Peter Rizun repeatedly emphasises that he wants "P2P ecash", and he only supports Bitcoin Cash (BCH) because it is "the most promising means of achieving that end".
His latest Twitter poll is a manifestation of this. In addition to BTC and BCH as two implementations of the "P2P ecash" idea - with differing degrees of success - Rizun feels the need to explicitly offer the generic idea of "P2P ecash" as a third option besides the two implementations.
But perhaps indicative of why BTC's market price has so far outperformed BCH's, by artificially splitting the vote between BCH and "P2P ecash", BTC defeats BCH. When someone comments the obvious - BCH and "P2P ecash" are the same - he tries to convince this person they should vote "P2P ecash" and not BCH. What purpose does this serve? Surely BCH would have won this poll without this third option. Backing BCH would actually advance the realisation of "P2P ecash".
There is no indication BTC will increase its block size limit. There is no indication BCH will cease being peer-to-peer electronic cash. There is no indication BCH cannot overcome attacks. There is no indication BCH developers are malicious. There is no indication BCH users will be unable to escape any malicious developers by forking away from them. There is no indication BCH users will be unable to escape any evil miners by changing proof-of-work. There is no indication Bitcoin Unlimited itself will be unable to fund development of BCH or any future fork thereof.
It took me some time to realise, but essentially it's all fear, uncertainty, and doubt - FUD. Leaders of Bitcoin Unlimited, and thereby leaders of Bitcoin Cash, should seek to remove FUD about the project, not create it. And since even Rizun acknowledges BCH is the most promising realisation of "P2P ecash", he is scoring an own goal every time he pushes this argument.
Because those who would give up Bitcoin Cash (BCH) to pursue "bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system", deserve neither and will lose both.
I really like Peter Rizun's presentation on technical topics... but definitely not on political topics..
same!
I agree with Peter here. BCH will be forced to compete in the peer to peer digital cash space whether you like it or not.
BCH is inclusively competing with BTC for that role. Currently it's winning against BTC.
Just compare Peter's approach with Roger Ver which makes a similar position (Roger has inclusively said that he would support XRP if that became the best option for global p2p cash). That position has not stopped Roger from fully backing BCH and basing his business around it.
Roger Ver, by his actions, is saying that BCH is the best option today and if it depends on him it will be the best option tomorrow. Peter Ryzun is saying that BCH is the best option today but it's likely that it wont be the best option tomorrow so he won't invest too much on it.
As a side note, Peter as also mentioned he still hoped BTC "saw the light" and raised the block size. If that's his hope then his position makes sense and it would also make sense if he only supported projects that are also useful for BTC or that clearly demonstrated certain advantages in which he believes.
Good point. Ya, the semi-supportive vibe seems real.
This may be a typo? Kinda hard to grasp for me: "...realisation of "P2P ecash", he is scoring an own goal every time he pushes this argument."
Spot on.
Because those who would give up "bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system" to pursue Bitcoin Cash (BCH), deserve neither and will lose both. FTFY
Let's not forget what happened to BTC. It could happen to BCH, nobody can rule this out because nobody can predict the future.
If anything, the results of the poll show that most BCH fans care about the actual principles behind BCH, and not BCH itself. That's perfect. If BTC fanboys had that attitude, there would have been no need for BCH in the first place.
I wish someone does a poll where they also ask which of BCH/BTC you support currently. That would have some more clear results. But the fact that Peter posted the poll tells me that most of the voters were BCH fans. That means that for BCH as a choice to fall that low, most of the "electronic cash" bar is actually BCH fans with principles.
Because those who would give up "bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system" to pursue Bitcoin Cash (BCH), deserve neither and will lose both.
I'm not talking about the current BCH ticker symbol, I'm talking about the current BCH ledger. Giving up the current BCH blockchain will never be necessary, because you can always fork it. Forking protects holders from before any split. This is important, because it means current holders can adopt BCH now without fearing ending up on the wrong chain in the future - which is the exact fear Rizun is spreading.
Let's not forget what happened to BTC.
The creation of BCH did not cause previous BTC holders to miss out, because BCH forked from what was BTC at that time. This is crucial.
which is the exact fear Rizun is spreading.
BCH is better than BTC but if tomorrow somehow BTC makes on chain transactions cheap and becomes usable again, many people won't care enough about segwit (many current BCH proponents were going to accept segwit in the past after all as long as it came with a X2 block size increase) to stick with the BCH ledger. We cannot rule out the possibility that BTC will become usable as cash again. I seriously doubt it, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
He is not wrong when he says that "it may not be in the future", so I don't think he should be avoiding to tell the truth as he sees it, just so that BCH can attract more holders.
These Twitter polls are pointless. If a BTC maximalist creates a poll, BTC always wins. If a BSV supporter creates a poll, BSV wins. If a BCH supporter creates a poll, BCH wins.