EPIC: Invest 2h in this, this has it all! Rugpull Radio Ep 71 Special Guest Lt General Kwast on Bitcoin as CounterInsurgency-MIL-CIV Alliance
(rumble.com)
66 84 67 32 49 55 55 54
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (48)
sorted by:
I need to make a copypasta for whenever crypto gets mentioned here. DYOR but I am a cryptofag.
Bitcoin (BTC, the coin; the bitcoin protocol gets denoted with a lowercase "b") was hijacked prior to 2017, specifically, around 2015 is when Blockstream cemented their control.
Fees were slowly rising on the bitcoin network and in 2017 things came to a head with "The Blocksize Wars". There came about opposing views on how to scale bitcoin, one side wanted to scale bitcoin the way Satoshi intended by removing the 1MB blocksize cap that was put in place to prevent those that might seek to spam the network with transactions (because the transaction costs were cheap and affordable, those with ill-intend could bring the network to a halt) by increasing the blocksize (in a reasonable way). The other side wanted to not change the blocksize and went about manipulating the code with SegWit, which activated in 2017, causing a split in bitcoin, Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH). This separation of the witness data that was originally in the block then moved to it's own separate thing "freeing" up blockspace, resulted in a new definition, block weight. Segwit gives Bitcoin a theoretical size of 4MB, but in actuality they're closer to 2-3MB at most. It has an estimated transaction speed of 7 tps (will come into play later as well with Lightning/L2 solutions). Hardly a threat to Visa's 1000+x tps. This was all done to fight off centralization of miners and allow hobbyists to run a node off their Raspberry Pi.
Why does this all matter? Transaction costs, banking the unbanked, giving the power of money back to the people, being in control of cash used everyday.
Bitcoin is no longer any of that, the narrative (who likes to change definitions and narratives?! Hint: It often isn't the good guys) has shifted to digital gold, numbers go up nonsense. It's become a get in, get out, get rich ponzi where you sell your stack to an even greater fool, or worse yet, the forever HODLers (what's the point of buying Bitcoin if you're never going to use it, it's become a pet rock at that point). Bitcoin was supposed to be used as a way to transact in a fast and affordable manner, now, at 7 tps, with even just 100,000,000 people making one transaction, how many years will it take (you do the math)? It's just not feasible and actually leads to heavy centralization, the very thing they were supposedly trying to avoid.
Bitcoin Cash is the continuation of the bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto created and scales in way that allows for the world to use it, on chain, with cheap fees, and in a fast and trustless manner.
Monero (XMR) while having no relation to bitcoin and cannot claim to share the genesis block (both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash have the same point of origin, because of the fork; Bitcoin Cash isn't squatting on the name Bitcoin as a brand new coin made in 2017 as some might think, it has traceable lineage to the very beginning) aims to be a form of digital cash, similar to Bitcoin Cash and the original intent of the bitcoin protocol (with some added privacy-rich features added to it).
TL;DR: BTC is a coin that seeks to recreate the status-quo of a centralized system (because it was hijacked by the bankers, and we know who control the bankers here) where the real value (on-chain, layer 1) gets redirected and routed through centralized hubs (Lightning Network, L2) bringing about an asset that the masses can not affordably move and transact with.
Bitcoin Cash seeks to scale on-chain by increasing the blocksize in a reasonable way that allows for the coin and network to be used and operated in a decentralized way so that BCH can be used here in the West as well as in lesser developed nations where a $5 BTC transaction fee (compared to a BCH tx fee of $0.009) might be all they make in a week.
TL;DRx2;
Take $10 of BTC and $10 of BCH and/or XMR, then take them off the exchange and put them in a hot wallet (think of a hot wallet as your actual wallet or checking account and a cold wallet as your savings account) and see how many transactions you can make and how fast BTC gets eaten up in fees. Actually use the coin and you'll find that the real world has a way of bringing things to light that tend to stay dark on twitter/internet.
As long as there are fees to use crypto it's not any better than fiat. We rent FERNs. If crypto replaces FERN then there's nothing to stop fees from escalating. Again, we're all fucked. Best thing is gold and silver, and a commodities backed and exchangeable currency, coined by the US Treasury, or whatever's left after the Great Fuckery.. No fees for exchanging goods and services.
