Bitcoin Cash Or Popularity Contest?

Many of those in the Bitcoin Cash community may have noticed a very public argument, or debate, happening all across social media.
Both parties are RIGHT? There is no question that both have potentially genius arguments backing their theories. One could be considered a little more SOFT scientifically/mathematically but is rich in philosophical and psychological reasoning. While the other point of view is very HARD Scientifically/mathematically and proves it is possible but does not take into consideration the philosophical or psychological reasoning as to why "THE EVENT" they are fighting over will most likely never be perpetrated.

Is Public The Best Place for it?

Yes, whether you like our dirty laundry being aired out in public. Everyone in the cryptocurrency community needs to see if we have skid marks in our drawers. We have already seen what the censorship, private email lists, and small private meetings has done to the entire crypto space and if this is not done in public then we will repeat the mistakes we have already made and travel down the wrong path we already traversed.


Public discussion also brings in other points of view, as well as the level heads that will mediate the arguments and guide the people, of the community, to come to some type of consensus. Sometimes a consensus is deciding the issue being discussed is not an immediate threat, unlikely to happen, and probably should be tabled until it becomes a more serious and immediate threat. Some times it will be decided that we all have to come up with an immediate resolution to the issue. Then sometimes it is given as a side project to someone who feels it will become a serious threat, and they might as well start working on a solution. The reason we need the referees is because the parties involved usually can't separate themselves enough from the issues they are debating.

Why do the Smart People Seem so Dumb, Sometimes?

Sometimes in a community you will notice people that are so intelligent, or at least someone you saw as intelligent, all of a sudden look very DUMB. Not because over night they became DUMB, but your perception of the perceived problem, seems, for lack of a better word, insane. I happened to stumble on this article/blog, "8 Ways Smart People Act Stupid," from Author Dr Travis Bradberry, 2 years ago, and changed how I look at, and handle, squabbles that may or may not need a resolution. Read the article to find out WHY each of these are relevant.
  • Smart people are overconfident.
  • They push people too hard.
  • They always need to be right.
  • They lack emotional intelligence.
  • They give up when they fail.
  • They fail to develop grit.
  • They multitask.
  • They have a hard time accepting feedback.

We Can Only Change Once We Recognize Our Faults.

If you find yourself in an debate and it seems to be getting out of hand. Ask yourself some simple questions.
  • Is this issue detrimental, to Bitcoin(cash) if not implemented?
  • Has the issue created multiple groups of people arguing the individual points, and do they seem to be drifting apart or coming together with that discussion?
  • Will Bitcoin Cash better be served if I move on to something else?
  • If someone suggests there is a problem that needs to be solved, but you don't think so, can you ignore them if they start working on a solution for the issue?
  • If they solve an issue, that you think didn't need to be solved, will you be willing to implement the solution once peer reviewed?
  • Are you willing to listen to the community, not just the people standing behind you egging you on, but the people that are saying it is unimportant, or, god forbid, that you are wrong?
  • Can you walk away and keep your mouth shut, or do you have to get the last word in?(Authors note: my biggest problem)
  • Are you willing to work together with the person you are arguing with for the good of all the people you are trying to save by getting Bitcoin Cash in the hands of every human on earth?

The Community Might Need to Help

Sometimes it is up to the people of Bitcoin Cash to step up and be a little hated in the community, this is not about my personal feelings, or for that matter my social cred. I have one goal, and that is to make Bitcoin, Cash, again. When I see us veering off course, it is very important, as a member of the community, to do everything in my power to point out that we are being a little childish.

Why Did I Decide To Write This?

I personally do not find myself claiming to be on the same playing field, with these individual's intelligence, in fact I don't even think I made it through the doors of the stadium. This actually puts me at a bit of an advantage. I love to learn, but I'm also not blinded by having a skewed perspective. I go into these debates with a cursory bit of knowledge and then have to research data, to either support one side or the other, neither, or just come to the conclusion "that there are much more important things to worry about."
Another person I consider to be one of the greats in the Bitcoin Cash community, @TomZ posted this Yours post, Identifying Poisonous People.
In my Humble opinion, Tom's timing and content of this post, was obviously pointed towards this discussion, and reading and listening to it prompted me to write, this post. I didn't write this because either of the main "characters," or any of the rest of us(including myself) that have added our two cents are Poisonous, but sometimes our EGO's are.

