Bitcoin Cash: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Bittylicious Policy on the UAHF / BCC / BCH / Bitcoin Cash / BitcoinABC fork= | =Bittylicious Policy on the UAHF / BCC / BCH / Bitcoin Cash / BitcoinABC / BCash fork= | ||
This will be referred to BCH in this short article. | This will be referred to BCH in this short article. | ||
Latest revision as of 08:36, 14 November 2017
Bittylicious Policy on the UAHF / BCC / BCH / Bitcoin Cash / BitcoinABC / BCash fork
This will be referred to BCH in this short article.
Overall thoughts
Bittylicious considers BCH to be a waste of everybody's time. We believe that there is no technical reason to doubt that SegWit is the way forward for now, and that efforts like BCH do not serve a useful purpose.
We do, however, believe that open source software is designed such that forks like this are created, and that having user choice is overall a good thing. The market also, as a whole, seems interested in BCH and, as such, this is now available on Bittylicious.
Bittylicious always judges technologies on their technical merit rather than political implications. We believe that SegWit solves many outstanding issues in Bitcoin and enables interesting technologies in the future. We do not care whether people think there is censorship going on, centralised control etc; we have judged these technologies on their code.
We also believe that if people don't want to use newly enabled technologies like the Lightning Network, they are free not to. Enabling technologies does not cause any issues; only disabling technologies does.