720,500. With this value in mind, we have to multiply it by some metric, so for this figure, I decided to multiply it by the median transaction value for Ethereum (7 day SMA). Though there are no available current metrics for median transaction value, the last SMA value for median transaction value is $0.013. I chose the median transaction value because unlike Ethereum, Moons aren't used for wealth transfer or large transactions. Otherwise, I would take the average transaction value into consideration. Multiplying this, the total market cap of Moon tokens is $9,365.95. This gives each token a value of \~$0.000605 per token. Looking at these metrics, this means the user who currently earned the most moons this month earned \~$28.52. Just to show you how accurate this metric is, I'm going to compare it using the active addresses of some of the top coins, and the average transaction value (since other currencies ARE used for wealth transfer) and compare it to the real market cap of these coins: |Coin|Market Cap|Metcalfe's Law Market Cap| |:-|:-|:-| |Bitcoin|\~$174,000,000,000|\~$125,850,000,000| |Ethereum|\~$25,955,000,000|\~$1,188,000,000| |Bitcoin Cash|\~$4,425,000,000|\~$3,230,000,000| |Bitcoin SV|\~$3,280,000,000|\~$10,560,000| |Litecoin|\~$2,860,000,000|\~$1,380,000,000| \* I think mainly the only reason there is a discrepancy for Ethereum is partly because it's not a currency intended for wealth transfer, but is more focused on creating dApps, and developing DeFi

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 17, 2020 19:01:43

From the shift in narrative of what Bitcoin really was intended to be, to intentionally keeping the blockchain expensive to suit this narrative, it has made me come up with a few "predictions" about what is going to happen in the future of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Core. Seeing as this narrative needs to be maintained, here's what I personally think will happen in the near future of BTC: 1. The fees will start to get expensive, as expected (this is a given if a bull-run happens, or naturally as more users join the network). As a response to this, not only will r/Bitcoin promote the Lightning Network, Cashapp (owned by Jack Dorsey) will completely cover transfer fees at a loss, so that this looks like a non-issue from the outside. 2. After the Lightning Network gets promoted, there will be a significant number of routing issues as a larger user base tries to use it. All discussion about the high on-chain fees and routing issues will be completely censored from r/Bitcoin so that the public opinion on Bitcoin can be manipulated and maintained. 3. Eventually people will accept the shortcomings of the Lightning Network as a "small price to pay" for the most secure currency, and this narrative will be maintained on r/Bitcoin, with the premise that "having a few routing issues with transactions is a small price to pay for the most secure network, and the future of money". 4. As a workaround for these routing issues, eventually Lightning Hubs will form. Cashapp, []( (which is also already centralizing the network), Blockstream, and Lightning Labs will be the main nodes to go to for liquidity. Obviously, nobody is going to provide great liquidity for free, so this will lead to higher fees because it is a great way to profit. This business model will lead to fees based on percentage (instead of being flat), as the argument behind it will be the greater the funds, the greater the risk. 5. Effectively because of this, Bitcoin will just become PayPal 2.0. It will still be on CNBC, and the price will be high, but that's all people are going to focus on, price. The market will continue to stagnate sideways continuously, and CNBC will treat it like a stock. People can use Bitcoin, but it will require KYC, and instead of being cheap, it will be the new bank where instead of paying bank maintenance fees, people will pay channel maintenance fees for using Lightning Hubs. After all this, I also expect that Bitcoin will be accepted as a payment option just like Visa and Mastercard because KYC is still required so the government, and regulators won't be afraid of it. It will have fees just like any other payment processor, but the demand for it on deep web markets will diminish for obvious reasons. Monero will be in demand for those purposes, and for obvious reasons. I suspect that the price will perpetually (and intentionally) be kept sideways.

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 03:14:05

I'm personally excited for AnyHedge and DeToken. I think those will be very big and can potentially be a game-changer for BCH.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 22, 2020 15:26:37

>Ethereum's "solution" is to explicitly assign a "cost" to each operation (eg - multiplying two numbers costs 5 "gas"), and if the user doesn't pay for enough "gas", then the computation is halted. Since blocks in Ethereum have a finite "max gas" amount (block gas limit), every computation is guaranteed to halt. So that's why fees have become disproportionately expensive for transaction fees in complex smart contracts? Is it considered as a "solution" rather than a solution because it discourages infinite computation that might happen when a coin is tiring complete?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 22, 2020 15:13:04