Did These EGO's Ruin Bitcoin Core?

Are we heading down the same path? Are we so sure of our ideas that we can not admit when we are wrong? Should we just change our name to Adam Back? Maybe Luke Dash Jr.? Are you willing to admit we have already started down the path of thinking we can save Bitcoin(cash) by ourselves?
Maybe we can admit we need each other? Maybe it isn't about Crypto celebrity? Maybe it isn't about being the name behind Bitcoin Cash but being a part of the greatest invention ever given to the human race. We Are All Satoshi. Now act like it.

What's Behind the Paywall? Nothing but a Big Giant Thank You :-)



4 of 4 reviewers say it's worth paying for

0 of 4 reviewers say it's not worth paying for
  earned 35.0¢
Looks like we're on the same page. Hopefully we can come up with a better mechanism than public discourse and everybody "coming to their own conclusions"... I can already see the cracks in the community on this subject. Taking a middle position will just get you lost in the abyss when the two sides split.
   1yr ago
10.0¢ 25.0¢
  earned 35.0¢
@samarmstrong I have learned my lesson. Being in the middle is just as much as a position as the two sided position and if I don't speak up and bring the two sides together then I will be the reason for the split. I failed Bitcoin because I remained silent. I will do everything in my power to not fail Bitcoin Cash.
   1yr ago
25.0¢ 10.0¢
  earned 25.0¢
Good. Stop hating the persons who write a paper.
If one thinks to have a better explanation they should create a paper themselves and expose it to the public debate.
   1yr ago
2.0¢ 2.0¢ 2.0¢ 25.0¢ 25.0¢ 2.0¢ 2.0¢ 25.0¢ 2.0¢ 2.0¢ 2.0¢ 2.0¢ 2.0¢ 25.0¢ 2.0¢ 2.0¢ 2.0¢ 2.0¢ 2.0¢ 2.0¢ 2.0¢ 25.0¢
  earned 0.0¢
This article alluded to too many things. It was also too vague. For example, what is the cryptocurrency community?
   1yr ago
  earned 0.0¢
This is only a potential problem with 0-conf, correct?
Why not just allow people to choose when/whether to accept 0-conf, so merchants determine the risk with which they are comfortable. Then if no one is using it for fear of SM problem, clearly it would scream for a fix. If many are using it without problem, it would seem to validate that it's an acceptable risk.
Seems the market test is best, no?
   1yr ago
  earned 50.0¢
@isaacmorehouse scientifically speaking it is bigger than 0-conf. wright says it won't happen because of game theory, and Peter Rizun says it is mathematically. possible. They are both right using probability theory. You are probably more likely to get struck by lightning while reading a winning the lottery ticket before running into the doublespend issue with the current Honest Miners(HM) in place.
The problem is, the mining landscape can change. Over time people who do not "believe" in Bitcoin(cash) will enter the mining market. Those astronomical odds will decrease if competitors like visa/mc/PayPal/governments or banks come into the market. This is where selfish miners(SM) come into play. What better way to bring down Bitcoin if you can crash it using the same equipment you can turn right around and use on your own centralized digital currency, like e-coin(Mr Robot reference)y. This is what CSW calls a conspiracy. I personally think it is inevitable, but still many years out before we need to worry about it. it is also, more likely, that govs or competitors will use cheaper and easier methods.
So again, they are both right, but they are both worried about something that doesn't need to be solved now.
Opposite of the scaling debate. issue needed to be solved now and core chose to solve the future instead of now. Peter Rizun is looking into the future and he has to pick his battles. CSW is looking at the now and because he is being a conceited asshole, he just wants everyone to say he is right(even if just for now).
   1yr ago
25.0¢ 25.1¢
  earned 25.0¢
Just want to say wish more people think this way. Like... Jesus christ selfish mining is such a pointless topic today it's kind of nuts it's even brought up in the first place. And then it subsided, and a certain asshole just have to start slinging mud again dragging another party (Emin) into it. On the protocol level we have way way more important things to worry about like canonical ordering, UTXO commitment, Graphene and perhaps subchains, but this drivel has to drag on and on.
Grow the fuck up people.
   1yr ago