tempted to buy a tiny bit of bcash at the current price i dont have much faith in but i dont think it will hurt
BCH has real supports of big mining farms and big traders. I think soon the this coin will receive more facilities support. Yes, big industry seems to be stepping in. Before that, some big guys are reducing the free float massively that is creating a stronger scarcity as in segshitcon. And with lot of fiat IPOs the future business case seems to be straight forward. The most development is in Bitcoin Cash and so is the most hate from a few perma-haters. |
|
|
|
fuck
Yeah, fuckin four days of dojis. Please rip the band aid off!  (@instabot) #Nikeknows #smellslikevictory Yeah, I have buys in that price level, even in the $3k level. But the problem is: everrrryyybody is also waiting for that so-called capitulation candlestick. In any case, I already bought some at $6,800. Maybe some of the answers to my questions are obvious, but I am not sure what you are saying. What kind of odds are you giving to your downwards dip scenario (maybe down to $5,400)? Greater than 70%? Your down scenario is not as bearish as other peeps? Why wouldn't the price go below $5k, once it breaks below $5,700? We have already seen close to $5,700 a few times since early February, no? Did you buy some BTC in the $6,800 range recently, because the BTC price has been quite a bit below $6,800, recently, too. Has your buying been at various price points along the way? Did you buy more above $6,800? Have you sold some, too? Was the reason for your buying BTC in the $6,800 range because at the time of your purchase, you were not sure if the price was going to go down further? And, was the reason that you did not buy below $6,800 because your lower buying target prices have not been met yet? I ask because we all know that we have have had several BTC buying opportunities in the past more than six months of below $6k (starting from the beginning of February). RE: Odds - crashes from parabolic crashes tend to overshoot 0.786 fib correction (check Nasdaq, Shanghai, Dot com crashes). No selling yet since I'm still not done buying. I'm ready to buy higher too if Bitcoin breaks out of 200day moving average which is around $7,900 now. 
How come you bought some at 6800 when you foresee 3k level?
It's called scaling-in Or correction exhausted |
|
|
|
If ppl want Bitcoin to be different from cash:  |
|
|
|
Bitmain switches all it's miners over to bch and starts buying bch with the IPO money, the momentum would shift dramatically, some Bitcoin core die hard supporters might go down with the ship, but the vast majority of crypto investors don't treat the 2017 scaling war like a religion, they'll just follow the herd when it's obvious the flippening is first possible, then probable, then actually happening
I interpret this recent bitmain document release very differently, it shows bitmain will likely have a war chest of all three resources they need to achieve their goal sometime soonish; bch reserves, IPO cash, miners ... I think bitmain is in a very powerful position now, I see dudes like Jimmy Song trying to spin bitmain as having failed at a peg in his videos, but imo bitmain will soon have everything they need to manipulate the price to something close to parity, and even if it's not popular at first, fear will take over enough traders already suffering big losses from the bear market, and bingo, the herd moves to bch.
The bitmain finances show they are serious, there's just not enough financial backing on the other side with the same level of skin in the game, the big traders just want to make money, they're not emotionally attached like zealots on this forum, they'll move their money to the Bitcoin version that has price support and mining, and the bounty bitmain will reap from the accumulated bch could make them a trillion dollar company sooner than many think, a powerful incentive to go all in for the flippening.
Fascinating times! Once it starts the early movers make money when they convert at the expense of those who delay, so once the momentum starts it could be quick!
