Gibts dazu irgendwo eine Übersicht über die aktuelle Hashrate?
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/blocksIm Technical kannst du dir zumindest die Difficulty (checken) anzeigen lassen - leider kenne ich keine Seite für die gesamte Hashrate / Poolverteilung. Zum handelbaren $ Preis (ex emergin markets): mit zunehmendem Handel wird sich der wohl erstmal so zwischen 200 und 400 einpendeln (müssen wegen hashkosten), denn ich glaube nicht dass sich die miner lange hier verausgaben... Dumps & Pumps von Whales kommen sicher auch noch - und das Thema NYA ist sicher auch im Preis drin. |
|
|
|
|
This was just a 'copy' of Bitcoin. So now there are historic BTC and the new BCC(BCH).
These new can be traded as any altcoin could be, and people can decide about a price. Free markets!
From this new price you can calc a new market cap for BCC.
|
|
|
|
Oh, wie heftig !!! Ich dachte bis eben, bei Bittrex gäbe es noch gar kein Handel für BCC. Die 1300$ pro Coin konnte ich auch erst glauben, als ich sie wirklich dafür bekommen habe.   Ironie an der Sache vermutlich: Du darfst dein Gewinn und Verlust gleichzeitig ansehen während dem dein BCC Coin Hände gebunden in Wartungszustand ist  da wird jemand genau die Situation genutzt haben Da Nutzen ein paar dicke Whales die Gunst der Stunde, um die wenigen BCC derart hochzutraden, damit in unserem Hirn ein Anker liegt (psychologisch wirksam!). Der Crypto-Preis ist ohnehin nicht 'definierbar' und könnte auch bei z.B 1 Mio liegen. Wenn dies einmal erreicht ist, glauben viele Verkäufer dass sie vorher nicht verkaufen, also ist 1Mio das Preisniveau. Also: BCC Preisniveau soll wohl so hoch wie möglich liegen, dann wird auch nur noch da oben gehandelt... |
|
|
|
|
0.48 ETH Market Cap sollte eingestellt sein
|
|
|
|
0.35 auf Bittrex 90 Mio Volumen allein dort schon: Gesamt > 10 Mrd $ Market Cap Volumen - 250 Mio (fake?) Also bei 0,5 werde ich mal 50% veräußern, so easy Money habe ich bis jetzt selten gemacht sollte der Kurs hoch gehen ;-) Oder doch warten bis ETH überholt ist :-) Mach schnell - ist schon gleich 0.4  |
|
|
|
momentan fühlt es sich ja schon ein bisschen an, als hätte man geld geschenkt bekommen. meiner lebenserfahrung nach ist das eher unwahrscheinlich. wenn das, was die BCC jetzt wert sind stimmen sollte, wo "fehlt" das kapital dann? oder hab en wir jetzt wirklich geld erschaffen wie eine zentralbank aus dem nichts?  immer noch besser als das ganze geld in ICO versenkt zu sehen... oder?  Nummer 3 ist eher: Bitcoin Scam ! |
|
|
|
Die einjährige Haltefrist wegen der Spekulationssteuer?
Ich glaube wenn die BTC über 1 Jahr sind müssten die BCH es auch sein.
Eure Meinungen Argumente?
Also mein Steuerberater fährt oft rechts neben mir mit: Beifahrersitz Ach ja: Bitcoin und Steuer: Immer fest hodl! |
|
|
|
0.35 auf Bittrex 90 Mio Volumen allein dort schon: Gesamt > 10 Mrd $ Market Cap Volumen - 250 Mio (fake?) |
|
|
|
|
BTC hashrate is down from 6.6 Mio Thash (is this 6,6 Exa ?) yesterday
to
Network total 5 548 159 Thash/s
today....
Miners switching over already?
BCC price driven up because of attracting more miners over there ?
|
|
|
|
Its easier to pump BCH and dump BTC right now.. |
|
|
|
If BCH doesn't crash and burn on a technical level, which it very well might, then I think that there will be three stages:
1. For the next 2-4 days, people will have BCH and be trading it inside of exchanges, but will not be able to readily deposit or withdraw it because BCH blocks will be mined very slowly. This will cause a very inflated price on at least some exchanges.
2. Over the course of a few weeks after that, it will be driven absolutely into the ground as people dump their free BCH.
