how the fuk was biz so brainwashed against BCH???
it's genuinely the continuation of the REAL bitcoin and biztards fell for the propaganda and now hate it
you fags are not only retarded, you are killing the very thing that satoshi wanted... peer to peer digital cash and block sizes that grow and grow over time
fuk you biz im out
COPE
Other urls found in this thread:
coingeek.com
docdroid.net
scale.cash
twitter.com
problem is BSV is the new BCH
get with the times gramps
>it's genuinely the continuation of the REAL bitcoin
IT WAS that, it WAS Bitcoin... No longer.
alright SV fags
explain to me how SV is the new bitcoin
It's not... SV is the old bitcoin.
that made me stiff
because it does what bitcoin does but way better? are you actually this retarded lmfao
>node subsidies
no
>Block limits
Block size is Miner configurable
>Malleability fix
?
>Non Pow consensus
again, MINER CONFIGURABLE
>Substituting off chain for on chain (Wormhole)
Coin burns are an effect of having smart contracts. kys dumb nigger with your shitpost
Because the name is retarded and marketing is 90% of whether you succeed or fail at spreading adoption. The masses were never going to make a mental shift to use Bitcoin Cash over Bitcoin, because it sounds like a scam copy.
It doesn't matter what's inside of it, it failed the first step. If you need to spend paragraphs explaining why it's the real bitcoin, something went wrong.
It should have just been Bitcoin (Abbreviation) like SV, the entire time. That would have been far easier to shill as an "upgrade" to bitcoin, rather than what most perceive and continue to perceive, as a copy like Litecoin.
Bitcoin can't succeed. It's technically impossible for lightning to scale and liquid is just a centralized off-chain garbage dump (used by no-one I might add)
If crypto succeeds, it sure as hell won't be bitshit
Biz was for bcash until jihan Roger and the French neckbeard faggot started adding in new op codes and Turning are t into their own science project biz is now an Sv board stiff
I didn't say Bitcoin will succeed. I personally think the hash wars bullshit was the final nail in the coffin--nobody is going to want to seriously put money into a PoW coin, knowing that autists having a shitflinging contest could destroy the value of their investment. It's over for Bitcoin.
When crypto comes back, it's unironically going to be the "blockchain not bitcoin" thing everyone was talking about. Utility. Crypto that can be both a thing to speculate on, and that have actual utility other than "lol internet money"
The other main reasoning for this is that it's the full on Normie opinion now to look at Bitcoin's chart and go "It'll come back like last time, look at the cycles!!!!" Fucking brainlets if this is common knowledge now it's not going to fucking happen.
It wasn't. The vast majority of sentiment here on BCH except for transparent BSV and BTC shills is based and redpilled. Let's not forget where pic related came from, and that he still stalks the halls, dishing out bitchslaps to faketoshi and nullc cultists that dare to cross his path.
What's going on with BCH now has nothing to do with organic activity. It is a concerted focused attack, at the very least from the BSV faction, but most likely with significant BTC support in tow, to try and kill exactly what you pointed out BCH actually is. Their legitimacy is and always will be in question for as long as BCH survives, so this exercise of tampering with the tickers on exchanges, freezing the transfers and engaging in isolated low volume price manipulation using the fork is designed to cause worried people who know the facts but don't see what's causing this seeming "capitulation" to react exactly as you are.
Keep the faith, have your reserves on the sideline for when their transparent suppression fails miserably, and slowly DCA back in and reap the rewards of your foresight at their expense.
But he scaled facebook
just lol
Hash war was all hype no action. The coins split instantly after the first block and neither side tried a re-org. I don't think a re-org was even possible without one of the sides entirely abandoning their chain
Peter you're the only one on this board shilling bcash still. Just give it up already and go back to r/btc. Jow Forums is SV territory, and if you don't like it... STIFF
Sure craig, get back to smoking Jimmy's pole mate. Nobody actually believes your shit and everyone knows the only ones that pretend to are paid 2k a week from nChain to do so.
Fuck, the opposition actually knows the salary we pay shills now? How the fuck did that happen?
All that dragon's den shilling talent had to go somewhere in the face of BTC failure... information wants to be free.
Craig is right. he is going to bankrupt Nchain
why spend the extra money to kill bcash when ABC have shown they are perfectly capable of killing it themselves?
