WTF is wrong with Corey.
@MrHodl He's shown that Bcash is a joke and cant be trusted, and that Core devs CAN be trusted.
Don't fret. From what I heard, sometime in November, there is a team planning to send a full 32MB block through Bcash. Just to verify it's capabilities. That should do it.
@MrHodl Apart from being obviously the right thing to do ethically, I also think that people are a bit ridiculous about bugs.
As if catastrophic bugs ever killed a cryptocurrency, I mean think about it. That's not how they die.
I've always hated the narrative "Bcash/Unlimited/Classic etc. is shit because bad devs", because it implies that if you replace with good devs then it's great.
@waxwing is it really ethical to help BCash in anyway?
I understand why you ask, but I'd say yes. Because however badly judged a decision to buy Bcash might have been, people don't deserve to get their money literally stolen, which is a very real possibility in that case.
I'd be OK with a "I won't tell them the vulnerability" position, but I wouldn't be OK with a "use this exploit against them" position. But overall I think the disclosure is the better decision, than either of those two.
There are two ways people will lose money: I think the first one (in chronological order) will be because of a bug. Then because the project won't work and the price will collapse.
I think it's your fault if you invest in bcash and then the price collapses, so I would like to "save" people mostly from the first point.
@waxwing I get where you coming from. Personally I think many more people will lose their money the longer the project stays alive.
@waxwing @MrHodl I agree on the ethics part but on the other subj, would great devs want to work on it? I think there is something implied here, i.e. that bcash is badly designed, gives up on censorship resistance, etc because of bad designers (devs) and no good devs would want to work on something broken by design. the code itself up to the point of forking is OK, it's the changes afterwards and implied reduced PoW what the devs are blamed for IMHO
@verretor @harding @MrHodl i think that's a tribalist mindset, fixing that bug non catastrophically gives people information to sell on a rational basis in the most inclusive way, whereas destruction of the value in the chain punishes the least informed. i can't really argue against the dumb poor again meme, but i think that is better done by at least giving people opportunities to make better choices
@harding It keeps the scam alive for a bit longer? The people invested in BCH will lose their money regardless.
The people helping this chain stay alive are just exposing more new people to getting scammed.
@harding I wouldn't disclose but i also wouldn't exploit the vulnerability.
@harding Would you help Bitconnect scam if you found a vulnerability?
@MrHodl @harding This is the correct and unfortunate analogy. The longer society papers over and postpones dealing with fruad at a systemic level, the bigger the eventual and inevitable losses becomes. Just like the ponzi leaders in Bitconnect got enriched by the greedy/ignorant/uninformed/uneducated latecommers, Bitmain, Roger and Craig W is milking the Bcash evangelists. It makes us feel like the bad guys for seeing the inevitable losses unfolding. Fuck Bcash.
@harding interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks.
@MrHodl Don't worry about it. The BCash developers are completely incompetent and they will no doubt make other bugs.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!