3. Then it will recover somewhat and hover between 0.001 to 0.01 BTC as a maybe slightly-above-average altcoin. Depending on how committed its supporters are, it could continue indefinitely similar to Litecoin or peter out after some time.
Lots of unbiased investment advices which do not need any disclaimers because of this... I'm actually surprised by how high BCH is, why would accumulators buy futures at this level? The order book is that thin, that they could market making as they want. Wait for proper trading and the politcal dumps and pums are 'over' . |
|
|
|
If BCH doesn't crash and burn on a technical level, which it very well might, then I think that there will be three stages:
1. For the next 2-4 days, people will have BCH and be trading it inside of exchanges, but will not be able to readily deposit or withdraw it because BCH blocks will be mined very slowly. This will cause a very inflated price on at least some exchanges.
2. Over the course of a few weeks after that, it will be driven absolutely into the ground as people dump their free BCH.
3. Then it will recover somewhat and hover between 0.001 to 0.01 BTC as a maybe slightly-above-average altcoin. Depending on how committed its supporters are, it could continue indefinitely similar to Litecoin or peter out after some time.
Lots of unbiased investment advices which do not need any disclaimers because of this... |
|
|
|
Down down down. Da nutzt jemand das geringe Volumen zur Fork-Zeit um den Kurs zu drücken. Ausgehend von Bitstamp. -300$ mit 1k BTC Volumen. Das hätte vor wenigen tagen nicht mal für 50$ gereicht. Ein hoch auf die Manipulation. Das sieht aus, als würde so langsam die BCH Prämie wieder ex gepreist, vegl ex Dividende.. |
|
|
|
Your strong /s risk ana finally convinced me, but you ll simply run out of time. Wow - just throwing words around does not help your position. Be specific - show the weaknesses, but i doubt you can. For example: Decentralized 2nd Layer Solutions have a stable Nash-Equilibrium. The Nash-Equilibrium of Bitcoin might get unstable with Bitcoin Cash or bigger blocks, because a miner could gain an advantage by producing big blocks with nonsense data, if the miner knows that other miners/pools will have difficulties processing the bigger blocks. How do you ensure that your off chain tx is settled on chain? You finally need a miner to mine this specific tx. The miner's game is on chain. Could you think of miners might skip your tx despite a very high fee you provide? Just i.o.to breake your off chain 'reputation' into peaces? This is esp announced by some SW hating miners already and might hit your off chain business at least if your tx is easy to detect as a SW one. |
|
|
|
And miners wouldn't like increasing the block size either because that will lower the fees they gather in the short term. It would also mean that their nodes (which I'm told that many use fairly low end hardware) could be very negatively effected by various exhaustion attacks that come with larger blocks. So really miners want smaller blocks, not larger blocks.
That's not entirely true. Lots of mining entities want bigger blocks because $ignorance and $stupidity. They got it into their head that it was the best way to earn more fees long term and have been unable to believe anything else since. Isn't there just a 'optimal' blocksize that is derived in a non linear optimization process, defined by the border conditions the real world implements? |
|
|
|
Issue in a nutshell:
- On a network where miners do not honor SegWit, all segwit transactions are 'anyone can spend' transactions
- On such a network, each successful miner can spend any 'anyone can spend' transaction to himself
- As segwit is used (e.g., on a segwit-honoring network), more value gets locked up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions
- As more value is built up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions, this increases the incentive for miners to flip the network from segwit-honoring to non-segwit
- This pressure increases with increasing use of segwit. Even if initially stable, the system tends further toward instability.
The net is that smallblockers need to trust the miners -- whom they seem to already believe to be evil -- to not steal their segwit transactions.
Of course, one can convert a segwit coin back to a bitcoin by spending it to yourself in a non-segwit transaction. But that also mandates a second transaction, thereby nullifying and even reversing segwit's so-called capacity increase.