Hey as an aside, can you please stop posting these photos of CSW where you are clearly trying to make him look profound and you do really stupid shit like transpose zoomed and scaled x terminal windows on fucking tvs in the background, the mixture of wannaba matrix and pseudo profundity makes it real hard to do our fuckin jobs k.
BSV is just a scam lead by craig fraud wright, ignore the constant shill spam barrage, they're being paid by craig and his lackey Calvin.
I had hopes for this when it came out, but it's clearly going down the fucking shitter! >:(
But we are being paid *WELL* motherfucker. So buy that shit. CSW is a profound misunderstood genius who is also a k-rad eleet fucking hacker and whatnot, just.. buy the fucking bags ok kid?
Look at the volume.
yes sirs. Please buy the real bitcoin. The one with checkpoints, and wormhole sidechains, and avalanche PoS, and run by chinese who also make altcoin asics and exchanges...they have your best intentions at heart... please trust the visionaries. They understand bitcoin.
BCH is about to become a double digit shitcoin while ETH rapes its ass and goes to $1000+ again
Lies lies and more lies, literally nothing you've said it true. You're just another fucking pajeet paid to spread misinformation.
Look at the bitcoincashsv sub, that piece of shit only has 1,000 cucks subscribed to it. The fact is BSV is an outright scam which is completely controlled by nChain and the fraud craig wright.
On the other hand Bitcoin Cash remains the real Bitcoin.
>checkpoints
Bitcoin uses checkpoints. Name ONE technical thing wrong with checkpoints you street shitter
>wormhole sidechains
Available on Bitcoin
and Bitcoin sv
and basically any chain which supports certain smart contracts
>avalanche PoS
You couldn't understand avalanche if you tried, faggot. You're just spouting buzzwords like a moron
yeah but THEY PAY US REALLY WELL TO SHILL IT TO YOU
and they also gave us permission to break the fourth wall as a marketing exercise, so pic related
oh no a social media pressence argument! How will we recover?
checkpoints are a group of people deciding which blocks are valid. This sidesteps PoW. Also, I don't trust the people in control of the checkpoints...exchanges are shady cesspools who collude and manipulate. They sold out BCH when they named Bcore as BTC.
Yes, you could "theoretically" wormhole on BSV, but you need CTOR to make it secure (without waiting an hour for plenty of confirmations....look at how OMNI works). The point is that ABC is focused on building for alts and sidechains...nChain is putting its money to research big blocks NOW...not maybe someday soon perhaps if possible.
And yes, Avalanche is a really stupid attempt at PoS "consensus"
Big blocks, PoW, bitcoin.... nothing new... nothing fancy. Get stiff or get out.
> This sidesteps PoW.
POW literally created those blocks, nodes just warranted that they were created by POW at a ten block interval and acting in concert the construct becomes properly immutable. The question shouldn't be "what is the original bitcoin model to establish ledger consensus" especially in light of a nash equilibrium that proves said model is broken, it should be "what is the best model to establish ledger consensus" and the checkpoints are clearly superior to the lack of them, especially as they're not even part of the consensus rules. It makes the attack surface much smaller.
> Yes, you could "theoretically" wormhole on BSV,
No, it already exists.
> The point is that ABC is focused on building for alts and sidechains.
No it isn't, CTOR was the major fork change that actually allowed BCH to handle 32mb blocks, unlike SV which can't even handle constant 10mb blocks.
> nChain is putting its money to research big blocks NOW...not maybe someday soon perhaps if possible.
It doesn't matter what they're trying to do, or say they're trying to do, it matters what they are doing. and what they *are* doing is which is actually validating what core has been saying about big blocks all along by their incompetent attempt to scale to handling them.
> Big blocks, PoW, bitcoin.... nothing new... nothing fancy. Get stiff or get out.
Ah, you're a shill, continue on. Man's gotta eat.
Nothing you said was correct. I've never seen so much incorrectness in one post
dude SV printed consistent 32mb blocks and even peaked at 64mb... they are spending money to collect data on how bitcoin can scale now with software/network optimizations instead of fucking with the protocol to maybe, someday perhaps scale after it is too late. Big blocks now...prove to nation states that bitcoin is open for business. Fuck spending money on sidechain development.
