@Big-Bubbler

@Big-Bubbler 21 December 2021

I wrote a long article about eCash: https://read.cash/@Big-Bubbler/can-ecash-handle-viral-adoption-growth-soon-9d511551 It is eCash specific, but many of the points I make in it would apply to BCH as well. It is about preparing for viral adoption growth and why we should do that now if we want to fulfill the dream of Bitcoin before it is too late.

@Big-Bubbler 20 December 2021

Can eCash handle viral adoption growth soon? I am sure I sound like a broken record to many when I repeatedly suggest I think **developing the code so eCash** (and BCH) **can handle massive and viral adoption growth should be a top priority.** This article is about eCash and I do not think it should be XEC's only top priority. I do think eCash needs to keep doing the structural changes like Avalanche code implementations and some important application development before eCash would be ready to ask the world to bring on the viral growth. I don't believe we need the technical solution in the code yet. We also do not need to explain the technical solution to me or the competition in advance. So, I am not asking how it will be done. I am asking if the developers have really figured it out in detail. **My goal here is to be able to truthfully tell the public eCash is fully ready to scale and there would be no limits on viral adoption growth if it began to happen.** Because viral growth could be unexpectedly rapid, the oft-repeated "wisdom" on social media that we can figure it out before it is needed would not satisfy this goal. In a recent AMA on Telegram Amaury was asked: “What is your best estimate as to when eCash will be able to reach its goal of 5M txs/sec?”. And, he replied: *“It depends on the market more than the tech. When usage grows, resources grow too, and we have a solid plan to make it work”.* My Question was: Does that “solid plan” include a technical solution you are sure works at that scale or are you planning to develop and test that solution later when the need gets closer? Amaury Séchet answered: *"Yes. I used to work at Facebook, so I have a good sense of what tech is needed. Putting them in place requires work, but we’ll also have more resources to get that work done as we grow, so all in all, I don’t think this will be a major problem.* *All scaling problems on bitcoin-like systems have social causes rather than technical causes. This is the case for BTC (no hard fork) and the case for BCH (no avalanche).* *The tech is known, whether people are willing to implement them or not is another thing, but we are willing to, and for as long as the community is willing to, we will scale."* The off-the-cuff live AMA did not give Amaury much time to compose his responses. I am not sure he answered clearly whether he does have the technical solution I am asking about figured out. I am happy he has "a good sense of what tech is needed". That said, I want to know if they have the actual solution figured out. I feel like much of what he was saying may have been about when massive levels of adoption will happen. What I am trying to ask, however, is whether we have the code ready to handle that level of transactions (not when will we achieve that level of actual adoption growth). I want to be clear that I am not asking him to let me or the public know the details of the technical solution(s). I would like it to be peer-reviewed, if possible, but I could not help with that. Keeping the solution(s) private until it is almost needed is probably smart even though some advance disclosure could help with testing for bugs or whatever. He mentioned social limitations and I bet there are potential "social causes" limiting both usage levels (actual adoption growth) and acceptable technical scaling-solutions. I will discuss my ideas about achieving adoption growth below. As for social limitations on the technical solution(s) to scaling: I know I do not want eCash to use the Amazon Cloud or some other centralized scaling solution like Facebook might use. I believe Amaury is committed to the suficiently-decentralized-money goal for eCash, so I would not expect such short-cuts as his scaling plan. Maybe he thinks we would need to do something radical like get rid of proof-of-work entirely to make scaling work? I hope not, I could see social resistance on that path. So, I am not sure what social limits on technical solutions he is concerned about, if any. As I said, I do not feel the developers need to tell me or the world what their plan is or what "social causes" concern them. I do hope they do not have significant social barriers to an intended technical solution. I assume massive work would need to be done on hardware and user-application-installations worldwide but I am assuming that would be done by the merchants and other users organically growing the ecosystem. I believe the important application work being done now is to provide them the tools they would need. I am not worried about there being enough mining effort as growth would increase value and that would increase mining efforts. Viral growth would not be as easy as most would assume and I am pretty sure many issues would arise along the way. I assume the eCash team would be supporting all those new users as best they can to keep their eCash user-experience as happy as possible under the rapid growth conditions. I am not asking about any of that. I am just asking about whether the eCash code will be able to handle viral transaction growth. As for adoption, **Why develop the code BEFORE we encourage viral growth** to happen? I used to think and many still do think we do not need to prepare for viral growth until after we grow much more adoption. It would be a lot easier to wait until developers are better funded (which would follow significant adoption growth). I know it seems like we do not need to worry about it yet. So why am I pushing so soon?: A) Because viral growth can not happen before we can handle it. It could start to happen like it did for BTC in 2017. If we claimed we could scale and we then crash into a ceiling, we lose credibility and momentum and the viral growth dies. I do not think we would need to worry about that scenario because: B) I believe viral growth will not happen until we convince "The People" and the big players in global adoption that we can handle the load. Some tried to believe in BTC's claims it could scale and got "burnt". Those IT people at Microsoft/Dell/... (that sold their companies on the dream) looked foolish in front of their bosses/shareholders when they fell for the BTC scam. Their peers saw what happened and also learned not to trust crypto's promises. Crypto Kitties on ETH also showed crypto was not mature yet. They will not be so easily fooled this time. I believe we will need a real solution everyone can believe in before viral adoption growth of e-money will begin again. C) If it can go viral it is much more likely that it will go viral. I believe the ability to go viral will make eCash a target for speculators that see eCash has no top limit on growth. It is not great, but speculative pumping is mostly how coins grow quickly in value. Adoption follows the price growth and together they build off of one another. D) If eCash could and did go viral it would upset the BTC apple-cart because BTC is held up by lies and price manipulation (it has little real utility for the people of the world). BTC seems too big to fail, but I believe a BCH fork going viral would grow 10 to 100 times larger and more valuable. BTC would just not be able to grow like that. Powerful speculators that are greed-based would see the writing on the wall and know where the biggest profits were going to be and sell BTC to ride the massive eCash wave. The anti-Bitcoin-dream money behind the takeover and propping up of BTC would try to keep BTC up with massive Tether-style printing, but BTC can not scale. The growth of a real Bitcoin fork would eventually make BTC look tiny and cheap. Mining hash will finally move to the better money and the BTC house of cards will crumble (but never totally collapse). E) Although it would be preferable in many ways, slower organic growth will not be good enough. IMO, If we do not begin viral organic growth soon we will not become the world's primary e-money worth $1 to $100 USD each. We can always fight for some market-share and be happy enough with XEC at something like $0.01 USD. Scaling would be much easier by then since we would have so few users compared to the original dream. Conclusion The idea is out and I believe the people will have e-money not controlled by any government soon. Will we be able to deliver a working product before the people of the world get entrenched in something less perfect but more user-friendly because they can actually use it? The Amazon-cloud (centralized) types of e-money are already out there. People are starting to get used to them. My most recent concern to world domination by eCash is the idea Visa and WeChat and GooglePay and ApplePay may let people link their crypto wallets to those other payment solutions. Letting us hold any crypto we prefer and letting the 3rd parties do the scaling and merchant-adoption for us would negate the advantages of a scaling solution and make even broken coins like BTC functional competitors. **I do not know if we have much time left to become "the one".**

@Big-Bubbler 6 October 2021

Why would a Bitcoin having the ability to go viral cause that growth to happen? Some believe: "No need to grow capacity until just-before we need it" Many think (or claim) the slow adoption growth of BCH is because there is relatively low demand. Since we have plenty of capacity for the current demand, many assume there is no need to prioritize capacity growth at this time. That is the obvious logic we have all tended to believe and plan future development based on. In this article I will try to explain why I now believe this intentional delay in developing the ability to handle massive worldwide adoption is a mistake. Assumptions: Our goal is massive worldwide adoption by users and merchants (The Bitcoin dream). Speculators usually drive significant coin-price increases. Significant coin-price increases (relative to other sha-256 Bitcoins) increase security. For a coin well-designed for merchant adoption, significant coin-price increases combined with a belief they will continue tends to drive organic adoption. BCH is well designed for merchant adoption. We are close to being able to scale, but cannot truthfully promise world-sized reliability yet. My premise: I argue we need the ability to "scale" for massive worldwide adoption ASAP and that having that ability will lead to much faster adoption growth over time than we are currently experiencing. I believe we would actually grow massive adoption (viral growth) pretty quickly after an "event" if we could handle the load. Many "events" could be the catalyst for the sudden viral growth spurts I am expecting would happen. I also believe viral growth will NOT happen before we let the world know we can handle it. Why would viral growth happen? Many wonder why it would happen since it has not been happening so far. They assume the lower demand for BCH is due to many factors such as the public's ignorance and the massive dishonesty coming from the BTC social-engineering efforts. They seem to think we should continue to rely on efforts to push this boat upstream with education and the development of extra "bells and whistles" around BCH. They wait for the public to discover how great BCH is. The current approach is worthwhile and should work eventually. Why do I think allowing viral growth will cause it to happen? The short answer is because it can and because of speculators. I believe BTC tried to "go viral" in 2017 and hit it's capacity ceiling. Many powerful adoption players got burnt by believing BTC would scale if they came on board. I believe most of them still want to adopt a real Bitcoin that can scale for worldwide adoption. This time they and those watching their failed efforts will not be so easily fooled? into thinking a project will fix scaling "as needed" along the way. Viral growth is so fast that strategy is unlikely to be possible anyway. So they wait for a coin that can serve the whole world. Back in the day, speculators may have also believed BTC would go ever-higher at ever-faster speeds. Their rocket was sabotaged and lost it's ever-faster speeds potential (it can still go higher slowly). Speculative price-growth is based on belief. If enough people believe it can go up and up that makes it possible. Yes, this is not the best way to grow the marketcap of a cryptocurrency, but it is the way they have all gotten to where they are today. BCH does not need a high coin value to fulfill the dream of Bitcoin, but it sure does not hurt that goal. I argue it even helps spread adoption, strengthen security and attract more development efforts. Speculators know BCH has a ceiling still. They have not been willing to upset the BTC-Apple-Cart for some limited massive gains. I believe an unlimited and better version of BTC would be able to overcome their reluctance to switch allegiance. It would take some time for them to realize all the security and most other "advantages" BTC claims to have would follow them to BCH. I do think they would realize this while they contemplated the unlimited coin-price growth potential BCH would represent. Until the potential is unlimited, they may continue to support the status quo. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if most of the "speculation" is really state-sponsored price manipulation that will never switch to a real P2P cash. Even if that were true today, I believe the other speculators are enough to set things in motion and the marketcap growth would pretty quickly outpace the ability of the powerful dark forces to stop the viral growth in price. I am thinking growth speed peaks up to 10x a day. BTC would end up tiny in comparison even if it tried to keep up. I believe multiple pulses of viral price growth would lead to viral adoption growth. Once viral growth began, I think it would take something like a year to spread adoption to 15% of businesses worldwide. From there it would just be a matter of time before the dream of Bitcoin was fully realized. Other coins can scale, If this is true why have they not gone viral? The short answer is that they are not Bitcoins. BSV is a Bitcoin, but it only pretends it can scale for massive worldwide adoption. It is not the Bitcoin name that matters here, it is the security model, censorship resistance, lack of inflation, battle-tested experience even at high coin-value and when ignoring government norms, commitment to the dream of p2p cash and more that makes BCH a true contender for massive and extended phases of viral growth to world-size levels. It is also all about belief by powerful rich people who can see what coin has a real chance to make them much richer and keep them that way by fulfilling a real need for them and the people of the world. The alternative BCH can continue to grow adoption slowly to 15% (over say 10 to 15 years). BCH is great! Growing slowly would be safer and eventually lead to better apps for the world being ready before they were needed. Hopefully we would succeed before some other service fills the need for P2P cash?

@Big-Bubbler 23 September 2021

What I call the "troll army" is mostly not regular "trolls". Classic internet trolls are generally weak-minded attention seekers. It is best to just "not feed them". What I call the "troll army" are the authors of posts and articles and videos by accounts I consider part of a massive and well-funded conspiracy on social media to do things like harm BCH and prop up fake Bitcoin projects (BTC/BSV). Their "agents" sometimes pretend to be the classic weak-minded trolls, but I believe they are following a playbook with talking points or are fooled real people just repeating the more professional dishonest social-engineering agents talking points. I should probably not refer to those intentionally spreading dishonesty and toxicity as "trolls" because they are something different. If I am right, they have sophisticated and well educated management that can find a way around any efforts to root them out. Only speaking truth to their lies (feeding them) will counter their efforts. There are so many and their tactics are often subtle. So far these professionals seem to be holding their own against the weak army of volunteers working to shine light on their dark lies. I rarely provide evidence of my claims that there is an army of social engineering agents working to harm BCH and the dream of Bitcoin. This article was inspired by this nice post that does show some of the known evidence of the "conspiracy's" dirty tactics: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/pu3vto/given_the_surge_of_trolls_in_this_subreddit/

@Big-Bubbler 20 September 2021

Should BCH prioritize development of scaling for massive worldwide adoption now? Can BCH scale to fulfill the dream of Bitcoin this year? In this post I asked if BCH could scale yet: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ppxtz2/can_bch_scale_for_massive_worldwide_adoption/ The answers were yes's and no's. My takeaway from that thread was that BCH can not honestly tell the public we are ready to accept viral adoption and usage growth to world-size yet. Some may disagree and I look forward to the day when they convince me we can tell the public that BCH is ready to fulfill all the world's people's need for P2P cash. Do we need to develop that ability before we need it? I believe there is no higher priority than the ability to scale for massive worldwide adoption. Scaling is the only thing keeping us from being able to fulfill the dream of Bitcoin. We do not need it today, but we do need to be able to tell the public we are ready and able to fulfill the dream of Bitcoin. If we can not claim to be ready to accept sudden viral growth, we will not have that happen. We will continue to grow slowly. I believe the "wait until there is a need before growing our adoption potential" mindset is a mistake that has captured many of our biggest fans. I was a believer in that approach for years. Now, after years of BCH 'treading water' with slow adoption and price growth, I see that we are not growing adoption at a rate that is likely to allow BCH to be the project that fulfills the dream of Bitcoin. Maybe I am wrong about all this, but if we don't plan to intentionally get things to the point where we can truthfully tell the public we are ready for viral growth to happen (like people thought could happen with BTC in it's best days), we are planning to wait for slow growth to get us to the dream of Bitcoin many years from now (in crypto years). Not only do I think that is unnecessary, I think it would mean there is a huge chance we would not get there before the public's need for p2p cash is fulfilled by some other service. I think the public thought BTC would scale back in 2016. It started to go viral and then scaling was blocked. Had BTC raised the blocksize back then, it still could NOT have truly scaled to world-use size yet (like BCH still can't). Because the public had faith in BTC, I believe that it would have grown in value and use so much before BTC hit a real limit (maybe somewhere above 32MB back then?) developers would have solved the scaling issue in time to allow that growth to continue to even greater heights. Maybe developers would have solved scaling completely and it would have gone fully global and fulfilled the dream of Bitcoin. Anyway, this is attempt 2.0. We don't want to mislead the public into thinking BCH can scale like BTC did since they already got burnt back then and have limited trust on that subject. We need to know how scaling can and will happen, then tell the public we are ready. If the public believes, I think an event will spark viral adoption growth and it is mostly downhill from there. But, we need to be able to handle the viral adoption so we can ask the public to climb aboard. Then we must not hit a ceiling (crash and lose all credibility) if they try to do so.

