This article was originally published by Mike Jarmuz on Medium
Someone once tried to sell me a used Rolex for $500 when the fair market value of this “Rolex” would be around $4,500.
The watch said Rolex, it definitely looked like a Rolex and for someone who never had worn a Rolex before….. I guess it also felt like a Rolex. But… this watch was definitely NOT a Rolex and I thankfully did not make this purchase.
This is pretty much the analogy for anyone buying Bitcoin Cash today and thinking it’s Bitcoin. It looks like Bitcoin, it may feel like Bitcoin and somehow there are people out there who refer to it as “the real Bitcoin.” I mean after all, Bitcoin.com has multiple PSA references and warnings about it.
Unfortunately, they aren’t warning you (to your benefit) at all. They are one of the biggest proponents in the spreading of misinformation. The whole damn website is lousy with inaccurate and downright factually incorrect information.
But why? Why would Bitcoin.com along with a handful of other “bad actors” try and dupe the public? Do they really believe that Bitcoin Cash or as we like to say “BCash” is actually Bitcoin? Did the guy trying to sell me that watch actually believe it was in fact a real Rolex? Was he just being “nice” by pricing it at 10% of the actual cost of the watch? Or did he know the watch was not genuine?
Both salesman in my analogy have one goal and that is to sell you a cheap knock off product. BCash is like buying a fake Coach bag on Canal Street. You’re free to buy it, you can use it, but you’d be lying to yourself if you thought for a minute this was “the real thing.”
By fleecing the public and bilking you, they are the ONLY ones who are profiting and they’re not doing you any favors. This is all by design and there are some serious BCash players that coordinate these “pumps.” I mean, you have CNBC outright telling you to buy BCash.
You have Blockchain.info (the largest mobile wallet globally) who for some reason still has not implemented Segregated Witness in their wallets. Why would this be? Perhaps it has something to do with Roger Ver (owner of Bitcoin.com) being one of (if not their largest) investors.
It took Coinbase (supposedly the “leader” in this space) over a year to implement the basic OPTIONAL network upgrade (which only helps the network and their customers by lowering transaction costs) and their priorities instead were to add BCash first. Of course they also did it with zero notice and in the sketchiest way by pegging the price at $3,500 on the open and the entire roll out seemed like an insider trading paradise. Then again, we’re in a pseudo regulated market and of course nobody is being questioned or will ever go to prison because somehow these fraudulent practices are not yet illegal.
I feel sorry for the newcomers entering this space, doing their homework and being sold this bill of goods. The crypto space is lousy with scammers, schemes and just about every con job imaginable. All designed to separate you from your Bitcoin.
Cloud mining, Bitconnect type ponzi scams, the idea of purchasing some “masternode” that is going to throw off huge dividends, crypto trading courses, machine to machine payment pipe dreams, smart contract platforms and partnership rumors, buying into “the next Bitcoin” and that’s just for starters.
Why oh why do people think they need to “do something” with their Bitcoin? Maybe it’s the ADD society we’re living in and being a HODLer isn’t exciting enough. It’s truly unfortunate that most newcomers visit the Bitcoin.com website and probably leave thinking that this was somehow “Satoshi’s true vision.”
Only time will tell what happens and how this all plays out. Hopefully Bitcoin.com one day will be as irrelevant as Internet.com is today. Or is it more like a Pepsi vs. Coke or McDonalds and Burger King? Is there a place for BCash in the future and does it solve a problem? They would like you to think so but actually with ON CHAIN Bitcoin transaction fees NEAR ZERO, there is no need for this useless BCash altcoin.
Or better yet, let’s take Gresham’s Law and try to apply it here. Gresham’s Law basically states that if there are two forms of money in circulation, which are accepted by law and similar, the more valuable one will gradually disappear from circulation. In other words people spend the least valuable money first. If you had an equal amount of Bitcoin and BCash, and had to spend one…. which one would you choose? I, without hesitation, would dump that BCash almost instinctively.
