If they are planning smart-contracts by using the bitcoin blockchain, wouldnt that be a very bad choice to put up your smart-contract since the confirmations are slow.
Yes, but not if you do them off chain. There will be no gas like in eth. |
|
|
|
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) 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. 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. 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.  |
|
|
|
jemand hier der mit TRY/USD spielt?
zu hohe Vola - fass ich net an LoL |
|
|
|
There's a mathmetical measure for "decentralization", you can't tell how exactly centralized it is by looking.
Obviously, to be exact, one would have to calculate a number. However, it is trivial to observe qualitatively that the network is quite centralized, and this is only the larval form. If a meaningful amount of capital was actually involved, it would be much more centralized. There is a good analogon in physics. A 3 body problem is just solvable (very hard!) - not a 4 body problem! And the BFT threshold of 33% So having 4+ (equally) independent actors is a good start. And pls lookup Nash Equilibrium |
|
|
|
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. 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. 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. 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. LN and ICOs will get a hefty hit now here: https://news.bitcoin.com/us-government-to-aggressively-pursue-unregulated-services-around-the-world, and I expect more things hitting the romantic soon . |
|
|
|
|
You can create tokens now in BCH, very similar to ETH, but not fully trustless afaik, which is good, since token creators should do some kind of PoW on their own behalf. No spam coins expected with it.
So all in all if world wide adoption should happen with equal security (on chain) I only see Bitcoin Cash being able to fulfill all needs a crypto currency could provide.
Give it some time.
|
|
|
|
Der schwache EUR hilft auch noch extrem um den Exportboom noch nicht zu stoppen. Man denke sich mal kurz die DM zurück, 10% Arbeitslose? |
|
|
|
It's always good to keep a diversified portfolio, and thankfully I can afford to lose what I've put in if it dies completely (which is not likely to happen imo).
That's bullshit. There is no need to diversify into shit coins. Of course, there may be other reasons to diversify, but why buy pump and dump paper tigers? Paper is only big in btc due to futures. Hodling sw and ln by falling dominance from 99% to below 40 and from absolute value near 20k to below 6k speaks all for your 'bright mind'. Have more fun. |
|
|
|
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. 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? 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 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... Anyway - no financial participant is interested in congestion if it come to real live usage - that's a no go for small or big participants. To keep things up and running as stable and secure as possible AND free of regulation attacks and middlemen - there is only one correct way to go. KISS |
|
|
|
Frankly, I think Germans will withdraw from the eurozone and let the euro collapse before they let Deutsche Bank collapse.  Germany does profit from a weak EUR. More than a fiat dept loss to banks is worth, and printing and dilluting helps finally to minimize fiat losses. On the other side they will own half Greece and Italy in physical aspects... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