Network fees are necessary to incentivize those who maintain and support the network. No fees means no network, which means no utility for the token. To say that fees make crypto no better than fiat is to similarly insist on "free" healthcare.
Healthcare isn't a means to exchange goods and services. Except by barter I suppose. If i want to use crypto and pay fees, fine. But I just want to use currency
Context is important here.
Bitcoin Cash was the brainchild of ANT, the Chinese mining equipment manufacturer. The reason it rubbed so many the wrong way was because of this. I went to the mining conference in Georgia (the country, not the state) back in 2018, and it was embarrassing how hard they were pushing this.
When you have a group that is basically pushing the little guy out of the mining space in favor of large, centralized mining farms, you can imagine that their ideas of what "Satoshi wanted" are going to be rejected by the vast majority.
BSV, the brainchild of the scam artist Craig Wright, also met a similar fate. I have a difficult time when people push propaganda onto those just discovering Bitcoin without having lived through the experience. The fact is BTC survived in its current form with SegWit because it was good enough and because it was being promoted by the guys who were, at least in theory, trying to argue for the original goals of decentralization.
As for not being a competitor to Visa for point of sale transactions, it was never meant to be. It was meant to be a replacement for the banking SWIFT and ACH system. By design Bitcoin requires at least 30 minutes to confirm a transaction. That was a good deal faster than the days it was taking an ACH to clear back in 2009, and even the 24 hours a wire transfer could take. And it was much cheaper as well.
This idea that Bitcoin was supposed to compete in the retail marketplace was something added later by people trying to stretch it into service for something it was never designed to do. That's when we got lightning network and all kinds of alternative crypto currencies with faster confirmation times. Bitcoin remains as a system for large money transfers, not for small retail transactions.
So a lot of what is said above is just propaganda reinterpreted by someone trying to push a particular agenda. It doesn't actually align with what really happened on the ground back in 2017 when all this was going down.
Go read the whitepaper. Go read the BitcoinTalk.org posts. Go back in time and see that Bitcoin was being used to buy pizzas, alpaca socks, Steam credit, Microsoft purchases, Newegg purchases, it was used at physical stores, and many many more. It isn't propoganda. "Bitcoin: A Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System". It wasn't ever meant to be just stonks numbers go up ponzi.
As for AntMiner, the company name is actually Bitmain, not ANT, Jihan Wu was far from the originator of Bitcoin Cash. They were just the biggest miner and ASIC manufacturer around and Jihan backed BCH but has since then distanced himself publicly from Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash was FORKED off by Amaury Sechet (who later went on to fork eCash from BCH).
Satoshi mentioned that mining operations would trend toward larger more centralized farms but that doesn't stop anyone from mining in the first place. The issue was blockspace...The issue was that big blocks would prevent people from home running a node to validate the ledger.
Go read the Lightning Network's whitepaper, 133MB blocks are stated. Not to mention the centralization that Lightning brings in it's current state.
It was always supposed to be for all kinds of transactions. What you wrote is literally Theymos and Blockstream propoganda, goal shifting, and misinterpretation.
Segwit fails to appropriately scale, RBF fails because it is a horrible replay feature that prevents 0-conf to be safely used, forcing transaction times to take longer for confirmation blocks. And by design, block times average out to 10 minutes, not 30.
What you're arguing for is a coin that was literally hijacked by the CIA and bankers trying to 2.0 the Babylon black money magic system.
TL;DR Bitcoin Cash was the "brainchild" of ANT - Debunked: It was forked off by Bitmain, bitcoin advocates and activists, along with a handful of developers after the failed XT blocksize increase project.
Pushing the little guy out of the mining space - Debunked: It was about the blocksize, miners were always going to trend into larger farms, as Satoshi indicated in a forum post.
BSV bull, CSW was always low hanging fruit, a tool used by people way above him.
SoV vs MoE - Debunked: The very first line in the whitepaper states that bitcoin was to be peer to peer electronic cash. The digital gold narrative came about well after that.
Context is important here.
I agree with everything you say. But not your conclusions. And you didn't debunk anything.
Fair enough. You're free to have a different opinion from my own.