@Big-Bubbler 3 August 2021

My thoughts on the "eCash" (XEC) fork of Bitcoin Cash "eCash" is the new name of the recent (BCHABC) fork of Bitcoin Cash run by the guy who was arguably the BCH lead developer before he tried to get funding for BCH developers from the mining rewards. He did a bad job of rolling out the idea and decided to give himself control of the funding. The idea was rejected by the social-media-community, but he went ahead with it anyway creating a new fork. Many on social media have a lot of hatred for him and his coin. The value of the new coin was around 12 - 30 USD each for a while in early 2021. The coin recently "rebranded" as eCash (XEC) and moved the decimal over making the coin-value very low (if one was worth 30 USD at the redenomination, one would then be worth 0.00003000 USD) and the math easier for users to comprehend (it is now like dollars and cents). One of their theories is low value coins can rise with greater percentage gains under bull-market conditions. As I write this there is significant price growth happening (as other coins have fallen). To me this suggests some of the money taken out of other coins is being used to pump it up (one XEC is about 0.00004317 USD each as I write this). I believe it is vulnerable to good and bad price manipulations. IMO, the first BCH to develop massive world-sized scaling will have a real chance to fulfill the dream of Bitcoin and leave ALL other Bitcoin forks in the dust. I believe BCH and XEC are the only serious contenders working to fulfill that dream. I do not think either is well funded enough to pay developers to make it happen, so it looks like we may find out which team has the best volunteer efforts directed at that goal. BCH development tends to be careful and both community- and peer-reviewed. BCH most-likely has more community support, better coin value and better developer support. It has multiple implementation teams working to make BCH number one in the world. It should be able to develop scaling first if they prioritize that goal. I hope they do. If scaling requires radical change, they may be slow implementing it after disclosing the technical strategy of it to the world. eCash is basically run by a dictator who gets to make all the big decisions and can do radical things like changing the name and moving the decimal place. It is smaller and most-likely less well funded and has little community support. It seems to me the developers are still working to fulfill the dream of bitcoin quietly and with only limited efforts to satisfy the desires of the social media "circus". Having faith in this team is a leap because they are not making much effort to prove themselves along the way. In theory, concentrating on developing is what eCash should be doing. If they solve scaling and it requires radical change, they can spring it on the world as an update quickly and without much warning to competitors. If BCH developers solve the scaling dilemma and begin to discuss their intentions, eCash can probably adapt their idea and get to market with it much faster. I believe BCH would still be better situated to fulfill the dream of Bitcoin if they are not too slow about it. My hopes are high for at least one of these coins fulfilling the dream of Bitcoin: censorship resistant (sufficiently decentralized) peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. Like all of crypto, I see "investing" in either as a gamble (with BCH as the "blue chip" gamble and eCash is the "penny stock" gamble). If either succeeds, they should grow more used and more valuable than BTC will ever be (due to BTC's apparent intentional failure to scale). It appears BTC is likely to stay on top of all the forks until one fork can scale for massive worldwide daily use and goes viral. Until then, all the coin prices seem to be controlled by the speculators and market manipulators. Lead photo and article (c) Big Bubbler 2021

@Big-Bubbler 18 January 2021

Belief is Value and where I think that takes the Bitcoins. Belief in value is Value while the belief lasts. Some say crypto needs usefulness to be valuable. I think that usefulness helps build belief, but only belief is really needed to have value. Other things can build belief (value) as well. Speculation is a form of believing the value will rise (or fall) and believing the item is undervalued (or overvalued) in comparison to a future time. Somewhat akin to speculation, thinking other things you might own will fall in value faster is another way to grow your belief that the crypto is worth holding. Inflation (aka fiat-value loss) is the obvious example of that but there are others depending on what you consider owning as an alternatives to a particular crypto.. Some say intrinsic value (like gold and diamonds have) is crucial to market value. I believe it can help as it sets a somewhat reliable "floor value" and people feel better about valuing something above that floor value if it has one. Only belief, however, can make gold and gemstones worth more than their intrinsic value. I would have to agree that the intrinsic value of gold and diamonds goes beyond industrial value as our well-developed appreciation for jewelry does add to the intrinsic value even though this might be considered belief-based value. That said, I think gold is still valued well above all it's combined intrinsic values. Depending on what the belief is based on, it can be fragile or sturdy. For instance speculative belief can be very fragile. News stories (fake or real) can turn it up or down at any time. Big value changes understood to be based on speculative investing are basically assumed to be at least partly temporary. Things like significant amounts of business adoption, code improvements or related-application development create a more sturdy kind of value/belief. Sturdy (more reliable) value growth tends to take more time to develop. My BTC (originally the real "Bitcoin") belief-based evaluation. BTC was the only Bitcoin in the beginning of this story. It was worth very little for years. Belief built very slowly within a small tech-savvy core group that saw the potential early. A controversial and newsworthy use-case developed on the Silk Road darknet marketplace. This proved the potential, tested the security and brought major publicity to Bitcoin. Belief in value began to really grow among a wider audience. I believe this is when big-money speculators decided to try pumping it and found that that worked like a dream. From then on I believe speculators have been doing cyclical pumps creating massive value peaks and then letting the price fall back down to what may be the more organic (less speculation-based) values. These price spikes created massive public interest and helped develop an ever-growing organic belief that the value could/would go much higher over time. For most of 2017, many who understood **the dream of Bitcoin (censorship resistant peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people)** began to believe it might really be able to do it. They saw a potential future where Bitcoin created financial freedom for the masses and made any early adopters wealthy. They thought 2017 was still early and belief began to grow at an ever-faster pace. Sadly, I believe very well-funded dark forces rooted in protecting the status quo from this new better future had also seen what was coming. They secretly captured the BTC development powers and created a massive and dishonest social engineering effort that successfully fooled the public into thinking the dream of Bitcoin was still on track ('except for some short delays that would make it even better'). In truth, they had blocked BTC's ability to fulfill it's dream. To this day, BTC is intentionally broken and most of the public is still fooled (by ongoing price manipulation and dishonest social engineering) into not seeing the truth. As I type this "belief" in BTC value has never been higher. My BCH (still working to be a real "Bitcoin") belief-based evaluation. The BCH (Bitcoin Cash) fork of Bitcoin was created by people who saw BTC was compromised and wanted to save the dream of Bitcoin. The anti-Bitcoin-dream dark forces knew BCH was still a real danger to the status quo and turned their social engineering accounts (I call the troll army) against public support and understanding of the actual dream of Bitcoin that BCH was working to fulfill. BCH was pretty successfully vilified on much of social media using the dishonest tactics of the professionals pretending to be regular people. As I type this belief in BCH value (the market price) is quite low when compared to BTC. The future of Bitcoin Beliefs BTC's massive price manipulation and social engineering should be able to keep it propped up for the near future. I don't think it can spike up as quickly as it used to since it is at it's limit of users per day (that's how it was "broken"), but it can be manipulated upwards more slowly and seems to have a bright future for now. Many would say there are no limits to the future of BTC. Sadly, one of the truths about all the Bitcoin's is their inability to "scale" up to full-on massive worldwide adoption levels (the dream). In the early days most assumed we could just make code changes as needed to stay ahead of demand. We believed the sky was no limit. Instead, the new owners of BTC development intentionally embraced this limitation (while pretending not to) and so I call it "broken" or "tamed". BCH has always intended to solve this scaling limitation, but thus far has not done so. BCH IS far ahead of demand and some developers suggest the full-sized solution is close. Trust (belief) in scaling-solution claims now hard to come by Back when we were irrationally exuberant and thought BTC would always be able to scale as needed many began to invest in the future with that assumption in mind. Microsoft, Overstock, Dell, Tiger-Direct and many big names started to believe. Then in late 2017 the assumptions failed and many hard lessons were learned by those who were smart enough to see their mistake with BTC. I believe the supporters that were "burned" back then are being much more careful believing in any cryptocurrency's claims that is can fulfill the dream today. Like BTC fans in 2016, many BCH fans claim it can scale even though it can't really do so yet. I think businesses are waiting for a full-sized solution to be developed and tested before they fall for the hype again. I don't blame them. While businesses wait for proof of concept before spreading massive adoption of a real Bitcoin, I believe the "fake Bitcoin" (BTC) will continue to ride high. If a BCH or some other Bitcoin does develop the full-sized scaling solution needed to become e-money for the people of the world, the stage will be set for a massive shift in belief. A real Bitcoin would eventually experience an event that causes it's adoption and use to go viral. Many possible events could cause this and until then the many real bitcoin fans are working to prepare the infrastructure for that future they believe is coming. If a Bitcoin could scale... BTC believers think their Emperor is too powerful to fail. It does seem BTC belief is unassailable, but that belief is based on some underlying assumptions that are vulnerable. If a real Bitcoin were to develop the ability to scale for worldwide adoption and go viral, I believe it's use and value would grow faster than the use-limited BTC. Because BTC can't take on massive new users, only a real Bitcoin can invite the masses to join in the revolution again. They would be able to believe in the unlimited future many believed BTC had in early 2017. The intoxicating atmosphere was great and can be again if scaling is actually solved. According to my theory, viral user growth would lead to viral adoption by businesses and massive belief and market-value growth. This would lead to more security (hash power) shifting to the real Bitcoin. That shift would leave the "more secure" arguments used to make the BTC as a "store-of-value" arguments weaken. Because the real Bitcoin's adoption would make it seem like it was going to actually be usable for regular trade, people would begin to see an actual usefulness on top of the store-of-value the old BTC had. People would eventually realize both usefulness and growing value together are better than just one of those. Once it looked like a real bitcoin was going to be worth more than the old expensive and slow one, BTC value would drop as investors moved to the Bitcoin2.0 version. The speculators propping up the fake Bitcoin might switch teams and accelerate this shift at any time. If they are part of the anti-Bitcoin-dream team, they can afford to resist this shift and lose massive wealth. If they just sell their BTC to avoid the losses, they will still help support the shift even if not accelerate it. I don't think they can stop the shift in belief if a real Bitcoin can scale and goes viral on a worldwide scale. BTC would end up as a relatively small and much less important project whose coin has a much lower value. It will never be worthless and will always have a "collector's value". It would actually be inexpensive to use again since so few would be using it. People who are not paying attention or who fell for the HODL mantra (social engineering) could lose most of their life savings during BTC's fall. They may think crypto destroyed their lives (just what the anti-Bitcoin team hopes people will believe). Thinking they were fooled by sophisticated social engineering into believing lies is unlikely to ever seem possible to many. So, to summarize: If BTC retains it's dishonest social engineering and massive market manipulation people will continue to believe in it until a real Bitcoin develops the ability to scale and goes viral. After that, BTC it will shrink in value as the world sees a better future again with the faster, cheaper, more secure, unlimited and inclusive potential always dreamed of by the original Bitcoin project's believers. In other words, all the world's people need is scaling to make the dream of Bitcoin into a reality we can all believe in. I hear the solution to full-on scaling is close. I have heard similar things before and I am slow to believe, but I do hope it is true.

