Hi, I wanna know, if bitcoin would split, and if you would ahve a short in any exchange like kraken or coinbase, during the split, how would u close laterthis position, ? would you need to rebuy the both chain ? or only one ? im not sure to understand that, thanks for your help (i just short to hedge my btc in wallet)
I can't remember where I read about this but you end up short both coins. You need to check with the ppl who lend you the coins you short |
|
|
|
What about Tether USDT. Could it be the ultimate safe-zone? Any tether can be exchanged in BTC available during a dip. Just saying, it's there for everyone to use.
I used tether during the last bitcoin fall and it worked fine for me. Never off more than 1% from cash |
|
|
|
What will happen to Bitcoin price after hard fork? will it get split in value?
if one bitcoin is $2700 after split btc= 2200 bcc= 500 something like that maybe please enlight me
My forecast after split: BTC -> 2700 (or spike higher because of post Aug 1st euphoria) BCC -> 300 -> 100 -> 20 -> 1 -> $0.10 (within a week or less) I don't have a crystal ball so it's all speculation obviously |
|
|
|
LOL , then great, you can judge me because I am only a newbie here. WOw bravo ! . Funniest joke ever!
It's an ego thing for the gamer types. Don't pay too much attention  |
|
|
|
|
No clue. For me Aug 1st is a non event but lord knows if or how the market will react. Slow grind down or sharp shoot up idk.
Crunch time is in a few months: will Core agree to work with the rest of the community and let bitcoin scale on chain from now on? Or will it keep strangling bitcoin to impose it's own non bitcoin solution on the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Bittrex has resumed deposits and withdrawals. If you look at your Bittrex account, you will see that next to the BTC deposit and withdraw buttons there is some information telling you that they will now require 6 confirmations to credit your transaction due to network disruption. I have like 80% value spread to different altcoins, that are in my bittrex wallet.
What would be the safest way to go forward?
Altcoins are irrelevant. The chain splits that happen in altcoins are not related to what happens in BTC. Or are my funds safe even If I just keep them on my bittrex wallet as they are?
Altcoins are exactly as safe as they've been the rest of the time that they were on Bittrex. When not trading you should always keep your coins off exchanges, but I don't see how an event in BTC affects your altcoins. If anything there's probably less chance of being hacked with your coins on bittrex than on your own computer wallet. Better security, particularly if you use two step authentication. |
|
|
|
Current majority of Bitcoin users supports Core, so it's not a problem if they have some influence.
That is not true, you should refrain from making this statement. A few thousand users use the free bitcoin desktop client but that does not mean support for Core's reckless actions. Tens of thousands or more use bitcoin accounts on exchanges or via web wallets so even those desktop users don't mean much. What there is is a small minority of very loud and generally abusive people who keep misleading, threatening and abusing those who dare to express their valid concerns about Core's behaviour. I think we do not know the exact picture of what is happening now in the society of miners. Those news that sometimes appear do not bear the truth. We can only wait and hope that bitcoin transformations will pass quickly and imperceptibly. We can say that bitcoin is controlled by miners In view of the last few years we can only say that bitcoin has been controlled by Core. Miners are a large group in the community, but not in control. Despite all the misinformation we have been subjected to, in the bigger world of cryptocurrencies and finance, miners are the underdogs. |
|
|
|
As for centralisation, let us see who invested in Blockstream, the company that employs the people at the top of Core's hierarchy: Axa. Axa, one of the largest FIRE companies in the world, putting the likes of Goldman Sachs to shame: Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the worldhttps://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/Axa is fourth in the list. As a typical finance company, it is not interested in the level of the currency, but in the amount of economic rent in can extract from the network every year... fees is where the big money is made. Some decentralisation |
|
|
|
Current majority of Bitcoin users supports Core, so it's not a problem if they have some influence.
That is not true, you should refrain from making this statement. A few thousand users use the free bitcoin desktop client but that does not mean support for Core's reckless actions. Tens of thousands or more use bitcoin accounts on exchanges or via web wallets so even those desktop users don't mean much. What there is is a small minority of very loud and generally abusive people who keep misleading, threatening and abusing those who dare to express their valid concerns about Core's behaviour. |
|
|
|
|
I chose other. I bought some to have a stake in it and keep me interested.
|
|
|
|
1. It is not true. That is one of the many lies and misdirections spread by Core developer backers.
With this issue I've had no actual evidence given to me by either side, so I've chosen to ignore ASICboost in general. I agree that's the thing to do 2. BIP148 as originally intended was a reckless move by the Core developers that threatened to destroy bitcoin on Aug 1st.