Bitcoin won't be sustainable long term with its fees. In fact I think Bitcoin Cash not going too far too fast is a good thing, as it gives time for an equilibrium between an actual fee market that isn't artificially imposed to replace the block reward to be achieved. If Bitcoin wants to 10x in value (which we don't know will happen or not), the average transaction fee would have to be $200 and rising to subsidize the block reward at maximum possible throughput. We already saw transactions peak at $50 just for an average transaction in 2017. Even if Lightning does manage to work, it won't change the fact that Bitcoin is slow, expensive, and unreliable at the base layer. If there is absolutely no upper limit for fees on the network, eventually nobody will want to use it because of poor user experience. Even banks don't want to potentially pay hundreds or even thousands in fees when there are other networks that do the job much better.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 21, 2020 03:56:51

inb4 150years comes in to "prove" censorship on this sub that has been debunked

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 21, 2020 03:16:39

Don't show this to Hayden lmao

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 21, 2020 03:15:14

The flippening could've very well happened, but some exchanges went offline due to "high traffic" which includes bithumb. Other exchanges and people sold their customers' BCH holdings and converted to BTC, despite not being the right thing to do. Price dropping is not an indicator of something being a scam either. As for Bitcoin's price, it clearly is being pumped (in my opinion) as on-chain adoption has stagnated for the last 3 years, while the price has recovered about 50%-60% from its all time high. Meanwhile Ethereum continues to grow in on-chain adoption, but still hasn't recovered that much. I can't find any justification for why Bitcoin would pump more when it hasn't gotten any more adoption in the last 3 years.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 21, 2020 03:14:36

Actually being a SHA 256 chain makes BCH MORE secure than Dash by a large margin. In the event that someone tries to attack the network, there are more resources economically available to combat the attacking hashrate. This is because a large enough percentage of SHA 256 hashrate is available to protect Bitcoin Cash that nobody would be incentivized to even try (because their attempts would just be defeated).

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 20, 2020 03:08:42

"Instant send" and "chainlocks" taken down for <$400 a day, on top of having a censored sub... Yeah, not too secure.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 19, 2020 13:42:41

That doesn't prove anything... The two aren't mutually exclusive

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 19, 2020 03:46:41

Their point is still incorrect, because Bitcoin was literally meant to kill PayPal and be used for online payments while having cheap transactions. And yes, my point is exactly what Pomp said.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 19, 2020 02:52:16

Nobody knows, but chances are it's not going to achieve serious adoption with its fundamental shortcomings

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/BitcoinBeginners on September 19, 2020 01:57:33

u/bit_igu completely admitted to ban evasion, so he/she should be banned...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 18, 2020 15:42:56

Actually BCH can do much more than 20 MB blocks. IIRC, in another thread, a user mentioned that in the 2018 stress test, ABC nodes were unoptimized, while other implementations such as Bitcoin unlimited were nowhere near full capacity.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 18, 2020 15:37:02

Nah, cracking the LN will force Core to do something about their ridiculously high fees, so I say go for it!

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 18, 2020 08:26:39

Dude, I went from admiring BTC and Lightning to realizing the truth about Bitcoin...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 18, 2020 08:15:47

It can't achieve even PayPal level adoption with the "2 MB" block cap even if you consider Lightning.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on September 18, 2020 02:27:09

So in other words, a cryptocurrency with a lot of potential is now selling at a steal!

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 16:39:21

It is also possible that outside bots are downvoting posts so that they cannot reach r/all, but unlikely...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 16:29:14

Roger is in St. Kitts IIRC. It would be a waste to spend more than $1000 going to California to promote only $1000 worth of BCH

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 16:26:58

Michael and Anthony aren't very smart people. Bitcoin Cash didn't try to break the protocol set in by Bitcoin. Replay protection was added so that the fork would be less contentious. The unfortunate part about these people is that they don't care about Bitcoin being usable as a currency, but rather just treating it as an investment (which would explain why they don't care about transaction fees). To summarize, in Pompliano's interview with Roger Ver, he directly admits that he doesn't care that much about utility of Bitcoin as a currency, and thinks that the hype and network effect give enough time for the user experience to not be a priority.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 14:54:04

This community still has active users?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/EthereumClassic on September 17, 2020 00:04:26

Interesting how the figure has climbed despite the BCH-BSV split.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/Bitcoincash on September 16, 2020 23:22:48

Yes, it's very ironic. A lot of Core supporters praise "HODLing" Bitcoin and spending fiat, despite the fact that spending the fiat gives power to the legacy financial system.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 23:13:45

Man, if only I was in Bakersfield...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 23:11:06