@Big-Bubbler 4 January 2021

The D-Dex idea: A Distributed Decentralized non-custodial Exchange This is a bunch of "raw ideas" to solve the limited-allowed-jurisdiction situation DEX's (exchanges with centralized hosting) located in many countries must abide by. Please share the idea around as I hope people who could make it happen will consider it. I will never make anything like this happen, but I just hope to see something like it happen. I am sure the idea is not new, but now might be a good time because of the recent "Anyhedge" code developments? Don't like one or more of my sub-ideas? No worries, I have no intention to try to have any control over development of this project. Do it any way you want. ****** **The D-Dex** ********* A Distributed Decentralized non-custodial Exchange Distributing the hosting to provide the DEX with censorship resistance is the dream here. I suggest it be hosted by 100,000? computers* each with a special DDex wallet that can trade and hold all the crypto's and tokens the exchange can trade. The host computer would get a small fee (see below). The chance of a trade being hosted in a particular wallet could be random (or random with modified chances based on past-performance and/or hosting resources offered by that computer and/or time since last opportunity to be a host). The last modifier could be used to keep industrial efforts to dominate and partly centralize the hosting less effective? A diverse and widely dispersed set of hosts seems like a good goal. Since this does not require massive computational power I hope it would be easy to keep this "ASIC resistant" enough to let regular people participate as hosts even if this becomes popular. Can one computer have more than one wallet? Trying to stop this might be difficult with virtual machines and such. I think it might dilute the resources a computer was offering to the network by reusing the same resources but the wallet might be able to monitor that? Hosting incentives and fees Hosting would be funded by a TX fee of (0.01%?) of each trade. The fee would be paid by the one that offers the trade and be denominated in the token they are offering. A minimum fee of the smallest amount of the token could turn out to be too large if a whole token is the smallest division. I have not really thought up the solution to that yet. Maybe a toggle to allow BCH to be used for the fee with a warning reminder about the minimum fee (when the fee is a large amount compared to the number of traded items?) and that BCH is an option?. Ongoing development and marketing might be funded from the trades as well if that is planned in from the beginning? A maximum, shrinking maximum or time limit might be good. The team with commit access would be able to change this (or anything else) since they would be in control. So picking those "benevolent rulers" would be very important.... They might come up with a way they can govern each other, but I would rather we did not need to hope they mean well and will continue to do that. My next idea makes this difficult. Securely-anonymous accounts and keeping them that way For the project and the developers safety, I think a good way to set this up would be to have the development team consist of many people, but the accounts with "commit access" or comparable powers (that could be used to destroy or limit the DDex) should be newly created anonymous accounts ready to "pull a Satoshi" if the situation gets too hot for comfort. Making securely-anonymous accounts is not easy and may not be safe to try to use on Github if they require JavaScript be enabled to make posts on the site (I have not checked on this). I believe hostile-government backdoor access into sites like Github could allow trojans inserted with JavaScript that help de-anonymize users. Governments that do not already have this access can often get this access when they claim they have a "need" for it or strong-arm site owners they capture. I mention this in case there might be a better place (for privacy) to do the development. There might be an automated? provision that any that become known to the public lose their commit-power to protect the project from outside influences? It might also be ideal to have the project lock itself down so no changes can be made at some point? This would solve the centralized-development concern. * Controlling the number of wallets I am also proposing a requirement that one or more "Drop", "Spice" or other native token(s) "staked" in the wallet (plus some minimum computer resources available) would allow the wallet to host trades on the network. This "key" allows the number of hosts to be controlled if the token has no further "minting ability". It also adds value and demand for the Key tokens. If the hosting becomes popular this limit makes the chances of any one computer getting to host a trade higher. If more are needed due to massive adoption, the staking requirement can be lowered to 0.5 tokens or some other amount. The staked token can always be recovered disabling that wallet's hosting ability. (a light on the wallet dashboard?: Green = Hosting enabled, Red = no token staked, Yellow = token staked but computer resources insufficient to join the network.) Why DROP or Spice? The people friendly to DeToken or Spice might help support or encourage support for the project (maybe anonymously for liability reasons) if their "drop" or "Spice" token was chosen as the native token. I really like those ideas because I own some Drop/Spice, I also think the developers familiar with those tokens know people who are up to making this idea happen and I believe in those team's goals and understanding of the legal situation. Also, I do not want to make something that is a potential competitor to those teams ongoing business ideas without trying to make it beneficial to at least one of them. If the team chose to create a new native token instead (DDex or D-Dex?) I suggest at least 2 decimals and a permanently limited supply under 300 thousand. I would also appreciate receiving a bunch of them for suggesting some of the ideas for this project (and because I am broke and unable to buy any). Why not BCH? Why not BCH as the native token? Because there are too many of them to allow them to be used to limit the number of wallet hosts without having the "staking requirement" be so many BCH (something like 1/100,00th of total supply) you might have to be rich to become a host. Making the hosts rich by adding value to the currently inexpensive SLP token they have staked is a concern, but may be less concerning if the number of tokens staked can be lowered because the total supply is not too high. Initial funding of development A flipstarter might work well to fund this if respected people proposed to support the creation by a specific anonymous team. How to get a trustworthy Anonymous team? I am concerned this might get set up by scammers or by people unable to resist the lure of easy money once it becomes popular. The anonymous control aspect has real potential drawbacks. A possible solution might be to have a group of people vouch for each anonymous account. Having a person of a group know who it is but have no one else know which person knows could be a solution. To do that, three or more different groups of 10+ known-trustworthy people could be set up and have one of the (3 or more) anon' accounts dox themselves to one person in their designated group. Then the group would pass out voting tokens or some other way of voting anonymously. Then they all vote "yes" if they know and trust the person and "No" if they do not know who it is. One Yes vote would approve the account. Two or more "yes" votes would disqualify the account for being too well known. This idea is un-vetted and just a recent thought. Thanks for considering these ideas. I would be happy to help with more brainstorming (especially if you see some difficulty that makes you think the idea is not feasible). Edit: I think optimizing the network and wallet for use from TOR without requiring Javascripts be enabled would be ideal even if very difficult.

@Big-Bubbler 30 December 2020

Why is there a social media "war" between BTC and BCH? Spoiler: Because it is very important to the BTC team's hope of keeping BTC's value up and to supporting their attack on the real dream of Bitcoin. They know BTC's best days are numbered if BCH succeeds in fulfilling the Bitcoin dream. They are desperate to keep fooling the public to keep their house-of-cards from collapsing. If you follow my writings here you know I believe BTC was captured and intentionally changed into something that no longer works towards fulfilling the real dream of Bitcoin (sufficiently decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people). That is sad. Since most all activity is allowed in the permissionless crypto space (unless it violates an enforceable law like fraud, theft, etc), we pretty much must accept and learn from this sort of attack on the Bitcoin dream. BTC is lost and those who believe in the real dream of Bitcoin must move on. Many did move on and the Bitcoin Cash projects (BCH, BCHA) are the only Bitcoin projects I believe are still attempting to make peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. Mad Bro? I believe most BCH fans probably do not mind the ongoing existence of BTC. For many of us it was our first crypto-love. For now I have no problem with BTC following it's new path. Because BTC's team has abandoned the dream and intentionally limited it's growth potential, I do not even see BTC as a real competitor to BCH. If BCH develops scaling that allows for massive world wide adoption, I believe it will go viral and grow orders of magnitude larger than BTC. BCH would take most of the security (hash power) and grow in value/use so much larger, I think BTC would become just a footnote in the history of cryptocurrancy. I expect BTC would retain a significant collector's value and never die. So I have no problem coexisting with BTC itself. Admittedly, it is hard for many to forgive the new owners of BTC since they stole our beloved project, centralized control of it's development team and corrupted it to achieve their dark intentions. Their hidden intention appears to be to block the real dream of Bitcoin (rather than the many other stories like Blockstream greed they tell). So, there is good reason for anger on the BCH side. Even so, I think the BCH community would be happy to move on and ignore BTC since it is not a real competitor. BTC cannot allow BCH to succeed BCH does not really care much about BTC's small future, but the new owners of BTC development must stop or delay BCH (or any real Bitcoin project) for at least 2 reasons: 1) The forces that captured BTC are anti-Bitcoin. They captured BTC to stop/delay the dream of Bitcoin and BCH is still working to fulfill that dream And 2) They know our success would lead to their "fake" Bitcoin's collapse. A successful BCH would grow so large and well used that BTC would seem small and useless in comparison. BCH would gain most of the security (hash rate) and become much more valuable. BTC's price would fall and it would become a collectors item rather than a reliable store-of-wealth (which it isn't). They know this, so they must stop or delay any real attempt to fulfill the dream of Bitcoin. To fool the public about their intentions and to slow BCH down, I believe the BTC team has implemented massive social-engineering efforts going 24/7 to fool people into believing their lies. This effort is really just a continuation of what has been going on for years and was used to help them capture BTC from the real Bitcoin community years ago. Apparently a lie oft-repeated can become like truth As I see it, the professional and dishonest social-engineering spreads many small and large lies mixed with truth in a web of deceit blanketing most crypto-related social media. Stories like being a reliable store-of-value and BTC still intending to be a real Bitcoin for the people of the world are some of the big lies. It turns out professionally implemented dishonesty works well at fooling people if you use many accounts and keep it up long enough. Especially if the dishonest messages go un-challenged. So, we must stand up to the dishonesty or things get worse. They know that and they keep at it wearing down the truth tellers who are often just volunteers and can only do so much against their seemingly massive and well funded efforts. Their methods are often very complex and sophisticated. Their professionally crafted stories often sound very nice and believable. They do things like pretend to be BCH fans and suggest we stop standing up to their lies with posts like: 'Why all the fighting? Can't we just exist side-by-side and live happily-ever-after'. This strategy is also used to make it seem like BCH fans are the ones causing the "war" to continue. Intentionally bad vibes I agree the divisiveness of standing up to the dishonesty is bad for the community vibe. I believe that is another goal of their regular posts on r/BTC. R/BTC is the uncensored Reddit Bitcoin-discussion place and they can't censor the truth there (like they do on other important reddits). So they lie repeatedly with large numbers of accounts and make the discussions they do not like toxic to turn new visitors away. Then they pretend to be offended and ask "why all the toxicity?", lol. Their tactics are quite effective and there is only so much much we can do. Peace? I think the real Bitcoin community would like to have PEACE. We hope they will stop lying about BTC and BCH so that can happen. If their position was as strong and well-intentioned as they pretend, there would be no need for all the dishonesty and the war could end. Sadly, they know their position is weak and can only be kept up by lies and market manipulation.

@Big-Bubbler 8 December 2020

What's up with crypto "trolling" The original kind of "trolls" on social media are weak-minded attention seekers with low self esteem. They should not be "fed" with requests for civility or arguments. Most crypto-commenting accounts I call "trolls" for shorthand are not really that kind of trolls. There are some real people who just want to advertise their favorite crypto and hate on all others. I think of them as shills and/or maximalists rather than trolls. They may believe in their coin or just be working to make people buy their bags knowing their coin sucks compared to the ones they are speaking out against. Some of them get paid to do it and so talking to them may be a useless effort. Correcting their lies (talking to the community) may be worthwhile. I believe the majority of what I call "trolls" are professionally-guided social engineering agents working to harm crypto adoption. They often claim to support BTC (the intentionally broken crypto) since BTC is really an anti-Bitcoin-dream attack now. They may say 10 true things as a means to promote one dishonest claim or assumption. Sometimes they claim to support the coin they are undermining with real and false concerns mixed into their posts. They often make threads toxic to intentionally make new people turn away from the toxicity. They are on all crypto-related social media and their anti-crypto teams have massive resources for manipulating prices and funding websites, "thought leaders", "news" sites, You-Tubers,... to spread their false storylines. Their attacks on crypto are so widespread and varied they are hard to see until you do. Once you do, you can see the same dishonest belief manipulation going on in many other social media areas such as politics and the many political topics where wealthy people or organizations (that control the social engineering) have strong opinions as to what "The People" should be thinking. If I am right about the kind of "trolls" we face in crypto, reasoning with them will not be very effective. Ignoring them like recommended for the traditional troll lets them control the narrative to the detriment of the truth. They often only make small lies, but they work as a team to spread a web of dishonesty that builds into a false world view. A view they claim to believe in and call you crazy/ignorant/mistaken if you don't agree with "everyone else". Things are currently more complicated on r/BTC and for BCH. The trolls successfully worked to divide our community and de-fund development recently. They were very successful at their social engineering attacks because of deep-seated hatreds and real/perceived weaknesses in our primary development team. The community joined in the troll attacks and we split off our primary developers and reaffirmed our reliance on the donation-based development funding strategy (that may or may not be a serious problem still). The trolls success may turn out to make BCH stronger and better as the community believes. I hope so. After the community teamed up with the many troll accounts, those trolls have had to tone down their anti-BCH posts and so a whole new cadre of new "trolls" have arrived to take over the anti-crypto social engineering duties.

@Big-Bubbler 9 October 2020

Why is Amaury pushing his will on the entire BCH space? Someone asked: why Amaury is willing to push his will on to the entire BCH space? It seems Amaury is doing it to save BCH from taking too long to fulfill the dream of Bitcoin. I see no reason to assume he has changed his intentions (that he has manifested for years as he seemingly dedicated his life to the dream). He has been clearly communicating for months that funding was insufficient to achieve real progress. I believe he is correct and that we have been failing to do the needed development work quickly enough to fulfill the dream using the current (donations) funding model. I believe there is a window of opportunity to become the world's sufficiently decentralized (un-stoppable) peer-to-peer electronic cash. We had a big head-start, but BCH is not the only crypto looking to fulfill this dream. I hope we have not delayed too long already. The dream is under attack and many will tell you we are in no hurry and need not move any faster at developing scaling and more consumer-friendly apps. Some even claim we should slow down and upgrade BCH much less often. IMO, Anti-BCH forces are strongly opposed to better funding of BCH development so their social engineering teams of agents I call the "troll army" have fooled much of the BCH community into attacking itself. It turns out many here were ready and willing to hate Amaury for a variety of reasons and found common ground when recruited by the troll army. "Amaury's will" helped create and has been leading the direction of BCH for three years. The troll army just weaponized the status quo as if it was something new. He is sometimes annoying and I would guess the reports he is difficult to work with are true. Hard to know since reports of his evil, dishonest, lazy, ... intentions are very common and usually unfounded. I can see why he seems to have given up on most efforts to respond to social media attacks on his efforts to make BCH into a real Bitcoin (sufficiently decentralized (un-stoppable) peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people). The protest movement lead by the new node team (BCHN) has great support from the troll army and most of those who post on social media (I call the trolls plus their recruits the "mob" for short). Rare posts by people like me who question the "mob's" often unfounded or outright dishonest assumptions are often voted into obscurity. BCHN has great support for a re-energized donations funding model during this attack on the reference client team (ABC). Anti-BCH money and volunteers may be flowing in, but good folks have joined the BCHN team and may be able to make their fork of BCH into something great before that energy diminishes again. They claim it is Amaury's fault that donations were not enough in the past. I can not tell how true that is, if at all. If miners support ABC's funding strategy in November, ABC will try to make development happen using miner donations (it is the money the miners have already earned and the IFP was their idea). The hope is that reliable funding can make BCH better faster. The "Mob" want's to stop the automated and fairly-shared donations from the miners. The mob says they are winning and will control the Bitcoin Cash name in November. I believe the troll army pushed us to fork BCH as an attack on BCH. It is bad in many ways. Even so, if there is a fork, I hope both sides get enough support to fully test their funding strategies. I think having 2 BCH's that both really seek to fulfill the real dream of Bitcoin could be great for the future. I am concerned BCHN may be infiltrated by anti-BCH forces, but the good folks there may be able to overcome that even if it is true. The very common claims that ABC has bad intentions could be true, but appear to be unfounded and unlikely.

