r/btc • u/dumble_hold_the_door Redditor for less than 60 days • 21d ago
bros keep telling me to switch from btc but early 2025 just proved why bitcoin's security model is superior
been seeing a lot of posts lately about moving from bitcoin to eth for "higher returns" but honestly the recent events have me more convinced than ever that bitcoin's approach is the right one
yeah ethereum might pump harder sometimes but look what happened in early 2025 - billions got drained in that massive hack. meanwhile bitcoin's network just keeps chugging along like it has for 15+ years without a single successful direct attack on the protocol itself
the complexity argument is real. ethereum's got all these smart contracts and defi protocols creating endless attack vectors. every new feature is another potential way for someone to find an exploit and drain funds. bitcoin keeps it simple - peer to peer electronic cash, nothing fancy, nothing that can blow up in your face
and don't get me started on the regulatory stuff. sure ethereum got some wins with things like the genius act, but all that defi integration means way more regulatory surface area. one bad policy decision and the whole ecosystem could get hammered. bitcoin's just digital money - harder for governments to mess with without looking completely authoritarian
look i get it, ethereum has its place and the tech is impressive. but when people say "move from bitcoin to eth for gains" they're basically saying "give up the most secure, battle-tested network for something flashier"
the tax implications alone make this tricky - switching between assets creates taxable events that tools like awaken.tax help track, but you're still dealing with complexity that hodling bitcoin avoids entirely
not saying ethereum is going to zero or anything, but calling bitcoin "outdated" while ethereum is getting billions stolen feels pretty backwards to me
am i missing something here or does the security track record speak for itself?
5
u/escapegoat2000 21d ago
Lol, they hacked a centralized exchange Bybit you dumbass.
Honestly, that is the worst argument I have ever heard, and that isn't even accounting for the $3.5 billion Bitcoin hack in 2020 that was revealed this week
5
u/anon1971wtf 21d ago
Should ETH contentiously fork, there is no energy signature, one who would want to follow "true chain" - would have to judge social media dynamics, read posts, choose which accounts to trust. Sustaining attack on ETH would require just media noise
Should Bitcoin contentiously fork, one can throw hands up and just silently watch number of zeroes in blocks flying towards him. Sustaining attack on Bitcoin would require BOTH media noise and burning energy
PoS is fundamentally flawed, think carefully about what actually did Satoshi invent
0
u/ArthurBurtonMorgan 21d ago
This. All of this.
1
u/anon1971wtf 21d ago
And it gets better:
For now, major arbiters of what would happen in both cases are CEXes and only with PoW they themselves have both plausible deniability and actual source of truth. Any CEX that wants to maximize customer base and to have the least amount of political weight would fall just on hashrate in case if Bitcoin would be under a contentious fork. But with ETH - they would be forced to engage in politics. Especially if they provide custodial staking
And, thus, with ETH - CEXes themselves become attack vectors unlike the case with Bitcoin where they could become a heavy shield from a game theoretical perspective
3
u/r_a_d_ 21d ago
While this is true, I think you are underestimating the influence the core developers and project have. Most would follow that codebase in a fork. Just like most would follow Bitcoin core.
Also, stakeholders have all interest in not causing a crisis and devalue their assets.
With that said, I agree that Bitcoin’s PoW is the more stable system.
1
u/anon1971wtf 21d ago
Possible, but I think this sub's sentiment is off. Futures were the biggest factor in first moments after BTC/BCH fork as far a I can tell. Centralized solution to contentious Bitcoin fork that quickly decided hashrate and trend
2
u/r_a_d_ 21d ago
This sub tries to pose as neutral but is a BCH shill. Thing is that while BCH may arguably be more useful for certain things than BTC. It does not follow that the value of the token is dictated by its utility. So any argument of BCH being undervalued, based on it being more useful or being Satoshi’s true vision is completely meaningless.