It was an honest mistake as I thought it was a reply to one of my comments

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 09:39:51

Oh no, I'm not sockpuppeting. I accidentally thought you were accusing me of being a CSW shill. That was a mistake on my part

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 09:33:03

I don't shill Craig Wright, nor do I like him. I've never claimed he's Satoshi, so the accusation in question is baseless.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 01:37:23

What's the difference between 13 and 15?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 00:45:19

Or more plausible: He's stubborn, and only wants things his way and will do so at any cost... Even if it means bringing the entirety of BCH down with him.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 00:38:11

I like 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 & 15. The rest just seem too flashy, and I think something clean looks better. I also think the BCH logo looks much better without the "wings" because its much more clean...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 21:34:53

Hello, guy who makes baseless accusations with no evidence shill. Also [citation needed] for me being pro-CSW.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 19:18:25

>Which is it? The two ideas aren't contradictory in any way. Just because something is against free speech doesn't mean it won't be easy to work around...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 17:39:41

It is a scam... You can't do anything about it, except maybe report it to the proper authorities. Otherwise her money is lost. Tell her not to deposit any more, as she will lose that money too...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 16:43:23

Is it really something to celebrate? I understand that the trolls are annoying, and it's tempting to ban them, but it's against the idea of free speech... Either way, trolls will have to put more effort into commenting, or they will just make new accounts for ban-evasion.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 16:39:55

>the settlement is because theres things like consumer protections and fraud prevention and laws that protect society regarding money. the transaction happens in 5 seconds nowadays. Stick card in, amount confirmed. Approved. 1 second later my phone buzzes with a notification that my account was used. I leave. Merchant serves next customer. It's not confirmed in 5 seconds. Confirmed would imply that it is completely irreversible when it is not. It would be the equivalent of a Bitcoin transaction being broadcasted, which is instant. >Businesses dont operate on 3 days cycles. The utility company doesnt send you a bill everyday 2 days. It has no impact whatsoever that the money isnt available for a day or two. money comes in every single day because the sales from 3 days ago are hitting the account. no business except at the very end is 2 days from insolvency. So then the 6 hour finality of transactions wouldn't be a valid criticism of Bitcoin (when compared with traditional payment systems)... It's still bad (and now there are much better payment solutions that exist), but better than some methods of payment we still have. The fees for transactions are also flat instead of percentage based, so how expensive they are in comparison is hard to measure. >chargebacks arent a "risk". they are a feature of the system we intentionally put in there that we could take away anytime we want to. we WANT it that way. theres going to be disputes between consumers and merchants and we looked at it and decided chargebacks were the best of the options. Chargebacks are a risk for merchants in a business, but they are good for customers because they don't risk someone else having full control of their money even if they have the customer's card. For businesses, it means that when they look at their gross earnings, they have to factor in the fact that some of the payments might not even be legitimate and can be reversed. >everything youre saying is all just e-child, internet raised, reality detached nonsense. I'm just presenting facts. I'm not arguing for Bitcoin being good, but in terms of irreversibility, it is much better than traditional payment methods (until the devs tinkered with it). That comes with the trade-off of not being able to take your money back if someone steals it or makes a fraudulent transaction. However, the culture behind Bitcoin has made it another Ponzi with not much to offer.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/Buttcoin on September 15, 2020 16:13:12

The devs are paid by companies that want to make money off of the tech not being able to compete with traditional payment methods. To my knowledge, Mastercard and Western Union are both funding Bitcoin development, and pushing the idea that cryptocurrency can't scale on-chain so they can create artificial demands for their own centralized solutions that will make them money... So much for tech and progress... Bitcoin wasn't primarily meant to be an investment, but more just an interesting technology that allowed quick payments on the internet in a peer-to-peer and in a mostly decentralized manner. It could've become the native currency of the internet, and the interesting part was that someone could send money to anyone, anywhere in the world, without any intermediaries, all while being instant and free. With the current method of this technology, there's no way to do this in a decentralized manner other than making a token that is native to the tech. The culture around Bitcoin has mostly changed from digital cash to "digital gold"/investment ponzi after it failed in being good for payments (due to the devs). r/Bitcoin was also responsible for censorship of r/Bitcoin and why the cult is the way it is today.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/Buttcoin on September 15, 2020 15:52:17

