Is it possible for this to overtake the original Bitcoin?
The original Bitcoin? The original Bitcoin died with the birth of Segwit. Can Bitcoin Cash overtake Bitcoin Segwit? Is that what you are asking? I think it is inevitable, though it may be several years before it does so. Of course, crypto years are like dog years - only magnified. So... |
|
|
|
Congratulations to Roger Ver and his supporters. He forked Bitcoin in August
Well, no. Roger had nothing to do with the fork. Roger was a late-comer to BCH. That said, he does have a big megaphone. It could be debated whether this was helpful to BCH or detrimental thereof. |
|
|
|
Sends and receives are available immediately  How many noobs are going to be duped by this? Duped? How so?
Coinbase just went full Bcash.
Every time Coinbase has a chance to retain or regain my respect, they lose even more.  Exchanges gonna exchange. Kinda their raison d'etre, that.
So, what was announced for as by January 2018 is happening now? Crazy coincidences ... .
^^^ FTFY
Bitcoin Cash is now on CoinBase. This can turn bad for bitcoin for some time, but one thing we all should always remember.
ORIGINAL REMAINS ORIGINAL
While true, the original Bitcoin died with the birth of Segwit. Accordingly, that which you loudly proclaim is an irrelevance.
I wonder if this was a regulated market whether all of Coinbase would wind up in jail.
Umm... _why_, exactly?
Haha who sold at $14,001 on GDAX?
I bought a couple at $14,250. Worked out pretty well, in retrospect.
I think BCash may have a huge problem now.
It's blown its trump card ...
What exactly do you perceive as Bitcoin Cash's 'trump card'?
Ok serious question u guys
in what way is Btc better than BCash ?
from what i read online
BCash does everything btc does only better
Blaspheme cmon i want an answer much lower fees, more transactions so how is btc better ? More people currently perceive Bitcoin Segwit as The Real Bitcoin, and perceive Bitcoin Cash as a renegade offshoot. Of course, the logical defense of this attitude is the fact that Bitcoin Segwit currently has more accumulated PoW behind it. Or rather the only logical defense.
If bitcoin survives this then fuck me I AM SAYING at least $100000 per BTC this time next year
Of course Bitcoin Segwit will survive this. The only real question is what will be its market share?
Good lord what is the fundamental reason for bch to be worth $50b, or even $5b? There are no bch futures. There is no bch for sale on major exchanges. There is no bch adoption or bch merchants. You cant buy lambos, hookers or blow with bch.
Other than the fact that you are wrong on literally every count, you mean? Well, I'll spot you the futures. There used to be BCH futures, back when the reality of BCH was ... err ... still in the future. I'm unaware of any such today. But hey - being wrong on only 6 out of 7 ain't bad, amirite? |
|
|
|
Get real.
Bitcoin has been under attack multiple times because it is a target for a lot of hostilities, whether from Bcash or other various sources,
Get real. Bitcoin Segwit is not under attack by Bitcoin Cash. Rather, Bitcoin Cash is competing with Bitcoin Segwit in the marketplace. |
|
|
|
LN comes in 18 month™
18 months™ is the new two weeks™ |
|
|
|
Whoa! A user named "Lauda" just gave me a -1 with the below comment:
Welcome to the club. Lauda has become old and doddering and has forgotten the purpose of the litter box. Accordingly, she careens about, shitting wherever she may lay. One would think the mods or owner of this place would take care of this miscreance. Unfortunately, demeaning Bitcoin Cash fits perfectly with Theymos' openly stated policy of 'squash by any means necessary'. So we're stuck with this. Once this travesty of justice leads to a complete breakdown of confidence in the trust system, order may be restored. Or may not. Welcome to the club. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not created for small transactions
Yeah? Who are you to tell us what Bitcoin was created for? Begone from this place with your mistaken assertions! |
|
|
|
^^^^^
Nailed it. Shitcoins are a profit-taking machine.
'Many will enter; few will win' BTC.org gerbil-wheel meter indicates market major bullishness. Site is laggy to point of timeouts. |
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, the coin that shall not be named is up 20% on the day.
Kampai!
|
|
|
|
Jiihan Wu,(or one of his friends,) set up a parody site to malign it and BTC at the same time, soon after their announcement. https://tulipmining.com/ Just curious - any evidence for that assertion? |
|
|
|
Not sure this is true about capital gains and income taxes....Puerto Rico
I've been posting that fact here every month or two. But nobody listens to me. ::sniff:: |
|
|
|
Jbrerher is so dumb (or wantonly ignorant?) that he was given the most perfectly succinct description of the difference between linear scaling and non-linear scaling, conceded it was non-linear .... and then sighed, as if to say linear is so obviously better that he has no time to explain that wisdom to us.
I don't recall the exchange of which you speak. Might you be so kind as to link to it, or provide a clearer description thereof? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Cash is not going to have a lot of full nodes if things go their way. In order to scale anywhere close to Visa, on chain, as appears to be their goal, a enterprise would need access to equipment capable of storing at least 56 TB of data per year. Probably at least quadruple that, since you want to properly index the data and have proper back ups. A casual user would need to run an SPV client.
