×

672
673

Am I the only one that doesn't mind Bitcoin Cash being called "Bitcoin Cash" instead of just "Bitcoin" (for now)? (self.btc)

submitted by d3on

(In advance, I don't really consider myself a hardcore supporter of any coin, that includes BCH and BTC so maybe I see this a bit differently.)

 

I could imagine that "having" the name Bitcoin would mean a boost in things like popularity or fame, but at least at the moment this whole name-war is getting on my nerves more than anything.

In my opinion we should call it Bitcoin Cash and don't try to force the name "Bitcoin" onto it - at least for now. Maybe it is the original vision of Satoshi and maybe it is the better coin (I don't even want to talk about any of that) but if BCH really is the superior coin, then it should and will earn the name "Bitcoin" all by itself sooner or later.

I like the idea behind BCH, but in my opinion this whole "BCH is the REAL Bitcoin" talk is somewhat embarrassing and damaging the reputation of BCH. All this energy should rather be spend on improving accessibility, getting stores and companies to adopt BCH, helping the community, etc.. The switch to the name "Bitcoin" should then come by itself over time.

 

tl;dr: I think that BCH is fine as "Bitcoin Cash" for now. If it will ever take the name of "Bitcoin" it should come more naturally instead of this forced pushing.

 

I'm curious what other people think about this. Do you dislike the name "Bitcoin Cash"? How important is BCH getting/being called "Bitcoin" for you? Would you mind BCH being "Bitcoin Cash" forever?

top 200 commentsshow all 433
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]insanityzwolf 206 points207 points  (187 children)

I call it bitcoin cash, AND I think it is the true contender to the bitcoin name. When talking to new people, I always explain that bitcoin is meant to be cheap, fast and reliable peer-to-peer electronic cash, and that following the chain split in August 2017, both bitcoin core and bitcoin cash are contending to be the real bitcoin. BTC is the incumbent chain that kept the ticker, while BCH kept the original design. Nothing is forced, but it is better to make people aware of the differences.

[–]jakeroxs 45 points46 points  (108 children)

This is also how I usually go about it.

[–]MillionDollarBitcoin 27 points28 points  (107 children)

I call them Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Core, adding the “Core” simply to differentiate when talking.

I’m also not a hardcore supporter of either, but see both as legitimate contenders for the Bitcoin “brand”.

When explaining it to someone, I just tell them that it has split due to differences over scaling, and that I have no idea which approach will win in the long run.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (2 children)

I often call them bcash and bcore just to piss everyone off equally. The whole Bitcoin community is so devisive and toxic and not the awesome one I remember working with back in the day that I think we need to do a lot of work to earn the Bitcoin name back.

[–]SpacePip 7 points8 points  (0 children)

true.

this drama sucks.

[–]pacman78 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes! Ive done that too. bcash and bcore, lol

[–]Trentw 21 points22 points  (72 children)

Bitcoin Core is the software, Bitcoin is the network. Why make things even more confusing? You already have a BCH forum on r/BTC, I dont think you need any more confussion. What mess have you guys got yourself into? [Bring the downvote]

[–]cheaplightning 10 points11 points  (59 children)

Please start the campaign over on r/bitcoin to make it a neutral ground without censorship with all new neutral mods, in return we will give up r/btc to become the Bitcoin core sanctioned censor zone and those that want to can move to a Bitcoin cash only sub. I am sure "community consensus" will be easy to reach over there.

[–]Trentw 0 points1 point  (58 children)

And may end up with r/bitcoin being a forum about Bitcoin Cash. I think things are confusing enough with r/btc, bitcoin.com, and @bitcoin being a Bitcoin Cash forum/website/twitter handle. I used to support r/btc in its more liberal moderation, but the more I see what's happening, the more r/bitcoin's strict moderation makes sense. The two networks are now totally different, with distinct future directions, deservent of their own forums.

[–]cheaplightning 1 point2 points  (57 children)

The real issue is "What is bitcoin". If you believe the core team and the 3 people with commit access who are allowed to choose what code is implemented or not is the one and only bitcoin then r/bitcoin is the place for you! If you accept that there are multiple version of bitcoin and they all have different goals and discussion should be free and open then r/btc (despite its unfortunate ticker name connection) is the place for you. It was clear to me something was rotten the moment I saw that any talk of proposals not approved by the core team was banned. You can tinfoil hat about the motivations. But to me it doesn't really matter. You can not have UN-censorable money if you can not have open discussion about it. I don't know about you, but I did not come here to get rich quick. I came here to help change the world.

[–]Trentw 0 points1 point  (56 children)

Not really what I was talking about, but feel free to run the standard bitcoin cash line on me. I was commenting on how inappropriate and ambiguous the name bitcoin core is for Bitcoin, as for one there is already something called Bitcoin Core.

[–]cheaplightning 1 point2 points  (55 children)

But it is what you are talking about and it is at the very heart of the debate here. I agree with you that while the ticker symbols for BTC and BCH are what they are that this sub is named wrong. However when it was started it was before there was only one version of bitcoin which was often shortened to BTC. You disagree that Bitcoin Cash is also bitcoin and therefore is not deserving of Bitcoin.com and @Bitcoin. But there is more than one fork of Bitcoin now. If it shares the genesis block it is a fork of bitcoin. As I have stated elsewhere the name Bitcoin Core has only been labeled as such due to it being developed by the core team. Where as I would be happy to start calling it "Bitcoin Segwit" or "Bitcoin Lightning" or "Bitcoin SL" if it made BTC supporters happy. People in the core camp will not accept anything other than just straight "Bitcoin" I assume. You say "What mess have you guys got yourself into? " It takes two to tango. Everything done on this "side" has been as a direct reaction to what many of us believe to be poor/wrong/inappropriate actions from that "side". Luckily the masses don't use reddit so they won't have to be confused by the name of this sub.

[–]Trentw 0 points1 point  (54 children)

That's not very coherent. Sorry, enjoy your ambiguity.

load more comments (12 replies)

    load more comments (30 replies)

      [–]LostPinesYauponTea 25 points26 points  (25 children)

      I don't follow the logic. So, before Bitcoin Cash there was Bitcoin. Someone then altered the Bitcoin code to create a spin off of Bitcoin called Bitcoin Cash. The original Bitcoin didn't change code, right? So I guess I don't understand the argument that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin... I don't really care to be honest, we accept BTC, BCH, LTC and ETH and hold them all...

      [–]GoLookingGlass 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      It's about the whitepaper as much as it's about the code. Bitcoin Cash holds the whitepaper to be 'sacrosanct' and changing it to reflect 'reality' may become a future battle in this war particularly over LN - but the war (chain split) more or less started with the insistence that Segwit was 'necessary' (for LN), also over scaling, hard vs soft forks and over the role of the miners and mining hardware. And that's just a brief overview of the controversies.

      It's about interpreting the 'gospel' of SN (and even the role of SN) which was always going to happen anyway just that nobody seems to have realized that before he left and he didn't exactly offer a lot of guidance either. Maybe he was too modest to realize that he would become something of an icon to many - but not to all - because his role and his anonymity has become a point of contention before anyone truly knows what and where this is all leading to.