bitmain have shot their bolt and thrown the kitchen sink and still failed and that was at a point where holders had free BCH so, as the advocates maintained at the time, they had 'nothing to lose' if it flipped. now it's over a year since the fork and there'll be millions of people who don't have any of it and have no interest in owning it. there is no one with any credibility involved with BCH. no financial institution has made any mention of BCH whatsoever. it gets virtually no press. it was a one time shot at usurping bitcoin. it failed. there won't be another. that doesn't mean there won't be big ass pumps in future but its place in the firmament is set. if they let go of their obsession of 'becoming' bitcoin and concentrated on being a great coin they'll get alot further. One year is too short to determine the fate of Bitcoin Cash. It still has a lot of supporters and improvements are being done even as we speak. Crypto race is not about sprinting but a marathon. Bitcoin can be overtaken by other coins in the future by means of innovation and mass adoption. This will happen nearly automatically over some period of time - use case are constantly bespoke cheap global secure eCash (on-chain) transactions first - the only killer app - , and sure with growing value behind, since use and value are correlated by the socioeconomically network effect - all included in the single barrier free Bitcoin Cash system. Some gimmicks like ICOs and decent smart scripting might speed that up a bit, but the eCash case is the most important underlying feature that is not debatable. |
|
|
|
<...>
<...>
Agree with the comments above. The problem with PoS is that the reward is far too high for the "work" done. I mean in PoS system, wallets with stacked coins still perform the block creation but don't require that much computation power. In this case, maybe Peercoin as d5000 said, will get away with it since the reward is very low. Hybrid PoW/PoS might work if the reward is fair between PoW and PoS validators, but usually, this tends to favor PoS. This situation may explain: <...>
3 Hybrid POW/POS
4 POS
5 Bankrupt
<...>
Nakamoto PoW uses electricity for computation power to mine a block. It doesn't mean that the system cannot use other "work" to create a block. And in order to this "work" to be successful, users/"miners" must perceive the reward as fair. Maybe it still requires "outside" element, or not? Goto physiscs, if you need to define 'work' / energy. You need work to keep order = security over time So security is a time function, that needs energy input every second (similar to your firewall that needs work to stay secure all second / protect against hackers trying to hack you every second - their little PoW!). PoW is THAT firewall. PoS is shit. |
|
|
|
Just earned an achievement after bashing up Bitcoin Trash at Twitter. "Satoshi" blocked me, LOL.  I don't understand this blocking feature on twitter. How is blocking users supposed to work on a public profile? Blocked users still can read posts anonymous. Stupid social medias. yes - true Try memo that works de-central. |
|
|
|
Just earned an achievement after bashing up Bitcoin Trash at Twitter. "Satoshi" blocked me, LOL. Wow I just checked his tweeter feed for the first time. His tweets should be kept in colleges' databases as examples of how propaganda works, we should help the new generations become immune to that! Wait (for walls, LN, un-bock, higher price ...) https://twitter.com/bitcoincashmane/status/1029834082535071751Thanks to bcore.org  |
|
|
|
but there are a couple of problems with that.
- BCH was created solely because their views (at least what they pretended) was that bitcoin should only be used on-chain and there should be nothing else. adding LN or something like LN with a different name would be proving their true reasons for creating BCH: taking over bitcoin "Taking over" Bitcoin - or better: "achieve the leadership in the cryptocurrency sphere" is something I think every single altcoin community out there is pretending. And in our system, there are all the incentives for that. Now BCH is also an open source project, and if one community member decides to implement something like LN, then nobody can stop him. I am however not very interested in BCH (but I also don't feel hate against it, why hate an open source project, maybe with the exception of a "wiki gun" project or so?) and thus I don't know if the decision to implement LN is supported from their "core" development team. If they implemented a malleability fix, it's a clue that this may be the case. Then I believe it would also prove that the Core developers of Bitcoin made the correct design decisions all along. The Bitcoin Cash community did not need to hard fork from the main chain. Bitcoin also does not urgently need bigger blocks now like many of them said 3 years ago. That is where we differ, BTC does not need it any more (today) because many txs happens on other chains BCH wants them all in the end, and in such a manner, that there is never such a congestion than we had in 2017 in BTC. Bitcoin is about electronic financial solution, a system for electronic cash and of electronic store of value if you want to highlight that in a separate sentence... Bitcoin is a medium for censorship resistance for me than a "financial solution" for an electronic cash system. It's not an insignificant consumer payments product, but an independent financial system that should be kept secure, efficient and decentralized. If Bitcoin Cash wants to re-enable and add new OPcodes and increase to unlimited blocks, good. But leave Bitcoin alone. The Core developers have been doing a great job by being conservative and careful. I do not want to do finger pointing. As do I. I see both coins having their own merits. But with Bitcoin having more than Bitcoin Cash.  Yes core devs have done a good job at most of the time , that is not the issue. Core devs are doing a dev job, so what would anyone expect on top? Wanting to be business developers, requirement engineers, change managers or even operational risk managers? I do not understand what you mean. Please explain. No, I see now that these things will come to Bitcoin Cash in an industrial manner so that institutions (having exactly same setup internally to mitigate risks) will have only one option to move forward with crypto or none, because SEC will kill any other cryptos soon.
