Sad to see how people are willing to exchange real value (privacy) for a few bucks. Anyway I respect that there are other views (big blockers) which are probably not compatible to each other. So that divorce happening now might be helpful to get rid of friction. Nothing wrong for people to go their own ways.
I have at the moment more important problems to solve ( more will be public soon) than to worry if Bisq should be part of a new form of altcoin bubble or not.
I am sorry but I did NOT create Bisq to serve gamblers to make quick money but to give people who care about privacy and the game-changing potential of Bitcoin to change the world an opportunity to have a gateway to the Fiat world which does not expose them to financial surveillance.
Support a coin which clearly has a very negative side effect (you also can see it as intention) to weaken that privacy conflicts with my values.
But giving attention to BCH gives it value and knowing that most will not lose only their own privacy but reduce the anonymity set of all Bitcoins UTXO and therefore weakens its fungibility should be reason enough for people who care about Bitcoins future to leave those few bucks and ignore that noise.
Those who are selfishly taken the opportunity to make a few bucks are creating damage to all others including me and I think that is a bug in the system, where free markets are not a solution but a part of the problem. There is a missing feedback system where people get confronted with the results of their activities. There is nothing like an isolated interaction but all is interconnected and has larger consequences.
Of course I donāt ask for regulation when saying that free markets have limited utility for certain aspects, just that it is an unsolved problem. So far ones ethical standards can serve as a regulation to not be like a wheel in a machinery easy to manipulate by simple putting a carrot in front of the face.
I did not know that Stellar/Lumen story. Real crazy and a good sign how little value is in most of those coins. As they never have been traded anyway I will remove them.
I am not sure if you understand what I was referring to. I donāt have the time to write it up more in details as I did it in the various linked reddit posts. Try to re-read and think about what happens if 50% or more or the UTXO get merged or connected with real lief ID at exchangesā¦ MIT chainanchor [1, 2] was one approach, but seems they get cheaper what they tried to achieve, by simply playing with the greed of the people. Really disappointing that even in the Bisq community there is not more awareness of such.
Iām more disappointed to see this post full of inaccuracies and judgemental loaded phrasings in a thinly veiled attempt to make a purely political decision look like it was based on technical or otherwise inevitable facts. I would have had more respect for you, Manfred, if you had simply come out and said āIām not adding it because Iām in the small-block / Core camp and consider Bitcoin Cash our enemy. Period. Deal with it.ā
Reading complaints of āunprofessionalā and āunethicalā behavior, which are not only debatable but also freely intermingling the actual currency with independent wallet and exchange providers, all while you readily support a long list of seemingly every alt under the sun, some of which Iād consider much more unprofessional and unethical than Bitcoin Cash, makes you look hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, Manfred.
I came here to see when I could buy BCC via Bisq. Doing so, I take strong exception to your characterization as a āgambler to make quick moneyā. I see Bitcoin Cash as carrying on Satoshiās original vision of a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, while it is Coreās vision of a limited-throughput settlement layer for off-chain solutions that arguably changes Bitcoin into something very different from what I had enthusiastically embraced several years ago. As such, I believe Bitcoin Cash has a bright future. Iām in it for the long run and looking forward to more mainstream adoption and the day when I can buy things and pay bills with it. You may disagree on that, but I can tell you with absolute certainty, that no one in the Bitcoin Cash camp āhas the goal to hurt Bitcoinā. That is not what Bitcoin Cash was created for and by saying such things you put yourself on the same level as a pitiful Reddit troll. I had thought more of you, Manfred.
The question for me is āWhat now?ā I still want to stock up on some more BCC/BCH (I donāt care what ticker itās listed under). I also still want to do it in a decentralized, more private way. But no dice. The only decentralized exchange with volume wonāt let me for silly political reasons. I could just go to a supporting traditional exchange. There are more to chose from every day, even Coinbase changed their stance recently.
Maybe this decision should be reconsidered? IMHO it only helps BCash and supports itās price because it makes dumping more difficult and dangerous. The reasons given can be turned to the opposite. Not listing BCash hurts the users because they have to go to some crappy centralized exchange.
They donāt have to. Anyone is free to ignore it and preserve their own privacy and the anonymity set of all other Bitcoiners.
Beside that, we have clear rules which need to be fulfilled to add a new coin and none of the major points have been met so far.