Posted on

New Chapter on BCH “Twitter Wars”: Bans, Blocks, Insults, and 3 Proposals Claiming to be “The Real Bitcoin”

The Bitcoin Cash (BCH) community is witnessing a war between its most important figures, who seem to disagree in the future that this controversial altcoin will pursue after some modifications were proposed, causing a strong debate that seems to be worsening every day.

Ever since Amaury Sechet, one of Bitcoin Cash’s leading developers proposed a change known as pre-consensus, the split of opinions and controversy began to create a strong sense of division in the community.

Amaury’s expulsion from the BCH Slack group was the start of a recent wave of controversy in which intolerance led the “leaders” behind the popular altcoin to bans, blockades, insults and discredits, weakening the image of solidity they sought to build since BCH was officially born as an altcoin forked out of the original BTC’s blockchain.

When Bitcoin Cash was born, one of the most significant premises was to create a blockchain with a higher level of scalability by increasing block size. The proposal was supported by a group of miners with strong hashing power.

Craig WrightCraig Wright

Let The BCH Games Begin

However, after Craig Wright, a well-known BCH advocate famous for his claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto — a statement that earned him the nickname of Faketoshi within the community of cryptocurreny users — proposed a fork and spoke against Jihan Wu, accusing him of leading the whole blockchain to a centralized state; users split into 2 groups. But it was the way of “debating” what has generated another black chapter within the community:

One of the characters who posted some controversial tweets was Cobra, bitcoin.org admin. In one of his controversial statements, Cobra says that his own  “Cobra-Client”, a BCH UANF (Bitcoin Cash User Activated No Fork) implementation, follows the true philosophy of the original Bitcoin, and is the best way to avoid a split in the chain. He commented that Bitcoin ABC (actual client) and nChain’s proposals are simply “scams.”

Likewise, in a previous tweet, he criticized the hypocrisy behind those who advertise BCH as “Bitcoin” while promoting a series of changes in the BCH blockchain; a scenario which precisely led to the BTC fork that gave birth to BCH

Craig Wright: Jihan Wu Will destroy Bitcoin Cash (BCH)

A few days later, Craig Wright also tweeted that Wormhole, a proposal backed by Jihan Wu, is an implementation that would likely destroy Bitcoin Cash:

Jihan Wu: Craig Wright is “a liar, fraud, plagiarist and an imbecile”.

For his part, Jihan Wu posted a tweet attacking Craig Wright for his positions. In the same post, he attached an article in which they refer to Craig Wright as “Faketoshi.”

He also retweeted a comment referring to Craig Wright as “a liar, fraud, plagiarist and an imbecile.”

Cobra: Jihan Wu and Roger Ver are Bad Leaders

Although Roger Ver has not spoken out, his traditional stance makes Cobra suspect of an “alliance” between him and Craig Wright, so he tweeted blaming him in part for the community’s bad times. He also said, this whole “mess” is a consequence of Jihan and Ver’s actions:

After this soap opera, Jihan Wu unfollowed Cobra and blocked Craig Wright.

Girl in a jacket

loading…

Posted on

Discussion Against Cobra For The Ownership Of Bitcoin.org Heats Up In Github

The Bitcoin (BTC) community in GitHub was quite busy after an announcement posted yesterday looking for a solution to remove Cobra’s control over the Bitcoin.org domain.

On July 26, “beyourself” posted the ad as a follow up to a discussion that had already started on Bitcoin Core #UASF Slack channel:

“The Problem: A number of individuals (including myself) feel that @Cobra-Bitcoin has become an unreliable person to own the Bitcoin.org domain name, mainly given his public support for BCH (as well as other things, but this is not supposed to be an attack on Cobra). We fear that Cobra:

1. May suddenly start propagandizing BCH as ‘The Real Bitcoin’ and re-purpose Bitcoin.org to promote BCH.

2. Sell the domain to someone else, who’d use it for malicious intent. The fact that he’s only known only by his pseudonym would make this relatively easy and have no consequences for him whatsoever, there’s only a lucrative upside for him.”

The Proposed Solutions

In short, following some comments from Cobra about the benefits of Bitcoin Cash, several users began to distrust its role within the community, thinking that it could be the same as Roger Ver (formerly known as Bitcoin Jesus), who later began to promote Bitcoin Cash (BCH) as the real Bitcoin (BTC).

This decision led coinmarketcap.com, the reference website for information about cryptos and their marketcap, to remove bitcoin.com from the list of official pages of the Bitcoin (BTC) Project.

To avoid this problem, there are two proposed solutions, both agreeing that Cobra has no control over the domain bitcoin.org:

“The Solution: The domain name should be placed in the hands of the community. The solutions which had been discussed in the Slack discussion were the following:

1. Cobra transfers the domain back to @theymos and therefore relinquishes his ability to perform either of the above two actions.

2. A select few veterans within the Bitcoin community would be chosen to form a non-profit, and the domain would then be transferred into this non-profit.”

Comments on the matter were not long in coming. The majority of users were in favor of the second option. A slightly more decentralized idea, however, given that the names of these “selected veterans” are not yet known, several users expressed their mistrust, pointing out the danger that this could entail.

Cobra Shares His Thoughts About Bitcoin.org

Little time passed before Cobra himself entered the discussion. His calm, objective tone surprised many users, who appreciated the mature way Cobra was taking matters in hand.