Sounds very speculative and hypothetical to me. No. Just No. Please employ proper logic. Every bulleted item above is a factual statement. Would you like to challenge any of these factual statements on their own merit? Whether or not those steps get chained together in reality is currently a matter of speculation, yes. But I made no such claim. A set of factual statements is not "speculative and hypothetical". Any speculation as to the consequences of the above has been left to the reader. That is nonsense. I can make all kinds of factual statements, and then there is no consequence unless you can describe some kind of logical connection. For example: 1) The sky is clear (meaning no clouds) today 2) Billy bob drives a Toyota Prius 3) That window is dangerous because it slams down without any restraints 4) The goat eats a lot of grass, especially for its size. 5) The Iphone will be damaged if you drop it in the toilet, because it is an Iphone 4 6) If any one of those lightbulbs burn out, then the whole chain does not work, 7) e = mc squared No matter the string of facts, the jbreher Conclusion is: Segwit is going to be a disaster for bitcoin because it is too complicated, and even though segwit is a done deal, I am going to continue to whine about it and assert that we should employ a more simple and straight forward solution of increasing to 2mb block limits. The problem here is that you can and you will find flaws for all solutions, and you can just repeat same phrases from you against SW like this A: SW is tested and safe lets do it B :Sounds very speculative and hypothetical to me. A: No things are different in production compared to testnets, because miners dont cheat there.... ..... This type of discussion will never end since there are just no proper assesments behind and mathematical logic applied, missing probabilities for the desasters to happen. What process do we need to agree upon a final logical assesment that anyone accepts as a proof? |
|
|
|
Funny how you keep spamming this nonsense of calling metals a "barbarous relic" while all other 999 million people in your country of India are buying metals like I am. You can be the one single guy in India with no gold or silver! Someone might even put you in an insane asylum for having such views there.
When I say you are ignoring observable reality this is what the beauty of an internationally constructed price is. Gold is not a reliable store of value anymore. You are pointing at history and ignoring its decline over the last 5 years. It's been getting smashed: http://goldprice.org/What are 5 years compared to golds history? |
|
|
|
First of all, you always forget one of the most important tasks miners have to follow, it is the Nash equilibrium. This is source for major security. From this comes all the rest you numbered down.
That is even better for decentralized off-chain, because the Nash-Equilibrium for a 2way payment channel is trivial. 2 parties cheat/try to gain an advantage = loose everything You repeatedly used this word, however you always fail to show, how a Nash-Equilibrium is even altered. Back to topic: IMHO the incremental increase in capacity from segwit adoption is a good thing, because we have no disruptive capacity event. Big blocks is indeed a high risk strategy. Segwit IMHO not. 2nd layers will have time to evolve. Your strong /s risk ana finally convinced me, but you ll simply run out of time. |
|
|
|
Thx for your help, but I m about the general issues that are coming in with 2nd layer scaling and the variety of security models and peoples agendas behind these.
If you are fine and see no issues with all that, so would you back up your sales manners with your own money, your own resources and your own reputiation? Means if harm comes in from these, you will compensate?
Sure you would never, this shows it has more risks as on chain, where miners back up with their multi million investments front up.
Further you put exacly miner's investments on risk or would you back up this as well with your money?
This exactly shows how deeply you misunderstand 2nd layers. What security is provided by the miners on chain? To prevent possible rewriting the history - the blockchain. To prevent double spends. Maybe to uphold the consensus rules. To provide censorship resistant means of storing data / sending payments. 2nd layers have this features/security intrinsically (derived). Of course software can fail - but you cannot buy miners for x MM USD and increase the security of the BU software on layer 1. So what is your point? 2nd layers are not susceptible to those kinds of attack - therefore you don't need to put hardware millions worth of dollars to protect it on that front. Did Bitcoin Unlimited paid Bitcoin.com when they had the 1 MB blocksize bug? Did they pay node operators, when the software crashed? You just need good software. Yes - i will back that up with my own money on my own payment channels. First of all, you always forget one of the most important tasks miners have to follow, it is the Nash equilibrium. This is source for major security. From this comes all the rest you numbered down. Second yes I understand very good on and off chain scalings thats not the point here. I fear, no I learn, that no one here really understands risk management applied to insurance / financial industry in particular systemic and reputational risk as part of operational risk, but you all just platantly try to sale and deliver things where you have no clue about the inherent risks coming under the hood, but you ll learn when it s too late. All your posts to this major - because money and reputation relevant- questionary I do ends off topic and with more tech and specs that brings in new and more risk recursively. You are just trapped still in the 'bitcoin is an experiment mode', so try it out but you ll never scale that immature way. My advice is, learn risk management for finance and relevant software project management and come back. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
