Profile overview for germinator.
Submission statistics

This user made no submissions.

This user has so far shared a total of 0 links, started a total of 0 discussions and submitted a total of 32 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 15 and downvoted 0 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 21 and downvoted 0 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

This user made no submissions.

5 lowest rated submissions:

This user made no submissions.

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

BREAKING NEWS - Jeff Sessions has been FIRED BY TRUMP!!! submitted by punacare to news

germinator 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago

I did not look into this Qcrap till recently, but why would this change people's opinions on if they should "Trust Sessions" or not? Maybe its one of those things that you have to have read all of the messages? Would this change anything about the sealed indictments?

"People Have Panicked" - Crypto Collapse Accelerates, Bitcoin Plunges Towards $4,000 submitted by One-Way_Bus to news

germinator 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago

I think it is hard to say. I lean more to believing the opposite. BCH is the original bitcoin. I believe the hard fork of BCH (which created what we now call BTC) was meant to kill off cryptocurrencies. Hard fork, large pump, strong media push, and dump to cause FUD.

Whether or not either stick around for an extended period of time is hard to say. But the technology of "blockchain" is certainly here to stay.

World Record - Super Mario Bros in 4:56.878, the first sub 4:57 acomplished by a human submitted by Woobly to gaming

germinator 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago

The 4:57.02 is from the player timing the game; probably hitting a foot pedal to make the splits. Someone has gone back through the video and timed it more accurately.

3 lowest rated comments:

"People Have Panicked" - Crypto Collapse Accelerates, Bitcoin Plunges Towards $4,000 submitted by One-Way_Bus to news

germinator 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago

Roger Ver does seem kind of like a salesman, I agree. His personality does not invalid the technology running Bitcoin Cash.

he's only capitalizing on the name recognition and trying to trick people

This could be a possibility, but again, I believe the opposite. It is what we currently know as BTC that is trying to trick people. Adding SegWit to the original chain, causing the fork, that was a mistake. I am not sure how you can say BCH is trying to "capitalizing on the name recognition" as it was the original; if anything that should show you that what is currently BTC is actually the one trying to capitalize on the name.

Either way there is a lot of misinformation on all sides.

"People Have Panicked" - Crypto Collapse Accelerates, Bitcoin Plunges Towards $4,000 submitted by One-Way_Bus to news

germinator 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

Bullshit: Bitcoin Cash is a fork of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the original.

Bitcoin Cash is the original chain. You see, there was one chain. Then there was this terrible idea to add "SegWit" to the blockchain. At that time, some developers realized this was an issue. So, instead of following that bad path, they decided not to implement the changes and continue on the route they were previously on. The new route is what we now call BTC and the original route is BCH.

Does that make sense? Lets say that you have a chain starting at the origin. Now keep adding more and more blocks, you are heading in a direction. Then at some point a group of people decide that they want a new feature. They add the feature and try to force everyone to use/maintain it. They are trying to update/change the original chain. A group of people decided they did not want those changes, so they continue on their way on the original chain. A new chain is hardforked from the original chain. That is what has happened with Bitcoin. I am stating, the addition of segwit to the original chain is what caused the hardfork. The chain that did not get any modifications is the original chain. In that case, BCH is the original because it did not implement the segwit updates. The chain with segwit forked from the original chain, the original chain continued on it's way.

Check out https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Publications/nistir/8202/draft/documents/nistir8202-draft.pdf section 8.1.2

Also, I am open to change my opinion on this issue. Please explain your position.

"People Have Panicked" - Crypto Collapse Accelerates, Bitcoin Plunges Towards $4,000 submitted by One-Way_Bus to news

germinator 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

I think we are very similar on our view but the final perspective. Let me adjust your example:

Imagine I make cars. I make a car named "SuperCar". Years go by and SOMEONE ELSE comes in and takes all of my previous work and adds a spoiler (worth very little). Then they try to stake claim to all previous work including name/branding. SuperCar is still the original car. The new care SHOULD BE NEW_NON_SUPERCAR is a fake SuperCar using name recognition to sell the SuperCarCash, SuperCar still exists.

The difference is mainly how we interpret: "Someone comes along and says "hey I don't want this new engine" and builds a new car off the old car and starts a new company and calls the new car "SuperCarCash".

It was the new BTC that came in and said they wanted something different. They were the ones who took the name/branding, they are the ones who should have gone with a new name. They are the ones with the mass media behind them.

Of course the comparison to cars does not quite fit. We are talking about a blockchain techonology. A large immutable data source with strict definitions. Changing the definition is what caused the fork. The chain with the new additions is the FORK, it is not original.

This same issue has come up again with the forks of BCHABC and BCHSV.