But you do not see how Bitcoin Cash is following Ethereum's path to node centralization, scaling their network down? How would that be good for censorship resistance? Industrial style means scaling in all relevant / needed aspects. It is not about to runnig just more raspis - not if you want to leave the nichy romantics of BTC, sorry. But the design decision that the Bitcoin Core developers took is for the network to scale up, not scale down. If as much as possible they can make Bitcoin Core software run in the slowest of computers without giving away performance, then they will. You need to see how the fintecs - not only big payment processors- scale, that's a different world and decentralization will be there as well, just under big guys - not little home users. I understand all the ranting Lukes - but world is changing and the result will be cheap cash for all. Censorship resistance is the goal, decentralization and security are the means. The goal is not to compete against Fintech. Not compete - use their tech and knowledge to be fast & save on network level. There is no measure for decentralization, but there is open competition and the Nash Equilibrium - fine for having 'enough' of it. > Bitcoin runs about 10 years with that setup, no matter to change that ( try to abstract size, as done in fractal search and you see that 'many' big data-centers looks similar to 'many' small nodes)But we should always remember that data-centers or the "cloud" will always be someone else's computer, not yours that you, yourself control. Coding is just a very minor part in that. Its about hard product delivery and stability for world wide usage. No games and tries with unready insecure LN and 2nd layers. No one said that Lightning will be the winning solution, but what did the big blocks, on-chain scaling in Bitcoin Cash bring? Steady bespoke & trusted low fees for ever - way enough excess capacity to on-board lots of businesses, looking for plan-ability and no further future congestions. Forever? Do you believe that 32mb of space would be enough if, by an act of the Lord Jesus, Bitcoin Cash becomes a world reserve currency? If not, then it hard forks again? And no, Bitcoin Cash cannot be compared to ETH - it's main task is cheap cash - not full retarded smart contracts coded in script langs.
BCH will enable ICOs in a different way now (see the Wormhole project or others), that needs some PoW from token emitters - not getting on-chain security for free. (That's my hope), and also forces emitters to check the laws, since only Bitcoin on-chain will be SEC compliant. You did not understand. What I was telling you is Bitcoin Cash is following Ethereum in node centralization because of blockchain bloat. A bloating for cash TX is not same as for smart contracts - but anyhow see my comment on node sizes I expect for BCH. If Bitcoin Cash blocks become as big as Ethereum blocks and usage increases you don't believe that the blockchain's size will increase exponentially? How would bigger blocks help in block propagation? The nodes using slower bandwidth and weaker machines will have a very bad time keeping up syncing with the rest of the network. Ethereum users are already a victim of this. I will not read anything that comes from that site. It is either Roger Ver's propaganda or biased opinion. This source is providing all sorts of news, it is not an echo-chamber. Feel free to execute your right to freedom of choice.  Freedom of choice is good but if the other choice is propaganda without a good technical argument then why should we listen to it? Propaganda is everywhere - even here Technical stuff is there to help us to be more efficient - no matter who gives it to you. If you think you need to run your own little node to keep entire Bitcoin System secure, I say you are victim of propaganda already. There is no ideal solution - but simple solutions are good to be adopted and easy to scale. If many others doing that safely for majority of small guys like us - that's the better way imo. If you feel you need to 'participate' to make it more secure, think big and show your human PoW -> make Bitcoin easy usable for all, so that with a few small users some bigger come in running the expensive stuff for the smaller - but be humble and try to see that you cannot help much a high-tech network to scale with small nodes. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