This sub and its community existed well before the Bitcoin Cash split. It has nothing to do with deceiving new users. r/Bitcoin went through a lot of censorship, and suppressed the opinions of those in favour of big blocks on Bitcoin. Those in favour of scaling Bitcoin on-chain came to r/btc to talk about it, as it was the forum that wasn't censored by small-blockers. Bitcoin Cash is the version of Bitcoin that scales on-chain, so this sub would only naturally support Bitcoin Cash over Bitcoin. Not to mention that people are free to discuss here about anything Bitcoin or Bitcoin related.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 12:01:14

I think they dumped a lot of the 1 million BCH they had before the split. I'm not sure how much they have now...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 11:53:37

Actually, Bitcoin is much better in terms of utility, but the devs crippled it so they could make money off of its downfalls...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/Buttcoin on September 15, 2020 11:49:41

It depends on what you are comparing Bitcoin to... Unfortuntely, Peter Todd, one of the earlier devs in Bitcoin took away the ability for people to make (for the most part) irreversible payments by adding the ability to reliably reverse transactions. On top of this, a few devs have kept the blocksize low so that Bitcoin can't scale on-chain and allow for more transactions. They're mostly getting paid by companies that make money off of Bitcoin's inability to scale, and people still fall for the idea that Bitcoin was meant to be slow and expensive. If you remove the patch and the crippling of the network, Bitcoin (using the same standards) is much better than traditional credit card payments. Though payments may appear instant when paying with a credit card, they are not. On average, it takes 24-72 hours for the merchant to actually receive the money in their bank account, and they risk chargebacks. With Bitcoin, you would get greater security within 6 confirmations (or about an hour).

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/Buttcoin on September 15, 2020 11:48:48

Wallet of Satoshi is a 100% custodial LN wallet

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 10:14:11

Hey Roger, did he mumbled his way through because of the attack he got by Twitter mobs and people?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 02:07:57

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they don't have valid points... Aren't you better than that?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 02:06:01

"Haha I disagree with your opinion, but am not going to bother refuting your points lmao"

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 02:03:42

Wish there were places in Canada that accepted BCH :/

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 00:54:28

Bitcoin Core is known for forcing softforks even though they're supposedly "non-coercive". If the softfork is something controversial, people won't be happy with it, and the r/Bitcoin censorship (with Theymos and BashCo taking the lead) will kick in, making people go to this sub.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 00:53:39

>BTC isn't designed to cater for x amount of wires per day nor is it designed to be realistic/unrealistic for the average person. What exactly is the purpose of the base layer if it's not even going to be used for even wire transfers of large value? Why bother even having proof of work? >It is designed for a fixed number of transactions at whatever fee. Those fees make it the most secure chain and those that want to pay whatever cost for that security are free to do so. According to who? The original plan of designing Bitcoin was so that it could scale on-chain and accommodate more transactions. Satoshi himself wanted bigger blocks and explained how it could scale when other cryptographers doubted Bitcoin being able to handle more transactions on-chain. Bitcoin isn't the most secure cryptocurrency, despite the false beliefs that it is... It is the most secure PoW chain, which is a distinction. Why would someone use Bitcoin when there are more secure chains out there (albeit with different trade-offs)? >This fee model encourages innovation while keeping the mainchain lean, which is one of the characterisics that make it valuable in the first place. That's nothing but your opinion... What makes Bitcoin valuable right now are its network effects and price movement... Not the utility it provides. This is evident from the fact that it is not frictionless as money, and the fact that other coins have taken marketshare from Bitcoin, fixing its problems for it.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 00:49:58

The comment I was replying to was the accusation that "Bitcoin Cash is a scam"... I've refuted that point because it is not true, and the commenter in question resorted to adhominems instead of addressing the actual topic at hand

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on September 15, 2020 00:41:26

Ethereum and Litecoin are #2 and #3 respectively. However, I wouldn't be surprised if we overtake Litecoin since it doesn't seem to have a very active community, or have much development happening...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 00:37:46

The BCH is going to split again, not BSV

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 21:51:41

Bitcoin Cash is the 4th most adopted by merchants...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 21:50:13

Exactly... Don't bother suggesting it on telegram though, since people get unnecessarily upset at the suggestion

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 19:44:57

I think we should have them regularly planned. Once we implement XThinner or Blocktorrent, we should measure how big the blocks can get.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 19:43:27

