Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash: Who is Winning the War of Cryptos?

Meanwhile in Bangkok, Roger Ver says now and then while sharing an image or another showing some window shop with the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) logo, or an instant payment with this new internet money.

Beaten, dejected, smeared and censored, the once revolting men and women mobilized with pen and code, in battles fierce hardened minds and hearts to defend freedom land, now appear to enjoy peace and their own castle.

The image above we just found from a video showing Roger Ver demonstrating an offline BCH payment by the mere tap of a card.

We’re sure we covered it when it was first proposed, but that this is now live has gone a bit unnoticed.

As have many other developments in Bitcoin Cash. The crypto space now so big, and the new battles of politic, that keeping up with what’s going on in this heavenly corner is no easy task.

Heavenly. Is it true or just our bias? Did they really come out of it all to enjoy paradise?

Unlike the people of Hong Kong, who saw their bridge fall, the bitcoiners defended theirs and kept it.

This would have been 2015. For a few months prior an ordinary calm discussion had been going on regarding increasing capacity in anticipation of a potential new wave of adoption.

The proposal was to increase the amount of data which can move through the network, and thus the value exchange through transactions, as determined by the blocksize.

That’s a goal all ostensibly agreed too, but those now known as small blockers argued such capacity should be increased through second layers.

Initially most were undecided, until it became apparent to many that by second layer they mean Bakkt like centralized databases .

The small blockers of course denied that’s what it meant. They argued through multisig and the like you can have Lightning Network (LN) layers that can provide for additional capacity demand.

The question back then was as obvious as now: if we can do all this on LN, as in solve the double spending problem, then what’s the point of the base layer? Why can’t the blockchain itself be LN and get rid of the miners and the rest. From that then derives what now has been pretty much proven, LN just doesn’t work.

The majority saw that, and so they chanted 8 megabyte, 8 megabyte. But the business model of Blockstream relied on bitcoin not having capacity as their Liquid blockchain is meant to provide the instant transactions, the capacity, and all the rest, and thus Adam Back, Blockstream’s CEO, flew across the world and, many suspect, either bribed or threatened quite a few.

The owner of Slush Pool, pictured here at far left, was one of those chanting 8 megabyte until he met Adam Back. Likewise Jameson Lopp of then BitGo, a bitcoin custodian provider, who made a complete 360 degrees turn and not just a turn, but became a vocal propagandist for small blocks.

As so was later revealed , evidence came out of a connection between r/bitcoin moderators and Blockstream.

Back then, in 2015, such evidence was lacking, but seeing the huge support for an increase in blockchain’s data capacity, the top moderator – a shadowy unknown figure that goes by Theymos – instituted a policy of strict and complete censorship towards even debating the capacity problem.

The outrage led to an exodus to r/btc, which was unused but quickly became very populated.

It so happened this sub had been taken before by Roger Ver employees. Just days after this exodus, the then top mod of r/btc and an employee of Roger Ver announced someone that went by BTC Drake had been made a moderator. Hours after, that BTC Drake told those gathered there would be a new code of conduct, with all taking it as a new Theymos 2.0.

The response was swift, with the sub abandoned in droves to a new one. A day after, the r/btc mod announced he is resigning. Another mod released a private “conversation” between BTC Drake and Roger Ver.

BTC Drake had told Roger Ver the big blockers were spies, nazis, gov agents, reeee, they were to reee, they wanted to reeeeee.

It was of course BTC Drake himself that most probably was, and perhaps still is, well, something of the sort he claimed bitcoiners are.

As it happens now, quite a few years later, this person or persona is no longer anywhere to be seen. His task done presumably, but not fully.

Not fully because they could not take r/btc. The bridge was held, and whatever was going on anywhere else, the bitcoiners had secured a safe castle that belonged fully to them. A place where candles could still burn in darkness.

Free at last, was not what they sang. Battle was raging and they had lost a pretty big one.

Now, it is quite curious this battle was lost in Hong Kong, the land where they gave our freedom away and now sing for freedom, the land where this was signed by the “decentralized” network: “We will only run Bitcoin Core-compatible consensus systems.”

That agreement went on to become what is now known as bitcoin, but at the time that agreement was almost shredded to pieces until a probable government agent came to the scene and claimed on BBC he is Satoshi Nakamoto.

His claim was quickly dismissed, but our presupposition that he probably was under gov orders – especially considering the Australian authorities accuse him of massive fraud and criminal theft – can’t easily be dismissed because he used the same tactic as BTC Drake. In this case, claiming he is a big blocker while shredding all credibility of big blockers.

In particular Gavin Andresen, who so falling to this trap quickly had his git commit ability removed by non other than Peter Todd, the son of a government agent, now a worker for bankers.

The sophistication of this astonishing intervention had temporarily fooled almost all big blockers, but this emotional arrest quickly gave way to reason and clarity.

Well, quickly for some. This man, Craig Wright, went on to attempt a BTC Drake like subversion to take over the castle with carrot and honey.

He took over almost completely Bitcoin Unlimited, thinking that was the fortress, and from there he moved to take on the only decentralized peer to peer money.

He almost succeeded. A year ago at this very time Bitcoin Cash was written off. Its most ardent supporters wondered whether it is not best to let it go. Many did. Bitcoin had died once more.

It is reason that rings, not just freedom. It is ideas that rule not men, gods, or atoms. And the idea was good.

As we near a new decade, a mighty decade, it is easy in fact to say only Bitcoin Cash kept its castle.

Ethereum has fallen. They won’t like those words but we care for naught. BTC courts revolt at heart even by its strongest supporters. New blockchains are to come, with the rivers of Rome flowing and flowing, but for now, after so much strife, after so much battle, it is of pleasure to see the feast that plays at BCH.

It is one man, Adam Back always said. And yet there are so many one men.

They’ve left. Todd, Maxwell, Drake. Even Theymos probably. A one off attempt to break the water that only flows and flows without care nor even wonder.

And if this was just code, but it is the world. The oppression met here is in our homes and doors.

The battles that were fought and the doors that were kept were not just of bitcoin. In many ways what happened had almost nothing to do with our crypto tokens, and still had everything to do with it.

Let freedom ring. The battles won the enemies fallen, let freedom ring. The ground ours, the castle our paradise, let freedom ring. From Himalayas Alabam, let freedom ring. Let freedom ring.

Go, in Danube or in Rhine, in South Korea or Arabia, in New York or Berlinas, tell them all, god has come down.

Editorial Copyrights Trustnodes.com