For the umpteenth time - Bitcoin Cash has no reason to support Visa-scale transaction volume until such time as demand for transactions reaches Visa scale (is that a tautology?). If we somehow hit that next year, I'll be more than happy to store 56 TB of data that year. Of course, even in the most wildly optimistic scenario, Visa-scale demand is still several years off. Perhaps you need to discuss this with Craig Wright on Twitter then. It appears nChain is working hard to bring this capacity to reality in 2018, needed or not. Capacity is not consumption. After watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M&feature=youtu.beI have come to the conclusion that on-chain scaling is indeed feasible. My previous objections were that it takes pools too long to verify transactions. Therefore, 1GB blocks would result in many empty blocks being mined. I see no scenario where that would be a consequence. Can you explain? For that matter, how does one quantify 'too many empty blocks'? As long as all transactions are processed with reasonable alacrity, what does the block fullness matter? Currently, there is a bottleneck in the way nodes need to verify transaction included in the previous block before they start including transactions in the new block they are working on. This is why empty blocks are frequently mined if they arrive within about 30 seconds of the previous block. 1GB blocks would compound this bottleneck 1000x. However, nChain is working on ways to relieve the bottleneck. Therefore, my objection would be thwarted. Again, I fail to see why this is a problem. I actually had a significant discussion about a year ago with the author of the leading independent mining SW about this very issue. Though the motivating factor was the nonsense about nonlinear hash time for aberrant transactions. Yes, there is a significant opportunity to improve the threading model within leading Bitcoin clients. However, I don't see how your reply addresses my question. As long as all transactions are processed with reasonable alacrity, what does the block fullness matter? However, I still have misgivings about 1 GB blocks since this would require a node to have the storage capacity of over 50tb per year.
Other than to repeat that we will not consume that much storage until there is actual demand for it, I would like to point out the 50 TB of storage -- today -- costs less than 0.1 BTC (~$1650 USD at standard retail).
At this time, I believe this would cause a barrier to entry for small start ups that require a full node be run. (New exchanges, information services, mining pools etc.)
If a startup can't lose 0.1 BTC in the noise of its annual CapEx budget, it is likely to be a non-entity anyhow. According to Craig Wright, the initial setup would be $20,000. If I wanted to start a block explorer or a sight like fork.lol, that's quite an outlay, especially since it extremely difficult to be able monetize such an informational sight, to make up the costs. I enjoy these information sights and don't deem them "non-entities." I have heard Craig Wright speak of the $20K figure. But I have not heard him speak of it as a minimum viable investment - merely exemplary. More importantly, $20K (I note that this is a depreciating asset with a useful life exceeding one year) is a drop in the bucket for any real business. Crippling Bitcoin in order to save paying a $5/year subscription to access fork.lol's data is the wrong decision. |
|
|
|
LN allows the same number of actors to engage in roughly unlimited numbers of transactions with each other. What it does not allow is more actors engaging in transactions.
Thats not correct. I do 5 TX's on chain today, and blocks are full. With lightning, I do 1 on chain, and do the other 4 off chain This allows 4 other additional users to the do the same, therefore more actors. ::le sigh:: Yes. To a second-order approximation, you are correct. I presume you are aware that your 5 tx / day makes you something of an outlier, right? |
|
|
|
(in before jbreher makes the bogus claim everyone will have their own foundry in their backyard within 2 years).
You know what? Fuck you and the pre-historic ancestor of the dromedary that you rode in on. WTF that I have stated have you misinterpreted as a claim that the average person will be able to own their own semiconductor foundry. Please. Oh - you can't? I return you to the opening. Fuck You. |
|
|
|
one that can scale right now to peak-time VISA levels, by design.
Y'all realizer yer fabled LN can't scale to Visa levels without a huge block size increase, right? I can't prove to you that it can, but I believe that it is several orders of magnitude better than a mere block size increase. LN allows the same number of actors to engage in roughly unlimited numbers of transactions with each other. What it does not allow is more actors engaging in transactions. If you think the future is properly just us assholes already in engaging in scads of trades with each other (how many transactions do you do per day?), then LN is probably for you. If instead, you think that the 99.99% of the world that have not yet bought in might possibly be interesting to Bitcoin, then LN has essentially zero to offer you. |
|
|
|
one that can scale right now to peak-time VISA levels, by design.
Y'all realizer yer fabled LN can't scale to Visa levels without a huge block size increase, right? |
|
|
|
So here is the deal, and I'm only going to say this once.
We will implement a larger blocksize patch when AND NOT BEFORE you fuckers stop trying to bully us into it.
<blather>
as long as we feel we are being pushed NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN!
Haha. There is something happening. Sorry you can't see it. You are blinded by your hate (goodgoodletthehateflowthroughyou.png). The longer you rail against others that hold you no ill will, the smaller the chance that you see it before it is too late for you to do anything about it. |
|
|
|
I'm getting pretty tired of all this failure.
goodgoodletthehateflowthroughyou.png 'All this failure' is the result of giving people what they do not want (because 'we' know better than you what you should want). The only thing happening on that blockchain is a bunch of trading back and forth. No one uses it, no one cares. You've lost me - what blockchain are you referring to? |
|
|
|
Nexus...
You seem to be confused. This thread is dedicated to discussion of Bitcoin Cash. Begone, foul apparition! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