And on checkpoints...PoW builds blocks but when you have 2 different chains of blocks that disagree the checkpoint system means that you are trusting FUCKING EXCHANGE managers to pick the chain they like...the SAME PEOPLE who stabbed BCH in the back. Fuck you people for crippling bitcoin to make quick money. Global, sound cash NOW.
Also, stop siding with the Chinese. Haven't you learned anything from the past year? NEO? TRX? Is there any legit coin developed by the Chinese?
> dude SV printed consistent 32mb blocks and even peaked at 64mb...
Learn to read the chart pajeet, that just ain't so.
Constant throughput was 10mb, the 64 mb block resulted in a self reorg attack and a 40 minute propagation time. BOTH OF THESE THINGS SV WERE WARNED VERY CLEARLY ABOUT and they were both the reason CTOR was even included in the fork to begin with. How fucking ridiculous do SV look in that context, having said "WE DON'T WANT THESE EVIL SABOTAGE CHANGES" and then tripped over their own fucking feet for the absence of them.
> 2 different chains of blocks that disagree
Not possible anymore, longer than ten and the checkpoints will ignore it, shorter than ten and it will just re-org the main chain.
> Fuck you people for crippling bitcoin to make quick money. Global, sound cash NOW.
Global sound cash requires a functional ledger, fuck you for not being technically competent enough to tell the difference between obvious sabotage and necessary optimisations. Either learn to develop software or find devs you trust to advise you correctly, because your present approach of just trying to ignore it is demonstrably failing.
> Also, stop siding with the Chinese.
BCH isn't "siding with the chinese". We're siding with the proven optimal path for peer to peer electronic cash, period. You're distracted by political arguments because you're incompetent and incapable of understanding the technical ones.
You'll never get anywhere while you're so hobbled.
I want bitcoin to work. I believe that it can without fucking with the main protocol. You know that BU voted against CTOR but ABC strong armed it through, right?
But anyways, maybe those Chinese guys are right... maybe we do need to change the protocol to scale. Hopefully one will work.
In the meantime, I'm going to be buying the chain that is pouring resources into chasing big blocks NOW. I watched the blocks after the fork. BSV was printing 32mb block after block. They only did it long enough to gather data. When they printed a 64mb block, a lot of nodes fell out because they couldn't keep up yes... but they gained valuable real world data from that.
If BCH ever gained enough traction to start hitting 16mb of transactions, who knows if CTOR would really be enough to help scale in real world enviroments? BSV is spending money to figure it out instead of fucking around developing sidechains, shitcoin exchanges/asics, and DSV gambling apps.
Who the fuck gets 2k, nchain only gives me pajeet meal coupons for shilling
> I want bitcoin to work. I believe that it can without fucking with the main protocol.
Everyone wants that, but we have extensive proven real world empirical tests that demonstrate it cannot do so in its present state. BU tests demonstrate that (they needed to heavily optimise for parallelism to get up to 1gb blocks) real world BCH tests demonstrated that, and even with everyone shouting from the parapets at SV that it was the case, they demonstrated the exact same fucking thing. The simple truth of the matter is you're just plain wrong.
Even think about it. Why the fuck *would* the system be able to scale in its present state? Core sabotaged it, they added extensive hobbles like tx queueing and not dedicating any effort at all to parallelism because they wanted to solder that 1mb block limit in there as hard as they possibly could. And they did.
And removing it is underway and in progress. And I understand why BU voted the way that they did, and it wasn't because they viewed it as unnecessary, merely that they couldn't be certain it was the optimal option and the danger of a split wasn't worth it. ABC was right to force it through exactly *because* of the urgency with which this hurdle has to be surmounted. It is an uphill fight with enormous momentum from the rest of the fuckheads in the system not wanting their perspective proven wrong in plain sight fighting against it, the sooner the job is done the sooner they will give up trying to sabotage it.
>In the meantime, I'm going to be buying the chain that is pouring resources into chasing big blocks NOW.
Well, that's not SV. Their chain is chasing permissioned mining, not optimising propagation at all, and are manifestly and unquestionably incompetent. Whether you realise it or not, that chain *is* BCH. You should consult with a software engineer on the issue who you can trust, and they will bear that out.
Yall need a raise motherfucker. You gettin fucked! Contact HR.
I've never been a miner beyond contributing to a pool so I don't know. I can't verify other's research. I did see BSV putting money down to push for big blocks though so I like that. I don't see ABC testing that. I do see the ABC group supporting DASH, developing atlcoin ASICs, investing in exchanges to profit off of dumb retailers.