>Timing is everything. With a theoretical 4x increase on SegWit Again, theoretical, which will never be reached. 3 years after SegWit's activation, and we still haven't reached that limit. Blocks on average are 1.4 MB on Bitcoin, allowing for around 5 tps. >SegWit not activating the 2X (8x theoritcial) portion is not an attack on bitcoins original vision. I never asserted that, but yes it absolutely is... Bitcoin was always intended to scale on-chain, and Satoshi was in favour of bigger blocks despite what many may say. In fact when confronted with the issue of increasing the blocksize limit, Satoshi didn't want an increase immediately, but he DID SAY: >It can be phased in, like: > >if (blocknumber > 115000)     maxblocksize = largerlimit > >It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete. > >When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade. So the blocksize WAS going to be increased, but he didn't want an immediate change, because the whole network would need to know about the upgrade. Furthermore, when he was discussing scaling he stated that: >Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node. > >The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices. Doing the math, this example discusses the blocksize being at least 282 MB to accomodate for on-chain transactions for Bitcoin as a payment network. Likely an even higher blocksize because the network shouldn't be functioning at full capacity. >Frankly fees have been reasonable and node participation has never been better. I feel like the best outcome has prevailed despite it being uncertain at the time. It's very easy to look back now and see that. Roger is very passionate and I have no doubt that he was trying to do what he thought was best for Bitcoin. I think his passion blinded him. The path to hell... It depends on what you consider reasonable or unreasonable. That is subjective. If you want global adoption with on-chain fees having absolutely no ceiling for how high they can get, it isn't reasonable in my opinion. A limited number of people in the end will be wiling to pay $5-$10 for an on-chain transaction. However, a virtually unlimited number of people will be willing to pay $0.005 for a transaction even if there are cheaper options. >If you don't think issuance scheduling being changed by a central party is an issue then you completely missed the value proposition entirely of Bitcoin. It's probably the reason you've latched onto the currency value prop instead of SOV. The world needs SOV more than it needs decentralized PayPal. No, I didn't. I simply discussed economic incentives and why Ethereum could potentially have a stronger store-of-value incentive than Bitcoin. I wasn't necessarily discussing decentralization.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on September 14, 2020 18:11:09

Well our block limit is 32 MB, so we should be able to handle the throughput... Otherwise the limit was pointless...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 17:39:36

>See I've had the opposite experience. I used to genuinely respect the hell out of Roger. I feel like he did used to come from a very good place and mean well. I also feel like he has devolved from his moral base. He always wanted Bitcoin to scale on-chain so that adoption could increase. Most people were in favour of increasing the blocksize for Bitcoin, including Satoshi. When Satoshi proposed Bitcoin as a protocol, many cryptographers were very pessimistic towards him, and told him that it couldn't scale to have bigger blocks. Satoshi was optimistic that it could, because the math worked out. An overwhelming majority of people were in favour of increasing the blocksize, but r/Bitcoin engaged in censorship, and didn't allow those with opinions that didn't suit their interests to be heard on that forum. This is when a large part of the community fled over to r/btc so that they could present their big-block views of Bitcoin, so it was only natural that they would support Bitcoin Cash when the two split. In fact, Roger Ver did support Bitcoin Cash when it came out, but he was a bigger supporter of SegWit 2X and hoped that it would finally be a compromise that could unite the community under one coin. He had a suspicion that the "2X" of SegWit 2X wouldn't activate, so he made a statement declaring that if "2X" didn't activate, he would dedicate his resources to promoting Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin. This already was supposed to be a strong deterrent for those looking to not activate the 2X part of SegWit 2X, but it didn't work out, so here he is now... I imagine it isn't something he wanted to do. >The world should be allowed to have as many coins as it wants. Bitcoin shouldn't do anything other than secure settlement. Where it is lacking, may others chime in. That is your opinion... Nothing more, nothing less. However, such an economic model is not a very good idea to implement when Bitcoin is still relatively new, and we can't prove that Lightning can scale through routing to be a world currency. Making on-chain payments artificially expensive has set-back adoption potentially several years with other merchants such as Steam and Expedia taking back their acceptance of Bitcoin for payments. >I feel like BCH has proven that node volume decreases significantly when block size goes up. It was a very good test case for Bitcoin and I am thankful for that. That's merely a correlation, and not provably the cause. The node volume itself is a fairly meaningless metric because it is prone to sybil "attacks". If someone has enough money, they can spin up 10,000 nodes on Bitcoin Cash using cloud services, and it would make Bitcoin Cash's node count far higher than that of Bitcoin's. Not to mention the fact that just because the blocksize limit is higher, it doesn't mean that blocks will actually be bigger, so the argument of fewer people being able to run a node isn't necessarily valid. >Also saying that eth is taking over SOV is kind of hilarious. They have a issuance policy that has changed half a dozen times at the whim of a few. Sound familiar? It doesn't matter that the issuance policy has changed... It has to do with the fact that proof-of-stake is a bigger incentive to hold Ethereum than "number go up" is for holding Bitcoin. If a holder is promised income regardless of whether the coin goes up in value or not (even though the coin's value is already going up), they'll pick that income anyday as opposed to just holding an asset, and purely relying on it going up in value.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on September 14, 2020 17:24:33

I think it would be even better to have it every few months, and constantly having feedback is even better!