      [–]TiagoTiagoT 5 points6 points  (2 children)

      No, someone altered the code and tricked the masses into calling their crippled altcoin "bitcoin", killing the original Bitcoin in the process; then right before a particularly bad modification was about to go online, a group of various big players, miners, devs, businesses etc, decided that enough was enough, and revived the original Bitcoin, but unfortunately, they did not had the level of power over the flow of information to the masses to be able to instantly reclaim the "Bitcoin" name, the revived Bitcoin is what for the moment is more well known as Bitcoin Cash.

      [–]Big_Bubbler 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      *trying to kill the original Bitcoin in the process...

      [–]opaqueperson 11 points12 points  (19 children)

      The original bitcoin was adding Segregated Witness and refusing to increase a data variable. 5% or so of the Bitcoin community disagreed with the SW upgrade and the artificial limit as well as beating around the bush of upgrades to the protocol in general -- this minority or so of the community decided to Fork before SegWit was added. Both coins effectively changed in Aug 2017. Bitcoin cash re-added old functionality, while the Core dev team pushed a propaganda machine promoting off-chain transactions called the Lightning Network.

      tl;dr - Both are effectively forks.

      [–]phro 19 points20 points  (2 children)

      45% of the community were signalling Emergent Consensus. More than SW. It took them 2 years and a bait and switch tactic to get SW activated.

      [–]bitmeister 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      /u/tippr $0.25

      [–]tippr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      u/phro, you've received 0.00014492 BCH ($0.25 USD)!

      How to use | What is Bitcoin Cash? | Who accepts it? | r/tippr
      Bitcoin Cash is what Bitcoin should be. Ask about it on r/btc

      [–]plazman30 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Except the core developers and not working on Lightning in any way. Lightning is basically Core outsourcing the scaling problem to Lightning Labs and Blockstream.

      [–]chazley 6 points7 points  (12 children)

      Segwit wasn't a hard fork. You never have to use it in your life if you want to use Bitcoin. Calling it a hard fork is just factually incorrect, regardless of whether you need to call it one to fit your narrative.

      [–]insanityzwolf 8 points9 points  (1 child)

      Hard fork/soft fork are the wrong way to look at this. The question is whether segwit introduced an incompatibility into the protocol that affects the entirety of how blocks are interpreted. An old node will not reject a segwit block, nor will it crash, but it will also fail to update its utxo set in the same way as newer clients. So, it is definitely a material change to the protocol.

      [–]fookingroovin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Can you please expand on that?

      [–]RareJahans 1 point2 points  (8 children)

      The only reason that it was a soft fork instead of a hard fork is because they knew that it would make the "true Bitcoin" argument stronger for Bitcoin cash.

      [–]vrtrasura 5 points6 points  (5 children)

      Segwit was code complete and waiting to be activated more than a year before Bitcoin cash forked...

      [–]RareJahans 4 points5 points  (4 children)

      Yes and if it has been a hard fork, as all updates should be, then Bitcoin would have continued on and Bitcoin segwit would have been created. The fact that they have been using soft forks for years to implement changes that are good for blockstream projects and not the rest of the ecosystem.

      [–]vrtrasura 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      Deflection. You stated "it would make the "true Bitcoin" argument stronger for Bitcoin cash". Bitcoin cash wasn't planned or around then. What you stated isn't possible.

      We'll have to agree to disagree on the HF vs SF thing. I think SF's are elegant because they allow any client/wallet from the past 5 years to work directly for example. That is great for cold storage situations.

      [–]RareJahans 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      They have specifically avoided a hardfork to avoid implementing blockstream protocol changes because they know it would be forked by big blocker supports.

      [–]vrtrasura 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      The code was completely finished at this point this was written: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/

      In it they say the reason to avoid hard forking is to prevent user confusion and loss of value/integrity of the brand. Ironically, we ended up forking BCH off anyway (fail?). What you are suggesting doesn't make sense to me, there was not a threat of big blockers forking off at the point the segwit development was finished. Big blockers forked off -much later- but they always could have, nothing prevents that at any time... In fact 'fork off' was a common message to big blockers during the final segwit adoption.

      load more comments (2 replies)

        [–]bchbtch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        You don't have to use it but you have to live with its effects on the network.

        load more comments (2 replies)

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          You have that all backwards I think.

          BTC added contentiously: Replace By Fee, SegWit as a soft fork, and keeps a 1mb block size that was never supposed to remain, and disabled opcodes or crippled them.

          BCH removed: Replace by Fee, removed SegWit (or never had it depending on your perspective), and in May is fully restoring the original 32mb maximum threshold it had on day one, and enabling and restoring the opcodes to BCH can be a platform again.

          BTC is the one that drastically changed what it is, why should it keep the name? BCH is restoring the project back to the roots of the first version of it to follow the original whitepaper and roadmap that BTC abandoned.

          Bitcoin is an altcoin wearing a stolen brand and does not deserve to be just Bitcoin anymore, created by a soulless private company called Blockstream that captured Bitcoin development to twist it into something they can make money off of as just more middlemen. This is the antithesis of what Bitcoin was supposed to be.

          [–][deleted]  (7 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]insanityzwolf 7 points8 points  (2 children)

            That's the thing you see - they both start with the same Genesis block. Their history is identical through Aug 1, which is the first time when they diverged. So neither came first - they just chose different paths 8 years after the original Bitcoin came into being.

            So it's less like dominoes vs papa John's, and more like the original AT&T (ma bell) splitting up into SW bell, bell atlantic etc.

            [–]tdrusk 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            I don’t get this logic. Not trying to start a shit-fest.

            By that logic: If I forked Bitcoin Cash and made the block size 8 meg, I could argue it should be called Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash because they both have the same genesis block. That makes no sense to me. So what if they have the same genesis block?

            [–]insanityzwolf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            You could certainly argue that. We won't ban you for trying to make your fork the real Bitcoin. That's how a free marketplace of ideas works.

            [–]Big_Bubbler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Bitcoin Cash is the thing that came first, lol. BTC has gone a different path on purpose.

            [–]TiagoTiagoT 1 point2 points  (2 children)

            The original is no more; Core made sure of that. The closest thing to the original we got now is Bitcoin Cash

            [–]tdrusk 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            You’re being downvoted, but can you elaborate?

            [–]TiagoTiagoT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Core changed key factors, and for a while there was nothing still following the origin Bitcoin plan, there was nothing fitting the definition of Bitcoin left.

            [–]nooglide 5 points6 points  (10 children)

            there is only one bitcoin, its not a competition for the name. bitcoin and bitcoin cash are both great products but there will only ever be one bitcoin project, everything after that will be a descendant of bitcoin.

            [–]peopleb4things 1 point2 points  (2 children)

            Here is a description of the competitive aspect as follows (the video was made before the existence of Bitcoin Cash):

            "After a hard fork: If fork was meant to start an altcoin, altcoin goes its separate way, branches coexist nicely

            If fork reflected a fight over future of Bitcoin: branches fight for market share, branches fight to be seen as 'the real Bitcoin', probably one branch wins, the other melts away"

            Source: "Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies" online course, based on a very successful course taught at Princeton. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8ghd5w/bitcoin_lecture_7_community_politics_and/

            Side note: I don't view bitcoin and bitcoin cash as products. "Bitcoin" = peer to peer electronic cash system.