BSV is spending money to fix the software and networking bottlenecks. BCH is promising us that changing the protocol will help us scale in the future (and it also helps worm-hole sidechains which heavily favors their business model).
BAB is BCH that's cool. BCH can be the weird experiemental chain like LTC is to Bcore. BSV will be bitcoin and prove to the world that bitcoin is open for institutions, nation states, and indiviuals right now... all while keeping the base protocol stable.
Also you haven't responded to ABC changing the protocol even after BU voted against it, CTOR could be helpful but we know it is necessary for wormhole to work as a business. Weird that they would push that through against the wishes of the community huh?
Well this is awkward... I'm not sure if you're serious but if you are I stand to quadruple my salary raising it with HR... But if I do and admit I admitted to being a shill in public I'll probably get fired. Fuck.
This entire wormhole thing is complete bullshit, and there's not a single thing ABC / BU etc have done that compromises the goal of BCH as peer to peer electronic cash. All statements to the contrary are evidence free conspiracy theories from coingeek to sucker credulous idiots, period.
Consult with a software engineer who you trust. He will verify everything I've said and everything ABC/XT/BU have been saying since the first attempts to fork to raise the block size with bitcoin classic. It's just a fact. SV are nothing but a pack of scammy asshats capitalising on ignorance in the sector, period.
Why did BU vote against CTOR?
Why did ABC strong arm it in just like Core did with Segwit?
Awkward indeed, u fucked up now nigga. You're supposed to sockpuppet for BSV not yourself.
I've been shilling BCH the whole year and are now with BSV because the point of Bitcoin Cash was to remove the limits, not fuck around with the protocol or introducing checkpoints. If we just blindly follow the devs and exchanges we might as well just stick with the fiat system.
BSV is bitcoin and that's just the way it is.
> Why BU were against CTOR
docdroid.net
> Why did ABC "strong arm" it
They didn't. Miners conclusively hashed the BCH chain over the SV chain. ABC proposed the ruleset, and miners pushed it through and guarded it against attack from SV. It's a simple mischaracterization to say otherwise.
They didn't take into account BU's objections because they don't believe they're accurate, and it's pretty easy to state that if you're transferring a dataset, it is a flat data efficiency upgrade if you don't need to transfer ordering information because there's only one valid order. That is simply tautologically true, and BU's objections don't attempt to refute that. They just claim the original ordering information is "valuable" in some indistinct way, and that you can still parallelize an ordered block. Both of which miss the point about propagation efficiency entirely.
Once again, that is simply not what happened. BCH beat BSV in both peak and sustained hashpower, and BSV surrendered the fight completely on the addition of checkpoints when it became clear that no matter what they did, they could never cause any damage to BCH.
you better be replying to the wrong person, im not mentioning the hash war even once. i know perfectly well "what happened".
I'm not replying to the wrong person. You said;
> If we just blindly follow the devs and exchanges we might as well just stick with the fiat system.
That's not what happened. So, either actually you don't know perfectly well what happened, or you're lying about what happened.
BU voted against CTOR but submitted to avoid "contention" just like miners submitted to Core with segwit. Most cypherpunks are pussies who just want to get along instead of building something revolutionary.
It's exactly what happened.
There are limits to what miners can actually do, you realise. They are not all powerful gods in the ecosystem. It is a rivalrous mutlipolar power environment. Look what happened with Segwit, for an entire day miners --did-- at 90% to 10% signal that BCH is the real Bitcoin, because that was what the profitability indicated that they should be signalling. Ok, let's wargame it out and figure out what would've happened if they ignored profitability and just kept signalling that way. Would that have killed BTC?
No, BTC still would've existed based on the nodes enforcing their retarded ruleset. The miners could've empty block attacked them perhaps, or they could've threatened reorgs, just like BSV just tried to do against BCH, but we saw how that turned out too. It utterly failed to actually accomplish the objectives of the faction in question. As long as those nodes exist and can sit out there still validating the rules on their chain, no matter how stupid they are, there are ways to work around a hostile majority of hashing power.