@Big-Bubbler 17 September 2020

Announcing The: 'Support "Big Bubbler" Fund' Flipstarter **************************** UPDATE: The Support "Big Bubbler" Fund Flipstarter has been cancelled. My Flipstarter was coming towards the end and having received no real donation commitments, I cancelled it. Feels better this way than having it end in failure, lol. I knew the timing was bad, but had a chance to do it for free and thought I would give it a try. For those of you planning to donate before the deadline or who could not figure out how to donate to a flipstarter, Here is a direct donation address: bitcoincash:qz942luqpdqdkceunz0qgf232zd2r9uk5cgac7wc3z I can also provide a personal address or other support options that have not been posted publicly if you prefer one of those. You can probably find me on Memo or Read.cash if Reddit privacy issues keep you from contacting me here. ************************************** Yes, for real! Please support my ongoing efforts to do what I think of as "anti-trolling" on select social media in support of Bitcoin Cash and the Bitcoin dream of sufficiently decentralized (un-stoppable) peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. This Flipstarter attempts to gather 50 Bitcoin Cash and lasts over a month: http://157.245.178.96/ It is not a fancy site with the recommended cloudflare and a website as I am working on a shoestring budget with limited personal IT skills and no time to "waste" on a very-temporary website. I need the money because US Homeland Security raided my home and farm and took most of crypto and all my bank accounts in 2018. They have not charged me with anything and I do hope to get much of my crypto back. So, I have been fighting for it's value here on social media even though I have very little of my own at this time. I have been getting by but the Covid and the fires and everything are making it tougher these days. This is to support my efforts to stay active online and I will not waste the money if this gets funded. My anti-trolling world view is in this long article I published this morning: https://read.cash/@Big-Bubbler/big-bubblers-bitcoin-cash-bitcoin-world-view-as-of-september-2020-324d1629 Thanks for considering this Flipstarter, Big Bubbler If you do not wish to be known for supporting my efforts, I can understand that. I am a bit of a pariah at the moment. Feel free to be anonymous or use this direct address and I will try to add your donation to the Flipstarter if it seems like it would help it become complete or if you ask me to: bitcoincash:qrdd4tdhhpcagjcvwuujm2jwv0rm32034uce7h4nr0

@Big-Bubbler 16 September 2020

Big Bubbler's Bitcoin Cash (Bitcoin) World View as of September 2020 So far Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only "Bitcoin" project still seriously working to become decentralized (unstoppable) peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. Since that was the intent of the original Bitcoin project, BCH is really the only project still working to achieve the dream of Bitcoin. Other projects do pretend they are still real Bitcoin projects, but they are all broken in at least one way so they cannot fulfill the Bitcoin dream. Of course, the others all have people claiming their project is still working to become or has already become a real Bitcoin. They do this to keep people's belief in their coin's value up. The monetary value of any cryptocurrency (or Government backed currency ("fiat") or, to a lesser extent, Gold, Diamonds, etc.) is determined by belief. Actual value influences people's beliefs, but, it is what people think something is worth that matters most.  **Bitcoin Believers** Bitcoin started out in 2009 with few believers. Over time the idea of Bitcoin was shared with an ever growing audience and belief in Bitcoin's potential grew. There was only one real Bitcoin project in the early years. Most everyone believed in the same project and more and more people started to believe it could really fulfill the dream and change the world. Some people cared more about the potential to disrupt entrenched financial systems and/or protect privacy, but most new believers seemed to just want their holdings to grow in monetary value. Because the token's monetary value is based on what people believe it is worth and people know this, there was an incentive to all believe in a rising value as a team to cause that to be true.  The natural "organic" growth in value due to a growing community of believers was happening. I believe ultra-wealthy speculators saw the potential around 2012 and started repeatedly pumping the price up and then letting it free-fall to always higher "low" points. The "lows" may show the growth of organic belief. The growing peaks in value attracted international attention, more organic growth and more speculation. I think many of the speculators were also becoming true believers. In 2017 the "pump" to 20,000 USD per Bitcoin showed BTC-Bitcoin was near it's newly self-imposed upper limit of Transactions per day (see below). I assume the massive price manipulators (pumpers) knew they could not go much higher and it appears they may have stopped their cyclical efforts to quickly pump BTC-Bitcoin to massive new highs now that this "upside-limit" has been reached.  **BTC's Capture and corruption** Back before 2012 Bitcoin was seen as a possible threat to entrenched financial interests. It seems they were OK with Bitcoin so long as it did not get massively adopted by the people of the world as peer-to-peer electronic cash. They had infiltrated and captured control of  the original Bitcoin project by 2016. Others can explain the detailed timing and methods if you want more info on how it happened. Here is my summary article about it: https://read.cash/@Big-Bubbler/the-troll-army-still-cant-stop-magic-internet-money-c5ad0453  Anyway, they were able to take centralized control of development and break Bitcoin's ability to scale (grow to a much larger number of transactions per day).  Along the way, the real Bitcoin community was fooled by a massive and very professional social engineering effort (on all related social media) into thinking the majority was a minority of the community. A few heroes managed to fork the Bitcoin code (creating what's now known as Bitcoin Cash) and save the dream of Bitcoin from the attacker's death grip. Sadly, the social engineering attacks were so successful at fooling people into thinking the captured Bitcoin was not really captured and was still on track to fulfill the dream, their team was able to take all the adoption the Bitcoin community had spent years building up as well as the "Bitcoin (BTC)" name from the real Bitcoin community.  **Current BTC House-of-cards** The massive social engineering and massive price manipulation are still working together to keep people fooled as I write this. If they did not, I believe BTC-Bitcoin would collapse down to a few thousand dollars each. BTC-Bitcoin does have practical value, but, it can't become a real Bitcoin unless it's new owners change their goals and set it free again. There is no reason to think that will ever happen (if it is even possible).  When BCH forked off, it became the new real threat to the entrenched financial interests. I believe they continue to use price manipulation, BTC, social engineering and many other tools to try to keep BCH from becoming peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. The anti-Bitcoin and now anti-BitcoinCash army of disinformation agents (I call the "troll army") works all day, every day on all related social media to try to make BTC look like the real "Bitcoin" it is no longer even trying to become.  **The future of "Bitcoin"** If the attackers do not corrupt or destroy BCH first, it is on track to take over where BTC reached it's limit and stalled in 2017. Bitcoin Cash can grow much bigger. In coin value terms, I estimate BCH can grow to over $200,000 (USD) when belief grows. It already has that ability. In my estimation BTC will have a very hard time going over $25,000 unless it grows slowly to higher values. BCH can't yet fully scale for massive worldwide adoption to become peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. When it can scale (and only then), I believe adoption will go viral when a triggering event occurs. That sudden massive adoption growth by the people and businesses of the world would make BCH into a real "Bitcoin" as originally envisioned (and could push BCH to a value over $2,000,000USD each).  **Attempting to fund BCH development with an IFP begins** BCH's lead developer team (ABC) tells us they need more funding to achieve that critical full-sized scaling goal anytime soon. I believe we need to get scaling soon or we may miss the window of opportunity to garner most of the world's p2p-cash market-share. Avoiding further delay seems very important to me.  Some of the miners have been big contributors to funding development. To increase funding some miners requested ABC create an infrastructure development fund (IFP) from a percentage of the block rewards (the miners have earned) so miners could fairly donate to development based on their level of profit. This would allow the miners that support the developers to get donations from all BCH miners so they would not have to continue to carry the load alone. In what appears to be a fortuitous twist, the math works out so the IFP causes some miner hash to move to the BTC chain and then the BCH mining difficulty adjusts and the loss to BCH miners is much smaller than the donated amount. Since BTC is much more valuable at this time, BTC miners end up paying for most of the BCH development fund (due to a small amount of increased mining competition).  When the anti-Bitcoin forces and the BTC miners heard BCH might be funding our developers in a more serious way and it might cost BTC miners income, a massive social engineering attack on BCH began in earnest. They started by demonizing the IFP to stop the funding. The anti-BCH troll army ramped up their false logic attacks on social media to a level I had not seen for years. The arguments seem to be designed by very smart professional social engineering teams to sound very believable even when they were not based on facts. They successfully blocked the first attempt to improve developer funding with an IFP.  **Amaury gives up on his social media efforts?** The original IFP roll-out and the first attempt to code it into the ABC node software were poorly implemented leaving many unknowns. The social engineers were able to fool the community into thinking the unknowns would certainly lead to the worst possible interpretation of the ambiguity. Amaury and the ABC team failed to provide the certainty needed to keep this from happening. They basically went silent and allowed the "troll army" room to do their worst.  I don't know if Amaury was fed up with all the social media attacks, had stress from Covid-19, had financial troubles making it hard for him to spend time on BCH without getting paid properly and/or some other potentially valid "excuses", but he seemed to be letting the dishonest community manipulations do their worst while putting out sub-par IFP-related work product. He seemed to almost stop caring what the social media "community" claimed to have as concerns. The IFP was blocked by what appeared to be a coalition of anti-BCH-trolls and many real pro-BCH community members who, I believe fell for the anti-BCH/anti-Bitcoin agents sophisticated web of dishonesty mixed with truth. As I said, Amaury basically helped the attack succeed at recruiting pro-BCH community members.  **Blood in the water** After this, it seemed like the social engineering teams that have been attacking BCH since before BCH existed smelled blood in the water and went after ABC and Amuary directly to try to divide our primary developer team from BCH. They hit pay-dirt when they started demonizing ABC and Amaury Sechet (the ABC lead developer). It turns out there were many who were happy to become enraged at Amaury for various reasons and the Anti-BCH army was able to recruit many to their anti-Amaury coalition.  **A new savior?** The protest movement spawned a new node developer team (BCHN) led by an anonymous but well known developer. It seems to be funded by mostly dark money and put out a very professionally written position paper that said all the perfect things (so perfect it suggested the social-engineering-team writers to me). They sound so good I want to believe in the promises of this new team myself. Although I believe BCHN was inspired by the anti-BCH forces that now champion BCHN, I do not know if the anti-BCH forces actually had a hand in the creation of BCHN. By this time, many important developers and community members have taken stands against any IFP funding attempts by ABC.  **ABC consolidates it's already too-strong powers** A new ABC plan to fund BCH development with an IFP is currently under way. They just dictatorially announced the ABC node would have it without further discussion. They have promised transparency and added a "Global Network Council framework" (GNC) to let Miners and BCH "holders" distribute 50% of the funding in what I would call a strange and interesting way that may be good. Having a great opportunity to release the funding-distribution power, ABC missed their chance to make this GNC neutral. They put themselves in charge of the distribution framework and they kept unfettered control of half the miner's donations for the "reference node" team. It is the miner's money getting donated and if this is what they want, I guess we will find out by November. I have a feeling powerful mining interests that intend to support ABC were involved in crafting the GNC. It seems there may be a way to take the funding from ABC by another node team becoming the most commonly run node (and thus the "reference client"). The competition for this position could be great or a problem for BCH. It is never boring here, lol. The "appearance of impropriety" is strong with the creation of this funding and ABC's decision to retain so much control over it. I still think it is most likely that ABC has good intentions and will do the best they can to use the funding to make BCH better faster. I still consider the very common 'this much power will corrupt ABC into wasting or stealing the funds' -type claims by opponents to be some of the many unjustified and dishonest fabrications used to divide the community. That said, ABC is becoming too powerful and could abuse that power with ease if they chose to. I still have high hopes for our benevolent dictator's ability to make BCH into a real Bitcoin if given real funding to hire top-end professional developers. **The Troll Army's captured community moves to "Fire" ABC.** With Amaury's help, the anti-funding movement has used dishonesty and legitimate grievances to become very strong. They seem intent to block this funding attempt as well by "forking" BCH. A fork is probably very bad for BCH and was probably a dream of the anti-BCH social engineering agents that have been behind the anti-funding and community-division efforts for months. It has been suggested the new and untested team that would like to claim control of the BCH "reference client" position (BCHN) may be unqualified for the task unless the current team continues to do the work for them to copy. I hope that is not true as I hope their team becomes a valued alternative node helping decentralize the BCH-development ecosystem. If BCH splits into two forks it will increase centralization (at least in the short term) of both forks and divide our already small community.  The troll army tells their team BCHN is supported by almost all of the community and 53% of BCH miners so far. BCHN fans promise BCHN will win any fork battle and retain the Bitcoin Cash name and BCH ticker. BCHN has said they do not intend to create a fork, but that stance seems unlikely to hold up unless they have most of the mining-hash-power on their side. Social media where the troll-army is active is full of anti-ABC and pro-splitting social engineering posts. Few dare to say anything good or neutral about ABC on social media these days and it makes it look like the BCHN fans are the majority.  Amaury and ABC have said they will have the IFP to fund the development of BCH no matter the opposition. It is a strong stance that suggests they have miner backing for keeping their fork alive after any fork that might take place. Whether they have enough backing to win the battle for the "Bitcoin Cash" name is an unknown. The two sides appear to be entrenched and set for an epic break-up of BCH in November.  **My theory on November 15th** If ABC has the most mining hash BCHN may need to change their code to force themselves off the BCH blockchain if they want to continue to test the purely-voluntary funding model we have had for 3 years under new leadership. Or, they could alter their code to add the IFP (unlikely) to remain part of ABC's BCH.  If BCHN has the most mining hash, I think ABC will fork off and test their miner-funded development strategy with a new coin name. Or, remove the IFP (unlikely) to remain part of BCH. If there is a split, both sides will claim to be the real BCH regardless of the outcome. Owners of one coin will get an equal amount of the other coin for free and if we are lucky, both BCH's will eventually succeed and fulfill the Bitcoin Dream.  Because the BCHN team was inspired by (and may be funded by) the anti-BCH troll army that is attacking our primary developer team, I sure hope the ABC chain lives long enough to at least allow BCHN time to prove their ability and trustworthiness. It is a slim possibility that the BCHN project is another anti-Bitcoin infiltration attack on BCH. If so, it was so well done it really did fool a lot of smart and well-intentioned BCH fans.  Because BCHN is all about not letting ABC have the IFP funding and their supporters have made this an adversarial and divisive battle, I wonder if ABC will look for a way to control the use of their IFP funded work-product to keep the "free riders" who do not support their development from benefiting from their hard-fought efforts. I would not blame them for wanting to, but that would be antithetical to the BCH ethos and may not be smart to attempt.  **Choosing Sides, Not.** Because I think BCHN may be an attack on BCH and because I do not accept the troll army's claims that ABC is evil and has bad intentions towards BCH, many think I am a big ABC and Amaury fan just out to harm BCHN's legitimate claim to take over control of BCH. This is not true. **I remain a BCH fan.** I have always seen myself as an "anti-troll" on social media. Most of my disagreements on social media center around pointing out the dishonesty of arguments. This is what I have been doing for years now. It seems to me that because most of the active social media accounts on r/BTC now want/claim to believe the dishonest arguments, my efforts there have cost me thousands of Karma points in the last two months. Luckily I have enough to last a while longer before the new moderation policy there blocks my posts.  I may be fooled by social engineering on this, but I do believe the claims that Amaury has been difficult to work with. I am not happy about how much power over development decisions he has. I do not think BCH should continue to be ruled by a benevolent dictator (especially in the long run). I think BCH could be better served by leadership that is more friendly towards new developers. My problem is that all I see is a protest movement against a bunch of things that the troll-army has suddenly weaponized even though they have all been legitimate concerns for years. What we need is solutions to the various concerns and this fork plan may not solve any of them except replacing Amaury with a new (anonymous) dictator who promises to share power and provide everything everyone wants to hear. It sounds so perfect it throws flags up for me, but I do want it to be true. I hope it is true and BCHN goes on to make a great BCH.  I am not thrilled with the way it is happening, but an ABC coin with an IFP funding development and a benevolent dictator at the helm may be the most effective way to move a BCH forward quickly. I do not assume ABC developers will steal the funding and stop working on BCH (as the troll army promises every day). I assume they will do their best to see to it BCH becomes a real Bitcoin ASAP. Luckily the GNC it is not a BCH governance council (as many will pretend), it is just a funding-disbursement decision-maker for the new IFP funding. I think ABC's power can be curbed over time and hope the/a community comes together to work on that and other issues that can be optimized.  To me the most important goal for BCH is to solve scaling. If there is a split, both teams are expected to work on solving that issue. I regret the division of talent, but assuming they both really want to create a real "Bitcoin" for the people of the world, I think both teams have advantages in the race to find a solution. I think the team that figures it out first will have an advantage when bringing it to the market and may be able to get a jump on the viral growth it can allow. Of course the applications built on top of any scalable coin will make or break the viral growth potential and BCH does need to work on more user friendly and accident-resistant applications. If there is a split, the BCHN team will have a big early-advantage with major wallet developers and the SLP token developers claiming they will not support the IFP-coin. It seems ABC would have a lot of competing priorities for things to spend the IFP funding on.  A fork could be terrible, but If both teams really want to make BCH great, I think the competition could benefit both of them and all the believers in the Bitcoin dream of sufficiently decentralized (un-stoppable) peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. After all, two BCH's are harder to stop than one and if they split the market share, they have cut the scaling problem in half :-).

