The Most Hated Crypto On Reddit

Adam Back isn't competent enough to be Satoshi.

Attached: 2014%2F03%2F07%2Fac%2FAP407286670.05998.jpg%2F950x534__filters%3Aquality%2880%29.jpg (950x534, 51.88K)

Fuck off with your bcash

smart people like BCH

Bsv is the most hated crypto on reddit

BTC needed an "immaculate conception" and an enigmatic founder. That was the purpose of publishing it anonymously.

It doesn't matter that Adam Back seems to be a contradiction with Satoshi, because Satoshi contradicted himself in attacking the large-blockers in his last message. As BarelySociable proves, the e-mail account from which that message was sent was not hacked. The writing style is also completely Satoshi's.

You either haven't watched the video, or you don't have a candid mind. Anybody with the slightest bit of sense who considers the evidence in that video will agree that Adam Back = Satoshi. There are hundreds of pieces of evidence which join together to make this inference conclusive.

BCH doesn't solve the fundamental problem of crypto. BTC centralizes things by forcing you to go through Blockstream's second-layer solutions, but BCH also has to centralize by having increasingly larger blocks. Either way you get centralization, so crypto serves no purpose. Might as well simply use gold-backed cryptos which hold their gold in different vaults around the world at that point. Crypto is going to zero after the reset; Russia and China will not accept payment for their commodities and production in cryptocurrency. They will demand gold.

It's just no one likes forks. They are jewishh by nature

>because Satoshi contradicted himself in joining with the large-blockers in his last message
Satoshi created bitcoin, and he was clear throughout pretty much every message on the topic - bitcoin can scale layer 1.

the 1mb block limit was temporary to prevent block spam at the time and was never meant to be permanent
>You either haven't watched the video, or you don't have a candid mind. Anybody with the slightest bit of sense who considers the evidence in that video will agree that Adam Back = Satoshi. There are hundreds of pieces of evidence which join together to make this inference conclusive.
i watched it when it came out and found it unconvincing. but i already knew of adam back because of blockstream and hes early involvement with bitgold or whatever he called it was not new to me. no doubt satoshi drew some insopiration from adam back. but they are very different.

perhaps i will re watch the video before i post this thread again

>
BCH doesn't solve the fundamental problem of crypto. BTC centralizes things by forcing you to go through Blockstream's second-layer solutions, but BCH also has to centralize by having increasingly larger blocks. Either way you get centralization, so crypto serves no purpose. Might as well simply use gold-backed cryptos which hold their gold in different vaults around the world at that point. Crypto is going to zero after the reset, Russia and China will not accept payment for their commodities and production in cryptocurrency. They will demand gold.

>> he doesn't know

hahhahah big blocks are the future. you'll understand in a few years when they unravel the new ways to store data. in a decade or so we'll be able to store data in a DNA like fashion. we will be able to store Trillions of GB in objects the size of a hair.

fibre is gaining speed benchmarke after benchmark and soon we have elon starlink.

where we are going. the limitations of today are no more. and you are braintarded to see it.

thats why you are a btc core cuck and thats why you will stay poor.

Pretty sure reddit hates bsv more

>Satoshi contradicted himself in attacking the large-blockers in his last message
Please show how he contradicted himself?

The fact that this continuisly forked coin is still in the top 10 is a bad look for all of crypto. There is no reason for this shitcoin to exist even compared to litecoin and fucking DOGE. Which by the way still has more transactions than bcash. To make the argument that it can be used as cash when in reality stablecoins will more than likely be used which run on ethereum, that you can also use with 2.0 no confirmed
You forgot your #maga2020 retard.

>Adam Back = Satoshi
Nobody other than shills believes Adam Back is Satoshi.

btfw scientist already have results with storing data in grains of sand.

a scientist was on the news here a year ago telling about how in a good 10 years they will have perfected their tech to the point where we will be able to store the entire content of the internet in an object the size of a coffee cup.

Bitcoin core small blocks will be eternally BTFO.

Chequed

Satoshi works for XMR now.
hes one of the 5 anonymous lead developers.

I don't know. The fact that BTC is still number one when it's essentially crippled software is an even worse look. lol

>thats why you are a btc core cuck and thats why you will stay poor.

I'm clearly opposed to BTC in both my messages. I said that I supported gold-backed cryptos like Kinesis.

>hahhahah big blocks are the future. you'll understand in a few years when they unravel the new ways to store data.

Your thinking is delusional, but it doesn't matter whether it is correct or not, because fiat is going to collapse within a few months to a couple of years, and BCH won't be ready to become money when that happens. The world will revert to gold. Besides which, even if what you say is true, Russia, China, and the other productive nations, will not accept BCH in exchange for their goods and commodities. You will either give them gold or you will get nothing. You can't use BCH for any useful purpose, i. e. in industry, to strengthen an economy or fight a war. Whereas gold and silver have manifold uses, and represent value and savings for real-world purposes. So no nation-state will ever take BCH over precious metals.

Satoshi made out, in the beginning of BTC, that the block-sizes would keep getting upgraded. But as soon as the block-size debate came about, he pulled out the rug out and said that he had changed all his views. You can find this in BarelySociable's video. He betrayed Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen. He was working for Blockstream all along, because he was Adam Back.

Vitalik supports BCH

Can you provide a link to the bitocointalk thread? Some of us like to read and don't learn like fucking zoomers.

Satoshi's e-mail isn't on Bitcointalk. In fact, a lot of information on BarelySociable's video has already been wiped off the internet. Nevertheless, this is the text of the e-mail:

-

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

(1/2)

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

(2/2)

are you goldanon? sorry you sold early fren.

Attached: goldanon.png (1792x364, 163.18K)