It doesn't matter how anyone *feels* about that, it's a fact. So what's the long term outcome of that equilibrium? Miners will continue to just mine whatever is the most profitable, and whatever is the most profitable will in turn have the most POW security invested in it, and that will be a "valuable" property. But other chains that don't have that property are not necessarily worthless, and indeed may increase in value and themselves become more profitable, which is pretty much guaranteed to happen on a long enough timeline as BCH grows and actually becomes world money. And when that happens, it will take the lion's share of hashing power and so on, and so forth.
The simple fact is that the majority hashing power doesn't tell you anything anymore other than "what are the miners being paid the most to hash". It doesn't matter how much anyone wishes this were otherwise, it's just the truth.
Get over it and accept it, it's a fact.
No, it's not. You are flat out wrong.
It's not the "new" Bitcoin. It simply is Bitcoin. BTC and ABC are "new Bitcoin" (and Bitcoin in name only).
??????
"Bitcoin does what Bitcoin does but better"?? That makes zero sense.
THIS WAS SATOSHI’S VISION ALL ALONG
All the devs in bitcoin unlimited seem to agree with me and as andreas brekken said, introducing checkpoints was a great loss. If miners can't vote on the longest chain, which is what BSV tried to do, vote to disregard the protocol changes, and exchanges do not respect the longest chain, PoW might as well be replaced by PoS and with PoS you might as well just go back to traditional banking.
If you don't get it you don't get it but don't come here and tell me that the BCH camp didn't blindly follow the leaders. The "we won" circlejerk started not even a day after the hashwar begun and yes its true that it was won in the end but it was clear as day that nobody was about to respect PoW.
There were even talks about changing the fucking hashing algorithm BEFORE the hashwar had even begun for pete's sake. the BCH camp was NEVER going to respect the way bitcoin is supposed to work, it was a travesty and i can't believe what they are doing. fuck that fucking shit and give me bitcoin.
*and i can't believe what they are doing now with the pre-consensus PoS system. fuck that fucking shit and give me bitcoin.
To clarify even further for the ultra-brainlets here: Bitcoin is whichever coin that most closely resembles the Whitepaper by Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin is the technology Satoshi developed. Bitcoin is the idea Satoshi invented.
BTC and BCH (ABC) are not implementations of either Satoshi's tech or his idea. They're very far from. SV on the other hand is a near-perfect implementation (currently) and the SV devs strive to perfect it even further (by implementing the Satoshi tech more perfectly, for example with true peer to peer, and removing anti-Bitcoin tech inserted by Blockstream etc).
>why noone like my n+1 fork of Bitcoin completely owned by Bitmain
Geez, I don't know.
>Lightning Network is the devil. Satoshi would never approve. We only carry out the Bitcoin whitepapers
>Nee upgrade: Bitcoin Cash now has an arbitrator that verifies blocks
Pick a narrative and stick with it pls
w....t...f
nodes enforcing rulesets produce blocks?
"there are ways to work around a hostile major of hashing power"!?!? BSV attacked BAB?
I hope you realize that I was never arguing against you, just trying to draw you out so other people could read this drivel and understand what is going on.
BSV is bitcoin. Big blocks, institutional adoption. Fuck the kneecaps, fuck the sidequests; global cash now.
BCH went the stupid route
Fortunately there is BSV
You can keep repeating yourself for as long as you want, but the fact of the matter is, POW selected the ABC ruleset, and nothing you can do will change that reality. Checkpoints simply made it clear to BSV that there was no point even pretending they'd ever get to win, no matter what.
It's a rivalrous landscape of hostile actors with divergent interests, and they're not going to just surrender to your agenda because "x magical ruleset". The very fact SV still exists is evidence of that in itself, because they too didn't submit to majority hashpower, despite saying that they would.
You don't understand how this actually works. You think you do, but you miss critical aspects of it that you wish could be ignored because you want to follow some "anointed" solution. Sorry, but your anointed solution has been *proven* not to work, no matter what your perspective on "work" is.
>finishing the first post with cope
you're not gonna make it like this op
> nodes enforcing rulesets produce blocks?
I didn't say that, I said while nodes exist that will follow a given ruleset, they can ignore blocks, even majority hashpower blocks, that don't follow that ruleset. Frankly, I can at least see benefit of a situation in which they could not do this; most obviously it would be a unifying rather than a segregating force, at the moment there is no way to stop a subsect of a given economic bloc that desires to split from doing so, period. I think that is a necessarily dividing fact of life, but I don't fool myself into thinking that *it is not a fact of life* because it just fucking is.