@Big-Bubbler 3 August 2020

Why is Big Bubbler like a Lone Canary Crying Wolf? I feel like I am nearly alone and crying wolf about this community division attack currently demonizing Amaury and our primary developer team (ABC). I am sad to get little support, but I understand it is hard to stand up to the massive wave of posts attacking our team. It kinda reminds me of the time when it was dangerous for a business to support BCH as they would be attacked by the anti-BCH army. I am not a big fan of ABC's actions lately, but, I do value the work I believe they are doing. I have been calling for the anti-ABC team to provide a plan for what they would replace ABC with. Who will agree to do the work and make the decisions on what goes into updates? I just get crickets and claims that ABC does little or nothing. Some like to claim I am the troll and it is me that is attacking BCH. I certainly do not want to harm BCH, so I have put a lot of thought into the possibility it is me that has been fooled for months about what side I am on. Then I realized if I was working for the dishonest anti-BCH team (knowingly or not) I would have many random new to r/BTC accounts backing me up and pretending they were the BCH community by my side. They would be pushing to save ABC from the mob. Doesn't it seem odd most of the trolls seemed to have disappeared or changed sides? Wake up people we are still under attack! Wolf, Wolf, Wolf!

@Big-Bubbler 4 July 2020

Anti-BCH trolls are using BCHN to divide the BCH community. Most people who have been around a while realize their are professional disinformation and division-spreading agents working to harm BCH on social media. These professional teams have been attacking any project looking to create peer-to-peer electronic cash for years. They fooled the community into thinking the majority of the community preferred small blocks when it was not true. That's how they fooled the miners into letting them capture BTC and delay the success of a real "Bitcoin" (peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people). It appears they started the anti-IFP movement telling us we all hated it and ABC. The goal was to stop BCH from getting much needed development funding and to attack our developers. They had a lot of success with that attack vector because there were some good reasons to oppose the IFP and how it was handled. That spawned the new node project called BCHN. BCHN has great people in it and may be able to do good things for BCH. Attacking BCH developers is very important to the anti-BCH forces and they are using BCHN as a tool to try to damage BCH development and demonize ABC. ABC has long been a primary target since they have been our strongest development leadership since BCH was created by ABC. Even though most would agree that a strong leader is not really a good idea in the long run, some of the trolls are now claiming BCHN is suddenly the new leadership of the BCH community. They have been claiming BCHN was supported by the community (to a greater extent than ABC) for months. Definitely since before it might have been true. They lie like this a lot because if they lie repeatedly it does eventually fool many people. As far as I can tell, the good people on the BCHN team have not been offering to replace ABC by doing all their work and making better decisions day-to-day. They have been working to do some things we need done and stop one thing they do not like. That is not really an attempt to take over BCH code-development-leadership from ABC. Contributing and influencing development is a good thing and that is what a new node team would normally do if they were not intending to harm BCH. I do not think the real BCH fans on BCHN intend to harm BCH. Even though the BCHN team does not seem to be claiming they are the new leaders of BCH, the anti-BCH trolls (social engineering agents) have been using their usual methods of dishonesty and personal attacks to push that false claim to try to cause infighting. Of course the anti-BCH trolling is multi-faceted and they are doing much more to harm BCH than just this one thing. There is an army of them and they infest much of the crypto-related social media.

@Big-Bubbler 24 February 2020

讓我們創建一個雙贏的基礎設施融資計劃 嗨！ 我不會說這種語言，但是，我正在嘗試使用Google翻譯來嘗試將其表達出來。 我認為我們可以製定一個使大多數真正的BCH愛好者感到高興的好計劃。我將建議一些方法來做到這一點。我很想听聽別人的想法，並對我的想法提出建設性的批評。我認為我們需要獲得開發資金，以使BCH能夠為時已晚而準備在全球範圍內廣泛使用，並且我們的許多市場利基都被諸如Apple Pay和現在發布的其他“ tap Pay”之類的技術所填補。 。生物安全信息交換所的反對者希望我們將資金籌措和實際進展推遲6個月或更長時間。他們說我們的障礙已經超出了需要，如果我們將來有需要，我們可以等待解決該問題。 IMO，目標：讓BCH礦工將所有BCH礦工已賺取的X塊獎勵的X％捐贈給BCH基礎設施開發商的自動化系統。我提出了一種100％自願的系統，讓BCH礦工選擇要捐贈的百分比，捐贈將持續多長時間以及要資助的項目。畢竟是他們的錢。 Pro-BCH礦工如何讓我們知道他們的選擇？我希望反生物安全信息交換所的資助力量將嘗試通過任何礦工投票制度來降低該百分比，並看到捐贈對生物安全信息交換所的好處越小越好。我認為反BCH資金的礦工比親BCH的礦工擁有更多的哈希值。 選擇捐贈百分比我不確定這是否是可行的解決方案，但是，我認為池運營商會創建具有特定捐贈水平和特定籌資目標的多種池。然後，礦工只是加入他們喜歡的礦池，如果他們想停止捐贈就離開。我希望低捐贈和無捐贈池將設法淘汰較高的捐贈池，所以，我想知道代碼中是否有辦法激勵較高的捐贈水平？如果您向A塊捐款更多，也許是一種滑動難度調整調整，使其更容易獲得A塊？我可能會考慮最小和最大調整調整，以避免使用此功能。如果不完全捐贈，使DAA變得更加困難，就可以取代“孤立塊”的想法嗎？他們的方塊還是不錯的，但是，很難得到嗎？本著保持自願的精神，如果捐贈的支持消失了，我們還需要一種方法（也許是自動化的嗎？激活了礦工？）來關閉整個捐贈系統。 我的100％自願捐贈採礦的想法可能只有在有足夠的哈希通過加入捐贈池“充分挖掘” BCH鏈志願者的情況下才能起作用。我認為沒有人聽說過這種可能性。 BCH只需要少量的總體哈希率，因此，我認為有很多哈希願意支持我們的發展。我認為，提出一項社區支持的計劃可能會大大有助於使礦工們更加樂於奉獻。 選擇資金目標您可以將哈希率乘以捐贈百分比來確定對此進行投票的採礦池投票權，但是，如果我們讓池（或池中的子池？）具有指定的資金目標，那將否決該目標。一種方法。我認為池必須有一組很小的選項列表供您選擇。刻錄將不是一種選擇，因為這對BCH不利。一些選項可能是代理*，這些選項可以為礦工做出決策。如果有任何礦工不喜歡他們的決定，他們可以更換礦池。我希望看到池切換很容易，如果可能的話。對於希望轉移到特定子池的情況，最好採用一種池間方式進行信號傳遞，並在該子池被激活之前用信號通知最小量的哈希值，以使池操作員不必運行小池（如果這對他們來說很麻煩？）？ 我們如何阻止反生物安全信息交換所部隊將捐贈目標納入選擇清單，以破壞生物安全信息交換所的目標？例如，一些人認為BU和新的BCN可能已準備好被用作對BCH的攻擊。如果名單上有攻擊者，反生物安全信息交換所的礦工是否會排雷並向他們捐款以將捐款變成對生物安全信息交換所的攻擊？我還沒有針對這個潛在問題提出真正的解決方案。我可能正在看到為什麼Amaury會從一個很小的清單開始（我認為是很棒的選擇-即使他是從礦工那裡獲得的）。我想我希望看到由礦工選擇的列表，這些礦工也不會是運行捐贈池的池運營商。 *代理人：可能是一個由5人組成的委員會？受信任的社區成員（以及誰的雇主或任何財務支持者）將不會從任何這些池中獲得任何整體獎勵捐贈。可以指定用於資助特定目標的代理，例如特定的路線圖目標（或目標集），也可以指定用於申請其資助的新項目的代理。我認為，一些已經表明他們支持向生物安全信息交換所發展捐款（並且沒有向其投資的開發項目可能會獲得資金）的集合經營者可以被視為代理。將允許並鼓勵代理團隊聽取那些無法擺脫潛在財務利益衝突之人的建議。 我認為這筆資金不足以完全資助所有應得的重大項目。我不在乎是否是引起爭議的ABC，但是，我希望我們首先著重強調使協議規模可在全球範圍內廣泛採用，因為我認為這是等待持有人，礦工和開發商賺錢的地方。如果我們擁有了這一功能，並且獲得了使BCH流行的殺手級應用或活動，它將使這筆資金變得更大，並且隨著價格的上漲，我們甚至會拉高BTC的價格。 IMO，在能夠處理負載之前花點時間嘗試這不是一個好主意。 仇恨者將繼續仇恨 反生物安全信息交換所部隊仍然會討厭任何好的計劃（因為這對生物安全信息交換所是有益的），並聲稱所有人都討厭它。一些反IFP人士希望現在避免嘗試創建雙贏計劃，這樣他們就可以分散社區並從我們的主要開發人員（他們可能不喜歡）和ABC團隊那裡獲得權力，然後再支持更好的計劃。許多礦工要么是基於防BCH的礦工，要么是基於中性BCH的純貪婪礦工，他們不希望捐贈系統導致很小的哈希率從BCH轉移到BTC鏈。我認為，出於純粹的原因（在這個領域是可以接受的行為）而反對的礦工們並沒有看到或關心更好的BCH開發資金可能帶來的長期價格收益。開發大規模擴展以供全球使用的能力所允許的上行空間對於所有這些人來說都是更有利可圖的。