It’s not even up for debate, in my brain. I don’t have any BCash by the way. But, there ain’t no way, that I’m spending my precious Bitcoin, if faced with that choice. So, if people in general are forced to choose, what do you think they will do? Does this strengthen Bitcoin’s use case as a long term store of value…..
YES. If you had to lock up all your money in one crypto (or something) for 20 years and went to sleep, how would you choose to store those funds? What would you do? For starters., if you’d rather lock it up in BCash, then you’re out of your mind. Reality is, that if you are smart, you’d probably choose Bitcoin. It’s the only answer. There is however, a 100% guarantee of one outcome. If you choose to lock that money up in dollars, your purchasing power will ONLY be devastated over time. Government spending is the greatest bull market in history, it’s never gone down.
Why are small blocks paramount for Bitcoin’s success? Why can’t Bitcoin just hard fork and raise the block size limit? On the surface it seems like this is a logical solution to a problem of full blocks and high fees. By the way, 1–2 megabyte Bitcoin blocks are CURRENTLY NOT FULL and the 8 megabyte BCash blocks are damn near empty.
Bitcoin gives anyone with a $50 laptop the ability to download an entire copy of the blockchain and interact directly with the Bitcoin Network. There is no trusted 3rd party involved. There is no need to rely on someone else’s node.
Your blockchain.info wallet is what is actually technically referred to as an SPV wallet. You yourself are not actually directly broadcasting your transaction to the Bitcoin Network. You are relying on the SPV (simplified payment verification) provider. Therefore, your money is not actually under your control. It’s like having a bank account. You ask permission to send a Chase quickpay and they allow it to happen.
You ask permission to send a wire and they allow it to happen. In fact, you’re actually asking permission to even withdraw “your money”….. And then they allow it.
Bitcoin is powerful because it’s permissionless. This is a crucial and non-negotiable aspect that must be maintained. For those not familiar with Moore’s law and still have not read the Bitcoin Whitepaper in which it is referenced, it states that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.
Smaller blocks are what allows this ratio to not be at risk in regards to Bitcoin scaling.
A harfork to raise the block size is always a last resort option. In fact Segwit does increase the Block size in a small and manageable way over time. We’re already seeing some 2 megabyte Bitcoin blocks since it’s debut and the adoption is only at about 35%. Adoption is important and Segwit is what is known as a “soft fork” because it’s completely optional and backwards compatible. If you don’t want to use a Segwit address, you don’t have to but you’ll pay higher fees by not doing so.
What does this all mean? Why are big blocks bad? For example, assume people actually used BCash and their 8 meg blocks were full. In a very short time, the average computer would not be able to run a full node and you would be forced to rely on a third party provider.
No different than our banking system today. This is actually what they want. They want you to be beholden to them. Watch this insane Craig Wright speech (fake Satoshi) where he says “if you can’t afford a $25,000 computer to run your own node then go piss off.”
I know it’s hard to give an hour of your life to this video but if you want the real picture of what a scam BCash is, then it’s a must watch.
Think for yourself. This video and big blocker propaganda should make the decision very easy. Is this what you want? This guy went on record claiming he was Satoshi and then it was publicly debunked.
He should have been written off as a laughing stock. It’s a miracle he wasn’t burned after that, how quickly people forget. Or you have someone like Adam Back, who was actually cited in the Bitcoin Whitepaper giving this speech about scaling. Who do you want to trust with your life savings? It’s a complete juxtaposition from Craig Wright’s demeanor. One is sane and a brilliant computer scientist who’s project Hashcash was directly cited in Satoshi’s White Paper and an actual cypherpunk from that era. The other is like a traveling carney selling you snake oil and “exercising daemons” on stage.
Segwit was a milestone for Bitcoin and it took over three years of development and testing. It was so thoroughly tested that in the process Blockstream and the Bitcoin Core developers indirectly discovered an open SSL bug that existed in over 30% of all websites on the internet. Doesn’t this sound like the type of innovation that you want from the people securing your money? The smartest people in the world are working on Bitcoin, not on Bitcoin Cash.
If you feel like you are missing out because the price is pumping, don’t be fooled. You want BCash because it’s cheaper? You get what you pay for.