I’ve written many times about the sustained attacks Bitcoin (particularly big blockers) have faced in the fight for Bitcoin, and in the fight for a global electronic cash system.
It should come as no surprise, BTC as a settlement layer, or “store of value” coin, does not compete with major payment processors. Nor does it compete with any of the banking world’s pre-existing line of products. In fact, it supports them. It provides many of these institutions, with a method of settling major payment transactions on a very secure blockchain, while at the same time, allowing them to continue their current business models, where they are able to charge for transactions.
BCH is far more disruptive as a technology than BTC could ever dream to be. BCH challenges the products of the majority of financial institutions, but in particular, reserve banks.
When I was at the scaling bitcoin conference last month, BTCC Boss, Bobby Lee, made a profound comment – “Bitcoin’s value comes from the inherent failures, limitations and inconveniences of the fiat money system”.
Why would we place the same limitations on BTC ?
BTC is a safety coin… It won’t ruin many of the existing financial business models because these institutions can leverage its security, while taking advantage of the high fees, to deliver their own added solutions, for lesser fee. This is Blockstream’s business model in a nutshell.
BCH is not a safety coin. It is, highly disruptive. It’s uncomfortable for many, because it challenges the paradigms, and business models of the entire financial system across the world.
If we didn’t expect to be spat at, ridiculed, trolled, attacked – even illegally, then we aren’t doing it right. This is what disruptive technology is all about, shaking up the established industry. And some brave souls, have chosen to put their lives and reputations on the line, because they believe in the shake-up this technology can cause, and they believe in its outcome.
This is by no means blind faith. Bitcoin up until this year, was flourishing with merchants… These merchants have disappeared – at least from the Bitcoin world. At first, these businesses were forced to change their business models to have their customers pay the fees (yep!), and when even that proved too much, they stopped transacting with Bitcoin altogether.
BCH picks up where BTC dropped things. There is one side in all of this that deals with relentless attacks, smear campaigns, denial of service, hacking, and the like – and that’s the BCH side. BTC as a safety-coin is no longer such a threat to payment processors. But the attacks have increased now to the n’th degree.
It wasn’t supposed to go this way. When Bitcoin Cash forked, it was supposed to end years of bitter in-fighting between the big block, and small blocker camps. Those that saw Bitcoin as a “store of value” versus those that saw Bitcoin as a “global frictionless, peer to peer currency”.
But if anything, the toxic elements have only intensified. – We are doing something right.
The “BCash” propaganda is at full swing… nothing new here, but Roger Ver knows all about it. This was a method to de-legitimize Bitcoin Cash. The name war was started by the Core camp, they drew first blood in this. As with Ethereum Classic, so Bitcoin Cash was aptly named, given it is a Bitcoin fork. So, when the intentional attempt to discredit BCH by slandering its name took hold, many prominent people within the BCH community stood up to voice their opinion in return, that they believe Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin.
Ethereum’s Vitalik Buterin also echoed this sentiment stating “I consider BCH a legitimate contender for the bitcoin name”. Among prominent names we found Gavin Andresen, Roger Ver, Dr Craig Wright, Ryan X Charles and others stating the same.
But the name is a small part of it, but nonetheless noteworthy. Individuals are genuinely being bullied. What Roger Ver experienced in his debate this morning was a subtle attack, by means of projection. Roger was accused of astroturfing. Sure enough, last month when I did catch up with him, he explained that he never, ever engaged in such unethical practices. I followed up and tried to find something to be doubly sure, and I came up with nothing.
The social engineering antics of this group is second to none though. They’ve somehow, managed to make a large group of people actually believe that Roger is astroturfing via his birds.bitcoin.com project.
I’m honestly a little shocked that I even have to explain this one… but here it goes:
Astroturfing: “is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s).” – link
Bitcoin Birds is a simple Twitter client with Bitcoin integration. It is a service that allows you to get rewarded with bitcoins for retweeting and spreading other people’s messages, or reward others to retweet and spread yours!