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 16:11:32

Let's unironically do this, and show that it was a really bad bug/technical oversight...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 16:10:18

Do you know how I can program/set up things so that it can spam transactions from several addresses?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 16:09:11

So why not do it on mainnet then? It only seems like a good idea. I think we should have more regularly planned stress tests, and look at what exactly is causing issues with not being able to sustain bigger blocks. I will participate doing a few transactions on the stress test date!

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 16:08:11

Yes, I am in favour of doing another stress-test to see how block propagation has improved. Here's what I think will be really nice: \- 32 MB blocks for an entire week \- Try sustaining 8 MB blocks for 2 weeks \- Have people "pledge" here to participate in the stress test \- Compare the results to the previous stress test, and look at the bottlenecks on Bitcoin Cash

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 16:05:02

Did I insult anyone? No. Did I present any misinformation? No. How is my comment hypocritical?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on September 14, 2020 15:59:04

I think it's because the comment is overlooking the fact that the blocks being 1 MB is still inadequate, even for a "reserve layer". Even [comparing it to the figures of wire transfers that happen per day](, Bitcoin can barely handle that much traffic, even with SegWit. This is also ignoring the fact that according to the 'reserve economic model', on-chain transactions will also be used to push people onto Lightning. Even assuming that Bitcoin reaches $100k per coin because of its use in wire-transfers at the base-layer, and handles 1 million transactions on-chain per day, each transaction would need to be $90 at the bare minimum to subsidize the block reward, and this is assuming that people aren't further bidding for blockspace. These aren't wire tranfers, which are to send large amounts of money globally, but also transactions where people are sending their money onto Lightning, which may only be a few hundred bucks or a few thousand. Taking all of this into account, $90 fees (even with batching and all current optimizations) are unrealistic for the average person. This is all with the assumption that routing WILL be solved, for which there is no guarantee. While trying to figure out routing, on-chain adoption is being compromised, which also slows down off-chain adoption because it is dependent on the base layer.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 12:18:03

I'm simply telling it how it is. Cryptocurrency subs are filled to the brim with tribalism and if you say something that goes against the popular opinion (regardless of how legitimate of a point it is), you will be met with people insulting and repeating misinformation they have been fed by others.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on September 14, 2020 11:26:31

It's not a scam... Bitcoin Cash was a split from BTC because a big part of the Bitcoin community wanted to preserve the idea of Bitcoin being cash (aka cheap for online payments on-chain). Unfortunately, the Bitcoin Core community shot themselves in the foot by rallying behind Bitcoin instead of Bitcoin Cash.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on September 14, 2020 11:07:35

Let them know that scammers are scamming using their website so they can post warnings to new users who may potentially be signing up?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on September 14, 2020 11:03:54

So then people will be forcibly priced out of using the blockchain as intended... And then be economically coerced into using Lightning, which has centralized hubs that will eventually charge percentage fees for being financial middlemen just like PayPal and Venmo? And if they want to switch hubs, they have to pay on-chain fees to go to another hub, which isn't meant to be affordable anyways?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 09:24:04

How successful the routing of a transaction is depends on pathfinding such that your transaction can get from point A to B successfully. This depends on channel liquidity. Since path-finding and routing a transaction in a decentralized manner is not feasible, you will need to use centralized LN hubs for liquidity.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 09:15:33

