Comment on: A Closer Look at the Suspicious Activity Involved With the Bitcoin Gold Fork
My Steemit will probably become a shared archive of my comments...
Here on news.bitcoin.com september 30th 2017
My own personnal and actual opinion about Bitcoin forks is about like this:
Bitcoin is a Strong Brand which has no copyright.
Bitcoin (Legacy) has built a reputation, a user network and a high financial value thanks to Core' safe and reliable code.
Core counts the widest team of best coders.
Some companies wanting to steal the Bitcoin network governance have spammed the mempool which did inflate the fees and tx delays and pretend bigger blocks are needed.
It is only and purely misleading propaganda.
BCrash, with 8Mb blocks, no SegWit, no Maleability BugFix not only keeps away small budget users to mine or run a node as the blockchain will use too much harddrive space which leads to a Super Centralization of mining.
BCrash, without SegWit, still allows Bitmain's patented ASICBoost optimization giving to the miners using it a high advantage in efficiency/profitablity which cannot be accepted as it would mean ALL miners would have to buy ASICs from Bitmain, centralizing the supply of hardware.
So BTrash is clearly an attack and abuse of the name Bitcoin and it's network.
BCash is a rebranding of the Bitcoin Unlimited proposal.
The maybe coming 2X fork is even more a vicious pretentious attack against Bitcoin as the small private club of 2 devs refuse to implement a Replay Attack Protection.
The 2X part of the NYA was supposed to happen only with Consensus to keep only ONE chain.
But as BigBlockers already forked a 2nd chain, the 2X is in fact in breach of the NYA!
It seems the same Roger had a deal to swap some of his BTCs for BCH at 1-1 with someone and did not keep his commitment, but I did not see this engagement.
Now I saw the tweets exchange he had with Charlie Lee and deal for Ver to swap 250 BTC for 250 B2X from Lee. I suspect Bitcoin Judas will not honor again.
Now about BGold, even if I basically do not support (Blockchain QE) forks and abuses of the Bitcoin Brand, at least, as changing algorythm from SHA 256 to EquiHash, there is no need to add anything else to prevent Replay Attacks as the 2 chains will by definition not be compatible.
But as on Roger Judas Ver's owned website, all what's not BCrash is bad while he enjoys free money from the sky to buy more BTrash.
I have not yet found a clear roadmap or precise specs for BGold, but their intention to bring back mining to GPU is a point I do support.
I dumped my BTrash as soon as I could move them to an exchange, I will probably do the same with B2X in case the fork happens, but depending on what specs and infos I can find by then about BGold, I might hodl those (bitcoin brand abuser's) coins and even maybe, if one day I started to mine coins, I could consider that chain if the profitability is better than other GPU mined coins
As this article depicts a possible conspiracy, my tolerance for BGold has nothing linked to my NO2X support.
Or maybe just a little as they do not pretend to reimplace Bitcoin, they clearly announce to be a friendly fork to create a user's mined altcoin.
But I surely prefer Litecoin as "petty cash" derived from Satoshi's vision of "peer-to-peer, decentralized, censoreship resistant, electronic cash system".