Does this mean any BCC coins we receive will work with our current BTC address or  How will the addresses be impacted in terms of BCC, new ones or? Thanks I assume that the address will remain the same, although I am not sure. But what about the private keys? They will also remain the same, right? We will be able to confirm all this only on August 1. If the address remain the same, the private keys will remain the same. Which means that most likely you'll have to import your private keys to the Bitcoin ABC wallet client in which case I'd recommend moving your coins to new addresses before doing the switch (but after the "hardfork" occured). |
|
|
|
AFAIK poloniex hasn't stated yet what they will do in case of a split , but anyways it's better to not have your coins at the exchange at this period even if the exchange said that they will handle the split well , better be safe than sorry
so my advice isn't to keep any bitcoin in exchanges during this couple of weeks , fiat at kraken should fine tho
Poloniex actually has made a fairly clear statement quite a while ago: https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2017.03.17-Hard-Fork/However the situation has changed since then (Bitcoin Cash and SegwitX2) and they haven't updated their statement to reflect these changes. oh didn't know that cause they blocked my country so now even if I want to check their news I can't do that I will get an access denied message but I checked their twitter , they usually tweet the last news and wasn't able to find that There was also a joint statement by a couple of other exchanges: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-exchanges-unveil-emergency-hard-fork-contingency-plan/Nevertheless there's no guarantuee which hardforks they will effectively support in the end. Some forks may very well just end up being ignored. Regardless of whether you trust the exchanges enough or not, I personally wouldn't want to have open orders of any kind during the hardfork windows. |
|
|
|
4k, but only because we'll be in a bear market after whatever ATH 2017 still holds in store. Things will get really crazy in 2021 when the 2020 halving makes itself felt.
So do you believe it could be very similar to 2016 block halving? I mean the results? Remember that bitcoin was $500-600 around 2016 block halving. After that we moved to $1,000 very fast on january 2017. Then we could even come to $2,900 easily 5-6 months later on. My assumption is that the market pressure of block halvings takes about 4-8 months to make itself felt. The block halving of late Nov 2012 started to really show in Mar 2013, the block halving of Jul 2016 started showing in Jan 2017, the block halving of 2020 will probably not show until 2021. It's definitely not the only factor, but it would make sense that the cyclical shift of supply / demand gives the market the final "push" whenever it's ready for a growth phase. |
|
|
|
AFAIK poloniex hasn't stated yet what they will do in case of a split , but anyways it's better to not have your coins at the exchange at this period even if the exchange said that they will handle the split well , better be safe than sorry
so my advice isn't to keep any bitcoin in exchanges during this couple of weeks , fiat at kraken should fine tho
Poloniex actually has made a fairly clear statement quite a while ago: https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2017.03.17-Hard-Fork/However the situation has changed since then (Bitcoin Cash and SegwitX2) and they haven't updated their statement to reflect these changes. |
|
|
|
I'm sure they will fork and every bitcoiner will be happy. SegWit supporter now can use segwit and maybe with lower fees, BCC supporters can enjoy their big block size and everyone got extra coins and can be sold/traded for profit. It's win-win solution for existing bitcoiner.
Yep... I also feel like when BCC forks off we'll finally have left that part of the drama behind us and everyone can move on (...to the next potential hardfork, but at least that's one down). Plus instead of endless bickering about which approach is better in theory we can finally have the market decide. |
|
|
|
The hard fork that is part of SegWit2x isn't something you can put aside so easily.
I am a not entirely confident either. In the near short term, people will completely forget/discard this potentially upcoming hard fork (I say potentially because things might not play out as expected in the end), and thus completely lose themselves in the hype of having finally witnessed the activation of SegWit. In the same way people were shocked about seeing the price dump well below the $1900 level some days ago, they will be equally surprised when the price starts tanking prior to the potential hard fork -- people are too dumb to spot and calculate potential risks. That's how it has always been. I actually felt like people were quite level headed about the recent dump. The alt coiners got a bit of a reality check when Bitcoin took most of the alts down with it, but apart from that people didn't seemed to fazed. I personally was more shocked by the fast and fairly stable recovery tbh. |
|
|
|
|
4k, but only because we'll be in a bear market after whatever ATH 2017 still holds in store. Things will get really crazy in 2021 when the 2020 halving makes itself felt.
|
|
|
|
|
The 2MB hardfork is most likely going to be the same drama all over again, especially since the pros and cons will be even less technical and even more political in nature. But I think it's still too soon to tell, we're not even fully done with SegWit vs BTU/BCC/BTCABC yet, even with BIP 91 having locked in.
|
|
|
|
I`ve seen this graphic posted on some other forum thread before.
There`s plenty of space for bitcoin to grow,but it`s wrong to compare it to gold.
Gold is used by the people for centuries.All the people without computer knowledge will trust gold,and believe me,most of the people in the world don`t have a PC,which means that they don`t know anyhting about btc and most likely they will never buy and use bitcoin.
It might make more sense to not take the number of people with a computer, but instead the number of people with an internet connection, which is about 3,6 billion people (and rising). That's pretty good. In the future, as people get more used to BTC, and younger people, who are more prone to adopt to new technologies, grow into BTC, I could see many, many people buying BTC instead of gold. Also, BTC historically brought a lot more gains than gold. Plus it's easier to store, hide and transport, etc... Also, I only gave BTC 10% of gold, which is still quite a conservative number. 10% of gold may be a conservative number, but it's still a wild ass guess. Also while BTC has had a better yield than gold, it's still little more than a blip in the history of trade. Just as a caveat, I still like the odds. Regarding most people never buying and using Bitcoin due to lack of computers or internet: Most people most likely will never buy stocks or gold either. People lacking access digital infrastructure even less so. |
|
|
|
As suggested by everyone here, bitcoin is not good opportunity to buy at this point. You could have done that a week ago I would say. Anyway, the opportunities will come and go forever. Not advisable to buy or do any kind of transaction when you are in this important week of bitcoin split. Let the first week if august pass and we can discuss or feel the opportunity that may rise from then onwards.