            Edit: fixed some quotation marks.

            [–]Big_Bubbler 0 points1 point  (6 children)

            So, your saying there is no longer any Bitcoin project. That's not true. BCH is still working on the Bitcoin project. Core hopes their project is Bitcoin again someday, but, that looks unlikely at this point.

            [–]nooglide 2 points3 points  (5 children)

            since we are talking about the name and not the better technology - there is a bitcoin project, its here:

            https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

            BCH working on a descendant of the bitcoin project, they even say it on their page "Bitcoin Cash is a descendant of Bitcoin."

            https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc

            [–]Big_Bubbler 2 points3 points  (4 children)

            Your using rhetoric to cover up the truth of the situation. BTC Core development is also a descendant of the "Bitcoin project" even though it has strayed far from that project's goals. Calling it Bitcoin does not make it the true Bitcoin (for either side of this debate). Capturing the GitHub is also not a reliable determination of what's going on here.

            [–]nooglide 2 points3 points  (3 children)

            there is no cover up the history with bitcoin or bitcoin cash, in fact go read at least one side of the argument at bitcoin.com.

            Calling it Bitcoin does not make it the true Bitcoin (for either side of this debate).

            This is a technology naming, not theological - it is pretty cut and dry Bitcoin = BTC and Bitcoin Cash = BCH, its just a new flavor of bitcoin. it can still be the better one. because you may not like one sides tech decisions doesnt change the name

            https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc

            Bitcoin Cash is a descendant of Bitcoin.

            Capturing the GitHub is also not a reliable determination of what's going on here.

            i would agree github doesnt play back the entire history about bitcoin and bitcoin cash but even without that history the name is still what it is. bitcoin cash will always be bitcoin cash, these are technology / software products and naming is pretty easy to determine. unless the goal is to get the bitcoin project to turn over the name and if that happens sure, then bitcoin cash (and all its preferred changes) become bitcoins. i just dont see that happening.

            [–]Big_Bubbler 0 points1 point  (2 children)

            I did not say there was a coverup of the history. As for the technical "technology naming", BCH will get the code-approved name "Bitcoin" after the BCH price rises above BTC and the accumulated proof of work tilts in Bitcoin Cash's favor. That will take a while. Most people know it is coming, eventually, if BTC does not fix it's code soon (I'm thinking hardforked blocksize increase). Hopefully, Bitcoin Cash will always be Bitcoin. Fingers crossed we do not fall victim to a similar infiltration and capture of our development teams.

            [–]nooglide 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            I did not say there was a coverup of the history.

            you implied i was covering it up through some crafty wording, rhetoric as you put it

            As for the technical "technology naming", BCH will get the code-approved name "Bitcoin" after the BCH price rises above BTC and the accumulated proof of work tilts in Bitcoin Cash's favor.

            Do you really think that will happen? This is an actual question, not rhetorical. I just do not see that happening and why would it? Then every time another new Bitcoin Cash comes along and overtakes it becomes the new Bitcoin? Think about the implications.. no, I don't see it happening like that nor should it - it would be too confusing!

            That will take a while. Most people know it is coming, eventually,

            Who are most people? What are you basing this on?

            Fingers crossed we do not fall victim to a similar infiltration and capture of our development teams.

            Whether you agree or disagree with the development teams decisions when working on project A or project B, Project A is still project A, even if B is better.

            Only my opinion that the naming discussion is really binary - even on https://bitcoincash.com/faq/ do they talk about Bitcoin Cash being a continuation of the Bitcoin project. That has to be done to avoid confusion from A to B. Bitcoin Cash can still be the best bitcoin but I don't see it being Bitcoin.

            [–]Big_Bubbler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            I believe, according to the code, any coin with the most accumulated proof of work is known as Bitcoin. That's why BTC currently has the name. Yes, I believe that will change if the better coin is adopted by the world and is worth more in the future. Unless BTC fixes it's major problems, BCH should be worth more than BTC. The social engineering attacks used against BCH should not keep fooling the public too much longer. If BCH "is the better Bitcoin" it will grow in value and miners will mine it more and the name will flip.

            Oh, and BCH is working on Project (goals) A still. BTC decided to go with working on Project (new goals) B.

            [–]bitking74 4 points5 points  (11 children)

            2 errors.

            Bitcoin is not called Bitcoin core.

            It was not a split, it was a fork, bcash forked of the real and only Bitcoin

            [–]trolldetectrRedditor for less than 60 days 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            Redditor /u/bitking74 has low karma in this subreddit.

            [–]TiagoTiagoT 3 points4 points  (9 children)

            Unfortunately, there has been a massive effort to make the uninformed masses call bitcoin Core "bitcoin", and it continues long after Core had destroyed the original Bitcoin.

            [–]CryptoWithFries 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            This.

            [–]Zandar007Redditor for less than 60 days 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            It’s actually simple. There is Bitcoin and there are all the forks.

            Bitcoin BTC

            Bitcoin Atom Bitcoin cash BCH Bitcoin Diamond Bitcoin Dark Bitcoin Green Bitcoin Gold Bitcoin Private Bitcoin plus Bitcoin whatever ....

            Also- Bitcore - which can cause confusion when people call the original “bitcoin core”

            There should be no argument at all and I agree the infighting is hideous. It would be great to move past it. This very SubRedd should be named BCH. It confuses new comers which appears to be precisely the goal, very wrong.

            [–]Big_Bubbler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            The first part is true. However, Bitcoin = BCH now that BTC has been infiltrated and diverted to serve corporate overlords. BCH continues the goals of Bitcoin.

            This reddit sub was created before BCH. The goal of this subredd was to escape the r/ Bitcoin censorship and moderator capture that had made that sub intentionally misleading and divisive. The confusion created on this sub (and in many social media discussions) is orchestrated by a team of trolls (and their confused victims) that work for the owners of BTC and r /Bitcoin among other captured media outlets.

            load more comments (17 replies)

              [–]y-c-c 11 points12 points  (1 child)

              Totally agree with you.

              One issue is the “Bitcoin Cash = Bitcoin” crowd seems to not have a strict definition of what “Bitcoin” is. Before, it was Gavin’s definition which basically says “the longest chain wins”. For a while that’s what Bitcoin XT etc was going for. After that since BCH is clearly not the longest chain there’s an evolved definition about the “original” protocol but that is a loose concept too as a lot of the transaction types we use these days came from forks after the original white paper. It’s hard to argue what a name means when there is no concise definition of said term.

              Also, Bitcoin Cash came from a lack of consensus especially from miners. The fork initially clearly branded itself as “Bitcoin Cash”, even though it puts itself as closer to the original vision. This rebranding itself as “Bitcoin” un-ironically is actually making the coin lose credibility and reputation among the greater crypto crowd. It also adds unnecessary confusion in regular discussions. E.g. Ethereum Classic doesn’t say it is “Ethereum” without extra qualifications. Like it or not, it was Bitcoin Cash’s decision to fork and given it is still a minority hash chain I can’t really say “Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin” with a straight face. I will say it’s my preferred protocol that fulfills what Bitcoin’s vision more though.