Actually, I initially hated Roger Ver and thought he was a scammer. I fell for all the hate on r/Bitcoin, but then I decided to do my own research, and I realized that he isn't just some scammer. He is enthusiastic about peer to peer cash, which is why he got into Bitcoin to begin with... Looking back at his talks, he liked fast and cheap transactions that Bitcoin provided, which could've made it the native currency of the internet. It explains why he supports other coins such as XRP, ZCash, Ethereum, Monero, and Dash. What BTC is doing is so far from the economic model initially set out for Bitcoin that it doesn't suit the title of the whitepaper, which is being peer-to-peer cash with cheap transactions. A big part of the Bitcoin community was censored out of discussion, which led to the hate and bashing of Bitcoin Cash when it came out. Essentially, people were molded into believing a certain narrative by r/Bitcoin mods. When a few well-known figures in the crypto community supported Bitcoin Cash, they were faced with harassment, vilification, character-assassinations, death and rape threats all for just supporting another coin, even if it meant not being opposed to Bitcoin. It sucks that BTC hasn't attempted to actually increase the base blocksize because it could've taken full advantage of being the first mover, and completely remove the need for competing coins which do Bitcoin's job better than it does its own. Over the years, Bitcoin has lost marketshare that it could've had from other coins all because of the politics and conflicting interests at play. For being cash, many coins have eaten away at Bitcoin's marketshare, Ethereum took away smart contracts and is now taking away the store of value aspect of Bitcoin (with PoS rewards), Monero took privacy, and XRP took away the use-case of instant transactions without the need of initial setup/waiting for confirmations.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on September 14, 2020 03:09:32

It's not impossible at all... An overwhelming majority of hashrate on Bitcoin is concentrated in China, which should be concerning for those in support of Bitcoin and other SHA 256 chains. The government can step in if they want to, and 51% attack BTC, and the resources required wouldn't matter because the state benefits from it.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/BitcoinBeginners on September 14, 2020 02:41:15

Ok I think this is a bit unnecessary. Let's just downvote and move on...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 23:59:50

Shame on you for even suggesting such an idea!

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/cakedecorating on September 13, 2020 23:58:17

Hmmm that's surprising. Some exchanges can really have different policies for deposit withdrawals...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/EthereumClassic on September 13, 2020 23:55:31

>Segwit is effectively 4 meg blocks though No it isn't. The 4 MB figure depends on 100% SegWit adoption, and that won't happen in at least another 2-3 years. SegWit was never intended as a compromise to actually increase the blocksize limit. It was a political move to change the economic system of Bitcoin, and shift the incentives of those looking to spam the blockchain.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on September 13, 2020 23:52:51

Hey, it's a good thing! If you take the donuts, the diabetic children can't have them!

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/ironicsigns on September 13, 2020 21:25:45

>The DAA change, for example. That’s a consensus-breaking change that will need to be debated. The DAA change has been universally agreed to since it has been properly studied, and is known to improve the confirmation times. Even ABC is implementing it in their coin, but they are unhappy with the fact that not many people want to pay them from the coinbase reward, so they're coercively soft-forking to invalidate BCH blocks. >But I’m a very big fan of the fact that BSV has all of the parallelization that BU worked on for years, all of the original OP\_codes of bitcoin and no more bottlenecks left to slow down creativity. I think Bitcoin Unlimited might potentially bring their parallelization back to Bitcoin Cash, since ABC can not stonewall their attempts to scale Bitcoin Cash, however I cannot speak on behalf of BU developers. It might be nice to bring back the old OP\_codes back to BCH, but I'm not certain that will happen. However, some of them [might be coming later down the road for BCH](, but there isn't active development on it. >Meanwhile, BCH still has a lot of hard limits in place. If you can point me to the BCHN, Verde, BU and whoever else roadmap, I’d be happy to take a look at it. Partially, it's because ABC has been stubborn about development on Bitcoin Cash. The lead ABC developers have said that blocks cannot propagate sustainably past \~24 MB, and that it would require software optimizations, but they've been saying that for 2 years, while not delivering optimizations that improve the current issues with block propagation. However, Xthinner and Blocktorrent are being developed, which will allow for propagation of bigger blocks, and significantly improve scaling. XThinner actually puts CTOR to use, and can make blocks much easier to propagate. Blocktorrent will allow for gigabyte blocks, and being sustainable. As for the roadmaps: BCHN: []( BU: []( Most of the future developments can be seen in detail here: [](

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 21:10:37

I wouldn't recommend using HitBTC, because they're known scammers. But for Ethereum Classic, it would likely require \~40,032 confirmations for an exchange desposit.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/EthereumClassic on September 13, 2020 20:47:16

What specifically are your concerns/issues with the BCH roadmap? I don't think it would be impossible to merge both cash and SV infrastructure back together again... Not to mention that BCH is getting a DAA change, which will significantly improve the user experience.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 20:39:24

