It's more a reaction to Bitcoin Cash officially insisting that it's the "real" bitcoin, and trying to actively misleading users by referring to BTC as "Bitcoin Core", creating a false parity to make it seem like they're both equal "forks" that bitcoin split into.

I've tried to refer to them using the less loaded "BTC" and "BCH" symbols instead; but it's kindof getting tiring, hearing people insist "Bitcoin Cash is Satoshi's True Vision". It's like somebody starting a "Apple Phone LLC" and saying it's Steve Jobs' true vision, ignore that other "Apple" company.

The difference is that you have to look at the attributes of each coin and see which one most likely reflects the white paper that satoshi himself wrote. He is talking about a P2P cash system, not a P2P gold system.

Just because the first generation of bitcoin was the beginning doesn't mean it still reflects the original vision.

A peer, in bitcoin, is a node. If you don't run a node, or indeed if you can't run a node because of its resource requirements, you aren't a peer.

Bitcoin : Peer-to-peer cash.

You went right over the first part, and only talk about the second part, even though in the first part, the word 'peer' is used twice.

"The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate." - Satoshi Nakamoto

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

160,000 nodes have a different view than your selective quote, and they control consensus.

The comparison to Apple is funny. Are you suggesting Bitcoin is a centralised company with a trademark?

If suddenly someone spins up a million bitcoin cash nodes will you call it bitcoin? If total PoW exceeds core will you? If core finally hard forks to increase the blocksize will you stop calling it bitcoin?

But that you'd compare it to Apple, that's just weird.

I think a better analogy would be if Steve Wozniak started a new company called Apple Electronics back in the middle 80s.

Yes, it was a campaign propagated by a self titled group of Crypto Currency trolls called "The Dragon's Den" They coordinate propaganda campaigns and cyber attacks on crypto currencies they don't like. There is a lot of overlap between the Dragon's Den and Bitcoin Core as well as Litecoin and they hold moderation positions in /r/bitcoin. The idea is that by calling Bitcoin Cash "bcash" they take the word "Bitcoin" out of the name and there by confuse people unfamiliar with the history of the community about what Bitcoin Cash is and it's reasons for existing.

The name "Bitcoin Cash" is confusing, and the authors meant it that way, so they can piggyback on the branding.

There is no reason that the name of an unauthorized fork of a cryptocurrency should use the name of the original within it.

Unauthorized?

In a decentralised system based wholly around cypherpunk distrust of central authorisation, you call something unauthorised?

I'm not sure if that's hilarious or just sad.

Oh, it's "just sad", for sure...

There has to be some acknowledgement that if you take someone else's work and modify it, you shouldn't then be allowed to claim you are them.

Do you not see the irony in what you're saying here?

It is by definition a decentralised, anarchic system. The idea of authorisation or ownership of the one true core is hilarious.

> The idea of authorisation or ownership of the one true core is hilarious.

That's great, but it's not what I wrote. What "one true core"?

Taking someone's software, modifying it, and touting your change as the next version of their software is wrong. Regardless if the code is meant for a block chain, or anything else.

But that's exactly what's happened with Bitcoin, as collaborative work.

What? Satoshi disappeared! The rest of the developers continued on. How is that comparable to bitcoin cash trying to do a hostile take over of bitcoin, simply because they want to take the brand name for themselves?

Why are you discussing reddit?

Like people used to write "Micro$oft" back in the day, the phrase "Bcash" used to imply it's no longer "Bitcoin"

> the phrase "Bcash" used to imply it's no longer "Bitcoin"

Which is true, so what's the problem?

It's a fork with shared history. Both forks have moved on from early versions. I'd say it's open to interpretation what is the 'real' bitcoin.

If you take someone else's work, modify it, and then claim you are them, that's not "open to interpretation". It's just wrong.

So Bitcoin/Bitcoin Core/whatever need to stop claiming to be Bitcoin too?

No, because those same developers worked on the earlier versions as well. They didn't just come in, take someone else's code, change it, and say, "Look guys, here is the next version of their software! Enjoy ;)"

They came after Satoshi still.

God knows what Satoshi thinks about all the stuff going on around bitcoin...

They carried on after Satoshi left. That's a lot different from an outside group trying to do a hostile takeover and steal the bitcoin brand name.

You really see no iony at all in your bizaree claims do you.

I guess I've decided - it's just sad.

Either you don't want to see my point, or you can't see it, because you haven't said anything to address it. If you have an argument, why don't you say it? This juvenile name calling makes me feel sad for you.

I've given my argument - your entire position is ridiculous, given the nature of what you're talking about. It's beyond irony, and whats more it makes you look a petty fool.

I'm sorry you don't see that.

Again with the insults. Then what is your damn argument? I've stated mine, several times. Please, state yours.

All I can do is guess that you are talking about users not only being inundated with forks, but not even being able to tell one fork from another, or even one coin from another because they all use the same names. And this is all fine for you because of anarchy or something.

> Why do some people call Bitcoin Cash "Bcash?"

It's an abbreviation. Bitcoin Cash = Bcash/BCH. This acronym is not confusable with Bitcoin or the BTC acronym at all.

Why is this considered remotely offensive? People are incredibly reactive to this and I don't understand why. It's a pretty straightforward mechanism of acronyms that has been going on for hundreds of years.

Why is this actually considered a serious point of discussion, at all?

Great to hear your thoughts on this, pmd. You don't mind if I call you that? Oh, you do? Well I'm going to anyway.

I don't at all. Is using an abbreviation supposed to be insulting somehow?

(and the thing is, it's not even the bcash people who are bothered by the term - it's the BTC people! it's like you got insulted when someone recognized me enough to call me PMD... which is what I suspect it comes down to.)

bcash is fewer syllables to read in your head than BCH