Or totally centralized by cartel Bitmain? I, too, would like a reasonable definition of "smashing" in this context.
In what way is BCH centralized by Bitmain, that BTC is not? Don't make me pull out my pie charts, bro. Nobody wants that. No - really. I'm asking. (What good are pie charts to the blind? Do they come in braille  ) It is not uncommon for miners to remain anonymous, yet it is of grave concern for Bitcoin Cash. The unknown entity has been mining close to 95% of all network blocks for quite some time now. https://themerkle.com/unknown-bitcoin-cash-miners-control-almost-97-of-the-networks-hashpower/Bitmain is conspicuous in its absence. Yes, the mystery miner is likely to be Bitmain. But we don't know. More germane however, the current percentage is much different. And is likely to be more so as price-sub-BCH : price-sub-BTC approacheth 1.
$415 a pop right now. $7B market cap. AND up 12.5% on the day. In what way is that worse than ETC?
By way of the most relevant metric: ETC/ETH : BCH/BTC. ETC $1B / ETH $28B BCH $7B / BTC $96B Nope. Still not seeing it. Besides, ETH is an irrelevancy. |
|
|
|
Or totally centralized by cartel Bitmain? I, too, would like a reasonable definition of "smashing" in this context.
In what way is BCH centralized by Bitmain, that BTC is not? Don't make me pull out my pie charts, bro. Nobody wants that. No - really. I'm asking. (What good are pie charts to the blind? Do they come in braille ) |
|
|
|
Au contraire, my good friend - BCH is off to a smashing start. By "smashing start" do you mean worse than ETC? $415 a pop right now. $7B market cap. AND up 12.5% on the day. In what way is that worse than ETC?
Or totally centralized by cartel Bitmain? I, too, would like a reasonable definition of "smashing" in this context.
In what way is BCH centralized by Bitmain, that BTC is not? |
|
|
|
However, cheap electricity, newest generation chips, and other factors that are now unbalancing the game won't be that relevant anymore, and there will be much fairer competition.
What -- exactly -- do you find _unfair_ about the current situation? Difference in costs and in the cost/return ratio. I don't necessarily disagree that there may be differences in cost/return ratio. But if you consider that _unfair_, then your definition of 'unfair' is considerably different than that I've grown up with. Peanuts. Besides, newer hardware squashes old to the point that old rigs aren't economical. Obsolescence should be realigned, too. Any American could put up a mining rig knowing that electricity costs are not the bottleneck anymore.
Nonsense. Electrical costs will always be a dominant factor in Bitcoin mining. Whether in flip flops in an ASIC or words in a memory column, each bit flip requires some number of Joules of energy. Of course, but flipping "the same bits" as quickly as possible (computing power, not memory bound) is one thing. Flipping "a much larger number of different bits" as quickly as possible - but less quickly because RAM won't allow max speed (memory bound computation) is rather less energy-intensive. Irrelevant. Crypto mining will still be energy bound. Let me try this another way. What force is it that you believe will prevent the determined and well-funded from creating massive datacenters full of memory-optimized miners? |
|
|
|
it's to be seen if they will dump all these accumulated BCH coins for BTC as soon as the hyper round ends
What hyper round? We're not in a period of EDA-lowered difficulty. https://fork.lol/pow/difficulty |
|
|
|
Huge jump in BCH hashpower (+4 Eh, all-time high) over the past few days: https://fork.lol/pow/hashrateinterestingly, this does not correlate with an EDA adjustment. But it does correlate with the price jump. Also interestingly, this time it does not correlate with a price crash. Which means that this new hashpower is holding onto their newly-mined BTC. |
|
|
|
However, cheap electricity, newest generation chips, and other factors that are now unbalancing the game won't be that relevant anymore, and there will be much fairer competition.
What -- exactly -- do you find _unfair_ about the current situation? Some had the foresight, drive, business acumen, and such to actually get into the business of making ASICs. Others used similar resources to build datacenters full of miners. These avenues are still open today for anyone suitably talented and driven. It is perfectly fair. That's the point - not avoiding concentration, but letting concentration happen with similar ease almost everywhere. So Average David can spend 1000$, and his 1000$ are worth almost exactly as much as Goliath's 1000$.
David has some advantages that Goliath does not. For instance, applying the 'waste' heat to a real need. This is something that can be done at small scale, and cannot (or at least currently is not) done at scale. Any American could put up a mining rig knowing that electricity costs are not the bottleneck anymore.
