Feeding destructors and trolls never can lead to success. I wonder a bit why these trollmobs have energies left? Still fearing competition? Get a live ... BCH is a good target for trolls so build things up and be not derailed by others fear here.   |
|
|
|
Actually Twitter TOP ceo has spent a large amount of money to help financial Lighting together with a large listing of others within the technology globe
Hmm, funny. I was told the genius things are coming for free once the PoW is done be the genius itself. Example: Bitcoin on-chain Anyway, we might need more drama to attract more media out there.... Bitcoin, if run decentralized and censorship resistant does not need any particular heros. Some might need these to get over their own brain shortage. As a German and having parents telling me direct from 'our' war, I know best not to follow anybody or any company with cosed eyes. Think yourself and analyze the trolls here  |
|
|
|
With all of these tokenization talks in BCH community I wonder about ETH tokens and smart contracts migration to BCH. Would that be possible?
Not all of shitcoins out there but some legit tokens.
If you have Turing completness, sure you could. All op code changes are still not done, but things will come. On the other hand, BCH does not want to rush things in and try to sell half working beta versions to average Joes like others even in this sub try to cross sell to you.  Give it some time, BCH needs to be world wide cash at first place imo. 'Simple' base protocol, cool apps and mass adoption is highest priority to win races against other fintec and banks (look what R3 is doing!). |
|
|
|
BitPay Merchants Can Now Accept Bitcoin Cash Payments
28 March 2018 Product, Press, Merchants
Today we're happy to announce that BitPay merchants can now accept payments in Bitcoin Cash (BCH). It's now easy for BitPay merchants to do business with a growing, passionate community of Bitcoin Cash users and accept a currency with a market cap of more than $15 billion.
https://blog.bitpay.com/bitcoin-cash/ |
|
|
|
There have been several hints now that the BCH 21m cap will be removed in future versions
Nothing official has been said but the people pushing it have mentioned a few things now that make it sound like it was a bad idea
Even at the Satoshi conference it was asked about the 21m cap and CSW response was he don't know and something about bad ideas and alcohol and drugs
Just say the 21m cap did get scrapped to pay the miners in order to keep low to no fees
What are your thoughts on this would you still support BCH of the cap was removed ?
If cap remove, then there would me more than 21mil bch? this could cause inflation? Illogic desperate troll FUD. Why would anyone want that? |
|
|
|
|
In order to safe you ^ I'd recommend you leave, otherwise you might fall into same kind of 'stupidity'.
Anyway - good things are developed for Bitcoin Cash and the light comes from these things all together.
No artificial short living (destroying?) lightening needed to see that.
|
|
|
|
For TA look at tradingview et al. Coretrolls upthread need to shout much louder, but nothing really happens, because they shout. It's a bit like they also believe deeply in their rasp piss that these nodding nodes might help em. |
|
|
|
115 satoshi payment you cannot even make a payment so small on BCH and took a whole 2 seconds with a fee of 1 satoshi Here's another for a whopping $0.000086 (0.00000001 BTC) Could you donate me 0.00000001 BCH to prove its possible to make a small micropayment on-chain What do you think is the real reason for that 'cheap' tx type? Hint: Security Which miner has done PoW on that and spent real longterm investments on that and will do for long term future? And pls, if you try to trick Bitcoin users into LNcoin usage it would be nice if you offer a proper financial disclaimer to these users and inform about eventually new risks of losing funds. Otherwhise I d fear you are using Bitcoin's 9year track of on-chain security as a Troian Horse to derail users into your fancy new beta version construct of netting tx with a LNcoin, where still funds are lost. Sure you can send 1 sat and nobody cares. But how about a few 10k Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
The future of BCH is getting really interesting. Try to comprehend this and see that BCH gonna be a decider TM that can savely run decidable scripts. https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/981caa5a-fb13-459d-907b-2ab2476511b9Not as ETH, just anything. Try to read also the zero knowledge stuff and think of privacy... BCH will unify all the good and working crypto currency things with a cheap underlying cash function, how good is that? Real good Bitcoin |
|
|
|
The masses decide what 'Bitcoin' is by the adoption and usage exactly how they decide what their search engine or web browser is.
With SW as a SF BTC is a fork as well and it might be the NetscapeAltavista for the masses.