1
u/anon1971wtf 21d ago edited 20d ago
BCH CashFusion is fantastic for privacy for my use case, more liquid then Monero, more eyes on the software and infrastructure. No chance of hidden inflation bug, limited supply and no misguided ideological opposition to ASICs for both Bitcoin branches
Yep, my BTC:BCH ratio favors BTC as well for the inflation hedge use case
Satoshi’s true vision
I don't remember all of his writings, but he was on point with Genesis message, a brief advice "to have some just in case" and the prediction of industrial mining. Blindly focusing on title of the whitepaper is shortsighted, Satoshi is long dead and millions of people across the world made billions of decisions during these 16 years, shaping BTC and BCH today, One could use systems as they have emerged
1
u/YogurtCloset3335 20d ago
BTC has only worsened Satoshi's original whitepaper concepts. Tiny blocks and Replace-by-fee completely broke zero-conf transactions and made the network incredibly SLOW and EXPENSIVE. Segwit is a hack on top of a kludge which was supposed to make Lightning work: it still doesn't work. BTC is the Wall Street Beanie Baby for those who don't understand technical developments. Look at what other networks are doing, Solana for example is 400x faster than BTC and fees are fractions of a penny. ETH has smart contract functionality enabling Defi and tons of killer apps, BTC has garbage like Taproot Wizards fucking up the blocks and keeping fees high. So yeah.
1
u/anon1971wtf 20d ago edited 20d ago
BTC has energy signature, 800+ equivalent PoW days of $multibln globally distributed industrial hash. Would be very expensive to erase my money
I prefer it in my allocation to ETH and even more to Solana, I doubt that PoS is fundamentally secure, look up my recent comments for articulation. ETH almost immidiately started to slide down vs BTC after ETH mining has ended and economical price floor of mining on ETH disappeared
I once also thought that p2p cash aspect is critical for this stage of the market, but I was wrong, scarcity plus network effect do decisively matter, p2p cash - far less so. It was a costly mistake
Solana for example is 400x faster than BTC and fees are fractions of a penny
And nobody cares, and I predict that nobody would care for a long time. Same even with PoW BCH, same with L2 on ETH, same with dozens of private money chains. And, as you mentioned - same with LN on BTC
ETH has smart contract functionality enabling Defi and tons of killer apps
Sure, I use USDC. Doesn't make ETH as valuable as BTC for me, though. Not a killer app, just a tool in a toolbox. ETH monetary policy is horrendous, and going away from mining is a gigantic strike on its security
Apart from giving away mining and tokenomics, ETH account model has some extreme downsides vs UTXO model long-term
0
u/YogurtCloset3335 19d ago
energy signature
I see this more as a downside, BTC is incredibly inefficient for the paltry sums it transmits. Solana must be millions of times more efficient. Yes the SOL network has some growing pains but I'm starting to see the upside to their whole ecosystem.
nobody cares, and I predict that nobody would care for a long time
you mean nobody *knows* because they don't know how to use a wallet and make transactions. Young kids are launching tokens as we speak on pumpfun. It won't be long now before the next generation crypto native, they're not going to use a slow-ass dinosaur like BTC or an expensive chain like ETH. BTC and ETH are yesterday's news, being speculated on by Wall Street criminals. You'll never make money once they're involved, you're their exit liquidity.
I agree with you about ETH tokenomics and account model. UTXO is much better and still scales reasonably well.
As the global economy melts down we'll see what's what with stores of value versus uncensorable payment networks. I predict black markets will rise as government corruption reaches untenable levels. In which case payment systems should boom and speculation ends abruptly.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/Charming-Designer944 21d ago
The ByBit hack could just as well had been BTC. It was a leaked waller, not a protocol weakness.
But you are entirely correct in the assessment that BTC is superior to ETH for long term.store of value.
The two have fundamentally different goals. And both have their place.
The primary goal for ETH is to act as gas and security for the ecosystem around it. And as a byproduct it gains some value.
The primary goal for BTC is to be a form of money/value.
2
u/YogurtCloset3335 20d ago
long term store of value lol let's see how that works out for you
1
u/Charming-Designer944 20d ago
I am not worried about that.
The long term trend of ETH/BTC valuation is very clear, and have no reason to think ETH will deviate from that in the coming years.
And yes I did trade about USD $800 worth of BTC for ETH some time ago so I am good thank you. It has a well earned spot in my crypto portfolio, but for the purpose of supporting Ethereum by staking ETH, not as a store of value.
6
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 21d ago
ETH will be dead in 5 years and BTC will be dead in 10 years. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is replacing both of them.
BCH is actually the real Bitcoin and slowly people are starting to realize it. Most however will find out the hard way.