The upside is that nobody can force you to follow their retarded ruleset, either. You can either ignore reality and wish it was otherwise, or accept reality as it is and work with it to accomplish your goals.
The first is guaranteed to fail.
Nice cope indeed.
send $1 of bch here and spend 4,000 transactions. if 100 of us do it it will be 400,000 transactions proving to the world that BCH scales.
>I already did my part
Fuck me, you're right.
I thought segwit would get slammed and the miners would knock it out conclusively because it was 90 percent anti vs 10 percent pro, and I knew all about empty blocks and hostile reorgs, but the longer we are in this game the more apparent it becomes that it's really not a case of just hashpower. For hashpower to truly force an agenda it would have to also control all the significant economic nodes on the network, and since the coretards captured all the nodes at the exchanges, miners effectively had to go along with their ruleset or just lose their role.
I thought I understood blockchains a lot better than I did. It's humbling ten years in to get this level of a wakeup call.
But, BCH is still on the right side of history, because looking at it from the new perspective what really matters is what's the best ruleset. And the one meg ruleset plus segwit is absolutely idiotic. BCH is simply proceeding directly along the original path and making appropriate technical adjustments along the way to reach the goal we've wanted all along; peer to peer electronic cash for the world..
i think you're right, i'm buying the dip as of now... but i'm still getting spooked at this price action.
I think is correct. It's being heavily suppressed artificially right now and will probably keep dipping until that's done. I'm holding out in the sidelines until then and a return to prefork tx volume and exchange trade volume.
here is the deal marking blocks older than n might seem like a good idea but any temporary split on the internet will result in permanently fractured networks open fof replay attack.
No one gives a shit. No one would give a shit about BTC either if it didn't have 50% market dominance.
>BCH is still on the right side of history
definitely not
unlimited was right in their proposal but what happened with forcing the minority hardfork was not right at all and what has been going on since that has not been right either.
They'll probably remove it when BSV stops being a threat, but even in the present situation that wouldn't cause a permanent split, simply one that gets manually resolved, like the other two last ten plus block reorgs that have happened in BCH.
There really is little in the war of drawbacks given the threat of not doing it, and even less in light of the fact it's not even a consensus rule. Just an optional thing some nodes are doing as an insurance policy against threatened block reorgs from a temporary hostile actor who won't live long enough to continue said threats permanently.
By what metric was it a "minority hard fork"?
This is good technical stuff. Please keep posting on this God forsaken place, I offer you my waifu
By the "if we acknowledge it wasn't a minority hardfork, that makes us the minority hardfork, and in so doing completely invalidates any reason for our own existence according to our own logic" metric.
You're so fucking lame. As if I even philosophically agree with Satoshi. SATOSHI CAN SUCK MY DICK
Who do you philosophically agree with? Sounds like Milo Yiannopoulos.
What GoT episode is this from?
Guys , don’t be like this towards your own bags.
Don’t be emotionally attached to your bleeding shitcoin (bch) such that every wrong they do can be justified.
The Discworld one.
First you have to objectively demonstrate that they did the wrong thing. That is still yet to be established.
I don’t have to demonstrate shit you history studying brainlet. The price action, volume and charts of BCH is the only thing you need to open up your eyes to and see and no this is not because the whole market is bleeding. You got left with a bag and a dumb ass vision
> no evidence
Of course you don't. You can't criticise the fundamentals because there's nothing to criticise, all you can do is point at transparent market manipulation and say "sky is falling".
is what's going on, and we're just sitting it out until the game is over, thankful to the attackers for pushing the price lower so we can buy more. Please fud harder and dump more, by all means.
user, wipe the drool off of your shirt. The real Bitcoin is the one that is Bitcoin, not a knock off fork. Craig is destroying crypto by launching shitforks hailed as 'the real bitcoin'. >If Kia just decided to name themselves rolls-royce
It takes patience. When Bitmain will dump their 1MB BSV it'll jump right back to 3rd place.
You are like every NPC I know :)
Goodluck next life, hope you will be born with a soul then.
Muh manipulation, muh butmain 1 m bsv dump, muh it will go back up, just like 100% of the other altcoin deluded brainlets.
Implying Nchain has dumped their BCH already
That there is called irony