BIP 148 was not created by Core devs, nor was it supported by all of them. Some even considered it "reckless". Personally, I consider both UASF and BCC to be radical movements which don't have real consensus. Some more serious developers were against it but BIP148 was presented as a change supported by the Core developer faction. I agree, both deserve to be seen for what they are: minority factions trying to force their agendas on the comunity 3. A relatively small miner, ViaBTC decided to do a hard fork to a coin that incorporates the original Satoshi bitcoin design that had unlimited block size and no segwit. At this point the ViaBTC initiative should be irrelevant and of no consequence
Even ViaBTC can't dedicate all of their hashrate to BCC, because they're a Bitcoin mining pool. I can't fathom why they thought it was a good idea  |
|
|
|
The following points does sound logical to me, but maybe not from another's person's perspective. 1. I have read that ASICBoost (covert) was the main reason (I am not sure if there is any truth in it) Bitmain was against Segwit. 2. BIP148 proposal and to activate it on August 1 has to be one of the main reasons Segwit2x was deployed before July 22, obviously a split would be chaotic to the whole community. 3. Bitmain's UASF contingency plan was UAHF. Only if Segwit2x fails and BIP148 is deployed then there would be an UAHF. So now it looks almost certain that Segwit would be activated through Segwit2x then what is the point of UAHF on August 1? There is a possibility of hard fork in November, big blocks, understandable. 4. Bitcoin ABC is a full node implementation of the Bitcoin
protocol. We have removed the controversial SegWit code The thing here is ABC doesn't want Segwit, maybe because of point 1. And not agreeing with the current turn of events/consensus and forking off is what altcoin does. 5. I personally don't agree with this premined and frozen BTC stuff, looks a bit fishy. 6. Nash equilibrium, no player has anything to gain by changing only his own strategy. Is UAHF a player in this game? If so then UAHF is a change in strategy, maybe for a short-term gain or like you aptly said to reuse of the expensive ASICs, no big block sentiments here, avoid Segwit for the sake of ASICs. 1. It is not true. That is one of the many lies and misdirections spread by Core developer backers. 2. BIP148 as originally intended was a reckless move by the Core developers that threatened to destroy bitcoin on Aug 1st. BIP91 was a last minute move with compromises designed to achieve some kind of consensus from the overall bitcoin community. Core irresponsibly decided not to join in that consensus 3. A relatively small miner, ViaBTC decided to do a hard fork to a coin that incorporates the original Satoshi bitcoin design that had unlimited block size and no segwit. At this point the ViaBTC initiative should be irrelevant and of no consequence 4. The name is Bitcoin Cash (BCC) and yes 5. No premining is taking place. The frozen coin device is to enable immediate trading in BCC futures on the ViaBTC exchange. It's a temporary trick with very little practical relevance to anything other than the trading of BCC futures |
|
|
|
Lol
LN or bust
Bitcoin needed many years now to be seen as safe. Forget about LN first years live running... I know No matter how valid the LN approach maybe, if the answer to 2mb is no, Core/dev and their backers are being reckless |
|
|
|
I bet Coinbase will take BitcoinABC or BitcoinCash and dump it if they really plan to hardfork just like what they did with ETC  I suspect this is it, the dumping being more the objective than the stealing of customers assets that enables it. Aren't they owned by the same company that owns Blockstream? Either way I wonder who would be dumb enough to stay with such an unreliable exchange after that  |
|
|
|
If BitcoinABC gains some very small traction lets say it hits an exchange at $100 BCC/USD, would you sell your BCC or hold on to it for the future incase it overtakes the Bitcoin Core ? I think we all sold our ETC when it magically appeared on Poloniex and we basically considered it as winning the lottery since we still got to keep our ETH and the ETC was a free bonus. However we all sold it very cheap and if we were patient then we would of gotten almost the same value as ETH during the split ($15 ETH/USD). So lets say we sell our BCC very cheap. And then in 2-3 years, after all the bugs get sorted it it eventually overtakes BTC. And when it overtakes BTC might become lower than BCC. Another issue with this is the BTC payments we receive AFTER the fork. Lets say we decide to hold BCC. But any payment we get after the fork, we will only get it on the main Bitcoin Core chain. Then in 2-3 years, when BCC over takes BTC, we won't have the difference in BCC since it happened after the work. EDIT: You can sell your BCC coins now actually https://www.viabtc.com/convert/bccIf it can stay above 1$ after a week I'll buy some |
|
|
|
I love this project, this is what bitcoin is supposed to be all about: the community. !!!
This is not about the community. It's all about the miners. The community dont support the raise of the blocksize. It is not healthy for the decentralization Yes it does at least in part, stop speaking in the name of the bitcoin community, you don't represent it. |
|
|
|
There is still be hard fork. So not get too optimistic
If you mean BCC, I don't think it will have any impact on bitcoin price |
|
|
|
If anyone had any suspicions (like me) about the power of the full validating nodes before, I think it should be clear now.
Full Node Power = Hash Power
That's why we need to stay with small blocks and don't let miners to take this power from the users. They already have the power of hash rate. They produce/manufacture their own hardware, and whether they choose to sell them or mine with that hardware themselves depending on the price/profitability. That's a huge power to start with. That's the power of market manipulation.
And on the top of that, they have the power to vote with their hash rate but it is not as powerful as they wanted it to be.
As the recent events showed us, hash power without the support of full validating nodes don't mean shit.
Long story short; If you want to have a say in the bitcoin's future you don't have to buy miners (you can but you don't have to), run your own full-node and remember, if they increase the block size, you won't be able to run one without spending 20k$ while you can do it with a RPi3 now.
Running a full node does not mean supporting Core's actions. As it stands I run a full node but have very little confidence in Core. I suspect a lot of node users are the same, using the free software but with no intention to equate that usage into support for what Core is doing |
|
|
|
LOL. That article is full of it. They will just halt deposits/withdraws on Aug 1st in case there is a split. So, Bip91(softfork) = chain split?  The signaling of BIP91 has the purpose of avoiding the chain split which already had the majority of the hash. Forget about BIP148 that related to the UASF. I think that you must forget about the chain split and stop to make another member or holders are feeling panic caused by the word of chain split.
OP, Have you read the statement by theymos from the article that the link already mentioned in above of the homepage? Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but on top of BP91 BP141 et all which are going well, there is a minority who have decided to hardfork an 8Mb version of bitcoin on Aug1st. They've called it BCC (Bitcoin Cash). It's a minority initiative that won't have much impact if any, at least in the short term. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