5
21d ago
[deleted]
9
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 21d ago
I want freedom money for the world, was mostly into LTC then XMR after the failure of BTC. Then I rediscovered BCH about 1 year ago and realized Bitcoin still has a much better chance to become world freedom money.
I find myself as excited about the potential of BCH as I was when I first discovered Bitcoin. I remember how Bitcoin used to work, instant and reliable. Bitcoin Cash is keeping Bitcoin alive, and the potential is massive.
Literally a second chance at Bitcoin early adoption. Thank you bankers!
-3
u/rgnet1 20d ago
You remember when bitcoin was instant and reliable? It’s always been 10 min confirmation. It’s as reliable now as it was ever… blocks never stopped coming every 10 mins.
People also incorrectly state that BTC’s original purpose was to be cash that you could also use for micro purchases and coffees. The whitepaper clearly states it was solving for a digital economy where banks were required for commerce to take place. It was never even claimed to be a hedge against debasement, that’s a side perk.
You don’t need instant micropayments for anything purchased online, at least not at a 6-confirmation style level.
BTC isn’t perfect. Nothing is. But it’s the market leader, the most decentralized,and good enough for all material value transfer between parties without intermediaries.
2
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 20d ago
You do not know history. Bitcoin had instant transactions, they are called 0 conf and they work perfectly well on BCH today,
BTC was hijacked and crippled intentionally to make sure it cannot ever compete with fiat. They introduced the RBF scam so now you have to wait for a confirmation before a BTC transaction is secure.
The whitepaper clearly states Bitcoin: A peer to peer electronic cash system. This includes all payments, from a coffee to a house.
1
u/hero462 20d ago
Blocks come every 10 min. Doesn't mean your transaction will be included if the network is trying to process more than a measly 7tps. Lol
1
u/MarbleSculptor606 19d ago
Name the Bitcoin whitepaper:
A. "Bitcoin: Digital Gold"
B. "Bitcoin: Pristine Collateral"
C. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
-1
u/SkepticalEmpiricist 21d ago
"after the failure of BTC"
You might strongly dislike BTC, or even have good reasons to predict that it will fail, but saying that it has already failed is not a good look for you
2
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 21d ago
The promise was p2p e-cash, we got a fiat pump machine. It failed.
-2
-5
u/SkepticalEmpiricist 21d ago
Please link to the BCH projects which use Lightning, or any other credible technology, to enable P2P e-money. Or show me BCH integration into Nostr
While BCH folks complain about wars they lost long ago, the winners are delivering the solutions to the problems that the BCH folks pretend to care about
5
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 20d ago
You are totally confused, BCH already works better than lightening.
BCT LN is a total failure and it going nowhere, you have been tricked.
-1
u/SkepticalEmpiricist 21d ago
Very good question.
The BCH folks are still - many years after losing the blocksize war - incapable of delivering any speed or scalability; they still refuse to implement any Layer 2.
2
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 20d ago
You need to read this soon.
Doesn't Bitcoin scale in layers?
https://bitcoincashpodcast.com/faqs/BCH-vs-BTC/doesnt-bitcoin-scale-in-layers
-3
u/SkepticalEmpiricist 20d ago
You're just like the r/Buttcoin mods
You don't have good arguments, so you think that you look smart if you put all your bad arguments into a long web page
I'm not reading that. I know from experience that it will not have anything that I haven't read a hundred times already
4
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 20d ago
"You have no good arguments"
"I will not look at your arguments"
You sound like the mods @ r/Bitcoin
2
u/SkepticalEmpiricist 20d ago
Stop arguing, and instead provide links describing the Layer 2 solutions that BCH has already implemented, comparable to BTC Lightning and the Lightning integration within Nostr
BCH has had eight years to implement and deploy such systems. It's time to show what they've delivered
4
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 20d ago
Bro, your whole conceptual paradigm is flawed. BCH does not need layer 2 because it has massive scaling capability on chain, that is why it is the real Bitcoin.
Can Bitcoin Cash scale technically to global reserve currency?
Lightning is total trash, it has been 8 years and it is only trending towards custodial use because it sucks and was designed to fail.
1
1
u/YogurtCloset3335 20d ago
Layer 2 is dead lol. You're still churning out those 2018 talking points my man
1
u/SkepticalEmpiricist 20d ago
Dead?
