No clear statement from the IRS - not like they get the last word anyhow.

I think the closest analogy in more traditional areas would be a corporate spinout - like when hewlett-packard split into HP Inc (HPQ) and Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE). I'm treating it accordingly.

So... just trust you that it is widespread? Let alone a significant reason for the adoption of BCH? Sorry, no.


False and False.


Deluded much? Every segwit transaction relies on a gentlemans' handshake between the miners to interpret what is inherently an anyonecanspend transaction as anything other than an anyonecanspend transaction. Strike number one. Further, segwit removes the necessity for miners to validate all signatures in blocks they build atop in order to make an otherwise-valid block. Strike number two. Further yet, segwit removes the incentive for miners to check the validity of signatures, as that would consume time they might more profitably be spending mining. Strike three - you're out.


Tell me which proposed BCH 'fix' and in what manner it changes the Bitcoin security model.

Perhaps part of our esteemed Dr. Back's 'large teams', albeit on the weaker end of the scale.



https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/943876564856348673

Not exact but in a similar manner. In that the signature would be divorced from the transaction data. No more so.


Only difference? Au contraire, my undiscerning friend. The major difference is that none of the BCH malleability fix proposals seek to fundamentally undermine Bitcoin's tried and true security model.


smh. That's just stupid. I've already stated the reasons. The so-called 'asicboost advantage' is lost in the noise. To the extent that it is actually employed, for which there is no evidence for its widespread use.


Ooooh! Scaaaary! a total of.... nine blocks!

Nonsense. I've made my opinion clear numerous times. Didn't seem worthwhile to go through it yet again.

In a nutshell, The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is about the worst imaginable solution to a nonexistent problem.

Malleability is fully understood and is not a pain point.
If indeed a fix to malleability is desired (a debatable point), separating the signature from the remainder of a transaction is a worthwhile candidate for consideration.
But the gyrations required to make this a (*ahem!*) so-called 'soft fork' has fundamentally undermined the entire security model of the system.
That's not even starting with the cruft other than segwit which was bundled into The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

Ultimately, this entire escapade pushed back a scaling solution by two years, and has led to a premature crest of the last wave of adoption - also likely pushing back the next wave by perhaps two years. Hopefully, this black period does not provide a big enough opening for the vampire squid to prepare a meaningful counterattack. I have my doubts. Time will tell.

I could go on, but that will suffice for a start.

Yes.


represent!? Such would by definition be higher volatility. You gotta problem with that?


While true, I can't think of any situation where Bitcoin has ever been employed as the numeraire. Store of value, Medium of exchange, Unit of account. Two out of three ain't bad. Hell, it would be forward progress, should Bitcoin remain usable in commerce (i.e., should MOE not be again eliminated by high fees and uncertain settlement).


Completely different situation. Neither SOV, MOE, nor UOA are affected by the absolute price. If one Bitcoin is too expensive, use a mill or a mike or a satoshi.

Nobody, OTOH, has a use for a tenth of a house.

Verily. But with this new info, unfortunately...


...  the image is somewhat less compelling.

What makes enthusiasts of J. Random Shitcoin feel this thread is an appropriate place to shill their wares?

Begone, heathens!

In a decentralized system, there can be no master list of anything. Or rather, if there is a master list, the system is by definition not decentralized.

For my part, I'm not ready to give that principle up.

When it is a toy that is incapable of being funded with even enough money for a hamburger. Who is going to differentially lock up any substantial sum? You're talking about receiving your paycheck in that manner. Really? I'll believe it when I see it.

Well, no. As an anecdotal data point that to disprove your thesis, I have a significant investment in BCH. And I'm not a big miner. Hell, I'm not a miner at all. There are others that fit that description.


Sorry - wrong again. The original reason for the fork was to save the principles of Satoshi's Bitcoin from the cancer that is The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.


Well, I do think you are correct about that.

If that is even possible, it doesn't make any sense. Why would one party lock funds into a channel that their counterparty at the other end of the channel is unwilling to match? That's insane.

Just no. SMH.

Bitcoin Cash is a crypto monetary system with an integral unique blockchain.

Bitcoin ABC is a client for accessing that system.

Well, that would be nice. Devoid of rationale, however, it is nothing but hope.

I have found that merit is a relatively poor measure of any sort of value whatsoever. Maybe longevity coupled with persistence. Certainly not a measure of actual Merit.

Having said that, I find it somewhat disappointing that the parties I feel deserving of my stash of merit tokens, are typically folk that really have no use for them.

I am also quite disappointed in the relative merit of the apparent responses to the 'make me laugh' suggestion. That's the basis I've mostly been doling them out since the dawn of this of merit token system. But poor pandering ain't gonna do it.

Right. Let's insert the cold, hard, capricious apparatus of the state into what could otherwise be consensual behavior. /s

Some people never get it.

I see you've not bothered to read not only satoshi's messages on the matter, but not even the white paper.

Buh-bye!

I guess the question is whether RBI is acting of its own accord, or if it is just being the globalists' little bitch  again - like the large note demonitization incident.

 

Well, at least that was mostly understandable English. That's better. Of course it seems you still don't know the definition of 'consensus'.