Nonsense. Electrical costs will always be a dominant factor in Bitcoin mining. Whether in flip flops in an ASIC or words in a memory column, each bit flip requires some number of Joules of energy. I canna change the laws of physics, captain! |
|
|
|
Having chain hoppers who have no real interest in accumulating Bitcoin Cash, is not helping the price at all.
While that is true, having them join in is increasing the security of the BCH chain. And it will all balance out in time anyhow. |
|
|
|
Surely, making an ASIC isn't so difficult that only Bitmain and Bitfury can manufacture them from this point forward.
I know, right? It's almost as if everyone would rather whine and bitch and cast aspersions as to motivations rather than to expend the hard work to actually compete. And this in the most open of all possible financial markets. Money suited to a libertarian's dream. Whowouldathunkit? |
|
|
|
If the miners rolled back segwit, then everyone that sent money to a segwit address could have their funds stolen immediately,
segwit address coins can be spent by anyone if segwit is no longer running on the network.
Well, that is kind of true. And kind of not. And I'm a Bitcoin Cash advocate, so keep that in mind. First off, the only segwit transactions that are subject to the anyonecanspend issue are ones not already mined into a block. So if the miners wanted to to claim the value in those newly-anyonecanspend transactions, they would need to roll back the blockchain to release those transactions. Game theory suggests this is unlikely to happen. Secondly, once those transactions become anyonecanspend again, while it is true that anyone can claim the value, those doing the claiming need to somehow get their claim mined into a block. As miners are able to mine any transactions they care to, and as miners are also able to claim these anyonecanspend transactions, this essentially makes these any minercanspend transactions. The miners will ignore any competing modified transactions in preference to their own. Of course, this latter fact is what makes my first observation above less than absolute. As more segwit/anyonecanspend transactions get bound up in the blockchain, the incentive for miners to collude to roll back the chain increases. With each and every segwit transaction. It baffles me why the Bitcoin Segwit Core advocates -- who claim to distrust the miners so vociferously -- are able to look away from the trust they need to have in miners due to this issue. |
|
|
|
Spoken like a true r.
You buy this stuff, Bob? Should I look into it? What _does_ the scientific community have to say about it? I haven't done much reading lately. Just finished Stefan's second installment. He seems to be coming at it from some bias, and some assertions are unsupported (maybe he has footnotes in the text below? I'll go back and check later), but seems mostly balanced. This is my first exposure to this area of thought. So far, I am quite intrigued. |
|
|
|
BCH is a non-starter,
Au contraire, my good friend - BCH is off to a smashing start. Cheers! edit: Support from Luke-jr!? Will wonders never cease? Of course, it is merely _qualified_ support - as in his claim that Bitcoin Cash is superior to Litecoin. A proposition with which I can heartily agree. |
|
|
|
*Unless a change in POW helps to equalize mining power by making costs harder to scale.
...Your apparent belief that a change in PoW will make any difference in centralization is unpersuasive. No matter the technology, mining power will coalesce to those that possess the financial resources, the BizOps acumen, and most importantly the persistence and pain tolerance needed for entrepreneurship on a grand scale. I don't believe this is true. If somehow PoW can be tied to a smartphone for "one phone one vote", those who have financial resources can screw themselves against the brute force of several billion smartphone users. Just No. Those that have the resources will run hundreds of android emulator VMs on each of hundreds of servers, and we'll be right back with the same centralization problem we have today. We won't, if we switch to to a RAM and RAM-access intensive PoW algo. Let them try to emulate terabytes of RAM in a time efficient way. No eh? Just as I thought. Those with the resources and wherewithal will not need to _emulate_ terabytes of memory. They will simply _buy_ them. And expend the effort and deploy the ingenuity required to build up large datacenters of 'em. The broke and the lazy (i.e., the vast majority) will once again succumb to centralization of mining by large organizations. |
|
|
|
