After all, one of the narratives is that BCH is not supposed to be used for a store of value;
Whose narrative is that? I don't recall that position ever being advocated by anyone of note. Ability to be used as a medium of exchange (MoE) certainly does not preclude ability to be used as a store of value (SoV). Indeed, there is significant evidence that MoE is necessary for any commodity to become a SoV. And a reasonable theory that any commodity that loses its MoE will therefore lose its ability to be a SoV. Which bodes poorly for BTC, unless the LN grows quickly by several orders of magnitude. |
|
|
|
You likely have your finger on the pulse of the bcash community more than anyone else here. How's everything looking in regard to the possible hardfork?
I will take the liberty to give my input.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92cwKCU8Z5cYeah... about that... I dunno, man. We seem to have at least three camps that are determined to their way or the hiway: - SV - ABC - C0bra As well as BU trying to play peacemaker, but the result of their role is misunderstood. SV and ABC each seem to have significant hashpower. This will likely lead to a split -- should each side remain committed to their cause -- resulting in two BCHs. I've not seen any evidence that C0bra has any significant hashpower behind it. Accordingly, I expect this effort to fail, and if 'successful', be result in such a minority fork that it asymptotically tends toward zero. Maybe even quickly, due to hashpower-driven chain death. Which leaves BU as the random wild card. Due to the rules of consensus, BU will follow the first chain -- SV or ABC -- to mine a majority block that contains a transaction that employs the new SV rules or the new ABC rules. That is first-in-time. Once the chain contains a transaction with either SV rules or ABC rules, it cannot ever contain a block with the other's rules. That is, subject to a majority of hashpower suddenly deciding to accept the other camp's rules, by creating a block with both's rules. Unlikely. So rather than 'Winner takes it all', unless some attitudes change, we seem to be heading for 2.1 forks of BCH going forward. Which could likely portend a dismal future. As said above, I'm hoping for a kumbaya moment. |
|
|
|
You likely have your finger on the pulse of the bcash community more than anyone else here. How's everything looking in regard to the possible hardfork?
Magic 8 ball says: "Concentrate and ask again". In all due seriousness, I really don't have a good read on this yet. I've not even finished my analysis as to which way I would like to see it go. As for my initial preferences: My first read is that I'd like to see it tend toward no block size cap (and therefore have max block size be an emergent property of the system, a la BU). I also think I like the idea of re-enabling opcodes that were in the initial release - at least as compared to enabling a new opcode. I don't see the need for CTOR either. All the above would put me in the SV camp, rather than the ABC camp. Or perhaps BU (hash power vote on each feature), or C0bra (no changes). But as I said, more analysis is required. I also hold out some hope for a kumbaya moment. However, cross-camp relations don't seem to be getting any better with time. Given that Bitmain has a split commitment to BCH and BTC, I was fairly comfortable in the hashpower battle going forward with nChain/Ayre/&co. However, with Bitmain finally successful (from all reports) with a 7nm chip, this no longer seems a safe assumption. I guess I'll need to finish my analysis, pick a side, and get involved with the internal advocacy... |
|
|
|
Full credit to Awemany. Just goes to show that not everyone involved in BCH is a criminal and fraudster.
Actually everyone involved in BCH is a criminal and fraudster. The bug was introduced in the code before Bitmain Cash fork took place. They revealed the bug because they couldn't exploit it in any other way. As HairyMaclairy said a little bit upthread -- albeit in an erroneous context -- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. |
|
|
|
Bitmain and Bitfury are most likely to deploy many of their new ASICs on their own farms, and I believe their cost to produce is way less than the price they give to the public. I suspect that most large mining farms in China will be able to recoup their equipment cost in a few months, if that long.