@Big-Bubbler 24 February 2020

Let's Create A Win-Win IFP Link to an experimental translation below: 讓我們創建一個雙贏的基礎設施融資計劃 https://read.cash/@Big-Bubbler/-4c2e00df I think we can create a great plan that makes most real BCH-Fans happy. I am going to suggest some ways to do that. I would love to hear ideas from others and constructive criticism on my ideas. I think we need to get funding of development for making BCH ready to scale for massive worldwide use before it is too late and much of our market niche gets filled by other tech such as Apple Pay and the other "tap Pay" stuff getting advertised now. BCH opponents hope we will postpone funding and real progress on scaling for 6 months or longer. They say our blocks are already larger than needed and we can wait to fix that issue if we ever need to in the future. **IMO, The Goal:** An automated system for letting BCH miners donate X% of the block rewards all BCH miners have earned to BCH infrastructure developers. I propose a 100% voluntary system that let's the BCH-miners choose what percent to donate, how long the donations will continue and what projects to fund. It is their money after all. **How do Pro-BCH miners let us know their choices?** I expect anti-BCH-funding forces will try to game any system of miner voting to make the % lower and see to it the donations do as little good for BCH as possible. I assume the anti-BCH-funding miners have a lot more hash than the pro-BCH miners. **Choosing donation %** I am not sure this is a practical solution, but, I am thinking pool operators create a variety of pools with specific donation levels and specific funding targets. Then miners just join the pool(s) they prefer and leave if they want to stop donating. I would expect low-donation and no-donation pools will try to muscle out the higher donation pools, so, I wonder if there is a way in the code to incentivize higher donation levels? Maybe a sliding-scale difficulty adjustment adjustment that makes it slightly easier to get block-A if you donate more to block-A? I would probably consider minimum and maximum adjustment adjustments to avoid gaming this feature. Could making the DAA more difficult for pools not donating at all replace the "orphaning blocks" idea? Their blocks are still good, but, harder to get? In the spirit of keeping this voluntary, we also need a way (maybe automated? miner activated?) to turn this whole donation system off if support for donating goes away. My idea of 100% voluntary donation-mining will probably only work if enough hash to "fully mine" the BCH chain volunteers by joining the donation pools. I do not think I have heard from anyone about the likelihood of that. BCH only needs a small amount of overall hash rate, so, I would think there is plenty of hash willing to support our development. I think coming up with a community supported plan might go a long way towards making the miners more willing to commit. **Choosing funding targets** You could multiply hash rate times donation percentage to determine mining pool voting power for a vote on this, but, if we are letting the pools (or sub-pools within pools?) have a designated funding target, that would overrule that sort of approach. I think there needs to be a set and pretty-small list of options for the pools to choose from. Burning will not be an option since that is not good for BCH. Some of the options could be proxies* that make the decision for the miners. If any miner does not like their decisions, they can switch pools. I would like to see pool switching be easy, if possible. It might be good to have an inter-pool way of signalling for the desire to move to a specific sub-pool and minimum amount of hash be signaled before that sub-pool gets activated to keep pool operators from having to run tiny pools (if that is a bother for them?)? How do we keep anti-BCH forces from getting a donation target into the options-list to be used to sabotage the goals of BCH? For instance, some consider BU and the new BCN may be readying to get used as attacks on BCH. If any attackers are on the list, will anti-BCH miners line up to mine and donate to them to turn the donations into attacks on BCH? I have not come up with a real solution to this potential problem yet. I may be seeing see why Amaury started with a tiny list (of what I consider great choices - even if he got the list from miners). I think I would like to see the list be chosen by miners who are not also going to be the pool operators running the donating pools. ***Proxies:** Could be something like a committee of 5? trusted community members who (and who's employer or any financial supporter) will not recieve any block reward donations from any of these pools. Proxies might be designated as intended to fund specific goals like a particular road-map goal (or goal set) or possibly designated for new projects that apply to them for the funding. I think a few pool operators who have shown they support donating to BCH development (and have no development projects they have invested in that might get funding) could be considered as proxies. Proxy teams would be allowed and encouraged to listen to advice from the people who are not free from potential financial conflicts of interest. I do not believe this funding will be sufficient to fully fund all the great projects that deserve funding. I do not care if it is the controversial ABC that does it, but, I hope we start out emphasizing making the protocol scale for massive worldwide adoption as I think that is where the big profits are waiting for holders, miners and developers. If we have that and we get the killer app or event that takes BCH viral, it will make this funding much bigger and we will even drag BTC up in price as we rise. IMO, having such a moment try to happen before we can handle the load would not be a good idea. **The Haters will continue to Hate** Anti-BCH forces will still hate any good plan (because it is good for BCH) and will claim everybody hates it. Some anti-IFP folks want to avoid attempting to create a win-win plan now so they can divide the community and grab power from our lead developer (they may dislike) and the ABC team before they support a better plan. Many miners are either anti-BCH or neutral-BCH-pure-greed-based miners that do not want a donation system to cause even a tiny amount of hash rate to move off of BCH to the BTC chain. I think the Miners opposed to this for pure-greed reasons (which is acceptable behavior in this space) are not seeing or caring about the likely longer-term price-benefits of better development funding on BCH. The upside allowed by developing the ability to scale massively for worldwide use are off the charts more profitable for all of them.

@Big-Bubbler 15 February 2020

Dear pool operators that want to support BCH developers from block rewards, Great! Thanks so much! Please create or designate pool(s) that will donate a per-determined percentage to BCH developers (or whatever fundee(s) you choose and for however long you choose). This will allow miners to put as much hash as they want towards the goal of that pool. Voluntary donations! They can change pools anytime they want. I think these donations could come from BTC, BCH or other block rewards if that is the better place for the pool to mine? You can make it voluntary for miners by just designating your pool(s) as one that will do this. Maybe you have already done this. If so, Thanks! I suggest this so the miners get fair warning and the anti-donations attackers cannot say it is involuntary. If you are still listening to my crazy ideas, consider setting it up so the funds go to your designated developers (or whatever cause) directly rather than sending to a central depository that might be captured, infiltrated or corrupted. If you keep the intended fundee(s) and donation percentages listed publicly in advance, by staying in the pool, miners will continue to signal agreement with the pools' charitable activities.

@Big-Bubbler 14 February 2020

How can we tell if Pro-BCH miners are willing to donate block rewards to BCH developers? **I believe there are many truly pro-BCH miners** willing to temporarily donate less than 1% of their block rewards to support faster development progress on BCH. I believe it is in all Bitcoin miners' long-term best interests to support getting this work done soon. If BCH can scale and goes viral as intended, the rise of BCH will drag BTC along with it as long as BTC still has it's social engineering army. Any delay in this future causes compound losses for miners. I agree **the original proposal would benefit from a lot of improvements** including ****letting miners (instead of pool operators) make the decision(s)**** and not sending the donations to a single censorable depository. I suggest **creating or designating pools for miners to join as a way of showing support for the funding mechanism**. This is just an idea. If people can find a better way to know "if Pro-BCH miners are willing to donate block rewards to BCH developers", I am all for that idea. I assume most miners are not serious BCH supporters who see the long-term value of providing significant support for BCH development very soon. I am OK with their opinions so long as they are not allowed to control BCH's ability to achieve the original dream of Bitcoin. I believe there are many miners who DO understand the importance of getting scaling on BCH quickly and would support such pools. If I am mistaken about BCH having serious miner support, This could also be a way to show that we should cower at the demands of the less friendly miners. I expect many social engineering agents and miners who are not really pro-BCH will make the many often-repetitive arguments against developer funding while claiming to be Pro-BCH. I believe that truly pro-BCH miners cannot openly admit to that stance due to the massive powerful forces that oppose peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. So, anti-funding social-media posts could be from fake friends of BCH or a real ones. I believe most who print articles opposed to letting miners fund BCH developers are not really pro-BCH. Of the real pro-BCH posters, I think many assume bad things that need not be part of an updated future funding plan. Let's make sure the miners get to control whether their donations end on "X" date. Let's listen to the other concerns and try to find a win-win solution to them all. Anti-BCH forces will never like any plan that helps create peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people in our lifetime. They are legion. They will pretend to be us and pretend convincingly that **we** do not want miners to donate to our developers. Let's look for ways to find out what the real BCH community want's to do!

@Big-Bubbler 9 February 2020

Centralized power always corrupts. When we decentralize money we decentralize power. ... Repost from u/Annapurna317 on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/f0xoqf/centralized_power_always_corrupts_when_we/ https://www.reddit.com/user/Annapurna317/ Centralized power always corrupts. When we decentralize money we decentralize power. That enables people to have more freedom. This is a rumination on centralized institutions, why they fail and why decentralized money is so important. **Communism (dictatorship):** Communism is centralized control from the start. Communists leaders dictate and delegate power and tasks from the top-down. Communist systems impoverish those living in those systems. There are no personal rights or personal freedoms. All property and thus power is owned by the state. Communistic systems must continually expand into new regions or they will implode as people loose trust. Example: Russia and China pushing to expand are signs of internal weaknesses. The internal structure of communist systems prevents motiovation and innovation. These societies are brainwashed into believing that their poverty is required for the greater good of the country. There is no real freedom or justice, even oligarchs can be thrown in jail for nothing and have everything taken from them. **Pure Capitalism (unchecked by democratic laws):** Pure capitalism is meant to be comprised of fair competition, but over time the incentives create monopolies. Monopolies centralize power, requiring people to pay more for things once industries are consolidated. Pure capitalism takes away freedom and impoverishes over time as the "competition" phase ends. Once there is a winner, the winner then uses that power to create laws that guarantee their monopolistic position. This removes motivation to compete with the monopoly. Monopolies rarely innovate new products as they have no competition. Monopolies remove or are able to avoid anti-trust laws through a corrupting influence. Quick note: the US has shifted towards monopolies (FAANG) over the last 30 years (largely due to money in politics). As a result, wealth inequality has never been larger around the world. The rich don't have recessions. Amazon pays 0-1% taxes due to their power and influence on tax laws. Centralized power and corruption at it's worst. Monopolies feed on systems without giving back to those societies. Pure capitalistic systems create a population of slaves that have no choice but to work more for less. This populous perceived freedoms, but the things they can do are actually selected for them.   Both pure capitalistic and communistic systems fail as they centralize and that leads to less freedom.   Democracy is meant to decentralize power. All people should have an equal voice about who leads, and term limits should keep those leaders accountable to the electorate. The problem is that money disproportionately impacts elections and makes them unfair. Foreign communistic systems use democracy against itself, influencing elections with money in order to destabilize them. On the local level, regional power disenfranchises voters that they think will not reelect them. In a democracy, the more you remove money from the election process, the more free those people will be. The main principle is that no matter what system you have, where you have centralized power, the system fails. Money is at the core of power in our modern society. Attaining money is a game that we're all forced to play. The consequences of this game are the difference between slavery and freedom, growth or stagnation, life or death. This is why decentralized money is so important. It must be decentralized in development (many developers) and have decentralized security (many miners or fair staking). It must be decentralized in operation (peer to peer, without central hubs) and it must have a decentralized record (immutable blockchain). Decentralized money won't solve all of our problems. There will still be have and have-nots. There will still be racism and hatreds. However, it could do a few important things: Remove centralized inflation decisions that devalues the ongoing work of the world. Remove the fractional-reserve system that creates war and operates on pure corruption. Allow people to transact with one another without a middleman (banks). Allow people to be their own bank, without asking for permission or having identification. Have positive effects on all other aspects of life associated with greater freedom. It doesn't matter if the above solution is called Bitcoin Cash or any other name. I take no stock in what things are called. If it will do the above, then I will support it with my thoughts and actions. Power to the people.

@Big-Bubbler 5 February 2020

Physicists claim they have determined the best recipe for giant soap bubbles. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/physicists-determine-the-optimal-soap-recipe-for-blowing-gigantic-bubbles/ I have not tested their formula yet. I would be surprised if they really have the best formula figured out, but, the research is useful and great to see. The link to the Soap Bubble Wiki in the article is a great source of related info..

@Big-Bubbler 29 January 2020

On the future of Miners donating rewards to BCH developer support I am all for supporting developers with some mining rewards. I really appreciate the miners/pools offering to try to make this happen. What I think is/was bad about the recent plan was forcing all miners to lose 0.44% of potential profit against their will. Personally, for a variety of reasons I am ok with making people who do not want to donate 0.44% to BCH developers lose this potential income anyway, but, I can see that this is a legitimate gripe. I believe most who gripe will be doing so because they are anti-BCH, only care about BTC or are making the decision based on short-term greed (ignoring the longer term increase in value). I would feel bad for people who do not fall into these categories and just cannot afford the loss of 0.44% of what they were expecting to get or just can't stand being told what to do with their money. I think mining hash moving from chain to chain is permissionless and the people controlling the hash moving away from BCH to avoid supporting BCH developers are the people BTC miners should get mad at. Maybe if we had miners committing to keep up the mining hash on BCH (pay the full 12.5%) it could solve that concern? Assuming we do not find a solution like that, I agree with this quote from Emil Oldenburg (CTO, Bitcoin.com)(https://read.cash/@EmilOldenburg/necessities-for-funding-plan-to-work-74e801e9): Please keep in mind that this proposal can only work if a majority hashrate supports it. We are not doing this to enrich a few individuals, but to strengthen Bitcoin Cash as a whole. Without majority hash support behind it, this effort could risk a chain split. My concern is what hash rate majority does BCH think it can get? I do not know. Maybe the majority of all the Bitcoins' hash is BCH-friendly? I would love to believe that. I do think we can get majority support from BCH-friendly miners for a plan. I would be surprised if we could get a majority of all of the Bitcoins' miners to agree to support BCH developers. I believe it was anti-BCH forces dividing the the BCH community the last week or so that stopped the original plan. The plan was full of unsettled issues and the attackers used the uncertainties to spread false assumptions about what was going to happen. Anyway, unless most of all the Bitcoins' hash is BCH-friendly I think we will need to be very wary because the anti-BCH forces are still circling and looking for weaknesses to divide out community further. They are good at pretending they are a part of the BCH community and that they represent a majority view even though they work for dark money that hates BCH and they are not real people with real opinions (rather they are mostly professionally implemented social engineering agents). They are very good at ensnaring and enlisting real people into their web of lies. But, of course, not all anti-plan voices are anti-BCH and not all of the pro-BCH people opposed to the past plan were under the influence of the "trolls". I never intend to suggest that even though the trolls like to pretend that is what I am saying. I hope BCH-Friendly hash is the majority because these social engineers will make gathering support very difficult even if it is a great thing for BCH and the BCH community. IMO, even if it is known to be good for BTC and BCH, there will be attacks from those who cannot stand supporting BCH developers.