No where at all, does Bitcoin Birds, “mask sponsors of a message” to make it “appear as though it originates from and is supported by grass roots participants”. With the Birds tool, we know very well, where the message originates from, after all, these are retweets! The originator is very much intact! There is no deception here whatsoever…
What Bitcoin Birds does, is allow a user to signal boost a message. The source of the message is clear. This is no different, than to paying Google for advertising via their Adwords campaign tool. Does paying Google to run your ads mean that Google is shilling for you? Absolutely not.
If on the other hand, Roger chose to pay a number of shills, without exposing himself as the originator of the content, to make it appear as though his message is a grass-roots movement, then they’d have a point. That would certainly be deception.
But on the other hand, the Core camps have very much so been caught several times red-handed in creating shilling accounts.
One of their prime strategies is to deflect the very same criticism they receive onto their opposition. Why else have r/bitcoin mods been caught red-handed with “hacking” and “vote manipulation” ?
More recently, we find ourselves now dealing with an avalanche of Bitcoin forks. Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, who prior wouldn’t have dared discuss the possibility of a Bitcoin split, seems to be happily promoting these on his twitter feed. He has retweeted, “Bitcoin Gold” supporting tweets, and astonishingly, this ‘pro’ Bitcoin Gold tweet:
Not only is he comparing this Bitcoin fork to Bitcoin Cash, but also actively stating that is going to be tradeable, and where to find it.
For a reference point, have a look at the following slide, titled “Why Controversial hard-forks CANNOT happen”, to see how much this man has slipped.
The points Adam Back lists on this slide are:
- If the chain splits, there will be funds loss and complete loss of confidence
- The discussion of a split has already significantly affected confidence and price.
- Bitcoin is not a democracy, change must have near universal agreement.
- We already have political currencies
If Adam was so vehemently against hardforks that dilute the brand name, cause loss of confidence, affect the price etc etc… then why on earth would he be boasting about future forks?
The reasons are so glaringly transparent, you could almost be blinded by them. This is another attack on Bitcoin Cash. Create endless forks of Bitcoin, bewilderingly, calling them by their full names this time, and really dilute the name of Bitcoin Cash among the crowd.
I’m rather intrigued saddened that Adam Back isn’t concerned of how this impacts BTC in the long term…
Then we have the miners… once regarded as the friends of the system. Somehow, Core have managed to make you believe that these people are the evil of the system. In Blockstream’s sought after layer 2 solutions for fees, the war with the miners was always going to come to a head.
The problem now is that if Core ever wish to hard-fork their way out of the choking transactional pipeline, they are literally going to have to grovel. And even then, I don’t like their chances. Core have positioned themselves with the miners as strictly “Store of Value”. Big blocker miners, already have their big block solution in Bitcoin Cash. And they’ve already started making their investment position. The last thing miners will happily accept, is a change in policy on BTC. The line has been drawn in the sand…
BTC is for store of value, and Bitcoin Cash continues the electronic cash solution that Satoshi Nakamoto sought. There shouldn’t be any need for in-fighting… But this is wishful thinking I’m afraid.
BCH has chosen to scale today. Not on dreams of lightning network solutions… Lightning Network is real, and it has legitimate use cases. But how it will work holistically, is still up in the air… can it work in a global decentralized manner? – that’s also up in the air.
Meanwhile we have a solution, right here, right now, that is scalable.
BCH will provide financial sovereignty to those that need it most. First and foremost, the poor, and those in third world countries. These are the people who need Bitcoin more than anyone.
Being an elitist, and placing parameters on what you believe should be the fee-rate, not only makes you the authoritarian governor of the system, but it also implies that you are putting yourself in a position where you are able to censor those in 3rd world countries from the system.
The elitist attitudes with Bitcoin need to stop. This isn’t a coin for the wealthy, it is a coin for all people. BCH does not discriminate. Bitcoin Cash is already more scaled than Segwit. Right now, today, BCH handles more. Spin it anyway you want and dream up any future scenario.
In a competitive market you need solutions yesterday. Not promises for tomorrow. This what separates business life and death.
But on a closing note, every time you are mocked, and ridiculed or attacked. Be proud because it means you’ve done something right. We don’t get to be a disruptive technology on peaceful terms. No. In the famous words of Winston Churchill, “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”