              And also, this naming debate just seems to detract from the more important issues.

              [–][deleted]  (4 children)

              [deleted]

                [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (3 children)

                I think it should remain Bitcoin Cash forever. No one coin should ever be called just Bitcoin ever again, just as no one Linux distribution is called just Linux.

                [–]--now-- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Good analogy

                [–]TestUserDoNotReply 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Surely you mean a GNU/Linux distribution!

                load more comments (1 reply)

                  [–]thinkscout 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                  This sub is like a hydra mutating and warping with every passing week.

                  [–]cheaplightning 14 points15 points  (3 children)

                  I personally do not care. Lots of BTC people seem to be against the sort of re-branding to "Bitcoin CORE". In my opinion both are "Bitcoin" so neither is the one and only true bitcoin. BTC supporters do not want to give up that perceived status as being the one and only true bitcoin so this is where we are at an impasse. I doubt we can reach "community consensus" as to naming. They want to be "Bitcoin" and Bitcoin cash to become BCASH to distance it from bitcoin. I would be happy to stop referring to it as Bitcoin Core if they had another preference such as Bitcoin SL (segwit lightning) or whatever but I doubt they would accept anything other than "Bitcoin". The least controversial names seem to be the ticker symbols BCH and BTC which do not seem to offend anyone. That being said I will continue to refer to the over all technology as "bitcoin" and when needed use the tickers to differentiate.

                  [–]homopit 45 points46 points  (8 children)

                  I do not need a switch to 'Bitcoin' name. BCH is the real Bitcoin for me, and I'm still fine with Bitcoin Cash name, even forever.

                  [–]Yellow-Marquee 24 points25 points  (5 children)

                  Dogecoin is the real Bitcoin for me, so I refer to Dogecoin as Bitcoin.

                  [–]bch_ftw 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                  Interesting. I don't think it will take off but enjoy the freedom to think for yourself!

                  [–]plazman30 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                  More power to you, but Dogecoin does have it's own Genesis Block, so it's claim is kinda weak. But I have no issue with you and anyone else calling it Bitcoin.

                  KInda of cool that a cryptocurrency created as a joke actually has value now. Shows the true power of crypto.

                  [–]homopit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                  lol read my comment again.

                  [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  That's okay. we will pet you extra to bring you back around.

                  load more comments (1 reply)

                    [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                    When core gets detrowned and BCH will have bigher market price and higher hashrate I also am in favor of never ever ever seperating bitcoin from cash.

                    If it aint' cash, it ain't Bitcoin!

                    load more comments (1 reply)

                      [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

                      I prefer bitcoin cash tbh. But I can be persuaded Its not really important to me

                      [–]AlphaSniper88 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      Personally I view Bitcoin as an investment and I have Bitcoin Cash as my spending crypto, probably just because it has cash in the name pretty much.

                      I'd agree to leave it as is.

                      [–]InstinctDT 13 points14 points  (0 children)

                      Calling Bitcoin Cash "Bitcoin" is deceiving. I understand the history of BTC and BCH but for the sake of clarity of online discussions, people should call them with their appropriate name or ticker.

                      In time, if the BTC experiment fail and BCH prevail, then a discussion about renaming BCH to BTC would be relevant.

                      [–]edoera 4 points5 points  (1 child)

                      Remember "Dubstep": What it used to be before Skrillex. And what happened After Skrillex.

                      Remember what "Hoverboards" meant before this weird segway wannabe came along: https://www.amazon.com/Hoverboard-Lithium-Free-Two-Wheel-Balancing-Certified/dp/B07BFMYRT8

                      Remember "Crypto": What it used to mean before Cryptocurrency, and what it means nowadays.

                      There are plenty of cases like this historically. It's irrelevant how much we want to call Bitcoin Cash "Bitcoin", or how much Bitcoin core people want to sue other forks who uses the name "Bitcoin". At the end of the day, the market decides. And the market is looking good for Bitcoin Cash, so I don't think there's any reason to focus so much too much about the name.

                      IMO I think it's much better to clearly use the term "Bitcoin Cash", it sounds cooler, in a hipster kind of way (Remember, hipsters reject conformity, that's why they like all the obscure music and stuff. And in the end, all world changing trends start from hipsters). In fact, I do feel a strong parallel between hipsters and /r/BTC (in a non-ironical way).

                      Nowadays I talk proudly about how Bitcoin original is for newbies and if one's interested in learning more about crypto, they should learn Bitcoin Cash with an open mind. It would be confusing if people kept using both "Bitcoin" and "Bitcoin Cash" to refer to the same thing.

                      [–]AcerbLogic 25 points26 points  (20 children)

                      Nothing wrong with calling BCH Bitcoin Cash, especially while it still does not have most cumulative proof-of-work.

                      On the other hand, I don't think there's anything hugely wrong if you want to jump the gun a little and call it Bitcoin (BCH) as long as you give a good justification for why you're doing it. To me BCH is by far more Bitcoin according to the white paper and valid Nakamoto Consensus. BTC is only "Bitcoin" right now if you consider invalid Nakamoto Consensus (since it is cheating with SegWit added, but no 2x activated).

                      If BCH ever does achieve most cumulative proof-of-work, at that point I think it would be flat wrong to prevent anyone that wants to from calling it "Bitcoin"

                      [–]PsyRev_ 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                      Exactly.

                      It'd be absurd for only BTC to be able to be called 'Bitcoin' while BCH be torn down for calling it 'Bitcoin'. But then, we are in an absurd situation...

                      load more comments (19 replies)

                        [–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (3 children)

                        nope, I'm perfectly fine with "Bitcoin Cash" and I like to say Bitcoin got renamed to "Bitcoin Cash" back in Aug-2017

                        [–][deleted]  (59 children)

                        [deleted]

                          [–]654278841Redditor for less than 60 days 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                          The correct way is to start calling BTC "Bitcoin Core" so as to enforce the idea that there are "flavors" of bitcoin.

                          Yeah basically. I tell people there are many different types of coins, BCH, BTC, bitcoin gold, eth, LTC, monero, etc. So you should pick which ones you like and look at reasons like speed of transaction, cost of transaction, do you want a private or public ledger, etc.

                          [–]cryptoplane 1 point2 points  (3 children)

                          Not entirely following the logic. You admit the money part is important, thank heavens. But, why hung up on Bitcoin, the name, the brand, being the most critical end goal. Think about it, if Bitcoin Cash becomes more valuable, and is on its way to the original bitcoin chain dying off, haven't you already won? You got the money part you first mentioned. You succeeded in growing the value of the coin and users, without needing the sole Bitcoin.

                          Unless the path to success does include some trickery in gaining adoption because it's a flavor of Bitcoin, which has some magic power. It's a weird one to think about. But no one right now cares to think about the dichotomy between the flavor name the the original name. Also, if BCH ever does win and original btc dies off, you still have the BCH ticker.

                          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                          [deleted]

                            [–]Thorbinator 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                            I'm simply not going to give up the name to those thieves.

                            It continues the conflict? Good. They're still fighting and if your side gives up it's just a slaughter.

