Bitcoin Cash: The Brave New Bitcoin

On one side we find professionals. Developers, investors, businesses, and a community with a serious approach. All of them striving with a honest approach to promote the Bitcoin Cash values and disrupt the legacy financial establishment.

This is Bitcoin Cash.

On the other hand, you get Blockstream. A for-profit organization, backed by multiple financial orgnizations (i.e. AXA, Mastercard). A private company co-founded by cryptographer Adam Back, together with many Bitcoin devs (Maxwell, Wuille, Corallo, between others).

This wasn't the first batch of devs that worked together with Satoshi, though. Yet, these developers funded by Blockstream managed to ostracize all of the previous developers and took control of the developing side of Bitcoin.

A lot of what happened is often discussed by the Bitcoin Cash community, and mostly hidden by the side of Blockstream supporters.

It matters to a point, still the BCH community is building what Blockstream prevented for BTC.

RBF - An addition that Crippled Bitcoin

There is a fundamental value the Bitcoin Cash side upholds and the Bitcoin Core developers didn't. Scalability of Bitcoin.

The upgrade allowing Bitcoin Cash to compete with the dominant payment networks (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal).

Blockstream lied multiple times during the blocksize debate and employed multiple channels to send conflicting messages. Basically, one individual alone, Theymos, had amassed such strength that was enough to change the tide of the debate.

Some claim that Theymos was not the same person as the one they've originally met in the bitcointalk forum and Bitcoin RC channel, claiming that Theymos accounts changed hands.

Samson Mow was hired by Blockstream as CSO (Chief Strategy Officer) in April 2017.

So, Mow was just a hired gun. Or perhaps a hired troll that would contribute to the toxicity this company represents.

Let's watch Samson Mow struggling to debate Roger Ver as seemingly his body language suggests:

A knockdown by Roger Ver!

Notice that Ver mentioned RBF, and how this option seems it was detrimental to stalling progress in the adoption race for Bitcoin. With RBF scams appeared and merchants were not able to accept Bitcoin with 0-conf again. (Read more about the interesting story of Peter Todd, "John Dillon" and RBF on this Reddit post)

Bitcoin Cash immediately removed RBF with the 2017 upgrade of the Bitcoin code. What are the results now? LN is proving it can't work without custodial hubs, and the result is centralized and government-regulated wallets like Strike and Chivo.

The Lightning Network Was Unnecessary

Consider that Bitcoin Cash doesn't need Lightning Network. LN is useless for Bitcoin Cash, it doesn't fix anything, doesn't offer anything the layer-1 offers.

You used Bitcoin Cash, it is already lightning-fast and transactions cost is negligible.

Lightning Network was not required for Bitcoin. The proof is Bitcoin Cash. Liquid is not required either.

Blockstream during the blocksize debate was against any L1 scalability upgrades, not Bitcoin Cash. The banks didn't want to find competition from a rising cryptocurrency they could not control.

Yet, Blockstream is funded by banks and the traditional payment networks. 

Blockstream is a bad actor for the crypto industry. The price of BTC pumped into a trillion market cap, based on lies, deception, and narratives.

In fact, in the parallel universe where Bitcoin raised its blocksize in 2018, and the Core devs didn't succeed in crippling the network, Bitcoin would worth already $1 million.

This is not Bitcoin you get today with SegWit, RBF, small blocks and an unreliable network of payments.

In Conclusion

(source)

Samson Mow left Blockstream but still works on Blockstream related projects with his Pixelmatic gaming company. It seems though, that Gavin Andresen was correct.

Today the only explanation of the Lightning Network is it was a concept created to divert attention from not improving the Bitcoin blockchain.

Blockstream and the Core devs decided to follow a strategy that was the worst possible. Was this intentional? Was RBF the result of agents of the banking cartels infiltrating Bitcoin? There are clues around.

Some have connected the dots. There is always fierce debate and cover-up tactics that undermine any questions or serious investigation.

Still, Bitcoin Cash proves that Lightning was redundant and the correct approach would be to increase the blocksize and remove RBF.

However, I think that Back might have had a "talk" with Samson, after his adventure with El Salvador and the billion-dollar bond that now seems to have failed.

The ties of Blockstream with Tether and Bitfinex may have also been an issue and the unrealistic Blockstream predictions model for BTC, with a $1 million price discussed but focused only on past performance seems to be some of the factors for this upcoming failure. We still have time to read more about the bond and its details if negotiations didn't completely collapse.

Cover Photo by  Drew Beamer, on Unsplash

Follow me:

● ReadCash ● NoiseCash  ● Medium ● Hive ● Steemit   ●Vocal ● Minds ● Twitter ● LinkedIn ●Reddit ● email

Don't forget to Subscribe and Like if you enjoyed this article!