If Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash are decentralized, why should it matter who supports them? Shouldn't they be judged on technical merits alone?
(I have no holdings in either one)
'As for fireworks vs explosives, the current limit on firecracker size in the US is 50mg of flash powder. The "Pest Control Report 2000" was 1000mg'
It’s Bitcoin Cash. You’re just making the community look like a cult.
From /r/bitcoin:
>Starting a new company called Apple Unlimited! Please don't confuse this with our competitor, Apple. We did "borrow" all of their code, but we claim to follow the wishes of the great Steve Jobs, because the new guys that took over are ruining everything and censoring everyone!
These are technical terms that were fine when used technically by technical people who understand them. But they are kind of loaded what can be used to trick nontechnical people into believing that 'hard' means 'big' and 'soft' means 'small'. And 'big' means 'abandonment of true bitcoin' while 'soft' means 'still following the true bitcoin'.
Easy thought experiments can prove these is not the case. Let's think of some possible changes that can be made as softforks and are clearly a violation of the original idea:
- a requirement that every transaction has an additional output for tax collection
- a requirement that every transaction contains KYC/AML tag. - addresses blacklist
- decreasing the max block size to 10 kB
- lowering the block reward to 0 from tomorrow, miners get only tx fees (it is possible because the protocol defined the max block reward rather than exact block reward)
- adding a second PoW algo (it can be put in coinbase)
- a requirement for coinbase to contain a specific Quran verse
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7jehc2/we_should_aband...