well sure, but... WHY? i mean, how the heck are they expecting to profit?
It seems Legendary accounts are worth to them to join signature campaigns, airdrops, bounties and all that shit. Not that they are gonna profit insanely though. Or none at all. You can sell a legendary account for at least .1 BTC. If not more. According to Bitcointalk Price estimator mine's worth .18 BTC, although I think that web page overestimates what someone could really get. https://www.bctalkaccountpricer.info/?token=85k9uaoq...well ok then. Damn... apparently my years of spewing BS has gained me an asset worth 0.32 BTC. https://www.bctalkaccountpricer.info/?token=gsettdv8 |
|
|
|
...snip...
How the hell is essentially creeping toward centralization being equated with addressing a "most crippling flaw"? lol
We could have 20 MB blocks and it would still be trivial to run a node at home on a single machine. Mining is at peak centralization now for one reason: ASICs. There are precious few manufacturers and they are smart enough to realize it is more profitable to just use them then to sell them. If mining hardware were more widely available there would be much less centralization. Block size is a red herring. |
|
|
|
BCH has
noSegwit
no RBF
bigger blocks
seems its very much similar to Bitcoin pre 2013
RBF works great when both parties are signing the transaction, such as with LN transactions. However, with a normal BTC transaction where only the sender signs, RBF is just a network supported method of enabling double spends on 0-conf transactions. |
|
|
|
I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.
Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks". Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it? It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH. Why on earth BCC hina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so.... Think long term global scale. This is just an attempt at a power grab 8MB blocks will be full too. Miners only make money on on-chain txs. It's way easier to spam blocks when they are already filled by 80-90% legit tx's. They will have a hard time doing the same with 8MB blocks, plus the main argument of BCH is that they will keep upgrading block size way before they are filled. So, basically, less total fees earned no matter what. It has always been a falacy that it is the miners interest to have bigger blocks. It isn't. But everybody is lieing anyways. It is, however, in the interest of bitcoin as a whole. Bigger blocks means more people can use it means higher price, and of course wider ability to actually pay with bitcoins in shops and such. And who knows, maybe the extra volume will make it profitable for miners too. People don't understand supply and demand curves. They think that reducing supply (i.e. raising price) is the only way to increase profitability. Increasing demand by lowering price is how big companies do it. |
|
|
|
I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.
Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks". Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it? Would make sense as Wu would not want to expose his AsicBoost usage once SegWit gets activated. Much easier to just create a whole separate chain where he can continue to use it to mine blocks at an advantage. I think it forked BEFORE lock-in. Anyway, until there are actual Segwit tx's after ACTIVATION the blockchain was compatible. They just took a snapshot of Bitcoin blockchain at 1 Aug and started building blocks on it with their custom rules. Bitcoin didn't fork. THEY created a completely separate fork, which is not the same. Bitcoin Cash it is in fact compatible with AsicBoost. Their custom rules are mostly just larger blocks and mechanisms to ensure transactions for each chain are only valid on one chain to avoid replay attacks. The full details are here: https://github.com/Bitcoin-UAHF/spec/blob/master/uahf-technical-spec.md |
|
|
|
I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.
Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks". Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it? Would make sense as Wu would not want to expose his AsicBoost usage once SegWit gets activated. Much easier to just create a whole separate chain where he can continue to use it to mine blocks at an advantage. BCH hard fork happened after bip 91 locked in, but before segwit lock in. Bip 91 forced segwit lock-in because enforcing nodes started rejecting blocks that did not signal segwit. Bip 91 locking in and the desire to avoid segwit provided much if the impetus for going ahead with the hard fork rather than continuing to fight for consensus. Segwit was only signaling at 40% until bip 91 locked in. Bip 91 gained support following the segwit2x agreement. However, unsurprisingly there is now contention about the 2x part. |
|
|
|
Do we not know, for a fact, what the mechanical differences between the coins are? Could someone lay it out in a nice easily readable format?
