Splitphobia (aka The-Fix-Is-In)

As in other historic scenarios when someone wants to implement a policy which is against people's best interests then the easiest way to do it to manipulate people into believing that the said policy is in their best interests because in case of success the people will not only NOT oppose the harmful policy but they will embrace it.

​

Unfortunately manipulation works and it's very easy to do: when you have no rational arguments to win a debate then the only way to win it is to address the irrational inner-desires of your opponent because he has no control over them. The documentary "The Century of Self" does a good job of explaining the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04

​

Blockstream unofficial agenda is to destroy, delay or discredit the BTC concept. They did a splendid job however they have one huge problem: hard forks. Hard Forks means that people can leave BTC's plantation and keep alive the BTC concept outside of their control which is simply not acceptable for them. Communism biggest problem was the existence of capitalism; any closed system biggest problem is the existence of an alternative better system. That's why Blockstream doesn't give a sh*t about BTC scaling, it's all a circus, and their main purpose is to discredit, discourage and destroy any BTC hard fork ... at any cost.

​

This is the main reason why since 2017 they are trying to kill BCH. Until now their most successful attack vectors were:

1) Manipulate BTC price. The only reason BCH did not take over BTC in 2017 is Tether printing and BCH will not be able to compete with BTC on price until Tether/Bitfines are gone. Probably the most successful Ponzi-scheme in history (outside of the banking sector).

2) Unrelentless smearing campaign without any real basis (on-chain scaling doesn't work, BCH is a scam, BCH was founded by Roger Ver, BCH is bcash, BCH is an altcoin, etc). Unbelievably successful as almost all my real life friends know that BCH is Roger Ver's scam coin despite all my efforts to correct them.

3) Unleashing a ton of BTC scam-forks (BTC Gold, BTC Diamond, others) which are truly scams without any prospects for the future. The idea was to drown BCH in a see of sh*t because most crypto-users don't know the difference between forks. Fortunately this was a dud.

4) Incentivize BCH forks. Unfortunately BSV sole reason to fork from BCH was to destroy BCH's market value and split the community. Neither CSW or CA care about the BSV project because in that case they would have protected BSV market value while in fact they've done the opposite. This was quite successful.

​

Now, what's new:

5) Create a new narrative - Splitphobia (Hard Fork-phobia) - intended to delay BCH progress by creating an irrational fear of hard forks. That's why BSV trolls are complaining about BCH forks (!?), suddenly Binance's CEO is complaining about BCH forks, why Greg Maxwell is whining about Schnorr signatures first on BCH blockchain or why unknown hashrate suddenly appears on BCH blockchain before each upgrade fork.

​

As if necessary to dispel why this concept is utterly garbage then I will mention some facts:

1) There is nothing irrational about hard forks. They are not inherently evil or good. Hard forks are the best way to safely upgrade the BCH blockchain at any given time. Soft forks don't work and in fact BSV was born because of a soft fork.

2) Without Blockstream, Bitfinex and Binance sponsored attacks BCH forks should not impact BTC price value -> the BTC miners would not be forced to switch to BCH in order to protect it therefore indirectly damaging the BTC price value. They are complaining about BCH forks damaging BTC but without their sponsored attacks there would be no damage to the BTC price value. What's the name of this?

3) Hard forks are very powerful and can be used to implement consensus altering changes. However no such changes were implemented until now and ABC's roadmap is pretty clear about the future (https://www.bitcoinabc.org/2018-08-24-bitcoin-abc-vision) Now, I think Avalanche will slightly impact the consensus rules but that's another topic :)

​

​

TL;DR: All this noise about BCH planned network upgrade is just that: noise. BCH will upgrade again, it will become better and stronger, and Blockstream cannot do anything about it (in fact they are running out of options). The surprising loser in this fight is BSV which is acting in Blockstream's interests and against BSV's holders interests. Whomever invested in BSV will be completely wiped out at the end of this debacle.

​

Thanks @deadalnix and all the other awesome BCH developers. The fact that you are making Blockstream and BSV trolls go out of their minds means that you are doing the right thing :)

submitted by /u/toro_ro
[link] [comments]

from Bitcoin - The Internet of Money http://bit.ly/2Wa0tBK