This is really a bullshit image. The first of August Segwit got implemented with the support of about 99% of the miners. The same moment Bcash forked off with a tiny minority. A fork is originally an update of the network, and the vision of Satoshi is that an update only happens when there is a majority supporting it. So Bcash is a failed upgrade (no consensus at all) and Segwit is a successful upgrade. Bcash is clearly an altcoin, and a useless one (Litecoin and Dash are way faster).
You make some statements which are true, but most of it is false.
An altcoin is something which is not Bitcoin. What is Bitcoin then? That's what the design paper explains.
You can't simply rely on hashpower, number of transactions, market cap metrics, popular opinion etc, or else any coin could be Bitcoin if they just gained those metrics.
"Bcash" is an orchestrated attempt at confusing users. The fork is called Bitcoin Cash, so why not use that name? The name was after all chosen in order not to confuse uninformed users more than necessary. Otherwise it would have been called Bitcoin straight out of the gate.
I don't focus on Bitcoin. Untill BTC has a serious upgrade to me personally it is boring. Sure BTC was the first. The door opener. But there are over 1000cryptos now. Many with a much better project than BTC. Steem, Sia Coin, Iota, Eos, Reddcoin are great.
But segwit was a fork. Bitcoin Cash was going back to the original path. What happened to my picture? It's confusing to anyone trying to understand now. And, it illustrates exactly what happened. It didn't claim to be bitcoin. I did. But it just showed the Bitcoin forks.
The confusion comes mainly from that it looks like the two forks happened at the same time. In order to make it accurate you would have to show both when SegWit was expected and later when it was forked in after the Bitcoin Cash fork had already taken place.
Yeah, I see what you mean. The purple represents segwit. But, segwit wasn't implemented until after the Bitcoin Cash forked. I think it was implying that segwit had been deteremined prior to the fork so Bitcoin Cash forked away to avoid segwit. I still think it demonstrates that Bitcoin Cash is a continuation of legacy blockchain. While Bitcoin LS did a softfork. A softfork is really worse. It takes the whole chain with it and most users have no choice in it. They should have done a hard fork for segwit if they really believed so strongly in it. And, left Bitcoin alone. That would have kept this from being confusing to people.
This is really a bullshit image. The first of August Segwit got implemented with the support of about 99% of the miners. The same moment Bcash forked off with a tiny minority. A fork is originally an update of the network, and the vision of Satoshi is that an update only happens when there is a majority supporting it. So Bcash is a failed upgrade (no consensus at all) and Segwit is a successful upgrade. Bcash is clearly an altcoin, and a useless one (Litecoin and Dash are way faster).
You make some statements which are true, but most of it is false.
An altcoin is something which is not Bitcoin. What is Bitcoin then? That's what the design paper explains.
You can't simply rely on hashpower, number of transactions, market cap metrics, popular opinion etc, or else any coin could be Bitcoin if they just gained those metrics.
"Bcash" is an orchestrated attempt at confusing users. The fork is called Bitcoin Cash, so why not use that name? The name was after all chosen in order not to confuse uninformed users more than necessary. Otherwise it would have been called Bitcoin straight out of the gate.
I don't focus on Bitcoin. Untill BTC has a serious upgrade to me personally it is boring. Sure BTC was the first. The door opener. But there are over 1000cryptos now. Many with a much better project than BTC. Steem, Sia Coin, Iota, Eos, Reddcoin are great.
Not a good visual. Gives false impressions, as much as I think Bitcoin Cash is "the real" Bitcoin.
It was still a minority (hash power, but also in terms of support) fork that took place after years of issues in expectation before SegWit got put in.
The confusion on this topic is very unfortunate.
But segwit was a fork. Bitcoin Cash was going back to the original path. What happened to my picture? It's confusing to anyone trying to understand now. And, it illustrates exactly what happened. It didn't claim to be bitcoin. I did. But it just showed the Bitcoin forks.
The confusion comes mainly from that it looks like the two forks happened at the same time. In order to make it accurate you would have to show both when SegWit was expected and later when it was forked in after the Bitcoin Cash fork had already taken place.
That would be a great visual, if we had it.
Yeah, I see what you mean. The purple represents segwit. But, segwit wasn't implemented until after the Bitcoin Cash forked. I think it was implying that segwit had been deteremined prior to the fork so Bitcoin Cash forked away to avoid segwit. I still think it demonstrates that Bitcoin Cash is a continuation of legacy blockchain. While Bitcoin LS did a softfork. A softfork is really worse. It takes the whole chain with it and most users have no choice in it. They should have done a hard fork for segwit if they really believed so strongly in it. And, left Bitcoin alone. That would have kept this from being confusing to people.
This article is pretty good. https://squawker.org/technology/warning-segwit-bitcoin-is-not-the-real-bitcoin/