I've sent four Lightning transactions today, on Nostr. All instant
As I requested many times on Reddit in recent weeks, please link to the production systems today that allow BCH transactions to be as safe and fast and as frequent as today's BTC Lightning transactions
1
u/YogurtCloset3335 19d ago
Bwahaha Lightning is censorable and vulnerable to all kinds of exploits, even the lead dev quit in disgust because the spec has bugs. You can't make a viable product when your spec has bugs. Watchtowers and channel closing are a huge problem and transactions fail if they're too big OR too small. No thanks.
BCH is accepted by thousands of merchants and fees never go over 5x per transaction. Because the blocks aren't constantly full and miners can make a decent living without scamming with things like Taproot wizards.
2
u/phoebeethical 21d ago
How is bch better?
10
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 21d ago
BCH has instant and cheap transactions with dynamic block-size algorithm to make sure this continues into the future.
BCH also has an advanced VM with smart contracts which give it the same capability as ETH but it can scale.
1
u/phoebeethical 21d ago
Am I supposed to know what vm is?
7
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 21d ago
It means virtual machine. This allows for computations to happen on the blockchain. Required for apps and contracts.
1
u/pakovm 21d ago
I like many of the things BCH has implemented and I wish BTC had some equivalent, but computations happening directly on-chain a not client side doesn't seem like a good idea to me, just look at how computationally expensive EVM chains get after sufficient Smart Contract execution.
Maybe having and UTXO model solves part of this as each UTXO would be its own program, but still.
4
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 21d ago
Bitcoin was lanuched with a VM back in 2009, this is nothing new. It exists on BTC as well but it is crippled and useless.
EVM has a fundamental flaw, global state account model. It cannot scale. Bitcoin is different as it uses a UTXO model. This can scale massively.
THis video explains it well.
The Road to CashTokens
3
u/don2468 21d ago
but computations happening directly on-chain a not client side doesn't seem like a good idea to me,
Only when you have miner validated primitives can you have truly permissionless p2p cash
End users can just build solutions on top
No need to petition the Devs/Miners for consensus changes
With the above we remove the bottleneck to innovation we democratize money!
bitjson: On those typical consumer devices CPU utilization with BCH cranking out max size blocks FILLED with worst case possible transactions they should use between 1% and 10% of available CPU
bitjson: Even at 32MB blocks they can get 10x larger before they challenge the weakest plausible computers running Bitcoin Cash right now
bitjson: We are currently giving a contract author 1/100th of what we COULD given them, and our safety margin above that is another 10x
bitjson: Contracts that are written for Bitcoin Cash are going to have BARE METAL performance for these very large calculations
bitjson: We thought that the contract system was going to be slow and high overhead and the only way to get really fast stuff was to do a new special opcode just for the fast thing and that is just not the case, Satoshi's designed it to not be the case
I like many of the things BCH has implemented and I wish BTC had some equivalent, just look at how computationally expensive EVM chains get after sufficient Smart Contract execution.
VM Limits & as you point out UTXO model has 'benefits'
bitjson: In practice Ethereum developers can think of Bitcoin Cash as having transaction level sharding
bitjson: So given those fundamental realities of the architectures we have no need to carefully measure the actual computation used by each contract all we need to do is make sure none of them use too absurdly much, and most contracts can not even get close to the amount of computation that even with these very conservation limits, the only way to get close is to essentially do very large computations using big ints.
bitjson: We simply don't need to make people pay for computation as the amount we can afford to give them is just so much higher, that it is not even worth us dealing with the complexity doing that
Now factor in
The CPU of the future will be highly integrated, (think Apple MX) with many cores, 100's of GB/s memory bandwidth...
