Bitcoin Bullshit Debunked: $1,000 Bitcoin Fees, Bitcoin Cash Takeover In November


Recently, I came across this little Medium turd:

$1,000 Bitcoin Fees? Could Bitcoin Cash Take Over in November?

There are no $1,000 Bitcoin fees. This article is FUD. Why would bcash take over in november, when the 2x shit is happening this very month? It doesn’t even make sense.

There is zero chance of any of these shitcoins becoming the main chain. BCH is spiralling down the shitcan. It’s a rushed coin that has shitty development behind it. Same for 2x. The 2x fork has only a single developer: Jeff Garzik. He’s half-assing 2x and he’s half-assing his new shitcoin: Metronome.

Metronome supposedly fixes the problems with all the hard forks. Hard forks that Garzik himself creates. It’s like Garzik comes along and throws a bucket of liquid shit all over your walls. Then he rings your doorbell to sell you his wall cleansing services.

Bitcoin BTC from 2009 has Core behind it. Core is a a big team of legendary developers who are known for testing for a long time, before putting it out there. They love Bitcoin and will never defect.

Some would have you believe that you can ‘fire Core’. And that they will start working for the buggy, rushed out 2x chain soon. Utter garbage. Core are volunteers. You can’t fire them, because in order for that to happen, they ought to be hired first. Which they’re not, what with them volunteers and all.

The Bitcoin BTC chain is what the Core developers support. In the unlikely event that the big blockholes manage to manipulate the market in such a way that a shitforked shitcoin will become the main Bitcoin, then Core will continue to develop the BTC 2009 chain, because that’s simply the chain they support.

The BTC 2009 chain is, has always been, and will always remain Bitcoin.

These so called ‘hard forks’ aren’t even truly hard forks. A hard fork requires full community consensus. A hard fork changes something to a coin itself. Let’s say the rise of quantum computers poses a threat to Bitcoin’s security. The whole community wants this issue resolved, or everybody loses everything. There is full community consensus. If BTC hard forks to solve this problem, then it would still be BTC. Because of the full community consensus.

The bcash and 2x ‘hard forks’ are contentious hard forks. The community isn’t jumping on them at all. They produce blocks that are invalid from the standpoint of the BTC protocol. They are therefore altcoins. They just so happen to copy the blockchain history, which is why they give you ‘free coins’. But what I’m trying to convey here is that you can argue whether bcash and 2x are even hard forks at all. They are actually just the creations of new altcoins. And an altcoin can never become Bitcoin. There’s only one Bitcoin: the one from 2009.

Miner hashrate does not determine what Bitcoin is. Miners don’t control shit. Users do. And for those of you not in the know: a ‘Bitcoin user’ is a person who runs a full node. And it just so happens that >90% of full nodes run Core software. So if miners start mining bcash or 2x, they’ll be mining a coin that’s rejected by most of the network. The 2x shitfork simply has no support.


Oh, and about that “longest chains is Bitcoin” stuff? That’s only for *valid* chains. And by valid we mean valid to the BTC protocol. BTC pays no mind to bcash/2x chains, for the same reason that it pays no mind to Litecoin, Ethereum and every other coin out there. They’re different coins and have nothing to do with the BTC chain.

A small number of corporate, hostile takeover rogues do not decide the future/fate of Bitcoin. They can only create altcoins, copy the blockchain history and steal Bitcoin’s brand name in order to create confusion.

I suspect the world has caught onto their shenanigans and won’t fall for any future shitforks.

This shit’s gonna sizzle out like a bad fart.

Wrapping It Up

With all the confusion going on, who in Bitcoin can you trust?

It’s hard to figure out on your own. It cost me half a year. But here’s your answer:

Bitcoin Good Actors – Who Should You Listen To?

Bitcoin Bad Actors – Who Should You NOT Listen To?


  1. I like your writtings.
    Now if my may put my little salt…

    BTrash and S2X are hardforks as they are not backward compatible. On top, as you say, they are contentious, meaning they don’t have much support and create a new altcoin.
    A non-contentious hardfork would as well not be retro-compatible, but as the majority agrees, the resulting hardfork becomes the main net and the one the community as agreed to leave dies as it happened a couple weeks ago on etherum.
    SegWit was a Soft Fork with Bitcoin 2009 backward compatibility.

    At least BCrash had a strong 2-ways replay attack protection which stubborn, corporate bought vicious Jeff Garzick refuses to implement and which could lead to a 51% attack if a majority of miners decide to join on the paypal2.0 S2X chain.
    On top, the criminal hacker-dev did add a signature? system letting the blocks masquarade as if the were Core BTC blocks… so they might not get rejected by Core nodes!

    Drop it Jeff Garzick and Digital Currency Group, your centralization makes Bitcoin a Company that can be shut down by Governements.

    Bitcoin is a Decentralized Protocol developped and maintained by a worlwide team of Voluntary Devs and that’s what creates TRUST and VALUE in Bitcoin.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here