BTC: segwit is locked in, blocks will stay at 1mb for the foreseeable future 2X: potential fork with segwit and 2mb blocks BCH: segwit rejected, blocks are currently capped at 8mb and will likely rise as demand and technology allows. The transaction signing format was altered to provide a clean break since it makes each chain's transactions invalid on the other chain. It also has an extra difficulty adjustment mechanism so that if there are less than 6 blocks in a 12 hour period then difficulty drop 20% to ensure that the chain doesn't stall out. |
|
|
|
....one thing I know - is that the looks on peoples faces,people that you have spoken to about Bitcoin for years, that are sceptical or on the sidelines - the look on all of their faces when you explain Bitcoin and the Bitcoin Fork Bitcoin Cash is pretty much conclusive... and it is a look that says "glad I am not involved with that shit" No matter how you dice it- its a shitshow. One I would much rather had been resolved in another way  What better way is there of deciding the path forward for a decentralized cryptocurrency than the market? Perhaps you would prefer some sort of cabal dictating the right answer to the market? |
|
|
|
He was right, though. The fact that BCH has fast difficulty adjustment and bitcoin doesn't while the Chinese control most of the hash power is gonna be mega-problems for BTC.
A fast difficulty adjustment works both ways. Say a lot of SHA256 power goes into bch...it rapes mining for a few tens of blocks with low diff and then miners switch back to Bitcoin, while bch hangs there, waiting for miners, but nobody is mining it due to high difficulty. It'll take hours to get it unstuck. The effect on bitcoin is a few delayed blocks, while the fast-adjusting bch will have created an anomaly similar to how multi-pools rape altcoins - while getting raped itself and then left for hours to come down. The altcoin market has shown that the fast-adjusting coin is more exploitable and disrupted from multi-pools. The problem cannot be easily solved for bch because if you try a detection mechanism that checks whether the blocks aren't arriving to do a massive diff cut, then you are going into an uneven mining pattern, accelerating inflation. BCH is only fast adjusting for difficulty drops when blocks are taking too long. Miners who want to raise difficulty have the same 2016 block period to deal with. |
|
|
|
It's not BCash, it's Bitcoin Cash.
You big blockers can call your abortion fork coin whatever you want to call it. We "Bitcoiners" will refer to it as BCash. Or shitcoin clone. Whichever. Pride cometh before the fall. I'm betting on both horses (by doing nothing), so I'm covered either way. BTC is worth the same as before the fork, so why be greedy and dump BCH? If you haven't dumped it, the only reason to bash it is because you're afraid of it. |
|
|
|
|
Kraken's web interface is alive again... now that there are more than just bots trading the action is picking up in the bch markets.
|
|
|
|
Merged mining implies you are deferring to the other chain as a source of truth/security.
... yeah, all you've done here is make clear that you don't understand merged-mining without furthering the debate in the slightest. Then explain it to me, because your response adds nothing either.  I'm sorry you're in such a foul mood today. |
|
|
|
this is the calm before the storm ... you can't say you haven't been warned.
When the hashpower begins swinging from one chain to another it's going to get very messy and both coins will become unpredictable, unstable and at times very difficult to use. One logical conclusion out of this is when Bcash adopts merged-mining ... or the hashpower wars will drag on until the bitcoin landscape becomes derelict and eventually a failed experiment.
Edit: Bcash adopting merged-mining is probably unlikely given the dominance of Bitmain h/ware on that chain that needs ASICboost to retain profitability and segwit header code conflicts with this type of miner cheating/shortcut.
