I have my BCH on a Trezor, should I move them before 15 Nov to claim both forks?
I guess it depends upon what you mean by 'claim'. Most of mine are on a HW wallet, though not Trezor. i can access the private keys from my HW wallet. Does Trezor allow this? (I would be astonished if not). Then you can always spend your UTXO to each/both/all fork. Though some manual manipulation may be required. Maybe import into a fork-aware wallet. But you'll be able to do so. Even years hence, should you not want to do anything just yet. |
|
|
|
I don't know the name Mark Blundeberg. Is he a major Electron Cash submitter? I only ask, as a forked wallet would be an excellent way to steal the coins of unsuspecting users. Note I am not trying to malign monsieur Blundeberg. I just don't know. And this is crypto. Stay wary, my friends. Edit: Jonald seems to have some modicum of confidence in Mr Lundeberg. From https://electroncash.org/nov2018.html : I, Jonald Fyookball, maintainer of Electron Cash, have checked the deterministic Windows build of Mark Lundeberg's coinsplitter and can confirm the following SHA256 checksum reproduces on my setup:
b307b23f86aa8ec600d43686e3bf75d41ed423ea54290632d61466f8ab904656 Electron Cash-3.3.1CS.exe
I have not, however, reviewed the full set of code differences from the official Electron Cash. Though note the fact that the changes have not been thoroughly reviewed. I seem to remember that a malfeasant fork of Electrum was the way many got scammed out of their Bitcoin Gold. |
|
|
|
Did you get a source for this? I mean I think it would be just like Craig Wright to only fork off the BCH addresses of current wallet addresses...not the legacy
I can't speak to Electron Cash's implementation. (At least not yet) I think Jonald is not on the side of the SV fork. Though your hypothetical does not seem logical to me. If the SV branch does not include old addresses, it necessarily turns its back on the 'original Bitcoin' theme. SV does not include replay protection (why would they - that would also be turning its back on 'original bitcoin'), so there is the burden on the hodler to manage the split intelligently. |
|
|
|
We can end up with one, two, three, or more branches coming out of the fork date.
Is there a specific fork date, or a rough timeframe for one yet? November 15. Actually way more specific than that. Check the usual Bitcoin Cash info sources. I'm on a plane now, lacking usual connectivity, or I'd point you directly. |
|
|
|
Again...do I have to move my BCH from my BTC blockchains to its own BCH address to take advantage of the BCH coin fork?
or can the stuff all sit still piled on my 2015 BTC address untouched?
(likely I need a BCH address...just double checking)
brad
A pre 2017 August 01 UTXO should allow you to claim any and all of the forks, along with BTC, BTG, and whatever other miscellaneous fork you might be interested in. Just as in earlier forks. If you have already split your BCH, your current private keys should allow you to claim each of the upcoming Bitcoin Cash forks (if any, which seems pretty likely at this point). No need to commit to anything at this point. I may be full of shit. As always, do your own due diligence. |
|
|
|
Who could the forkers be? Bitmain or some opponent? The temporary bump in price may look good for Bitmain's books with IPO investors, but I think consensus is that the steady post-fork value will take a dent. This makes it less likely that it is a Bitmain tactic. But are there any real opponents in that camp? Serious question? You must have been offline for quite some time. Synopsis: one group wants one set of changes. Another group wants a different set of changes. Though both sets of changes could coexist, both groups are insisting upon only their changes. In the face of this, there is another group that insists on no changes. And one last group that is building a client that any or all changes are selectable a la carte. We can end up with one, two, three, or more branches coming out of the fork date. Who is the forker and who is the main chain is up for debate. See the Bitcoin Cash thread for more info. I'm still hoping for a kumbaya moment. |
|
|
|
oh god right there on my own link  craig has to trust calvin (no one should do that!) ? or are they firm buddies? Yeah... Last I looked, coin geek was at 40+% Sandbagging? |
|
|
|
Craig has hashpower? Proof? Thought it was all bluster...
Hmm. Coingeek dropped considerably as of late. Nevertheless... Coingeek 20% SVPool 7.5% Plus undeclared. |
|
|
|
So, where are those HODLers now?
Here. |
|
|
|
Is it 1:1? BitcoinCash : HardForked Coin?