Hmmm. And here I thought that the WO consensus was that Bitmain was circling the drain, and were destined to kill BCH in the process. Guess that must have been a premature call. |
|
|
|
However, I really don't think BTC is going to go much below 5000 USD. After all, Bitcoin core just patched up a major bug that was present for almost 2 years, and the market responded like it was just noise.  I'm fairly optimistic we are unlikely to drop below 5000 as well. However, I don't think the market reaction to the recent bug is any indicator. After all, both problem and solution became common knowledge in the same instant. |
|
|
|
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Nothing extraordinary about this claim. You're looking foolish, BTW. |
|
|
|
I guess you didn't get the memo. The person who discovered and responsibly disclosed this devastating bug was a bcasher.
Do you have a reputable source for that statement? (eg excluding Peter R) If you are referencing the BU dev who supposedly found it, his cryptographic proof fell apart. It is time stamped more than 8 hours after the bug was disclosed. Fake news. 'Debunker' has been debunked. Taint just a river in Egypt. |
|
|
|
Yeah. What cracks me up is how all y'all jumped down the throats of BCH developers for having a core dev discover a bug in a single (of several) Bitcoin Cash implementation, which was also never exploited.
Shoe's on the other door now. #justsayin
What are you talking about? Apparently this is a several years long issue that has ramifications on any forks of bitcoin too. So, it remains a bit unclear about your supposed "gotcha." So, I don't know where you get off in some high and mighty righteous in any kind of found bug conversation. It's not meant to be a gotcha, it is meant to be an observation upon double standards. Yeah, but even if you are making a double standards assertion against bitcoiners, you are making that on kinds of strawman created implications as the ones that I already pointed out in my earlier post , and even HairyBeary posted an additional point with his question about whether a bcash developer had spotted the bug and informed the core developers of such. Of course, you could not answer because so far the spotter of the bug has been anonymous. I guess you didn't get the memo. The person who discovered and responsibly disclosed this devastating bug was a bcasher. neener neener neener. |
|
|
|
Yeah. What cracks me up is how all y'all jumped down the throats of BCH developers for having a core dev discover a bug in a single (of several) Bitcoin Cash implementation, which was also never exploited.
Shoe's on the other door now. #justsayin
What are you talking about? Apparently this is a several years long issue that has ramifications on any forks of bitcoin too. So, it remains a bit unclear about your supposed "gotcha." So, I don't know where you get off in some high and mighty righteous in any kind of found bug conversation. It's not meant to be a gotcha, it is meant to be an observation upon double standards. |
|
|
|
I wonder if the recent Core bug will move the market. It might be the worst bug since 2010, though luckily it wasn't actually exploited and is unlikely to cause future trouble.
Link or it didn't happen... hahahahahaa Edit: O.k. now I see the link, at the top of every forum page (and here for the sake of convenience), and yeah sounds like a pretty serious possible exploit that had not been known to be exploited and to make sure all transactions have 200 confirmations in the next week or so in case there is a chainsplit before a sufficient amount of hashpower is upgraded and until the situation is resolved - which they are also saying that most of the mining hashpower has already upgraded to the fix away from the bug... I am NOT technical enough to understand some of this but it sounds serious.. and funny to have something so major to just be found... Whoaza!!! Yeah. What cracks me up is how all y'all jumped down the throats of BCH developers for having a core dev discover a bug in a single (of several) Bitcoin Cash implementation, which was also never exploited. Shoe's on the other foot now. #justsayin |
|
|
|
Glad you like it guys.. I want to get back trading but just haven't found myself a spot.. It's been a while.. What do you guys recommend for exchanges a USA citizen can use? I like zero fees and some margin, like huobi was.. I didn't like coinbase so much because of the fee structure, it makes the bots so aggressive. A good exchange for someone that wants to daytrade the volatility, make many many small flips, lots of trades.. Their probably isn't anything good like that out there anymore is there? Probably stuck with coinbase using market orders and high fees  GDAX/Coinbase Pro charges zero for market makers. |
|
|
|
B52, good choice! Why isn't it lit?   Hmm... Conflicted. There are two possible ways to go with this: 1) that's a well lit B52; or 2) WTF, man. You stalking me? |
|
|
|
I like the quote. Whose words? |
|
|
|
That's clever. Though I can't help but notice that the bear bears a striking resemblance to The Oatmeal's Sriracha Bear. |
|
|
|
edit 3: The use and extent of insurance in connection with the business of holding, exchanging, or transacting in virtual currencies is not well understood. Egregious misspelling unbecoming of an official state agency report. I must be missing something... I can't find any misspelling in that quote...much less egregious. holding. hodling. umm... sorry? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MsvER1dpjM |
|
|
|
^ i think there are many cruelty's possible on the other side , why not this blue waffel thing  gotta puke by justing thinking of those pic's (goodnight has gone) sweet dreams, goose |
|
|
|
Have there been any projects working toward combining lightning and hosting data/bandwidth? Like "pay me 1 satoshi/Mb per day or I drop your data".