Either chain adopting merged mining would be admitting defeat. Merged mining implies you are deferring to the other chain as a source of truth/security. |
|
|
|
I dont believe you... it is slow as fuck. you can believe whatever you want mate  i not force you ... again like i said before for me works great ! Would you be another API trader, by chance ? As for me, I cashed out from Kraken to Bitfinex a few days ago. No regrets ! No more market orders so slow that I can cancel them. Good luck with Bitfinex... you won't get your full allotment of BCH because they are using a "socialized distribution coefficient" which allows people who margin short BTC while holding actual BTC to steal a portion of your BCH. https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/212/review |
|
|
|
http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/07/29/bitcoin-impending-accounting-disaster/that sounds bad basically bitfin giving people who shorted btc also bitcoin cash but actually what he is talking about cannot happen i guess because bitfinex writes: Due to the net amount of BTC committed in margin positions at the time of the fork, the above methodology may result in Bitfinex seeing a surplus or deficit of BCH. As such, we will be resolving this discrepancy in the form of a socialized distribution coefficient. For example, currently, there are more longs than shorts on the platform, causing a distribution coefficient of ~1.091 (Meaning that for each qualifying BTC a user will receive 1.091 BCH). The actual coefficient will be calculated at the moment of the distribution. Please note that if there are more shorts than longs at the fork event, this coefficient will be less than one. This coefficient can be roughly computed from publicly available information from our API (longs & shorts) and the Blockchain (cold storage). -> it means i get less bitcoin cash for my bitcoin because now everyone and his dog shorts, to get more bch oh my Yep. If you don't play the game, but you have BTC on bitfinex then you are paying everyone else who is playing the game. Bitfinex is retarded and this won't end well for them. |
|
|
|
Actually I'm not going to even touch it.
I was worried about the market, if people start dumping BCC and it uses the same addresses as BTC, then BTC will de dumped altogether.
https://www.bitcoincash.org, click the FAQ link. BCC (or BCH as most exchanges are calling it) will be an entirely separate blockchain, but it will share a history with BTC. If you have BTC at the time of the fork, you will have the same number of BCH. The private key for your BTC can be used to sign a BCH transaction. However, the transaction format has been updated for BCH in a way that BCH transactions are not valid on the BTC chain and BTC transactions are not valid on the BCH chain. There will be no replay attacks. It will be impossible to screw up a split. If you don't trust any BCH wallets, move your bitcoins before importing the private keys. Selling one will not sell the other. |
|
|
|
Yes. In my math, $403 is exactly between 1% and 2% of $2759.
BTCC crooks don't have that much money to support such a price. Unless, of course, they succeed in stealing bitcoins from noobs as already explained. they can pump chinese fiat renminbi into that freak all day long I'd really like to ignore this as a non-event. But I can't because it isn't because somebody will pump that freak all day long. @becoin Greed always finds a way That's what I'm saying. Greed will force noobs to split their wallets and try to sell the fork. Instead they'll end up selling their bitcoins for peanuts. That's the game of the crooks. That might be the game of some of the crooks, but most of the names on that list have conviction and big bags. I think you underestimate this. Here's a conspiracy theory for you guys: What if the Chinese miners wait until you all finish dumping all your BCC (which they will be buying), then turn ALL their hashpower onto the BCC chain? Then they will control Bitcoin, AND they will have ALL the BTC you have been hoarding all these years... Just a thought  Shhh... I want cheap bch. |
|
|
|
No, no. No hard forks.
Yes, yes. Yes hard fork.  fork To Da Moon!!!   Fork would never moon. Look at history, look at ETC, it tells enough of this stupid tale. ETC is the original ruleset. ETH is the fork. |
|
|
|
Let the longest thread survive.
I am trying to post in the original thread but it seems the difficulty is too high for my posting power. No single post has been mined since this morning. If we don't do something the original wall observer thread will die. Maybe change PoW?
#movetheoriginalthreadtometaandunlockit
Do you mean this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=85687.0What if I told you that the original wall observer thread was not the original wall observer thread? They have destroyed it many times before... https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/f15da6a9-ab8b-4b49-b7b9-29f8e03a4641 |
|
|
|
If people know, then it is already priced.
If people don't know, then there will be no one to tell you
I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree Insiders won't tell you anything since that would basically mean losing a competitive advantage and thus missing profits. In fact, they will likely tell you the reverse so that they could earn even more dough. That said, you can still obtain useful info from trollboxes at exchanges, chat rooms, forum posts, and similar things. For example, a few hours before the Bitcoin price crashed in early 2017, there were reports from the clients of the Chinese exchanges that they had been disallowed to withdraw bitcoins due to an order received by these exchanges from the Chinese Central bank (PBoC). And people who were "in the know" could safely close their Bitcoin positions before the price plummeted Insiders will respond to the information via the market (buy or sell), and then spread the information. They need people to follow them to make money. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