                            [–]youngrubin -4 points-3 points  (36 children)

                            The "Bitcoin Core" thing is just Roger Ver spreading propaganda that Core is out to kill bitcoin for profit. That would be like calling bitcoin cash, Bitcoin ABC.

                            Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Legacy would make far more sense.

                            [–][deleted]  (5 children)

                            [deleted]

                              [–]JayPeee 15 points16 points  (28 children)

                              No. It’s a legitimate way to differentiate between different types of Bitcoin.

                              It’s like saying US Dollar vs. Australian Dollar instead of assuming that everyone should know which one you’re talking about.

                              [–]araxono 10 points11 points  (0 children)

                              Exactly, Bitcoin has changed, and there is two Bitcoins now (that are relevant), BTC & BCH.
                              It should be made easy for people to know Bitcoin Core is btc.

                              [–]youngrubin -1 points0 points  (25 children)

                              Educate yourself.

                              [–]crypto-kid 14 points15 points  (0 children)

                              You have a point, but BTC is clearly Core’s project and they have yet to propose an alternative name. Their scaling plan was synonymous with “Core” since before BCH was a thing. In the face of that, “Bitcoin Core” works just as well as any of the options you proposed, if not better.

                              [–]JayPeee 5 points6 points  (23 children)

                              I understand that you’re trying to make a parallel between calling it the name of the development team, but it’s moot. There needs to be a way to differentiate between types of bitcoin, and since BTC has only one development team it is the obvious differentiating theme.

                              If you’re upset about this, try to start a competing BTC development team and see if you can get acceptance of any commits besides spelling/grammar corrections.

                              load more comments (1 reply)

                                [–]AC4YS-wQLGJRedditor for less than 60 days 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                Dont BCOREupt. Use Bitcoin Cash.

                                load more comments (17 replies)

                                  [–]lubokkanev 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                  I don't think it's actually about the name. I wouldn't even mind bcash if it's intent wasn't to discredit BCH. I think calling BTC "The Bitcoin" is confusing the newbies and making Satoshi's project look stupid.

                                  [–]MobTwo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                  I actually like the name Bitcoin Cash because it keeps reminding everyone what Bitcoin should be all about... as Cash for the entire world. Sometimes, people need daily reminders why Bitcoin Cash.

                                  [–]voluntaryistmitch 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                                  I mean, that’s what it’s called. There is already a bitcoin.

                                  [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

                                  I prefer BCH, but find it incredibly childish and an absolute dickhead move by Ver to try and take over the Bitcoin name. We should embrace and market our differences instead of trying to trick newcomers into thinking we are core. Additionally, to just making us all not seem like total assholes, it would quell 99.9% of opposition to BCH. People don't hate us because we have bigger blocks, faster and cheaper transactions, they hate us because the way we have gone about antagonizing the market.

                                  [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  People don't hate us because we have bigger blocks, faster and cheaper transactions, they hate us because the way we have gone about antagonizing the market.

                                  This is it. This man gets it.

                                  I want bigger blocks, but I was put off BCH and now fight against it in favour of BTC because of Ver and the community's antics. "Bitcoin (BCH)" is not okay. Deliberately misleading people new to the space is not okay. "Bitcoin Core", "SegWit Coin" and whatever else are not okay. I will advocate for BTC to get bigger blocks but I will never support the Bitcoin Cash project.

                                  [–]ImInLoveWithMyBike 6 points7 points  (3 children)

                                  You can call Coke Zero "Coca-Cola" as much as you want, but it will never be Coca-Cola. This sub is trying to gaslight the world into believing a lie, it's ridiculous.

                                  [–]cryptos4pz 11 points12 points  (1 child)

                                  The problem is "Bitcoin" gained fame because many believed it would scale the way Bitcoin Cash is scaling on-chain. I do like the name Bitcoin Cash and agree it's not necessary to be known as just "Bitcoin", but people should be aware of the backstory. Currently it's "Bitcoin" that is symbolic for a "be your own bank" and separate government from money ideology. So that name gets all the enthusiasm associated with that. But Bitcoin Core isn't exactly set up for be your own bank in practice when fees prohibit moving funds for many.

                                  [–]ReCrunch 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                                  For me it's simple. Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin is Bitcoin.

                                  [–]janaagaard 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                                  gild /u/tippr

                                  [–]tippr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  u/d3on, your post was gilded in exchange for 0.00147583 BCH ($2.50 USD)! Congratulations!

                                  How to use | What is Bitcoin Cash? | Who accepts it? | r/tippr
                                  Bitcoin Cash is what Bitcoin should be. Ask about it on r/btc

                                  [–]jajajajaj 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  maybe someday just "Bitcoin" would not need clarification, but today that's ambiguous. I can agree bch is the best Bitcoin, but the word by itself would no longer be sufficiently meaningful. Maybe in the years after the lightning network/core hype train runs aground, but not yet.

                                  I do get a kick out of seeing the argument made, though, despite that it's really only speculative and couldn't be settled. Time will tell whether people want the superior technology or the incumbent

                                  [–]nathanweisser 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  Ideologicalally Bitcoin Cash is closer to Bitcoin than Bitcoin Core is, but it's not good PR, very obviously.

                                  [–]TibanneChaintip Creator 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  I don't mind it being called Bitcoin Cash. I call it that myself most times. I mind when people say I can't call it Bitcoin.

                                  [–]thegreatmcmeek 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  I don't even mind people calling it "bcash".

                                  The only thing I want people to call it is "cash", ultimately. We're a long way off, but the "true Bitcoin" debate is a sideshow as far as I'm concerned at this stage.

                                  [–]GrumpyAnarchist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  I don't mind calling BCH "Bitcoin Cash". What I don't like is calling the hijacked Lightning Coin "Bitcoin".

                                  [–]CypressBreeze 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  I totally agree with you. And I think the whole crypto world would be better off if BTC and BCH quit bickering with eachother.

                                  I think in the long run, BTC and BCH will be seen as successful projects that helped test out two different ideas for scaling.

                                  [–]DevionNL 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  Couldn't agree more. From a technological standpoint I think BCH has the better hand. The fucking politics, name calling, namejacking and all the drama that comes with it is, in my opinion, detrimental to all of us.

                                  [–]Blazedout419 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  Of course since that is the proper name.

                                  [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  Fuck Bitcoin Cash!

                                  [–]Jvckson 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  Bitcoin is bitcoin and bitcoin cash is bitcoin cash. BCH is a fork of bitcoin. Even if it accomplishes everything bitcoin set out to do, it will still be bitcoin cash NOT bitcoin. Personally I think that if the developers/marketers of bitcoin cash truly believed in their product then they wouldn’t try and pretend to be bitcoin. I have no problem with the name bitcoin cash but them having the bitcoin.com URL cheapens the whole brand.

                                  Edit: spelling

                                  [–]MannyAC33 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash. There is no debate. Stop trying to ride off Bitcoin’s popularity. Bitcoin Cash will prove itself through its merits. There’s no need to piggyback off Bitcoin if you really think it’s the superior coin. How hard is that to understand?

