When Bitcoin was released into the world in 2009, it heralded a new age where no longer, did international money transfers, or electronic transfers of any kind for that matter, come with hefty fees. No longer did a trusted third party, hold your savings, or act as a middle-man for transfers. Financial sovereignty was here.

Bitcoin changed things forever. Or did it?

Today, ofcourse, we have Bitcoin Cash that carries Satoshi’s flame in its intended vision. That is-  peer to peer electronic cash . BTC on the other hand, has changed tact, and vision.

Often I get told, “but Satoshi wasn’t God, and his vision isn’t necessarily what’s best for Bitcoin”. I whole heartedly agree with the statement, that we should never put all of our trust on any one individual. No human being is flawless, or infallible. But the comment isn’t an argument, it is merely a comment. To use it as a debating point is silly, because the same twisted logic can be used on it’s head… “But Core aren’t Gods, and their vision isn’t necessarily best for Bitcoin”.

This is somewhat similar in spirit to the “no true Scotsman fallacy”. It is a manipulative debate device where one attempts to discredit a point or argument based on a generalization of some sort.

In truth, today, the entire BTC Segwit network is horribly congested, unusable, and desperate for scalability. So, what’s “best for Bitcoin” is certainly not what is happening right now to BTC. Yes, Satoshi isn’t God, but agreeing with him does not automatically denote obedience to divinity. It can just as well imply, that we believe through research, his method for Bitcoin makes the most logical sense.

The talk of Lightning Network has recently been amped up to tackle the rising dissent from Core’s echo chambers. Lightning Network, or LN for short, has been hailed by Core’s masters as the scalability solution that will conquer the world of digital transactions.

Lightning Network is useful technology in many circumstances. But it is neutral technology. It shouldn’t be at the cost of Bitcoin itself. But Core’s roadmap, literally pits LN against Bitcoin itself. Often they are touted and advertised as being the same thing. “LN will scale Bitcoin”. Well, Bitcoin itself won’t scale, you are simply taking things off of Bitcoin, transmitting them, and then settling them back into Bitcoin at a later time.

Off-chain, actually means off-Bitcoin.

I have no issue whatsoever with the Lightning Network itself. Rather, the issue is with the political agenda to “force” the network on users.

Robert the Bruce: I respect what you said, but remember that these men have lands and castles. It’s much to risk.

William Wallace: And the common man, who bleeds on the battlefield, does he risk less?

                                                                             -Braveheart 1995

With rising fees, the lower class, will not be afforded the same privileges as the upper class. The poor will be forced to process the vast majority of their transactions off-Bitcoin, while the rich, will be afforded the privilege of transacting far more frequently on-chain, with the benefits of immutability, increased security, and all other peace of mind that comes from blockchain technology.

Now Blockstream have introduced yet another layer, after finding some fundamental problems with the existing model for LN. One thing this does further, is that it allows for funds to move between channels and to be added to other channels in a concept known as “channel factories”. This in essence will alleviate some of the issues that have been noted concerning the close out of channels, but it will also ensure that LN is used even more heavily, keeping things moreso off-Bitcoin.

I made a comment recently about the irony of the argument for everyone needing to run their own node to validate their own transactions (a common Core line), yet with the majority of transactions happening off-chain, what are you really validating? And I was met with responses of “but if you ever want to validate, you can settle”. Cost of settlement will be your average fee… let’s say $50 in our hypothetical future. Once again, the rich are afforded the right to settle on command, and the lower class are not.

These aren’t off the cuff accusations I am making. Not at all. Blockstream’s Chief Strategy Officer not long ago tweeted “Bitcoin isn’t for people that live on less than $2 a day. You’re imagining someone with your knowledge & background that is poor”. Now fast forward to when fees are over $50 (that’s already happened by the way), and you find that Bitcoin isn’t for the middle class either. It’s for the banks, and it is for the rich.

In this paradigm, nothing about the world changes. We have a new way of transacting… maybe. But how financially sovereign are you really, when you have to pay a big fee every time you want to settle? Nothing in the divide between rich and poor changes. The poor remain poor, and are not afforded the same equal opportunities to trade and grow.

This is where Bitcoin Cash is the original Bitcoin and the BTC Segwit chain, is not. This is where Bitcoin Cash, is revolutionary, and BTC is not. Bitcoin Cash does not discriminate on class. It provides equal opportunity for trade, and opens the flood gates of business and commerce.

Eli Afram

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.