@Big-Bubbler 14 January 2020

BSV may pump higher than BCH and try to pretend it is the better Bitcoin. Like BTC, BSV is development-centralized and can't scale, so I am not worried. I think BSV's owners may pump BSV to a higher price than BCH. Recently I may have been seeing more than the usual 'BSV is legitimate' social media chatter such as this article that says BSV will be flippening BTC soon: https://bitcoinandtheblockchain.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-coming-bsv-skip-and-flip.html This is most likely manufactured social engineering from the BSV's owners. I think they can easily afford to make BSV grow higher in value than BCH. If I remember correctly, the rich owners of BSV have pumped it higher than BCH before. The first time was probably just for ego/psycho. reasons. I think they may be working on doing it again now. If so, I would guess this time they are making some kind of "big move". Maybe so they can dump at the top or maybe something more devious? I am not concerned over this unsustainable run up by BSV. I think it will actually help BCH, but, I am concerned about what they may have up their sleeve. Such uncertainty is sometimes their goal, but, I would just be vigilant if they do keep this up. This is adapted from a couple of my posts on r/BTC: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/eojn0u/bsv_may_pump_higher_than_bch_and_try_to_pretend/

@Big-Bubbler 9 January 2020

whycryptocurrencies.com/protection against government confiscation https://whycryptocurrencies.com/protection_against_government_confiscation.html I did not write this. It is just a good series of articles I like and wanted to spread awareness of. I will add that the Gov is good at taking all your electronic devices including flash drives. I think they can scan for them even when well hidden. And all your paper back-ups. In the USA, they no longer need probable cause to steal your wealth. They just need to find some one with a 'good faith belief' you are guilty. Since some people think only criminals use cryptocurrency, it may be easy to find such weak-minded people within the law enforcement community. Of course, I assume, such "believers" would be in high demand and get promoted for their misguided world view.

@Big-Bubbler 9 January 2020

* What and Where is This Picture * (and Bubble Colors partly explained) If you can't see a picture, you may want to change "list view" to "Tile Layout view" (icons to click). This is a picture of the top of a large bubble (9 foot/3 metre diameter maybe) with a dark forest behind it. The golden-bronzy colored part is near the very top of the bubble and the color is because the bubble is very thin on top. The liquid in the wall flows downward over time, so, the pinkish-purple part is where the bubble wall is thicker. The colors have to do with the bubble-wall thickness in relation to the wavelengths of those colors of light. The blue part is slightly thicker than the purple. The un-cropped Photo: The light blue part is white clouds in the sky reflected on the blue part of the bubble. The dark green "treeline" along the bottom edge of the "blue sky" is a reflection of the tops of trees behind me as I take the picture. I am in a clearing in a forest at the "main stage" of the Faerieworlds festival at Horning's Hideout near Portland Oregon, USA. In the picture above, you can see the bubble colors are only easy to see when there is a dark background behind the bubble. You can also see the color bands alternating as the bubble-wall thickness varies by multiples of the wavelengths of those colors of light. Because the big bubbles are not usually a perfect sphere and are rolling and twisting as they float, the colors (wall thicknesses) are not usually simple patterns. You may be able to see that, under suitable conditions and viewing angles, the sky is reflected on the top of the bubbles and again, but upside-down, on the bottom of the bubbles. The bubble-makers here are using cotton strings dipped in a bucket of bubble mix.

