bannychan123

I love bitcoin

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@nangongyuan 吴忌寒早期微博

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@xiaoshunli 快给你昂撒爹口一个

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@BiorLabs mUSD

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@wangchangfu88 你全家给洋人艹

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@yoyo__AI 快给你白人爹口一个

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@fromshanghaic 快给你洋爹口一个

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@shangguanluan 你洋爹哪个厕所有纸？

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@LMDC5288 快给昂撒爹口一个

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@MUZI19751029 快给你洋爹口一个

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@laibao29868922 @whiteTony99 你洋爹上岛叫你女儿去舔几把你高潮了

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@miren_41319 高晓松的精神故乡

[VLAD HOSTS THE BEST PODCAST IN BITCOIN @Vladcostea]

You know, I really respect bcashers for being true remnants

9 years later, even after they had 2 major community splits (BSV and XEC)

even after the lead developer left

even after market has clearly favored small block BTC

while the hashrate is ~1% of Bitcoin’s

they keep going

lots of high profile big blockers dropped their support around 2020 to embrace Ethereum

but there are still devs shipping new features and OP codes that put Bitcoin Core to shame

in spite of having fewer resources.

Never had inflation bugs, the lesser degree of conservativeness didn’t make the dev team sloppy

They even reported the 2018 inflation bug in Bitcoin, didn’t try to exploit it in a time when they could easily become destructive.

Wasabi 2.0 was inspired by Cash Fusion, many of the covenant proposals are iterations of the already available OP_CheckDataSig and the reactivation of OP_CAT.

The big blockers actually did a great job scaling Bitcoin, settling for dynamic 32 MB blocks that can be bigger only if the user pays for it, and ironically setting up much stronger foundations for trust minimized L2s. They can even run a better version of Lightning, with fewer hiccups.

Without any grants from HRF, Jack Dorsey’s companies, MIT, or mainstream financial institutions – which is probably why they were able to ship code instead of trying to find the meaning of the word “consensus”.

Bitcoin Cash did a great job scaling and making Satoshi’s codebase more useful. I wish Core would learn and try to compete instead of “bikeshedding”.

I also wish it wasn’t taboo to look at competing codebases and take the best parts. You know, like actual cypherpunks who don’t need to signal loyalty to a church in order to be taken seriously.

[Bitcoin Cash (BCH) @BitcoinCashOG]

🧠 Mid-Week Geek Out: UTXO Tokens (CashTokens) vs ERC Tokens
Why the data model underneath tokens matters more than most people realise. Let's go deep on the tradeoffs.
This builds on the excellent comparison series exploring why Bitcoin Cash's approach is worth serious attention
.
1 The Fundamental Split
ERC-20 tokens live in smart contracts. Every transfer is a contract call. The EVM executes code, reads/writes a global balance mapping, and you pay gas for the computation + storage.

CashTokens (BCH's UTXO token standard) are different. Tokens are metadata attached to UTXOs - category ID, amount (fungible), optional NFT capability + commitment field. A transfer is just spending a UTXO and creating new one(s) with updated token data. The protocol itself validates the rules. No EVM-style execution for standard moves.

One is mediated by code. The other is enforced by consensus rules on explicit ownership.

2 Fees & Real-World Economics
This is where it gets practical fast.

CashTokens fees are basically regular BCH fees - tiny, predictable, and scale with data size, not computational complexity. Fractions of a cent to a couple cents, even during "congestion." Micropayments, daily rewards, in-game items, and high-frequency settlements stay economically viable on L1.

ERC-20 on L1 is variable and often painful. Gas spikes hurt. L2s help with cost but add bridging steps, finality delays, liquidity fragmentation, and extra UX surface area.

When your use case involves frequent or small-value movement, the UTXO model removes a major economic barrier.

3 Security & Attack Surface
CashTokens shrink the surface area dramatically for basic token operations:

- Rules are part of consensus (audited once at the protocol level).
- No reentrancy risk on simple transfers - there's no code running between "check" and "effect."
- No per-token deployment, no upgradeable proxies, no infinite approval footguns by default.

ERC-20 has a long, expensive history of contract-specific bugs (reentrancy, integer issues, access control, approval exploits). Even with mature tooling and audits today, every new token contract is a new potential failure point.

The tradeoff: ERC-20 gives you arbitrary logic in exchange for that expanded risk surface. CashTokens keep the base layer minimal and push advanced logic into covenants (more on that in a bit).

4 User Experience & Ownership
This one feels different in practice.

With CashTokens, tokens just appear in any compatible BCH wallet. You send and receive them like regular sats. No manual "add token" step, no separate gas token, no approval transactions for basic sends. Ownership is explicit - you hold the UTXO.

ERC-20 UX is more fragmented: contract addresses, approvals (and the risks that come with them), gas token management, and sometimes multiple transactions.

For mass adoption and everyday use, removing those extra steps matters enormously.

5 NFTs, Flexibility & The Real Magic
CashTokens have native, efficient NFT support with low fees and a powerful commitment field for arbitrary data (metadata, proofs, state hints).

But the deeper story is CashTokens + Covenants.

Covenants let you write scripts that introspect and constrain how a UTXO (and its tokens) can be spent in the future. You can build stateful, constrained logic - DEX logic, vesting, compliance rules, gaming mechanics, etc. - without exposing the full generality (and risk) of an EVM-style environment.

It's a different philosophy: powerful but deliberately constrained, auditable, and efficient.

6 Scaling, Composability & When to Use Which
- Throughput: UTXO model parallelises validation more naturally. BCH's scaling roadmap amplifies this for token-heavy activity on L1.

- Composability: ERC ecosystem wins on mature DeFi Lego and deep liquidity today (especially on L2s).

Best fit:
- CashTokens: Payments, micropayments, gaming economies, loyalty/rewards, high-volume simple transfers, anything where L1 cost and simplicity win.

-ERC-20: Complex financial primitives where maximum expressiveness and existing liquidity matter most.

They don't have to be enemies. Bridges and wrapped assets let value move between models. Specialisation is healthy.

7 The Bigger Picture
The UTXO approach isn't "dumber" or legacy. It's a deliberate design choice that prioritizes explicit ownership, parallel validation, minimal execution for common operations, and extremely low predictable costs on the base layer.

CashTokens bring tokens to Bitcoin's core strengths while adding just enough structure (categories, commitments, covenants) to make real applications possible without reinventing a global state machine for everything.

BCH isn't trying to clone Ethereum. It's extending the UTXO model that made Bitcoin work and applying it to tokens at the protocol level.

What use cases excite you most for this model? Payments? Gaming? Something with covenants?

Drop your thoughts below. Always happy to geek out more. 👇
#BitcoinCash #CashTokens #BCH

[VLAD HOSTS THE BEST PODCAST IN BITCOIN @Vladcostea]

What's going on with Bitcoin Cash? feat. @cculianu @stevethurmond (Bitcoin Takeover Podcast S17 E26) https://t.co/QVep7TP8VG

[BCH Intents Protocol @bchintents]

https://t.co/Q7ZNMjsUci

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@wufantouzi 你真是一个文盲

[ParyonUSD @ParyonUSD]

ParyonUSD reached the 1k BCH TVL milestone today 🍾

and over a quarter million PUSD brought into circulation 🟣

check out the live protocol stats at https://t.co/vtZukEkCyG

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@RealYDT @zzjohnh 是你的贱母生你这种反思狗

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@wufantouzi 越南每周都起飞

[bannychan123 @bannychan123]

@davidgokhshtein ＄BCH