It's more complicated than that. If we continue on the current path, with no reconciliation before the fork date... Bitcoin SV is enforcing one set of changes. Bitcoin ABC is enforcing another set of changes. Cobra Bitcoin is enforcing zero changes. Bitcoin Unlimited allows each user to set which specific changes will be enforced. We could end up with three, four, or even more chains going forward, depending upon who mines with which rule set. And any way you look at it, any of the forks will initially have legitimate claim to 'The Real Bitcoin Cash'. For some people's philosophy, this will mean that any of these forks will initially have legitimate claim to 'The Real Bitcoin'. Both SV and ABC are known to have significant hash power behind them. They both seem wedded to not accepting each other's changes however. This seems destined for at least a two-way split. Hopefully, everyone who runs Unlimited will configure it to accept at least one of the changesets implemented by SV or ABC. This would eliminate the 'four or more' scenario. I am unaware of any significant hash power dedicated to the Cobra path. If none materializes, there will likely be no meaningful Cobra fork. I'm still hoping for a kumbaya moment. |
|
|
|
So I am guessing that this price rise is due to the upcoming controversial fork and many want to load up on both coins. This is generally what happens with any forks, people want to profit by holding both coins and get free money essentially.
The issue here however is due to the lack of replay protection and without it, I don't see both forks surviving for long. Maybe later on eventually one fork will implement replay protection but I don't see any exchange actually allowing any deposits/withdraws until this matter is handled.
Meh. We di'n' need no steenking replay protection for the 2017 Aug fork. Some exchanges dealt with it on the ground. Other exchanges waited out the speedbump. Either way, those that planned for it made it through just fine. The coin holder always has the option of transacting in a manner that they are not subject to the vagaries of replay. |
|
|
|
Of course, Charlie Shrem should be attempting to live more discretely, especially since he had already gone to prison, and there will be presumptions against him, which could send him back to the slammer - especially if civil pursuits against him end up revealing criminally relevant information. Now he will probably need to either prove (with full blockchain trace) he had those Bitcoins before the hack or he invested a bunch of money after his release from prison AND how did he obtained the funds to do so. If he can't do that... well... It seems that the Winklevi had a P.I. on him for quite some time before suing. Oh, and I seem to remember Roger Ver and others lend/donated some funds to Shrem for his defence because he couldn't afford it. Well, no. The onus is on the Winklevii to prove that the money Shrem has been spending is rightfully theirs. In theory, at least. |
|
|
|
AFAIK black boxes protect the electronics from fire by putting them in a big wax block. You could probably do the same with your nano.
<<redacted>> Thinking about it he never should have told me that should he  And you never should have told us either. OpSec is a touchy thing. Hard to envision all the possible leakage vectors. Might wanna go back and delete that. |
|
|
|
If you believe that a band of thugs extracting what they want from you at gunpoint under color of law is in any way legitimate, what the hell difference is it if they do it based upon income or based upon current net holdings? From an ethical standpoint, it is the exact same thing.
Band of thugs and government is not the same thing. You seem to be ascribing government as if it were a "band of thugs" and then attempting to be technically correct because you are saying that the "band of thugs" is acting under "color of law." Your framing amounts to faulty logic, even though anti-government folks like to talk like that, if you are mixing up the difference between government and thugs (or at least presuming government to be "thugs"). 'Splain me the difference? If something is unethical for one person to do to another, then that thing is unethical for any group (e.g., so-called 'government') to do to any individual. For if the government gets its authority by assent of the governed, that government has no legitimate power that those governed do not have to begin with. |
|
|
|
Paying your taxes is not socialism, it's patriotism.
Submitting to organized armed thugs is patriotism... got it. Waitaminute... that ain't patriotism, it's subservience. You wanna be a patriot, how 'bout you send in a check for ten times what 'the law' says you owe. Actually, that ain't patriotism either. For it will not be going to your nation, but rather to your government. Which is not the same thing. |
|
|
|
Meh. He's just talking his book. He makes money on the churn. Price doesn't matter to him - volatility does. |
|
|
|
Yeah but... They show a balance of about $1.8B, while Tether market cap (according to CMC) is about $2.5B. For some reason, this does nothing to assuage my skepticism. mebbe you misread cmc vol is 2.5, cap is 1.7 dunce hat for u  but yeah, letter schmetter I had stale data. Corrected upthread. Nevertheless... what happened to that $700M? |
|
|
|
I usually roll my eyes when I hear "Taxation is theft", but this?
Them wanting to tax the cash in my wallet sounds crazy to me...
Yet you guys are talking about it like it's most normal and reasonable thing.
Mind-boggling.
yeah.... If you believe that a band of thugs extracting what they want from you at gunpoint under color of law is in any way legitimate, what the hell difference is it if they do it based upon income or based upon current net holdings? From an ethical standpoint, it is the exact same thing. |
|
|
|
Interesting, I think when I finally start cashing large portions of my HODLING’s I’m going to have to try & emigrate. I am not willing to pay 45% tax on what I sell.
If you're 'merkin, emigrating does nothing to solve the tax problem. They's extract it from you no matter where you be. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