Cobra spoke out against the second option categorically. In his opinion, it is impossible to guarantee that a group, or even a fraction of that group, will be utterly incorruptible:

“Ouch. This is going to be a pretty intense thread. But I guess these things have to be discussed. Let me first say that option 2 is a non-starter, I don’t trust anyone with that responsibility except @theymos. I have serious levels of respect for him, and believe him to be incorruptible, so if I were to ever leave bitcoin.org, I would have to have him still involved, and if he doesn’t want that role, I would trust him solely to pick a suitable successor or make arrangements as he deems fit. There’s no way on earth I would transfer the site to random people I don’t know or respect.”

He pointed out that in his opinion, mentioning that Bitcoin Cash has some positive aspects does not mean that it will become “some raging “Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin” lunatic.”

He took the opportunity to defend himself against the accusations made against him, noting that until now he has never failed the community of Bitcoin (BTC) despite issuing certain controversial opinions:

“I won’t deny I can be erratic at times, but there’s a difference between “difficult to work with” and outright malicious intent. Maybe go on Bitcoin.org, and try to find something egregious enough that even comes close to the type of garbage and outright fraud you see on Roger’s site. I’m sorry if I don’t call Bitcoin Cash “Bcash”, or hate it with a fiery passion (I used too), or I don’t have exactly the same set of opinions as you. But that doesn’t mean you can attempt to pressure me into handing over the domain to some random group (of strangers no less!).”

He concluded with a reflexion saying that his behavior has been moderating over time, and called on the community to focus more on unity and sharing perspectives.

“It’s people like you that make your own enemies, but you won’t make me an enemy of Bitcoin, no matter how much you try to smear me, discredit me, or get me replaced.”

Theymos Speaks Out

The discussion maintained a reasonable level of objectivity, bearing in mind the arguments of both Cobra and Beyourself. Some users were in favor of Cobra after learning of his views.

In the final comments, @theymos published his opinion, changing the perspectives a little. He commented that Cobra does not have unlimited power over Bitcoin.org and in case of an accident, he could take some control over the domain.

He also mentioned that according to his opinion, Cobra is an incorruptible person whom he trusts more than any other group of people chosen to manage Bitcoin.org:

“I don’t see any urgent need to change the status quo. I am not very concerned about Cobra going rogue (see my comment here), and I am concerned that any non-profit would be more likely to be eventually corrupted than Cobra is. There are disadvantages to having the domain ultimately controlled by one person, and it may be possible to design an entity carefully enough that the risk of it being corrupted is sufficiently low, so I won’t completely rule out future changes.”

The discussion so far is purely hypothetical. Even beyourself commented that he has no expectation of anything happening, but considered it appropriate to do a community opinion poll.

loading…

Posted on

Cobra Calls for a Change in Bitcoin (BTC) PoW to Fight Centralization

The enigmatic and famous Cobra, co-owner of Bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.org, again sparked controversy in the crypto community by publishing a series of tweets questioning the current situation of Bitcoin (BTC).

According to Cobra, one of the main problems with Bitcoin’s blockchain is the fact that it has such centralized mining power.

According to his opinion, a coordinated strike by three mining pools would be enough to successfully carry out a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network.

Cobra: Security is More Important than Profitability

Cobra is one of the main characters warning of the possible dangers of maintaining the current design of Bitcoin’s consensus algorithm (BTC). In February 2018, he had already made specific considerations in an open letter.

For Cobra, the level of centralization and control over the Bitcoin network is essentially a monopoly. He mentioned Bitmain as the villain of the film, not only because of the mining power but also because of other factors such as support for altcoin Bitcoin Cash or the possibility of being controlled by China:

“People talk about “new entrants” to the mining scene, but it’s almost impossible for anyone to catch up to the total domination of the mining space by BITMAIN. They are light years ahead.

The hashrate has already been abused to give political support to reckless and dangerous hard fork attempts. They have questionable allegiance to Bitcoin at best, seeming more interested in supporting Bitcoin Cash, undermining the very network that employs them.”

With this in mind, Cobra called on the community to change the mining algorithm – which he believes is the root cause of all Bitcoin’s problems – in order to get rid of miners and solve the situation that threatens the Bitcoin network:

“This mining problem is the root cause of all of Bitcoin’s problems. It’s the miners that have supported every hostile attempt to take over the network. It’s the miners who block new features for their strange political agenda … We need to get rid of them while we still can, they’re no longer a useful part of our community. Hard forks are scary, but let’s not be afraid to try at least to build consensus when we can all see the problem right in front of us.”

A Personal War?

To emphasize his toughts, Cobra wrote that Bitmain could entirely control the Bitcoin network (BTC) by having a stake in the Bitcoin.com, AntPool and ViaBTC pools. He questioned Bitmain’s claims that they do not control most of the hashing power.

Does Bitcoin really need another fork?

More than competing against Bitmain, Cobra called for changing the mining algorithm, thus avoiding a repetition of the problem. For him, Bitmain’s power is hard to fight against:

Cobra’s opinions generated diverse responses and reactions. bch-oriented websites and pro-bitmain forums quickly hastened to discredit him while the community proceeded to comment, posting tweets of support and criticism almost equally.

The main argument against Cobra’s statements is that Pools are a group of people and not just a central entity. The main argument in supporting him is precisely the need for a fork that is hard to achieve because of the big number of users already comfortable with BTC’s PoW.

loading…