Even if it’s encrypted, how do you trust a third party random to reliably host your data? With enough 'third parties' (AKA storage nodes), and an erasure coding layer, this is a solved problem. How do you think Google, Amazon, et al do it? It is not by guaranteeing unlimited uptime for any individual storage node. It is by making the reliability of each individual storage node irrelevant, by employing intelligent redundancy in a layer above the hardware. Define ‘enough’ under the following constraints: (a) you must pay each member of ‘enough’ to be a reliable host and (b) ‘enough’ includes 11 year olds, Billy Bob and itinerant sex workers. a) Well, this would be part of the system design. Paying each storage node operator directly is a fool's errand. The system would allocate revenue in proportion to each storage node operator's contribution to the system as a whole. b) Again, the fact that erasure coding is applied above the raw storage layer ensures that the reliability of any individual node is irrelevant. See a) re: proportional revenues. A look at Zooko's Tahoe-LAFS may be instructive as a pattern that can be employed for the storage concepts, and a look at Bitcoin for and example of economic incentives engineering may be helpful. |
|
|
|
NY OAG 'Virtual Markets'* investigation :: Key Finding #2: Trading Platforms Have Yet to Implement Serious Efforts to Impede Abusive Trading Activity. Though some virtual currency platforms have taken steps to police the fairness of their platforms and safeguard the integrity of their exchange, others have not. Platforms lack robust real-time and historical market surveillance capabilities, like those found in traditional trading venues, to identify and stop suspicious trading patterns. There is no mechanism for analyzing suspicious trading strategies across multiple platforms. Few platforms seriously restrict or even monitor the operation of "bots" or automated algorithmic trading on their venue. Indeed, certain trading platforms deny any responsibility for stopping traders from artificially affecting prices. Those factors, coupled with the concentration of virtual currency in the hands of a relatively small number of major traders, leave the platforms highly susceptible to abuse. Only a small number of platforms have taken meaningful steps to lessen those risks. Under what pretense are any of these aspects 'abusive'? Seems like they wish to be gratuitously prohibitive of legitimate trading patterns. What am I missing here? * What a stupid characterization. There is nothing virtual about these markets. Although they trade in virtual assets, the markets themselves are very much real.
edit: Trading platforms without an effective system for verifying and monitoring the identity and location of customers cannot block unauthorized access or ensure the fairness and integrity of their marketplace. What the hell does identity and location of customers have to do with fairness and integrity?
edit 2: In contrast, virtual asset trading platforms are not currently registered as trading venues under federal securities laws. Further, customers access virtual asset trading platforms directly, submitting orders themselves. Trading platforms claim that the ability to freely access their venues benefits customers. This freedom, however, requires everyday customers to understand not only how each trading platform operates as a venue of exchange (and to understand the differences among platforms), but also to make judgments about how to monitor quickly-moving prices, select appropriate order types, place trades, and accurately monitor performance, without guidance from a professional with knowledge and experience. editorial: No pinstriped bandits required!? OhTheHugeManatee.jpg
edit 3: The use and extent of insurance in connection with the business of holding, exchanging, or transacting in virtual currencies is not well understood. Egregious misspelling unbecoming of an official state agency report. |
|
|
|
how is this shitcoin still alive
please just kill it off
CaddyshackWell-WereWaiting.gif |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