                                  [–]cywinr 6 points7 points  (1 child)

                                  I agree. This name calling game is doing more harm than good right now. People need to learn the difference. Forcefully claiming the name is just leaving a sour taste in people's mouths.

                                  [–]bch_ftw 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  It should leave a sour taste in people's mouths when the Core fork claims to be Bitcoin. Their crime against the community should be exposed.

                                  [–]lnig0Montoya 7 points8 points  (0 children)

                                  Eventually, “Bitcoin Cash” could be shortened to just “Cash.” Right now, there are multiple versions of Bitcoin, so I won’t call one of them just “Bitcoin” without distinguishing it from the others. I would say BCH is “the better Bitcoin.”

                                  [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

                                  I believe we should continue BCH to call Bitcoin Cash. If we ever get a higher market cap than BTC we might even consider changing it but for now it's better to just call it Bitcoin Cash.

                                  [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                                  I actually hope we choose to be bold and keep the Bitcoin Cash title for the protocol and set the precedent of Bitcoin Newname for future forks, not unlike the many shards of BTC this year. It should be shared, not constantly consolidated by some group or another. We need to kill the idea that "longst chain has rights to the name" because that is simply mis-understood bullshit by people who don't understand what Satoshi wrote about that.

                                  I say that mostly because if we go back to being Bitcoin we're going to have this whole fucking stupid problem happen again someday when BCH spawns an offshoot (which anyone can do at any time for any reason).

                                  Bitcoin should be used the same way as Linux*.*

                                  That aside, why erase Bitcoin Cash's illustrious, impossible journey by removing the Cash part of its history? Its a badge of honor to me, and frankly the first Bitcoin should have had a name like that from day 1. The mistake was calling the first live implementation the same name as the whitepaper.

                                  [–]GoLookingGlass 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  You may be the first to point out that 'this whole fucking stupid problem [could] happen again someday" over the bitcoin (BCH) name - though not sure if you meant 'Bitcoin' or 'Bitcoin Cash'.

                                  Point taken though.

                                  The idea of "rights to the name" for open-source anonymously authored (code?) whose specifictions are an academically cited whitepaper. Don't suppose SN ever thought he had reason to be concerned about it. Maybe this really ought to go to trial to establish case law - someone has to arbitrate these things - but jurisdiction is going to have to be argued to start with.

                                  Also, it's going to attract a host of interested parties wanting to define exactly what is being contested here, not just who owns the name 'bitcoin', Is there a 'chain of custody' or 'provenance' for claiming to be the 'true' Bitcoin. Seems that it's a case of a 'Recipe' vs a 'Dish'.

                                  Warning, quoting CSW here.

                                  Is Gordon Ramsay's Beef Wellington the 'real' thing cause:

                                  ⚪"He uses Shiitake mushrooms to replace the older form of pate

                                  ⚪ It was magnificent"

                                  [–]-Abradolf_Lincler- 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                  Why would you call it just Bitcoin? Its Bitcoin Cash. It's even in the trading name, BCH.

                                  I don't take sides in this petty feud but you can't just start calling it something that it is not.

                                  [–]j73uD41nLcBq9aOfRedditor for less than 6 months 10 points11 points  (16 children)

                                  Red Hat is Linux, Debian is Linux.

                                  Bitcoin Core is Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin.

                                  All are competing to be the best.

                                  [–]mcorrigan888 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                  Thank God someone with common sense

                                  [–]plazman30 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                  Personally I think calling Bitcoin Cash just Bitcoins is poking the beast. I think it should be called Bitcoin Cash, and then you can just call it Bitcoin after it wins.

                                  [–]cr0ft 4 points5 points  (1 child)

                                  I agree. Bitcoin Cash or BCH is fine. Bitcoin right now isn't great and making sure people know what's being talked about is valuable.

                                  That's why I disagreed with Bitcoin.com starting to talk about Bitcoin BCH, it's too soon and may never be required.

                                  Bitcoin Cash is the real historic Bitcoin - it has the blockchain, and it has the white-paper-compliant technology. That's just factual. But one can just as well just say it's the better Bitcoin descendant and it's fine.

                                  [–]HPdl160 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  "Bitcoin Cash is the real historic Bitcoin" ? really ? did you checked when the transaction starts on BCH ?

                                  Okay i can argue all the way with you ;) https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.html (click all time button)

                                  Your super famous you call historic Bitcoin Cash started transactions on Aug 2017 LOL ;)

                                  Bitcoin is ONLY one and thats called Bitcoin BTC not BCH!!!!

                                  And your white toiled paper oh :D

                                  [–]CC_EF_JTFOpenBazaar 4 points5 points  (1 child)

                                  Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash.

                                  Bitcoin is Bitcoin.

                                  Bitcoin Cash can become Bitcoin only if the chain gets more accumulated work.

                                  [–]wisequote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  So to you, 1/5 criteria defines bitcoin, I’ll take the 4/5 that is Bitcoin Cash with 4 out of 5 checkmarks describing the real bitcoin.

                                  Bitcoin Cash is 80% Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core is 20% Bitcoin. Deal with it.

                                  And the only reason BTC has that 1/5 criteria is because miners are greedy, the very thing that BTC is trying to kill, will end up killing BTC.

                                  Good luck!

                                  [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                  Why does BCH always try to take stuff that wasn't theirs to begin with. You wanna steal the Bitcoin name, the piratebay.

                                  Create your own shit. Damn

                                  [–]evilneclord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  My opinion on this is that it doesn't matter what a coin/token/currency is called. To me, the important part is functionality.

                                  I want the one that is the easiest to use for the purpose I need to use it for, whatever that may be.

                                  [–]JavelinoB 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  I like Bitcoin Cash name because I'm usually calling it Cash then I talk about crypto with friends. I hope in near future it everyone will call it just CASH and not Bitcoin. It would be super cool

                                  [–]unitedstatian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  It's the other way around, if BCH is the superior coin and it's true to the original then letting a less true fork fail will damage Bitcoin's reputation by association.

                                  [–]BitcoinCashHoarder 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  Bitcoin Cash is correct. Eventually however both Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin name will be synonymous when BTC chain becomes the minor chain.

                                  [–]hippestpotamus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  I would prefer it to be called Bitcoin Cash indefinitely. As someone who owns only Bitcoin Cash.

                                  [–]loveforyouandme 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  Bitcoin the idea has multiple implementations. One is Bitcoin Core, another is Bitcoin Cash. I think the distinction is always worth calling out.

                                  [–]sovuljaner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  calling it different names will not bring anything positive, it will just create confusion. Until one dies, bitcoin will be bitcoin and bitcoin cash will be bitcoin cash. Trying to present one as the other is not the right way to push adoption

                                  [–]ViperfishAU 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  I agree with OP

                                  [–]minomesRedditor for less than 90 days 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  Totally agree. Stop worrying about what is and isn't the "real" bitcoin and just grow Bitcoin Cash into a dominant force in the market.

                                  [–]Kinggfx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  Do you have a choice?

                                  [–]FaisalFEF 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  well said

                                  [–]ForkiusMaximus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  Bitcoin Cash respresents a return to the original Bitcoin design, as it ran for 8 years, and it uses the historical Bitcoin ledger (no investors were disenfranchised, sound money was preserved). This is the "BCH is Bitcoin" aspect that needs to be emphasized, not some metaphysical or semantic war.