Ahhh. I retract my previous comments then. I think like everything else with electrum, it's pretty self explanetory and the software gives you a lot of information. It is quite strange that ledger would point you to that, as I see it, electrum probably works better. I found this topic which looks quite informative, it is from a few months ago so not sure how useful it is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1860569.0As a side note, it may currently be impossible to put it on electrum if you're using segwit addresses instead of legacy addresses. If you coins are in a legacy address you should find that it should work well. Once electrum is downloaded from electrum.org/#download all you need to do is run it, select "Use a Hardware Device" and it shoud search for your wallet. It shouldn't even need any authorisation from the ledger when you start it as all it needs is the unencrypted data - mainly the public key. If you do this it's useful to keep your chrome add-on just in case but eectrum proably has a lot more features (or is at least easier to handle as its open source and has at least 4 main developers - I think). Thanks. Given that I have an existing Electrum wallet that exists outside any knowledge of nano, do I surmise that I create a new wallet in electrum, and point _that_ at the ledger? I need to think through whether I want my cold storage -- even if unable to transact without the nano -- visible on a day-to-day computer. |
|
|
|
So I am a n00b as regarding as Ledger nano s operations. I am transitioning from an Armory Offline solution for my cold storage to Ledger. I hit a stumbling block, and seek info. Yesterday, I funded an exchange account with a send from Ledger. I used the standard fee as suggested by nano. Unfortunately, it was not enough for quick processing. Fair enough, my bad. Today, seeing the tx did not go through, I created another tx to the same send address. IOW, once both the previous tx and this one clear, I will have double the amount sent in either single tx. I used the high fee option presented by nano. My expectation was that this tx would clear promptly, and the first tx would process at some later time. I checked the new tx on blockchain.info. Imagine my surprise when I saw that nano used the change output from the first unconfirmed tx as one of the inputs to the new tx!  Is there some way to configure nano to prevent this from happening? A setting to just plain prevent this? A setting to issue a warning requiring confirmation before this can occur? Coin control options so I can select which inputs will go into any given tx? All you can do in the Ledger Bitcoin app is go to coin control under settings and set the number of confirmations before spending from 1 to 6. The wallet itself should not spend unconfirmed inputs. Could be a bug: perhaps report the problem to Ledger Support by opening a ticket. Yeah...about that... It was already set to 6 confirmations when it tried to spend the chainge from an unconfirmed transaction it had created. |
|
|
|
NO. I noticed lots of people use electrum. It creates a watching only wallet using the public key handed to it from ledger and creates a transaction in raw form that the ledger can then sign.
Aha! Another piece of the puzzle - thanks. As a Ledger n00b, I've not quite fit all the pieces together as of yet. The available official documentation on nano s is either sketchy, or poorly organized. I have not yet hit on this possibility on their website. It seems they are focused on their proprietary Chrome app. As such, I merely assumed that app to be full-featured. Similarly, I have not seen how to create a watch-only wallet for import to Electrum from a given Ledger seed. Can you point me to a description for such? |
|
|
|
Adam Back reveals Blockstream's plans to make bank off of enabling sidechains.
Everybody is allowed to make and sell BTC sidechains including big blocktards that still hold BCH. Yes, I agree that this is a decentralized, permissionless environment. Accordingly, anyone is able to implement what they damned well please. What seems new here is an open admission by Blockstream CEO that their business plans are predicated directly on Blocking the Stream. As if we hadn't already surmised... |
|
|
|
If you post or pm me the unconfirmed txids in question I will push them for you and clear this up in a few hours.
Thanks BitcoinNewsMagazine. I truly appreciate the offer. But as by happenstance, both txs have now cleared. Interestingly, both in the same block. (?!) However, my questions remain. Is there a way to prevent nano s from doing this? What software were you using with the ledger? Thanks for your reply. The official Ledger Chrome app. If it was electrum
!?!?!? Why would I use Electrum!? I mean, I get that one can use the same seed for both. But putting it on an internet-connected computer seems insane to me. At least for substantial values. Which is what I am talking about here. then it's somewhere in the preferences there is a setting that says "spend unconfirmed outputs" that you need to uncheck.
If the second transaction fee was a regular fee or higher then they'll both get confirmed at the same time for the miner to get the most profits.
EDIT: it's in tools>preferences>and "spend only confirmed coins" should do the trick.
Cool. Yeah, I used Electrum to sweep my keys one-by-one from my previous Armory offline cold storage solution, and send them one-by-one to nano. Been using Electrum for trivial usages for years. I have that down. Any way to do coin control (or any of the other needs I enumerate above) in the native Ledger Chrome app? |
|
|
|
If you post or pm me the unconfirmed txids in question I will push them for you and clear this up in a few hours.
Thanks BitcoinNewsMagazine. I truly appreciate the offer. But as by happenstance, both txs have now cleared. Interestingly, both in the same block. (?!) However, my questions remain. Is there a way to prevent nano s from doing this? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
