What plans are there for block explorers and electrum wallets for the new forks? The SV and ABC websites only seem to offer qt wallets. I can't find anything for everyday people, only stuff for miners and full node hosters.
Hmm. I thought the core narrative was that everyone should run a fully-validating non-mining wallet (often mistakenly called 'full nodes'). No? Say it isn't so! That said, any means of holding private keys is fine. Paper, text files, Electron Cash (though the new changes did not come from Jonald - due diligence is in order), etc. If even holding your keys is too burdensome for you, Poloniex, Binance, and others are there to fill the gap. Personally, I have private keys stashed in a number of mechanisms. And have no need to 'cash out', as it were. I'll just manage the keys until such time I find it advantageous to split them. As far as active funds... I'll be pulling my standing sell orders from Coinbase ahead of tomorrow's deadline. They have stated they are 'implementing' the fork, but they so far refuse to say if they will award t- BCH holders with both (or all) forks at t+. Meanwhile, such orders remain, harvesting the volatility. |
|
|
|
Exactly. By the chain that wins the upcoming BCH hash battle. Bitcoin Cash implementing the SV consensus rules.
The hashrate fight has not even started yet. All we are watching are preliminary intimidation movements. I would not count a winner just yet. True enough. Though if momentum be any valid indicator... Where's the ABC white knight? Is bitmain going to stop mining BTC in order to mine their fork? |
|
|
|
Or "He ... still actually has a bunch of mining capacity hidden away somewhere."
Oh. Would you look at that. Turns out that he did. Believe it when we see it. How's 2/3 of the network - up from considerable minority days ago. https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/todayOh too late! You didn't close your eyes fast enough. There is none so blind as he who refuses to see. Ok. Where do you think that hashrate increase is coming from? They were previously mining BTC? Is it leased hashpower? Well, it is a fascinating question. And one to which I have no ready answer. I can imagine a number of possibilities, but they'd all be idle speculation. It is interesting how close to a BTC difficulty change the BCH fork and hash battle is occurring however. Provocative. |
|
|
|
Can't wait until BCash SV gets forked. Wonder what they'll name it?
Bitcoin Cash. Nah, that name's been taken. Exactly. By the chain that wins the upcoming BCH hash battle. Bitcoin Cash implementing the SV consensus rules. |
|
|
|
So all of this crash was because 2 guys and some more are fighting on twitter over hash power? Ridiculous market.
This is crypto. Hash power is The Power. "They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism." - SN, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash SystemSo much for decentralization. Ah, yes. 'Decentralization'. A means to an end that many have confused with the ultimate end. And a term that appears exactly zero times in aforementioned white paper. That's ridiculous. Now decentralization is not important? That's not what I said at all. What I am trying to say is that decentralization is not the holy grail. Decentralization is merely a means to an end. Decentralization is valuable only in that it serves the ability to transact in a permissionless trustless manner. Seems like bitcoin's pow is of central importance in bitcoin
Absolutely. A principle that has never been tested in practice. A principle that is seemingly about to be demonstrated conclusively. |
|
|
|
Or "He ... still actually has a bunch of mining capacity hidden away somewhere."
Oh. Would you look at that. Turns out that he did. Believe it when we see it. How's 2/3 of the network - up from considerable minority days ago.  https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/todayOh too late! You didn't close your eyes fast enough. There is none so blind as he who refuses to see. |
|
|
|
Can't wait until BCash SV gets forked. Wonder what they'll name it?
Bitcoin Cash. |
|
|
|
But we have run out of toilet paper. And we have a very grody bathrobe. Take that thing off, willya? It stinks! What with shit all over it and everything. |
|
|
|
So all of this crash was because 2 guys and some more are fighting on twitter over hash power? Ridiculous market.
This is crypto. Hash power is The Power. "They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism." - SN, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash SystemAnother reason for my earlier claim (which I won't repeat out of respect for the thread). The days of CPU power mattering in Bitcoin mining are long gone. I don't think Satoshi really included Asics and mining centralization in his vision. So a project that actually is CPU mineable may also conform more closely to his vision. Bitcoin mining ASICs each consist of hundreds of very simple CPUs. MyHatIsTwoSharks.png And yes, Satoshi explicitly said he expected as much. |
|
|
|
I think you are way past cracked out. I like Monero as well. But I have no delusions of it being anything near closer to satoshi's vision. Make the case for me?
It's hard to have "digital cash" without fungibility. So if I can read between the lines, you are claiming that the fact that bitcoin is merely pseudonymous makes it absolutely non-fungible, and thereby absolutely useless as digital cash? Yes, mostly useless. What do you think? I think bitcoin has already proven itself to be useful as cash. Bitcoin has also already proven itself to be useful to the FBI and IRS in helping them track transactions. I'll just say that if I wanted to hide money from the tax authorities, buy contraband without physical cash, or just keep my economic activity private, I'd be using Monero. Agreed. So make the case that requirement is part of 'satoshi's vision'. Fungibility is a fundamental and desirable property of cash - even electronic cash. If Satoshi's vision was "electronic cash", we cannot have that with a completely transparent, public blockchain and non-fungible units of currency. Not bad. However... Fungibility is not a binary property. It is a sliding scale. USD are not perfectly fungible. Is USD -- even in tangible form -- not cash? |
|
|
|
Sorry maybe i will make a question that has been asked yet: if i have my bch in my trezor, after the fork i will have both of the forked coins?