With loops the the footprint of common contracts might not be much bigger than current p2p cash Tx's (Most of the Data is Unique Identifiers, hashes & sigs, actual contract code will be looping over bytes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some highlights from bitjson's talk BCH Bull 34 of N - cashtokens with VM limits & Bigint
So that every node can validate every transaction and not use too much of it's CPU
Our safety margin for the Virtual Machine is between 10 and 100 times of what our VM uses
On those typical consumer devices CPU utilization with BCH cranking out max size blocks FILLED with worst case possible transactions they should use between 1% and 10% of available CPU
Even at 32MB blocks they can get 10x larger before they challenge the weakest plausible computers running Bitcoin Cash right now
We are currently giving a contract author 1/100th of what we COULD given them, and our safety margin above that is another 10x
Satoshi chose a numbering system that makes it particularly easy AND EFFICIENT to work with Big Integer Numbers
Contracts that are written for Bitcoin Cash are going to have BARE METAL performance for these very large calculations
By having native BigInt the complexity of that is super simple Every single BigInt library out there that is used in production does these optimizations
Lots of academics and financial institutions, lots of people are using Big Integers they are all using various libraries, some of the libraries are decades old... and our VM implementations can use those already well tested well optimized libraries
BCHN is using lib GMP which is also being used by other cryptocurrencies which do Big integer stuff, currently being tested in consensus critical places by other cryptocurrencies. It would be crazy to not take advantage of bare metal performance for math
It's amazing that we can get bare metal performance essentially out of contracts that people broadcast in transactions. That's awesome!
We thought that the contract system was going to be slow and high overhead and the only way to get really fast stuff was to do a new special opcode just for the fast thing and that is just not the case, Satoshi's designed it to not be the case
In comparison to EVM
In practice Ethereum developers can think of Bitcoin Cash as having transaction level sharding
And many of the other tools you would expect with the exception of loops right now... something which I would say is a deficiency with respect to EVM it's only applicable in a subset of contracts it's possible to build a lot of things with hand unrolled loops...
Our only remaining deficiency verses EVM (Without BCH loops) for a subset of of a subset contracts, our contract length can increase in a factorial way... contracts would get really long
We are getting really close to equivalent on the contracting side specifically
The validation side is the place where Bitcoin Cash really excels... (theoretically based ONLY on the architecture) if we are a little less precise we can allow contract authors to use 10s 100s maybe 1000s of times of computation per contract as a Global state architecture can afford to give their contract authors
On Gas (why it is not necessary for BCH contracts - touched on earlier when talking about Global state needing to take notice of every op code no matter how small it's footprint)
So given those fundamental realities of the architectures we have no need to carefully measure the actual computation used by each contract all we need to do is make sure none of them use too absurdly much, and most contracts can not even get close to the amount of computation that even with these very conservation limits, the only way to get close is to essentially do very large computations using big ints.
We simply don't need to make people pay for computation as the amount we can afford to give them is just so much higher, that it is not even worth us dealing with the complexity doing that
emergent reasons: even though there are limits that can be done (in one transaction) that doesn't limit what you can do overall... if you do happen to have a particular use case that requires a lot of computation beyond what is average you can still do that by composing multiple transactions. so it's still possible to do more complex things beyond what the limits allow
We are dealing with things that are really at their very peak optimizability theoretically, in any system that worked anything like a cryptocurrency. The UTXO model is incredibly efficient, you can break contracts systems up in ways that are counter intuitive...
You would be shocked at how many decentralized applications can be broken up into parts that are actually at a byte level more efficient to do in the UTXO model than they would be if you uploaded all the code and everybody looked at the same block of code and referenced it by a hash because the contract is shorter than the length of a hash
One of the other things I wanted to demonstrate with JEDEX there is an entire design space of contracts that are not really possible on a system that does not have access to a UTXO model, if you have to use global state there are some kind of contracts that you have to emulate the UTXO model to get them to work as well as they would on Bitcoin Cash, and no one is going to do that as no one is going to pay for the computation... and in practice everyone is just going to use L2 with multisig admin keys
0
u/SkepticalEmpiricist 21d ago
BCH is much worse.
BCH transactions are not instant, despite what some of them have claimed. Their transactions take about ten minutes to get into one block.
Bitcoin (BTC) with Lightning (or with Ark) is the only instant-transaction system
The BCH folks have refused to implement any Layer 2,(e.g. Lightning), and this confirms they are not interested in speed or scaling.
1
-2
u/Moistinterviewer 21d ago
Absolute clown, Bcash has bombed in value since inception, has no hashrate, no nodes and no adoption, Bitcoin is more likely to get replaced by fartcoin
5
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 21d ago edited 21d ago
You have no idea what value is.
The number of nodes is irrelevant. BTC has 20k, BCH likely has 5k-10k. Means nothing significant.
Even with a much lower node count BCH works 100x better than BTC. THis is called proper engineering.