Tip: If segwit is completely from the side of bitcoin supporter then the price is hundred percent rising above $3000. Then you must not buy bitcoins at that point. :-)
So what your saying is: Don't buy Bitcoin unless it's going to rise in which case you should buy Bitcoin?  It's going to be a turbulent week, so unless you got strong hands it may indeed be a good idea to stay off the markets. But should the moonshot really occur, you'll only have little time to join the fun. |
|
|
|
Given the many criticisms of Bitcoin - and a lot of the new altcoins seem to be created just to fix them - I wonder sometimes if Bitcoin is so valuable only because it was first.
Most alt coins have been created to make a quick buck. Those alts that try to bring something new to the table, usually have problems of their own. Trying to fix something, does not necessarily mean succeeding at fixing something. |
|
|
|
Therefore come to our main question, in the current state, is 1 confirmation enough to protect and prevent double spend?
To create a double spend on a transaction that as already 1 confirmation, you would need to have a non-trivial amount of hashpower to actively attack the network. So yes, for most use cases 1 confirmation is enough. For more details, check these links out: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Confirmationhttps://people.xiph.org/~greg/attack_success.html |
|
|
|
damn, i was waiting to get btc below 1500 so could buy some., missed 1800 window. FML.
but i guess there are people who will panic before august 1st and then hopefully ill buy some more.,
I'm pretty sure a lot of people were waiting for the 1500s price levels which is why we didn't reach it in the first place. Unless something catastrophic happens I don't think we'll see sub 2000s again anytime soon, so buckle up and enjoy the ride! |
|
|
|
i am not really sure why it went down on the first place
but i am happy that they are UP now
& i am still wondering what make the price increase :/
The recent price fluctuations appear to have mostly been caused by the scaling debate. There has been a lot of uncertainty whether SegWit will lock in and whether there'll be a coin split come August, most of which has resolved by now. Look up BIP 91. |
|
|
|
I will simply use whatever works best for me. If on-chain transactions are still affordable, I'll use on-chain transactions. If LN works as planned and is more convenient and cheaper to use, I'll go for that. If on-chain transactions become too expensive and LN fails to deliver, I'll just use PayPal and hoard my coins  |
|
|
|
I read in one article that bitcoin is not legit in Austria, how come the energy company accepts payments in bitcoin? If yes, it's great news for the future of bitcoin and this can trigger new acceptances.
There's no official classification and some grey areas, but for most basic use cases (accepting Bitcoin as a form of payment, using Bitcoin as an investment vehicle) there already have been official statements by the government / Austrian tax office on how to operate. |
|
|
|
...how does anyone know what the branch the one with the largest cumulative difficulty is if everyone is just firing transactions away on their own branches? How do you keep track of transactions if everyone is just writing their own transaction history? How do you achieve consensus what the actual global state of the ledger is? And once again, how do you prevent double spends? Nothing is preventing a user from sending the same coins multiple times to different addresses... they can just mine different transactions using the same inputs over and over again and see what sticks.
Users are not on their own branches - just like in bitcoin, miners/users aim to put blocks on the main branch with the greatest cumulative difficulty. Ok, let me rephrase my question. So we are at block 100. Everyone knows were at block 100. 5 people mine based on block 100 and send their transaction at the same time. One on each continent. Each of those people propagate their own block as block 101. What happens? |
|
|
|
1) If every user just mines their own blocks, how are double spends prevented?
2) If tiny blocks get propagated everywhere with users only mining their own blocks, how do they know which chain to base their blocks on?
3) How can miners still participate if there's no distinction between users and miners and everyone just mines their own chain?
1) There is still an LCR rule for selecting the branch with the largest cumulative difficulty. Users want to be on the longest branch, so they have timely confirmation of their transactions. 2) See (1) 3) Miners participate by choosing high PoW difficulty blocks to mine (their own blocks). They are incentivised to add them to the branch with the largest cumulative difficulty, because otherwise they won't get their mining rewards. ...how does anyone know what the branch the one with the largest cumulative difficulty is if everyone is just firing transactions away on their own branches? How do you keep track of transactions if everyone is just writing their own transaction history? How do you achieve consensus what the actual global state of the ledger is? And once again, how do you prevent double spends? Nothing is preventing a user from sending the same coins multiple times to different addresses... they can just mine different transactions using the same inputs over and over again and see what sticks. |
|
|
|
*) Allow bitcoin to scale indefinitely, as the block size is now as small as it possibly can be, and there is now no fixed block interval, as these tiny blocks arrive constantly
*) Miners can still participate, but instead of enabling transactions to be sent/received their only job is now in securing the chain by providing hashing power; they still earn their mining reward
*) Chain security remains strong; miners get paid for being on the longest (largest cumulative difficulty) branch, and now this weighting includes orphaned branches which are referenced within each block, so no history based attacks are possible
*) Decentralisation is maximised because there is no need for mining pools anymore, since variance in mining reward is now under the control of the user. Moreover, since only you can mine your own blocks (the PoW is signed by you), mining pools are unattractive anyway.
Thoughts?
Cheers, Paul.
1) If every user just mines their own blocks, how are double spends prevented? 2) If tiny blocks get propagated everywhere with users only mining their own blocks, how do they know which chain to base their blocks on? 3) How can miners still participate if there's no distinction between users and miners and everyone just mines their own chain? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