                                  That said, keeping in mind that every new 10x surge in adoption and price comes almost entirely from NEW users, businesses and investors, there is probably a system bias among us oldtimers toward overestimating how important the name is. New people do care that it's a stable ledger with 9 years of history, but I think most care more that it is cheap, fast, secure, reliable and eminently useful in a wide array of situations.

                                  [–]simplest2remember 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  If one realistically looks at how futile the exercise is, regardless of who's right, then one would have given up a good few months back. What set of circumstances could possibly occur that will get all the exchanges to suddenly start calling Bitcoin Cash (which has already stolen half the name), Bitcoin? Move on.

                                  [–]inthecrypto 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                                  I call it bitcoin cash or bcash because it’s not bitcoin, it’s bitcoin cash.

                                  [–]trolldetectrRedditor for less than 60 days 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                  Redditor /u/inthecrypto has low karma in this subreddit.

                                  [–]inthecrypto 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  Lolololol I have low karma in this bcash echo chamber. Ohhhhh well

                                  [–]epsilon4_ 6 points7 points  (1 child)

                                  this

                                  bitcoin =/= bitcoin cash

                                  [–]unstabletable_Redditor for less than 90 days 3 points4 points  (3 children)

                                  u/chaintip $.50

                                  Exactly this. Success will come naturally. Or even failure.

                                  Trying to convince everyone that BCH is the "real" Bitcoin just confuses people that know nothing about crypto or the BCH/BTC rivalry.

                                  Just let Bitcoin Cash be Bitcoin Cash and teach everyone why it's better than BTC. Enough people will realize BCH is the better currency and that will be all we need.

                                  [–]unstabletable_Redditor for less than 90 days 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  Idk why but every time I try to send this, I get an error message. Not sure it it's my wallet messing up or what.

                                  [–]chaintip 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                  u/d3on has claimed the 0.00029878 BCH| ~ 0.42 USD sent by u/unstabletable_ via chaintip.

                                  [–]unstabletable_Redditor for less than 90 days 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  There we go.

                                  [–]gsarducci 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                                  I think the only ones having an issue with Bitcoin Cash being called Bitcoin Cash are the Bitcoin Cash fanbois who insist that Bitcoin Cash is the The Most Holy and Apostolic Coin.

                                  [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                  I call it Bitcoin because I'm lazy.

                                  Then I have to explain why Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin. It's like a filter.

                                  [–]Uejji 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  I call it "Bitcoin Cash" when referring to it specifically by name but "Bitcoin" when referring to the technology, movement, etc. Though I'm usually not referring to BTC when talking about the latter (because BTC doesn't much work as Bitcoin anymore).

                                  [–]DylanKid 4 points5 points  (2 children)

                                  The real problem isn't even the name. Bitcoin cash is bitcoin, not at an altcoin. But when you mention this to anyone they think you are inferring bitcoin cash is THE bitcoin.

                                  [–]LovelyDay 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                                  1000 bits u/tippr

                                  [–]tippr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                  u/DylanKid, you've received 0.001 BCH ($1.67779 USD)!

                                  How to use | What is Bitcoin Cash? | Who accepts it? | r/tippr
                                  Bitcoin Cash is what Bitcoin should be. Ask about it on r/btc

                                  [–]ErdoganTalk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                  Probably not, but we need the bitcoin name, fighting for it is the right thing to do

                                  [–]decytv 0 points1 point  (13 children)

                                  I'm fine with it and even BCash. Hell I prefer BCash. The fight for Bitcoin name is unnecessary and almost childish. Neither BTC or BCH are true bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin is a concept, an idea. Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash are two separate implementations of that idea. BCH shouldn't be trying to win over a Bitcoin name, it should be focused on proving why it is the best implementation of digital currency idea of bitcoin.

                                  Sadly this type of post would get me banned at /r/bitcoin

                                  [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  This

                                  [–]ericools 5 points6 points  (10 children)

                                  I agree we should have just owned bcash, it's catchy quick and easy to say and is fitting since we are basically the plan B to replace cash.

                                  Yeah we're not going to get the automatic name recognition that Bitcoin has but we're not getting that anyway and we're still getting all of its baggage. The only real benefit here is that core tolls are giving us a lot of attention.

                                  edit: Downvoting for an opinion that's clearly stated as an opinion, classy.

                                  [–]cryptariatNew Redditor 1 point2 points  (6 children)

                                  "bcash" was started as a direct attack by trolls to rename the project from the first hour of the fork, even squatting the /bcash subreddit as a propaganda page. The entire industry aside a few backwater exchanges did not go along with it.

                                  By "owning" it you mean submitting to their campaign and letting them completely steal the Bitcoin name and deny Bitcoin Cash's heritage, and most of us completely disagree with that.

                                  "bcash" might have organically taken hold as the shorthand had trolls not used it as a weapon against us first, so now we fight it.

                                  [–]ericools 2 points3 points  (4 children)

                                  How it started isn't relevant, and I get that others disagree. I don't expect that to change, I think this is the only time I have actually seen someone else express that feeling and I thought I would let them know they are not alone.

                                  [–]cryptariatNew Redditor 1 point2 points  (3 children)

                                  How it started is in no way irrelevant

                                  [–]ericools 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                                  Sure it is. If we just don't take it as an insult but treat it as just the obvious way to shorten the name that it is then what does it matter how it started?

                                  As someone else pointed out here people are probably going to shorten the name anyway because that's what people do and this is the obvious way to do that. The general public will not know or care that was originally said as an insult.

                                  Why should I be offended by that anyway? Oh no, they shorted the name of a coin I like, such outrage. Who gives a crap. We should just laugh at them for not being able to come up with a better insult and use it anyway. Then what do they say? They would have to come up with a new insult I guess.

                                  [–]cryptariatNew Redditor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                                  If we just don't take it as an insult but treat it as just the obvious way to shorten the name that it is then what does it matter how it started?

                                  Because the entire thing is about trying to disassociate Bitcoin Cash as being directly related to Bitcoin. Conjecture of the future of the general public is irrelevant.

                                  'bcash' is an insult by hostile people and always was, and should be treated as such, not given any merit or teeth.

                                  [–]MertsA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                  "bcash" was started as a direct attack by trolls to rename the project from the first hour of the fork

                                  Hold up, like it or not the term bcash was first suggested here in /r/btc at the same time as Bitcoin Cash. It's used as a derogatory basically ever since then but let's not get all revisionist here and claim that they actually came up with the term instead of just embracing it. I doubt anyone would even care anymore if bcash didn't turn into a meme to piss off Roger.

                                  As far as bcash taking off organically is concerned, that's not a hypothetical, it was suggested since day one and basically everyone agreed that Bitcoin Cash was a better name. Either you recently created a new throwaway account, or more likely, you weren't here when this originally happened.

                                  bcash wouldn't even be mentioned at this point if Roger hadn't acted like a literal 5 year old and thrown a tantrum about it.