-3
-1
u/SkepticalEmpiricist 21d ago
Indeed. And they refuse to implement any Layer 2, proving that they don't care about speed or scalability
1
u/bitmeister 20d ago
Bullshit. BCH doesn't need L2.
There were two ways to solve the scaling issue; increase the block size and/or develop Layer-2 solutions. BCH (and Satoshi) chose a block size increase. Since BTC chose to artificially freeze the block size, they had no choice but develop the Rube Goldberg machine that is Lightning.
L2 can be "layered" on later should it be necessary, but doing it now would only be processing masturbation. At least BCH has the trx volume necessary to allow people to get in and out of a second layer.
0
u/SkepticalEmpiricist 20d ago edited 20d ago
False
Nobody thinks that a blocksize increase, without a Layer 2 such as Lightning, is sufficient to scale adoption. No sane person thinks that a blocksize of 10 gigabytes is a solution.
BCHBTC with Lightning can onboard 100,000 new users to Lightning each day, where each of those users can do unlimited Lightning transactions every day; the Lightning transactions are trustless and instant. The onboarding cost is just one or two dollars, as that's the price on an on-chain transaction currently.As this argument has been going since 2017, the BCH folks now have only one credible approach left: show us the real systems that you have already delivered which allow the same onboarding rate, and very high transaction rate, as BTC Lightning
The time for words is over. BCH has had eight years to deliver, but they chose to debate instead of delivering
0
u/bitmeister 20d ago
Nobody thinks that a blocksize increase, without a Layer 2 such as Lightning, is sufficient to scale adoption. No sane person thinks that a blocksize of 10 gigabytes is a solution.
Nobody thinks an L2 operating on a artificially crippled blockchain is a solution.
BCH with Lightning can onboard 100,000 new users to Lightning each day, where each of those users can do unlimited Lightning transactions every day; the Lightning transactions are trustless and instant
But it can't because there's not enough block space and not enough money for the onboarding fees. If 100K users showed up per day, the cost (fees) to onboard LN users would exceed $500 each. And another $500 if they ever wanted to cash out their virtual BTC. Even at only 100K users per day, it would take 8 years to onboard 300M people (US pop.). That's a awaiting line!
As this argument has been going since 2017, the BCH folks now have only one credible approach left: show us the real systems that you have already delivered which allow the same onboarding rate, and very high transaction rate, as BTC Lightning
Huh? BCH is the system. It doesn't need a LN strap-on to get the job done.
The time for words is over. BCH has had eight years to deliver, but they chose to debate instead of delivering
Debate what? BCH hard forked. Nothing to debate.
Final words.
1
u/SkepticalEmpiricist 20d ago
So now you're just lying. That's not a good look, when most readers know you're lying.
An on-chain BTC transaction costs less than $2 currently, not the $500 lie that you just pulled out of your ass
Imagine onboarding 100,000 users each day, such that each of those makes 10 transactions every day after onboarding. After a year, that will be 365,000,000 per day. You have a simple task now: Show us the BCH-based system that can handle this. BCH have had 8 years to deliver this. BTC+Lightning have already delivered the system that can do this
2
u/bitmeister 20d ago
I will gladly let the readers judge the truth of what I say.
BCH can handle the load.
And there's nothing to stop anyone from building L2 solutions on BCH. It's just an economic fact than any L2 solution will have to compete with L1 on-chain transactions, and because the BCH L1 solution scales by design it remains cheap, killing any incentive to operate an L2 stack.
3
u/helmetdeep805 21d ago
Wow just wow…you know better eth or btc ….the winner in the end will be bitcoin
5
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 21d ago
yup, it is only a matter of which Bitcoin, my bet is on Bitcoin Cash (BCH).
The one that is actively working towards p2p world reserve currency status.
3
u/_pm_me_a_happy_thing 21d ago
Could you expand on your last point? I'm curious.
8
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 21d ago
In 2017 BTC was hijacked, so real bitcoiners forked to BCH to continue Bitcoin as a peer to peer e-cash.
Here is a good FAQ about BCH and history
-2
u/inbeforethelube 21d ago
BCH is working on P2P cash but name a single country using it as a reserve asset/currency.