Yes. As in, Trezor is a repository of private keys. I don't use a Trezor, so I've not looked into what support Trezor has implemented. If Trezor won't split them for you directly, you may have to export your keys to another mechanism in order to claim the forked coins. But no matter how you hold them, as long as you yourself holds the private keys, you will be able to claim both (or all, should Cobra or BU amount to additional splits) forks. Perhaps a Trezor user will chime in. edit: I see they have. |
|
|
|
mining PoS?
IDontThinkThatWordMeansWhatYouThinkItMeans.png I'm not very knowledgable in the technical aspect of these things, so forgive me  No problem. It was just a snarky way of saying that there is no mining in PoS. |
|
|
|
mining PoS?
IDontThinkThatWordMeansWhatYouThinkItMeans.png |
|
|
|
The market is actually betting that CW is Satoshi, basically.
Not me. I'm betting on the demonstrated hash power that SV has amassed. Why so many ignored such an obvious signal is beyond me. More grist for the 'most people are basically irrational' mill. Why you think this is dependent upon CSV being Satoshi is a mystery. I will still believe it when I see it... meaning the actual fork. This pre-fork pump and dump may be much more profitable than actually following through with an actual fork. Let's see it... let's see it. I still remain skeptical... is it 75% likely now, rather than $70% likely.. that still leaves a 25% chance that such stupid ass fork won't happen. Hmm. I had been hoping for a kumbaya moment. But now that it seems clear that ABC will the minority fork -- to the point where it becomes an economic non-factor -- I am happy for split to occur. I quite prefer the structure of SV over ABC. What with it being essentially 'the original bitcoin minus some coding errors'. So SV adopts the mantle of The Real BCH as a stepping stone to eventually becoming The Real Bitcoin. Cool. I can live with that. |
|
|
|
I think you are way past cracked out. I like Monero as well. But I have no delusions of it being anything near closer to satoshi's vision. Make the case for me?
It's hard to have "digital cash" without fungibility. So if I can read between the lines, you are claiming that the fact that bitcoin is merely pseudonymous makes it absolutely non-fungible, and thereby absolutely useless as digital cash? Yes, mostly useless. What do you think? I think bitcoin has already proven itself to be useful as cash. Bitcoin has also already proven itself to be useful to the FBI and IRS in helping them track transactions. I'll just say that if I wanted to hide money from the tax authorities, buy contraband without physical cash, or just keep my economic activity private, I'd be using Monero. Agreed. So make the case that requirement is part of 'satoshi's vision'. |
|
|
|
Or "He ... still actually has a bunch of mining capacity hidden away somewhere."
Oh. Would you look at that. Turns out that he did. You don’t like theymos much, do you? LOL Relevance? Never met theymos, so I don't have any basis upon which to like or dislike him or her. I was just pointing out that theymos' blanket statement was erroneous. Anyone can control bitcoin if they have enough money and the desire to do it. But who is stupid enough and has that much money to throw away? hash power=money.
In my experience, stupid people rarely amass much money. Lacking knowledge of the contrary, I would venture to speculate that an incidence of a stupid person amassing enough money to steer a $100B market is unprecedented. Just some of the things you’ve said in the past. Maybe I should change that to “agree with him” instead of like. Yes, it’s almost impossible to control $100b market by purchasing btc directly. Hash power is a lesser figure. Still tons of money but not $100b. Stupid people don’t amass much money? Have you heard of Donald Trump and Paris Hilton? Both born into it. What's your point? |
|
|
|
So you back the SV camp?
I have a slight preference for the SV branch of the fork, this is true. Emergent consensus on the block size, restore the original opcodes, eliminate churn of pie in the sky, dev driven, so-called 'innovation' with no proven value (more properly, 'lets throw it against the wall, and see if it sticks'). Check. I could have lived with the ABC fork, probably. At least it would be free of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset trojan. But what with 'benevolent dictator' calling for preparing an emergency PoW change... just no fucking way. Personally I think Monero is much closer to "Saatoshi's Vision" than anything CW has anything to do with...
I think you are way past cracked out. I like Monero as well. But I have no delusions of it being anything near closer to satoshi's vision. Make the case for me?  Complete lack of a rebuttal duly noted. |
|
|
|
So all of this crash was because 2 guys and some more are fighting on twitter over hash power? Ridiculous market.
This is crypto. Hash power is The Power. "They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism." - SN, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash SystemSo much for decentralization. Ah, yes. 'Decentralization'. A means to an end that many have confused with the ultimate end. And a term that appears exactly zero times in aforementioned white paper. What would be the meaning of "Peer-to-peer" ? Transacted without need of middleman. |
|
|
|
I read somewhere that the original satoshi opcodes will be enabled during the upgrade,
Yes. and using those opcodes CSW will be claiming the satoshi bitcoins.
No. If CSW claims the satoshi bitcoins, it would be only because he has owned them since years. The re-enabled original opcodes make no difference to any ability to do so. I dont think this is a bluff, just look at cash.coin.dance
As observed above, CSW has always been able to pull enough hash out of his back pocket to advance his goals. Don't know how he is able to do so, but it is certainly provocative. Agree - this does not seem to be a bluff. They have the least amount of nodes but the most hash rate.
Well, we already know that counting on nodes to drive nakamoto consensus is akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight. At last we shall see this principle demonstrated. All the reading and research I've done is telling me this is not a bluff. I truly believe we will see the end of all alts in the near future, and the flippening of BTC to BCH after.
Isn't it exciting? |
|
|
|
the plot thickens: Jihan is reported to have said a few hours ago regarding the BCH fork, "I have no intention to start a hash war with CSW, because if I do (by relocating hash power from btc mining to bch mining), btc price will dump below yearly support; it may even breach $5000. But since CSW is relentless, I am all in to fight till death!"
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