It still follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you if you don't trust or want to use segwit then you don't have to you decide by the type of address you use If you carry on using legacy addresses then you are using the exact same Bitcoin as you were several years ago nothing changed in that respect the data is still stored in the block in the exact same way as before. The only time the data structure changes is when you use a segwit enabled address which in laymens terms just moves the signature data from the transaction field to a separate merkle tree that's pretty much it Again, isnt that because it was closer to a uahf, disguised as a uasf.....in order to prevent a fork off...which led to segwet coin being called btc and retaining the ticker... As for ltc, did they need a segwit malleability fix aswell in order to use LN? The system that was in place was for miners to signal when they was ready in order to activate a improvement this was not a issue when Bitcoin was early and spread out but since asics and large pools becoming the norm it was getting abused as any miner with over 10% could stop something even if 90% agreed UASF was just that users running a node that activated segwit without the miners so they had 2 choices come along or signal ready and activate which they did And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix and chose segwit for LN The nodes that do nothing and cost nothing to set up out voted the miners lols The nodes activated a uahf, why do i say this....because a HF isnt forced on you...."follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you" tek yea i thought litecoin may have had TM issues, was unsure on what cobbles had changed back in the day when making ltc....TM wasn't one of them anyways lol. Why would litecoin have TM issues anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code and litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant LN makes commerce simple I purchased some steam vouchers the other day from bitrefill took me about 20 seconds from clicking buy to getting the code email and activating it Why would litecoin have TM issues .................. "And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix" your comment above. anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code .....yes it does , thats why bch is special like og btc, the only version that is segwit free (pleeeease dont start that clashit stuff lol) litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant ...id say ltc and blockstream took over and killed of btc the way it was meant to be but stole the ticker. anyways forget ltc. Back to this uasf/uahf, ...so you agree it was an uahf activated by useless ,free to create nodes.  Segwit it nothing more than a malleability fix yes it now allows for larger blocks but that was just a side effect One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH is very much segwit-like Segwit moves the signature out of the transaction area into a separate merkle root that allows for backwards compatibility BCH's proposed fix moves the signature from the transaction area just the same as segwit but simply moves it to the end instead of to a separate merkle tree but this means it must HF and nobody gets to choose it's forced Its a fix without the miners consent, the people that have real investment in the coin. It pretends to be a sf but really its a hf. Whenever bch makes any major future changes, it will be the miners that choose what happens, not free to create nodes that were used to hijack btc. Something we agree on the miners will decide major changes the same miners that pushed for the fork do you see a issue here The miners are just employed to secure the network and are the tiniest percentage <1% of all users so why should they decide what everyone should be forced to accept Going back to supply inflation just say BCH takes on a stupid infinite block reward subsidy and abolishes all fees somthing like 10 BCH forever per block. Obviously you won't agree same as all other users that have value and does not want it diluting with such high inflation but the miners would be a dream come true they will hold so much wealth so why wouldn't they pass it. The whole premise of crypto currency is to take back financial freedom and not to be just slaves to the current banking system and allowing the miners to control the code and changes is just the same you are just giving them total control instead of banks What is the cost of setting up a node that allows a vote on major changes to the whole system?.....It is so cheap, that it becomes an exploit as the uasf/hf has shown. Its not like the nodes that vote have to hold a minimum amount of btc (thats how it should be done) I understand the whole premise of crypto, and taking back financial freedom and not being slaves to bankers system, this is why i support bch. The nodes themselves don't vote the users do with our money We create value as with UASF we gave it value therefore the miners not supporting segwit would be stuck on a worthless chain and were either forced to upgrade or go their own way on a minority chain hence BCH that is the minority chain one that they can control one that will never push something they won't agree with because they are the ones controlling the code so the users have to either knuckle down and just accept or fork off Funny how you Kore fanbois can claim that "nodes create consensus" but then say "Bcash is a minority chain" based on the MINING hashrate, with no sense of irony. Lol, this lead me to create the dumb fanboy 'Nodding Consensus' that is the result if some lead worker shows to his followers what work he's done and the only choice the nodding trolls have is : nodding Otherwise nobody else of the nodding comunity is able to WORK... https://www.canstockphoto.com/man-nod-icon-cartoon-style-40342661.html |
|
|
|
And yet there is a nice site that lists loads of double spends on BCH https://doublespend.cash0-conf just is not safe under any circumstances It's save for any coffee - you have issues with reasoning... |
|
|
|
|
UASF was a nice event where we could learn how cheap it is to force things
by proof of twitter troll
and
proof of sibyl node
-> this is not good for a high investing community at all
With claiming UASF as a success lots of risk sensitive members have left here
|
|
|
|
|
Scaling is here and will come also with Moore.
That things go fine work is done e.g. here
Terab.lokad.com
|
|
|
|
|
The masses decide what 'Bitcoin' is by the adoption and usage exactly how they decide what their search engine or web browser is.
With SW as a SF BTC is a fork as well and it might be the NetscapeAltavista for the masses.
|
|
|
|
|
Again, you need to be clearer for reasoning.
The 2x part was just Blockstopped again and damned down to a single dev under max shitstorm.
The last chance to hinder a titanic to sink.
We might agree that with the existence of BCH the stopping task was easier for all the left shitstormers and so it finally went down and lot of old bitcoiners switched over to the bigger boat.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