                                  [–]unstabletable_Redditor for less than 90 days 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                  I think eventually if Bitcoin Cash becomes the/a dominant crypto currency, most people will just call it Bcash. It'll be like a nickname. Like a Dollar is a "Buck."

                                  Everytime someone asks the price of something, they are gonna wanna say "that's .05 Bcash" not "that's .05 Bitcoin Cash." Just saves time.

                                  Right now, Bcash is sort of somewhat an insult. But I'm pretty sure it will become a sort of nickname eventually. Just for people's natural tendency to do such things for the sole reason of saving time/making something easier or catchier to say.

                                  load more comments (1 reply)

                                    [–]ben2d 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                    I wish more people thought like you. Maybe a lot of us do? I think there is a vocal minority that think rather highly of themselves that are hellbent on taking over Bitcoin (at least in name). It has rubbed me the wrong way since the fork. Live and let live. Let them both succeed and prosper. Perhaps in the future there will be a need for both chains. If not, one will naturally die off.

                                    [–]bch_ftw 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                    A soft fork and complete change of direction of the project while attempting to keep the name and ticker was "forced pushing." Bitcoin Cash is in fact rightfully named Bitcoin (BTC) and it should be most embarrassing for Core to be exposed as running away and doing their own thing with community property.

                                    [–]Hanspanzer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                    I also do not mind calling Bitcoin Cash "bcash". it's smooth and fast.

                                    [–]BIP-101 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                    Yes! Funnily enough I made the same post just right now ;)

                                    [–]crypto-kid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                    As long as there are multiple relevant forks, all of them need some way to make it clear which line you are talking about, as any of them can rightfully be referred to as “bitcoin” when the context makes it clear (or when the particular fork doesn’t matter [e.g. saying “I just bought $100 worth of bitcoin” to someone who doesn’t know the first thing about crypto]).

                                    As such “Bitcoin Cash” is fine w me. You can refer to any fork as “bitcoin” so long as the people to whom you are talking know what you mean. But when discussing multiple forks among people w different beliefs and ideologies (or among strangers), “Bitcoin” by itself (capital B) is ambiguous. It would be like referring to your favorite linux distro as “Linux” when comparing pros/cons of Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc—you may feel justified, but everybody else is going to be confused. To be sure, you will be sacrificing clarity in favor of a (pretty weak) political statement.

                                    [–]Thefriendlyfaceplant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                    Either way it shows that there's no consensus on how a consensus is formed. Fantastic.

                                    [–]chicken-farmer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                    😐

                                    [–]linuxkernelhacker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                    "Bitcoin Cash" FTW.

                                    [–]insanityzwolf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                    Which one is the real Korea - North Korea or South? How about the one that kept the capital? How about the one that maintains ethnic purity? How about the one with more guns? Or more nukes?

                                    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                    I think the people who care the most what it's called are from BTC.

                                    Personally I don't care what other people think about my preferred naming scheme.

                                    [–]pregnantbitchthatUR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                    Straight Cash Homey

                                    [–]ValiumMm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                    I like it being called Bitcoin Cash, good reminder of what happened. Never forget.

                                    [–]lightrider44 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                    Fight the toxic dipshits who hijacked the project and ruined the brand every step of the way. Don't let the cult of core get away with their crimes. Fuck theymos and his thugs. Resist them now and forever.

                                    [–]Dekker3D 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                    To me, Bitcoin is what Bitcoin was before the scaling debate. Bitcoin Core is what Blockstream made it after the split, and Bitcoin Cash is what the BCH teams made it after the split. I don't care if they keep those names, and even if BCH were to gain immensely compared to BTC, I'd likely still keep calling them Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Core.

                                    [–]freework 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                    I think it's best for the cryptocurrency industry as a whole if no currency calls itself "Bitcoin".

                                    In my opinion, it's more important that the other bitcoin be called something other than just "bitcoin". Call it "Bitcoin Core", or "Bitcoin Legacy" or "Bcore" or whatever, just as long as it's not just simply "Bitcoin". Calling BCH "Bitcoin (BCH)" adds just enough confusion that people will start calling the other Bitcoin something else.

                                    [–]fossiltooth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                    The vote brigading is strong in this thread.

                                    [–]Azuk- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                    Well it’s bitcoin cash. I think it’s a fine name. Why be offended when you get all the association of bitcoin and enough variation to educate someone who will ask why you added words to the bitcoin name.

                                    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                                    [deleted]

                                      [–]cryptochecker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                      Of u/d3on's last 41 posts and 482 comments, I found 1 posts and 9 comments in cryptocurrency-related subreddits. Average sentiment (in the interval -1 to +1, with -1 most negative and +1 most positive) and karma counts are shown for each subreddit:

                                      Subreddit No. of posts Avg. post sentiment Total post karma No. of comments Avg. comment sentiment Total comment karma
                                      r/Bitcoin 0 0.0 0 7 -0.02 529
                                      r/btc 1 0.0 645 2 0.09 17

                                      Bleep, bloop, I'm a bot trying to help inform cryptocurrency discussion on Reddit. | About | Feedback

                                      [–]sokoleden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                      Names are sound and smoke", it says in Goethe's Faust I. In decentralized systems, users should take over control. And the responsible people maintaining the system must be willing to give up control to the users. Users must be front and center of any decentralized system. So, when the majority of the users call a coin only "Bitcoin", just for the sake of simplicity, than it is the "real Bitcoin". Thats a very long way to go. Keep on improving your coin, put the interests of the users in front and center of all you do, and then maybe over time, a fork of Bitcoin became just "Bitcoin". But maybe, if the communities of the different bitcoin forks continue the pointless infighting, an other coin will emerge and take over the dominant position then maybe next to nobody will care about the old "Bitcoin".

                                      [–]nicetryu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                      Histrionics, calculated or not, are only ever going to erode public trust in a project and BCH has had more than it's fair share.

                                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6WHBO_Qc-Q

                                      [–]kptnkook 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                      all of this could've been set aside, if the name was jsut Bitcash. Let them have their "stor of value" - coin.. we can have bitcash which has the better roadmap. thats it.

                                      on the other hand i want to set things straight: of course BCH has a right to the name bitcoin. not just becasue it is a fork, but because it is THE fork, that was made to maintain the original vision of the coin. segwitcoin didn't just change the roadmap, they changed their whole target.

                                      but instead of giving them spam and trollfodder, we could have been "just another altcoin", that works far superior than bitcoin, because it is cash....

                                      meh, thinking about it, they would probably come up with: "see, they just copied bitcoin, and now call it bitcash! its not bitcash!! its a bitcoin copy! its BITCOIN! lol.

                                      [–]macka598 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                                      Personally i prefer the shortened name bcash. Rolls off the tounge easily.

                                      [–]HenryK81 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                      Nope. I just refer to it as bcash...so much more easier to say and just rolls off the tongue.

                                      [–]MoreCynicalDiogenes[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                      It's not that we mind it being called this or that, it's that when you hear epithets like "bcash", you are in for a bunch of inflammatory non-arguments.

                                      Nobody likes dealing with hostile people. The same can be said with any epithet. There is nothing inherently wrong with a given word, it's just that the bile that tends to be expressed when certain words are used gets associated with the word itself.

                                      load more comments (34 replies)