8
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 21d ago
BCH is p2p digital cash here to challenge established corrupt power, it will not be a reserve asset adopted by established corrupt power.
BCH is freedom money for the people.
0
u/Available-Analyst522 21d ago
Just gotta convince 1 politician to buy BCH. And then it's too the moon on tax dollars.
3
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 21d ago
I am sure many already own some, they will never state it publicly though.
-2
u/BreakingOilburners 20d ago
And everything just because trump got his Crew spamming all over reddit that sh!t :D :D :D a few days ago no one mention that shjt
2
u/CashDragonX Redditor for less than 60 days 20d ago
What are you talking about? I am making people aware of verifiable history in bitcoin.
BTC was hijacked in 2017 and crippled, now noobs think is it digital gold when in fact it is digital cash.
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the real Bitcoin. BTC is a fake.
1
u/jaybny 21d ago
almost all of your reasoning and thoughts are in-correct - but since the refusal to stop the Lazarus hack - you are on to something - there is no reason - zero reason to risk you stack for a higher beta bitcoin. however, i wouldn't sell ethbtc either. probably recommend not "moving" .. based on the countless errors and misunderstandings in op, the risk of messing up is real. hodl eth
1
u/LovelyDayHere 21d ago
Can you explain the "security model" you are talking about, in max 4 sentences?
1
20d ago
[deleted]
1
u/rgnet1 20d ago
I love that this gets referenced. 16 years ago, and less than one year into the existence of a truly revolutionary new technology, there was a single incident. It was patched in 5 hours. The chain that contained the counterfeit transaction no longer exists and didn't exist for very long.
No incident since.
Yet well worth bringing up and poindextering someone who says "never had a successful attack." You probably also like telling people it's "fewer" instead of "less."
1
1
1
u/BlackHatButler 20d ago
It is propaganda from those who want to keep people's BTC, as an example, I go back to the abolition of the gold standard in 1972 with Nixon.
To understand why keep it you must understand Bitcoin technology and how it affects the current Global system.
1
u/Doublespeo 19d ago
If you are involved in crypto for gain you are likely taking way too much risk.
1
u/BreakingOilburners 20d ago
Btc will ALWAYS be Winner. If btc goes to Zero every other coin will because trust in crypto is fucked.
Buuuut yeah im pro eth and think this cycle will top the last fews on eth, i think there will be much investing of retail in from btc to eth when btc crashes to 100k or 88/92k.. and this time it will be massive for eth. Like last 1-3 btc cycles in one profitwise seen on a year. But we already done like 50% on eth in the last 3-4 weeks ?! MASSIVE PULLBACKS will happen but we dont get shaken out. We live this shit
0
0
u/heyzer888 21d ago
In my opinion, $WHITENET represents what crypto was meant to be fair, transparent, community-led, and built with care. I don’t see many projects living up to those ideals anymore, but this one stands out.
1
u/cryptokingdom22 21d ago
Whitenet is none of that all that is transparent is your lies trying to promote this for profit by scamming people
-1
-1
-4
u/bridashpoe 21d ago
You're not missing anything security and simplicity do matter. Bitcoin’s been bulletproof for 15+ years, and that’s not something to brush off. ETH is cool for building, sure, but that flexibility comes with big risks, as we saw in 2025.
That said, I still like spreading exposure. I’ve been watching $WHITE closely it's built like Bitcoin when it comes to stability, but designed to support real-world asset tokenization and high-speed finality. Basically, it brings fresh use cases without opening a hundred new attack vectors.
So yeah, BTC for safety, but smart to have eyes on next-gen chains too.
-5
u/Doritos707 21d ago
Stacks is the leading Bitcoin smartchain / layer2. And even that one is not even liked by many of the OGs.
Anything beyond Stacks, Liquid, Lightning you r promoting a shit coin.
Some reputable BTC related projects are Fractal Bitcoin FB CoreDAO CORE And some smaller names like BTC squared or whatever that is.
4
u/frozengrandmatetris 21d ago
liquid is extremely bad. it's not bitcoin at all and it's controlled by a federation whose members are not even public. it's a fucking consortium with a B logo slapped on it. I am begging you to please stop pretending liquid is in any way an acceptable solution for anyone.
6
u/Patrick_Atsushi 21d ago
If I recall it correctly the hack had nothing to do with underlying mechanics of the coins.