+1 more

@Big-Bubbler 23 December 2019

The Troll Army Still Can't Stop Magic Internet Money December 2019 (Vea los comentarios para una traducción al español de google)  The creation of Bitcoin will change the world in big and small ways. In this article I explain my view of some of what has been happening to the dream of Bitcoin since it was discovered by those who love and hate it. Luckily for the people of the world, the IDEA of a currency that cannot be controlled or overprinted by governments (or corporations) will not be put back in the bottle. Dark forces opposed to financial freedom for the people of the world are scared of the future. I will explain how I believe they have succeeded in delaying the arrival of peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people using massive wealth and immoral strategies. Crime against humanity? or business as usual? I am thinking both.  I will be stating a lot of opinions and make assumptions I have not proven. Many would be very difficult to prove, but, I believe in them and expect to alter my beliefs if I learn different. I welcome honest feedback. There will be many who disagree with much of what I say. Many will disagree with things that are true. I assume that is their job or they have been fooled by people who's job it was to fool them. I think, in the future, history will record the true facts and many of my "seemingly controversial" assumptions will be proven correct (or pretty close). In this article I will also point out how the dark forces can make "controversial" and "seemingly controversial" very different things.  **The Bitcoin Dream** The original mission of Bitcoin was to create a sufficiently decentralized peer-to-peer magic internet money for the world's people. The decentralization is necessary to protect Bitcoin and it's users from "censorship" (outside control). The dream was for it to be faster than banks and cheap or free to use. It was also hoped it could free the people of the world from the financial oppression resulting from corrupt and misused monetary-policy strategies that history has shown always end in failure (and financial disasters for the People).  Bitcoin was intended to provide the ability for anyone to send any amount to anyone, anywhere in the world. Being able to do it quickly and cheaply without the need for permission from anyone was crucial. Bitcoin wallets make everyone able to own their own Bitcoin "bank" for free. This keeps people and governments from being able to seize or freeze your funds (unless they capture your secret wallet key that you get to hide). Bitcoin can also be anonymous when used carefully. Sadly, it is best to assume it is the opposite of anonymous unless you become a Bitcoin privacy expert. It is transparent and very traceable (all transactions can be seen by anyone). Wallets are working to develop privacy features, but, time will tell if they can be helpful at protecting privacy while powerful forces are working to unmask transactions and owners.  Bitcoin fixes another primary problem with government controlled currencies (also known as "fiat" currencies). Intentional inflation of the supply reduces the fiat's value every year. Once a government has the ability to print money they can spend, they always do. The more they print, the less it is all worth. Bitcoin solves this inflation problem by providing coins on a set schedule that creates a limited Bitcoin supply, then the Bitcoin code stops creating more forever. When a government increases the money supply, they usually spend that new money. With Bitcoin, an increase in the money supply means everyone that owns any small piece of bitcoin has more money (more value) instead of less.  The code is law. Because of the decentralization, no laws can control Bitcoin. Governments may create or enforce laws upon their citizens use of Bitcoin, but, a real Bitcoin is free from government control. This creates a lawless "wild west" of international finance. Price manipulation, insider trading and many activities that would be illegal in some jurisdictions are not prohibited by Bitcoin.  Do be careful. The code is unforgiving. If you send to the wrong deposit address, lose your secret wallet key or someone tricks you out of your key, Bitcoin code will not give you your coins back. Only the person who controls your coins can send them back. Do backup your secret key(s) connected to even small amounts of Bitcoin. Many sad stories can be found about Bitcoins that are lost forever. Often they were worth ten thousand times less back when they were lost.  **The Early Days** I am sure others will write the book on the really early days when science experts, nerds and geeks built, tested and ran the code. After some years, a modern "Dread Pirate Roberts" (see *The Princess Bride* story) saw the potential and developed a marketplace (Silk Road) on the "darknet" (a part of the internet where it is difficult to track the activities and true location of users) for unregulated sales and services provided by people who would be (or attempt to be) anonymous. All payments on the Silk Road were made in Bitcoin.  My understanding is that a Gawker magazine article did a story on the marketplace and a congressman got publicly enraged about it and those 2 things created enough public awareness that the darknet marketplace began to become a big deal. This spread awareness and encouraged other adoption. For a while, belief slowly grew among mostly techy people and darknet dwellers.  I assume it was about this time that people controlling massive fiat wealth begin to really worry about this wild financial experiment's potential to change the international monetary status quo. No such concerns would be admitted to by any power-players since that would lend legitimacy to the dream of Bitcoin. I assume this is also when the unknown "dark forces" began to delegitimize Bitcoin and develop other plans to stop this cryptocurrency from taking over the world. For the next few years financial leaders will decry Bitcoin as a ponzi or scam while secretly buying it and looking for ways their bank or investment firm can get in on this new technology.  Also about this time, super wealthy "gamblers" see the potential and begin testing massive market manipulations. The manipulation turns out to be easy, anonymous, unregulated and very very profitable. Big-time money-launderers that can afford to hire Bitcoin-privacy experts (and bankers and such) also jump in for various reasons including moving massive funds across boarders without any checkpoints or underground tunnels needed.  The gamblers pushing Bitcoin values up over 100 times it's previous value begins to grab the attention of a new class of speculative "believers". Each major market "pump" is followed by a crash, but, the crash's depths are each higher than the previous low. So, "buy the dip" becomes Bitcoin Gospel. The pumps grow higher and higher over the years. The relative importance of darknet adoption shrinks as the other use-cases grow.  It becomes difficult for the giant gamblers to dump enough fiat into their massive manipulations without interested observers seeing them do it. It is probably also difficult for the big money-launderers to trade the crypto back and forth for fiat. They try corrupt banks and the traceabilty of crypto leads to international law enforcement actions catching some banks. Since that is a big problem, they (or someone they trust) creates "Tether" (an electronic "stable-coin" worth one USD). Tether allows Billions in anonymous fiat deposits to enter (and leave?) the crypto space.  Many think the creators of Tether just create the Tethers without real fiat deposits (collateral). This idea is supported by Tether secrecy and unwillingness to buy Tethers back for a dollar. Many expect "Tether" to collapse and cause massive damage to crypto prices at any moment. Instead Tethers fund ever-bigger peaks for Bitcoin. Also, as many new tokens enter the crypto ecosystem, the gamblers can easily pump them all because they are so small, and often, even more profitable "pumps" than Bitcoin itself.  **The Dark Forces' Infiltration of Bitcoin and Social media** At some point, some person or group is spooked by the possible success of the dream of Bitcoin. I don't know if it is the G7, VISA, old banker money, the owners of the "FED", Government agents defending the USD "reserve currency" of the world or some other massively wealthy dark force(s). They feared the potential of peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. They probably consider their battle "Just" and will use dark and evil methods to try to stop this "danger" at great cost to their deep pockets and soul(s) (if they still have them).  The gamblers want to support Bitcoin and promote people buying and holding it. The scared dark money wants to stop the creation of a successful peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. I do not know how the gamblers and dark money are connected, but, it seems they found a win-win solution to keep them both on the same side. They would both promote Bitcoin for speculation and break it's ability to be peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people at the same time. People will write books about the details of how they did this using massive resources. I will try to summarize.  They created a massive well-funded social-engineering army (I call the "BTC-troll army" even though most of the agents are not "trolls" in the usual sense). They secretly bought control of the primary crypto-related social media sites and installed their own operatives as moderators (who began systematic censorship and banning). They created or bought control of most crypto-related online publications. They filled social media with thousands of vocal accounts pretending to love Bitcoin. The army commented on most every Bitcoin-related video, article, livestream, podcast,... they could find. They agreed with each other in teams to make it seem like the real Bitcoin community believed in the things they were saying and reinforcing. Books were written to support the fake "Bitcoin belief system". It is a massive social engineering "machine" that is still in control of most related social media today. The "army" will probably call this "story" I am telling crazy, insane, deluded, etc... They may even show concern for me due to my "obvious mental problems" or whatever, lol.  While they were building the massive mind-control machine, they were also infiltrating the developers of Bitcoin code to stop the Bitcoin dream. They found or created Blockstream (and probably other businesses) and used them as "pawns" to "hire" (buy) crucial developers. They may have introduced trojan code to hamper the future of Bitcoin, but mainly, BTC development was captured by gaining control of the ability to make changes to the code. Who wrote the code is unimportant when a "gatekeeper" is in place controlling what code is allowed in. This power has allowed them to keep Bitcoin from having the ability to scale (become massively popular and get used by the people of the world). The control over BTC development also breaks BTC-Bitcoin's decentralization. Even if they fixed the code, the coin can no longer be trusted as it has been captured by the dark forces who can do anything they want to do to the code.  While dark forces were capturing and breaking Bitcoin's primary use-case, the social engineering machine was spreading many false beliefs including that Bitcoin was not captured and was getting better all the time. The machine introduced alternative beliefs such as the "store of value" (SOV) use-case to replace the P2P-cash dream. The massive army pretended to agree SOV was great and all they needed. Those who saw the damage being done or who questioned the 'core dogma' in any way were ridiculed and demonized viciously by a hoard of fake humans.  New SOV and HODL (never sell) primary "use-case" replacements sold by the social engineering machine seem to be very popular because their army of operatives say things and agree with each other until any real humans arriving at a discussion find the new beliefs well entrenched. This was happening well before most people realized the Bitcoin dream (peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people) was no longer a goal of the new "owners" of Bitcoin. Many real humans still don't realize what has happened and will think (and be told repeatedly) I am just a crazy Bitcoin-hater. The anti-crypto forces had captured the "Bitcoin project" and used dishonesty, bribery, censorship and the social engineering machine to fool people into thinking there was a large group of supporters who believed the corruption of Bitcoin was a good thing.  The real Bitcoin community knew something was wrong and created the r/BTC Reddit subreddit to allow uncensored open discussions. The troll army made any site their masters did not control difficult to use by filling it with pro-Bitcoin-corruption posts. Much of the real community did not fall for the story that the corruption was a good idea. Sadly, most of the community did fall for the LIE that their views were a minority opinion.  Smart Bitcoin community members had tried to warn everyone for more than a year about the crucial scaling issue that was coming up if Bitcoin tried to "go viral" (become very popular). Most of the community believed scaling was important, but, did not realize they had majority community support for standing up to the pro-corruption forces. A few hero's of Bitcoin did not care about whether they were a minority or not. They realized those controlling Bitcoin were unlikely to fulfill their many promises (lies) about allowing Bitcoin to scale "very soon". They took the drastic step of creating a new Bitcoin project "fork" specifically designed to allow the original dream of Bitcoin to scale for massive adoption.  Almost all of the real community (including the miners) wanted Bitcoin to scale. The community was supportive of the new "BCH" fork (Bitcoin Cash), but, many "people" SEEMED to be believing the lies about BTC-Bitcoin still intending to allow scaling. Using the uncertainty and confusion the troll army created, the massive machine (using it's usual widespread dishonesty and bribery) was able to fool the Bitcoin miners into letting the capture go forward (miners continued to mine BTC-Bitcoin at the BCH fork) even though it was against their own longer-term financial best interests. This allowed the corrupted Bitcoin (BTC) to retain the "Bitcoin" name and ADOPTION the real community had spent years building. Bitcoin Cash was the real thing, but, the massive social engineering effort was able to sideline the real community and real Bitcoin project. The Troll army attacks ramped up and have been attacking BCH all day, every day ever since.  Within months of this "fork" (in late 2017), the captured form of Bitcoin (BTC) tried to go viral and experienced the expected shortage of blockspace the real Bitcoin community had warned would happen. The intentional inability to scale made the viral growth grind to a halt. When BTC failed, the new owners of BTC popped champagne and celebrated the destruction of the Bitcoin dream they had achieved on BTC-Bitcoin.  Had the public and miners not been fooled by the dark forces, Bitcoin would be decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people today. It would have large blocks, massive use and be worth over $100K each. Instead Bitcoin Cash is small and vulnerable with a lot of potential. Potential that the anti-crypto forces (that control BTC) cannot put back in the bottle even though they keep trying every day.  **Bitcoin Reborn as BCH revives and focuses on the primary use-case**  Even though BCH has been under massive ongoing attacks since before it existed, it has the real original Bitcoin community (minus some turncoats that were corrupted or fooled) and developers with a mission to create the Bitcoin dream of peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. We are the resistance. A rag-tag under-funded bunch that gets attacked personally and by intentional psychological mind games dreamed up by professional social engineers out to divide and conquer the Bitcoin (BCH) community and developers. An electronic currency needs to be tough and durable. The coin and community are being battle tested and prepared for the future.  BCH starts right out developing better code than BTC. The defeat of BTC-Bitcoin's ability to scale has caused an explosion of possible competitors for the lucrative P2P-cash use-case. BCH is the only Bitcoin still trying to be that, so, in some ways we have little competition. Still, some think we need some new bells and whistles to make us competitive in the more crowded field. We can't tell if these distractions from our primary mission are coming from corrupt influences or not. Who does not love bells and whistles? So, we add some.  The project development energy around BCH is getting to be much like it was before the BTC-capture stifled efforts towards innovative improvements on BTC. Software apps, adoption, meet-ups, developer progress, new wallets and wallet improvements, ...  are really happening again. Prices on all the crypto's are very low and we are wondering when the next pump of prices will make it so crypto owners can sell some without it being the worst possible time (in the bottom of the dip). This is a terrible time to encourage adoption since prices are falling and no sane holder would sell at these prices if they could help it. Spend and replace (buy back) is a common BCH mantra. Even in these dark times for prices, adoption of BCH is growing. Heroes are arising around the world and spreading the word.  **Major new Attack By BSV (supported by BTC)** Long story short, we get infiltrated (or a supporter gets corrupted?) by what appears to be a crazy serial liar who claims to have invented Bitcoin and now loves BCH since he knows a real Bitcoin project when he sees one. He says great things. Many want to believe in him. Many know he is bad news right off the bat. He tries to become a BCH "thought leader" but it does not go too well.  He proposes some software code ideas that do not get taken very seriously (probably because they are bad. They may even be intended to harm BCH). He demands to control BCH development immediately or he will create a fork of his own and use his new? friend's massive wealth and newly acquired mining hash power to take over BCH using an intentionally-harmful 51% attack. His wealthy forces do control over 51% of BCH hash power at this time. He also threatens people, exchanges and other businesses with harm if they do not follow his demands.  There is only a short time until his deadline, but, the massive BTC-troll army joins in supporting the attacker's claims about how great his new "Bitcoin - Satoshi's Vision" founder's dream ideas are. There is not really enough time for the troll army to convince the BCH fans because they have seen it before, social engineering deceptions take time to develop support and the crazy attacker is admitting to his evil intent along the way. At this point what I call a new mini troll-army dedicated to BSV maximalism (opposed to BTC and BCH) arrives on the scene to help the attack. They appear to be from the same BTC-troll source and using the same tactics with a different dishonest fake belief system.  The attack fails because the BCH-friendly miners mining BTC learned a valuable lesson when they were fooled into mining BTC last time: 'some short-term losses to mining profits now are better than losing the massive upside BCH still has for future mining profits'. After all, only BCH is still working on how to scale a Bitcoin for massive adoption. Anyway, some BTC miners switched to BCH to defend it from the attack and BCH developers added some defensive code that made it hard for BSV to use another attack vector they were probably implementing. BCH survived another attack. I now consider BCH "Battle tested". It also proves BCH is much more "hash-secure" than it's low daily hash-rate might suggest.  Sadly, the attack spooked the businesses the attacker threatened and there was uncertainty as the threats kept coming even after the BSV loss. BSV did not give up either. The attack coin still had massive financial support and was able to take a few community members I assume were bought out. The BSV- and BTC-troll armies continued to pretend BSV was more of a real Bitcoin than BCH. The whole mess hurt the BCH price badly. BSV still exists and has an obvious troll presence on social media (often more aggressive than the BTC-trolls) pushing the BSV false beliefs. BSV is a development-centralized pretender like BTC, but, they have deep pockets, social engineering, bigger lies and bigger blocks than BTC.  **BCH Soldiers On...** The BSV 'deathstar attack' was painful and left us weakened, but, we know we are the real Bitcoin project with better code and a better community that mostly does not support evil methods and dishonesty. Some might say not evil enough to win? "Good folks with the much better product" is a dangerous strategy in this tough ecosystem, but, I still like our chances.  One problem is that BCH still cannot scale for massive worldwide adoption yet. We are way ahead of the adoption curve for now, but, it appears massive scale is not a quick easy fix for our dev team. The troll army swears it is impossible. Our team is complaining about a lack of funding and bad underlying code we inherited from the "core" developers. Going back to fix the underlying code is a massive distraction from the primary goal, but, may be needed. The funding may remain a problem in great part due to the low price of BCH. This is probably the dark times for BCH. Having faith in the future of BCH is still not all that difficult for most of the community since signs other than price are still all bright.  Eventually BCH will catch on and go viral on it's own (no manipulations needed). If we are ready the growth will be insanely intense and high like the old Bitcoin peaks, but, it will not stop going up for (years?). I am hoping we get the scaling ready before it goes too far, but, a little slow viral growth would be nice about now. Many things could catalyze the sudden growth. I am sure the dark forces are working all the time to block those things from happening. I am pretty sure they can't put this Genie back in the bottle forever though.  A manipulation pump would also be great about now for BCH. BTC-Bitcoin is now broken, but, because it has a massive social engineering machine supporting it, the market manipulation gamblers can still prop it's price up with ease if they want to. The problem is, it seems to me they can't really pump it up super fast to massive new highs like they used to do (before 2017). For one reason, it can't scale! If they could overcome that hurdle by doing their trading on exchanges (not on the blockchain itself), it would be hard for the regular public to join in and help with the pump and then buy the manipulators coins near the top before everyone finds out it is the top. Secondly, here at the end of 2019 when the next pump seems overdue, their Tether "pumping service" is under massive scrutiny from government regulators.  I think the gamblers want to do another massive pump. The easy way for them to get richer would be to sell their BTC-Bitcoin for Bitcoin Cash and pump it since it can scale much better than BTC. BCH is still not totally ready for super-massive viral growth, but, it could do one good pump which would provide funding for developers to make it scale even better in time for the next pump. I have seen no sign of this happening yet. I do not know if the gamblers are controlled by the dark forces? They might also oppose the dream of Bitcoin or fear the massive social engineering apparatus? Maybe they have a fragile compromise and cannot break their deal with powerful people who know who they are?  By the way, if I am right, the many on-line statistics- and chart-based price forecasters (that are not part of the BTC-Troll social engineering army) are just guessing over and over and hoping to get lucky unless they know the manipulators. Same thing for investors buying long and short (crypto-gambling) contracts unless they know someone planning to manipulate the price. Manipulating the price is not illegal on Bitcoin. Investing on regulated platforms with advance notice of intended manipulations may be?  **The Future** Dark forces captured and corrupted BTC to stop it from becoming Magic Internet Money for the people of the world. BCH saved the dream of Bitcoin and will help free the world from the financial oppression of corrupt monetary policies. I do not think it will replace fiat, but, all fiats will have to start emulating the behavior of BCH (treat their users with more respect). Banks and smart-phones are already changing to be more like BCH.  I also do not expect BCH to be the only cryptocurrency. There will probably be at least a few. This multi-currency future will "scale" crypto even if no one currency solves the scaling puzzle on it's own. Very smart wallets will pay whatever currency a seller accepts with on-board exchanging seamlessly built in so people will be able to hold whatever currency they prefer. Electronic fiat will also be supported by these wallets unless people have to break free from fiat and government approved wallets to have control of their own funds. I hope oppressive governments do not try to take overt control of our devices (to keep a "protective" A-eye on us) and force us to break free.  I want to emphasize that sufficient decentralization is necessary to protect Bitcoin and it's users from "censorship" (outside control). The centralized development of BTC and BSV make both untrustworthy and censorable. I think that makes them unsuitable as freedom money. I believe BCH is currently sufficiently decentralized. It is an issue to keep considering as there are tendencies towards centralized mining and development to monitor. The difference with BCH is that it is the only Bitcoin that has not been captured yet and the teams working on it believe in decentralization as an important element of BCH.  While BCH is small and cheap enemies circle like vultures looking for weaknesses. The troll army wants to help the vultures and will tell many lies about their own token being the real "Bitcoin". The best way to solve the weaknesses of BCH is massive adoption and the rise in value that would create. I really think it is just a matter of time and could happen quickly any day now. It is somewhat surprising to me that it has not already begun in earnest.  New "competitors" rarely have the necessary decentralization feature even if they claim they do. Facebook's planned stablecoin, for instance, is expected to be under centralized control (and pegged to the value of an inflationary currency). The many cryptocurrencies of the future may be useful and they may have bells and whistles people like. Many of us are used to letting bankers hold our money for us. Just remember to consider who really can control your wealth. For important amounts, I think it should be only you unless you don't trust yourself to do it alone.  BTC is not likely to be popular for daily commerce due to the intentionally-poor and expensive user experience it provides. It may still hang on for history buffs and larger transactions where fees do not matter. It's hash rate will be less than 10% of BCH's, so, it may whither away over time? I think BTC-Bitcoin does appear to be destined to have significant non-cash uses even though it cannot scale anymore. Some pretend "lightning network" will make BTC scale like a real Bitcoin, but, that was always a lie used to fool the public into thinking the destruction of the primary use-case was not their intention. Even so, the broken Bitcoin should still have potential for significant KYC-rich centralized business uses. And, darknet dwellers may keep using it because they are too stoned to change? lol. Just kidding about the darknet dwellers.  **Final thoughts** Bitcoin Cash is the only Bitcoin seriously working to scale for massive worldwide adoption. The dream of financial freedom for the people of the world lives in BCH. Magic Internet Money is the future of Bitcoin. Price does not really matter to achieving the dream of Bitcoin, but, the BCH potential-price up-side is massive. I think BCH is currently experiencing the "Dip" of a lifetime. It is still a gamble, of course.  BTC-Bitcoin has been intentionally code-corrupted to be sure it does not achieve the dream of Bitcoin. Even so, as long as it has the massive manipulating gamblers and the massive social engineering machine working to keep it's house-of-cards standing it should remain a good short-term speculative investment. Weakness in either pillar of support could lead to a massive crash. Be careful, trying to send BTC anywhere during a crash (or high peak) could be difficult or impossible due to the full blocks.  It may seem like it, but, this article is not intended as financial or investment advice. All of crypto is super dangerous gambling.  ========== **Big Bubbler**  I am a flower farmer and big-bubble entertainer (facebook) Big-Bubbler-197778163227 in Oregon, USA. I like to spend time as an "anti-troll" defending BCH against dishonesty on Reddit's real Bitcoin subreddit (r/BTC) reddit.com/user/Big_Bubbler/, . YouTube (BiggestBubbler) and occasionally elsewhere. I actually believe in the things I write. You can support my efforts to resist the dark forces by donating:  BCH bitcoincash:qrenxnsrhcq5dgazrp9kzhfp90q746df0vu27vj2ks  SLP tokens simpleledger:qqy89dmyxh2zxyn92xr0hg22l2llewvncc8tjwz0et  Or, request your own deposit address for better privacy or to offer any other crypto you prefer.  All rights reserved 2019 except: Copying any part of this article is allowed if you provide attribution and a link back to this original article. Making a movie or writing a book about this would be great and I would love a chance to help make sure it is not based on the false assumptions that are so common on social media.