>I’d like to see big blockers converge in such a way where they can cooperate economically on a chain that scales for the entire globe. I think your analogy to Roger and BCH fits well in comparing CSW and BSV. It’s a perception thing. Do you think it's still possible to re-unite the big-blockers? Now that ABC is out of BCH, BCH becomes a viable fork for those who don't want to be under the influence of ABC and Craig Wright... I'm sure the split could've been avoided, and there likely were sockpuppets and sybil attacks involved in dividing the community further, though I can't say for sure. A few developers are also working on block propagation technologies that will allow for much bigger blocks on Bitcoin Cash without any drawbacks, or accidental chainsplits. From what I know, a lot of BSV supporters want to see Bitcoin Cash succeed over Bitcoin SV, but were unhappy with ABC's "leadership". If we can get back together, Bitcoin Cash can come back stronger.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 20:28:18

I think the problem is the fact that regardless of his influence on BSV, he has become the face and leader of it. In most peoples' opinions, Craig Wright is a fraud and is NOT Satoshi, yet a big part of the BSV community still believes that he is. From my personal experience, a lot of them will go through a great deal of mental gymnastics to say that he is Satoshi, when there is reasonable evidence to prove him wrong. Hell, even the BSV website lists Craig as the creator of BTC... It's similar to how outsiders view BCH = Roger Ver + Bitmain, even though that might not be the case. I really hope that the community can reunite back together and we can undo the damage caused by the BSV-BCH split.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 20:07:06

Well he is the one with the power ultimately, because the coin is somewhat built on the premise that Craig is Satoshi. If he did want to make a change, people would follow it.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 19:53:23

Can you link the comment, please?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 19:21:06

Maybe. I think if the BSV community rejects Craig Wright, we can be united, but on 2 different chains... Or BSV can come back to BCH, and we can finally be united under BCH once again

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 17:50:49

Yes you're right. If Craig Wright quit with his governance on BSV, and people didn't actually believe he was Satoshi, I would consider joining BSV, or at the very least, taking it seriously...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 17:22:25

Two words: Price manipulation

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/binance on September 13, 2020 16:26:52

Unfortunately, I have to agree. It seems people only use Bitcoin to become richer... With the investment perspective towards Bitcoin, it will remain that forever. Investors will play with it, but we won't get peer to peer cash. I'm hoping/thinking that this next split might actually reunite the BCH community from the BSV side as well, and we can all be under the same coin, once again.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 16:22:52

Which token was that?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 16:16:18

Then removing him as mod is fair

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 16:14:14

Tim Draper has been in Bitcoin for several years, but never bothered learning about Bitcoin Cash

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 16:04:01

He never said he was mislead... He admitted to putting the tweet himself, but after "doing his own research", he realized there is a "security issue". He never bothered detailing what the security issue was (hint: It's not even the minority hashrate, because BCH is protected by a BIG share of the BTC hashrate, and has checkpoints). What's more likely is that he faced backlash and harassment, and took the tweet down, as many people have after supporting Bitcoin Cash. Do you not remember that Jeffrey Tucker said about Bitcoin Cash? He supported it, but couldn't be very vocal about it because of the harassment and hate he got from the twitter mobs... From the video, he doesn't seem that knowledgeable about Bitcoin Cash in general... He did promote it, but he also claimed that Roger Ver created the token, when he didn't. What I find more likely to be the situation is that Tim Draper wanted to promote Bitcoin Cash because it was fast, cheap, and useful, but he got a lot of backlash for promoting it and was inclined to delete it.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 13:33:00

Unfortunately, the crypto market and community is heavily manipulated... Tether doesn't seem very legit, and there are rumours that r/CryptoCurrency mods have engaged in vote manipulation when a user on the sub exposed Binance's involvement in Ethereum token price manipulation, and they also removed their modlogs, "supposedly" by vote.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/nanocurrency on September 13, 2020 01:34:54

Ohhhh interesting. Usually what I've heard about BCH Schnorr signatures is that they're a copy of Pieter Wuille's work, and not a complete implementation.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 00:41:23

You realize the irony in your statement, right? This is coming from a novelty account who was specifically created only to hate on Bitcoin Cash... You need to build some self-awareness.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 12, 2020 23:15:50

I strongly dislike Amaury, but I disagree with the action... Just because Amaury is on the wrong, it doesn't mean it's fair to remove him as a mod

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 12, 2020 23:12:54

I still think it would've been salvageable... CSV and Schnorr weren't necessary, and the Schnorr implementation wasn't complete or stable yet

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 12, 2020 23:09:36

I'm not all that knowledgeable about tech, but weren't the BSV crowd specifically opposed to ABC's LTOR version of CTOR rather than CTOR itself? Honestly, a compromise could've been made here... We could've kept the 32 MB blocksize, avoided CTOR, and put back the old OP codes.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on September 12, 2020 22:15:17