Only, a big part of BCC is the (at-best) unethical, continued use of an illegally-implemented, patented technology referred to as ASICboost.
I challenge you to explain how ASICboost is any more a part of Bitcoin Cash than it is a part of legacy Bitcoin. Come to think of it, I also challenge you to explain how ASICboost is illegally implemented. |
|
|
|
How much powder for a four-fortissimo? Come to think of it, weren't exploding noisemakers the thing that landed someone in the hoosegow? |
|
|
|
WTF? So is Roger Ver full of shit? Is this BCC fork thing not happening now?
Well, if nobody mines it, there can be no fork. I swear to the gods, if that guy and the whole lot of them was bullshitting this whole time about a fork,
I'm completely serious in my support for the Bitcoin Cash efforts. But it has been years since I controlled any hashpower. I'm at the mercy of the miners like the rest of y'all. Of course, the accelerated difficulty adjustment will keep ratcheting down 20% every 12 hours, until it is minable by GPU. If it makes ya feel any better, if it goes that long, I'll mine the first damned fork block. I've still got one of those USB FPGA hashing dongles around here somewhere... |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Remember, to get the very best view of the eclipse, you must look directly at the sun for five minutes.
Eclipse is still three weeks away. |
|
|
|
...
Sometimes, I state facts, and sometimes, I render opinions. I try not to exaggerate, I don't make up facts, and I try to keep my conclusions rational. When challenged, I produce rationale for my statements. Sometimes, I even get things wrong, but I always try to be truthful.
...
Not always. Sometimes you list your own lies neatly for everybody to see: Those are not lies. That was posted in response to Lauda, who claimed something akin to 'jbreher never before made the claim that fully-validating, non-mining wallets add little to no value to the network as a system'. So that listing was refutation to Lauda's lies. If you think that that fully-validating, non-mining wallets provide any benefit to the network as a whole, you do not understand Bitcoin. The only power such a wallet has is to amputate itself from the rest of the network. |
|
|
|
BCH is a spinoff happening on aug 1st. It will never have anything to do with bitcoin (BTC).
Nothing to do with Bitcoin other than it is a fork of Bitcoin. A continuation of Bitcoin. An improvement of Bitcoin. It is arguably a smaller change to legacy Bitcoin than is The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. Accordingly, if Bitcoin Cash is an alt, then so is SegWit. Of course, it will likely not exit the gate with the same level of support as legacy Bitcoin. So legacy Bitcoin will accordingly retain the mantle of 'The Bitcoin'. However, Bitcoin Cash is inherently capable of supporting all the use cases that core threw overboard to satisfy their Raspberry Pi fetish. Bitcoin Cash thereby has the potential to grow to subsume legacy Bitcoin's value. In which case, positions will flip, and Bitcoin Cash would assume the throne as 'The Bitcoin'. In such an event, legacy Bitcoin will need to find a new name. ( Some have suggested Bitcoindashjr. XD ) |
|
|
|
So you say, miners are just stupid by blocking SW, since they could 'earn' a lot of more with it ?
Well, no. I did not say that. I said that there is a risk that miners will claim segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions as their own, and that this risk increases with increasing use of segwit. |
|
|
|
Yes. It is a well-known attribute of SegWit. It is a well-known stupidity of people claiming this. Well, you can pretend that an 'anyone can spend' transaction is something other than an 'anyone can spend' transaction. But of course that would be tautologically impossible. Jbreher: You and some of the big blocker nutjobs seem to have tendencies to cry wolf so much that if there did happen to be a real issue or a real problem, then it is possible that people might not believe you because they have been exposed to too many exaggerations, made up facts and made up conclusions, right? Wrong. Sometimes, I state facts, and sometimes, I render opinions. I try not to exaggerate, I don't make up facts, and I try to keep my conclusions rational. When challenged, I produce rationale for my statements. Sometimes, I even get things wrong, but I always try to be truthful. You, OTOH, tend to repeat dogma as if it were settled truth, and avoid providing any basis for your utterances. 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. |
|
|
|
Yes. It is a well-known attribute of SegWit. It is a well-known stupidity of people claiming this. Well, you can pretend that an 'anyone can spend' transaction is something other than an 'anyone can spend' transaction. But of course that would be tautologically impossible. |
|
|
|
Yes. It is a well-known attribute of SegWit. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Unlimited and any other proposals had their chance to split at any time but they preferred to stay with the original chain.
Well, no. Bitcoin Unlimited supports the Bitcoin Cash chain. Bravo - way to completely miss the point. The issue he is complaining about is the 75% discount applied only to a certain class of transactions.
To senior members who may have the answer, Because of the hard fork/Bitcoin Cash, then there wont be segwit2x in November 18, 2017? Many Thanks
Hard to tell. Some of the motivation behind Bitcoin Cash is the growing realization that a significant percentage of those who advocated S2X may be planning to reneg on the 2X part. So there was never any certainty behind the 2X for to begin with. |
|
|
|
I see that same "loose", "lose' mistake made time and time again on these forums and it drives my obsessive ass crazy! (I suspect I'm not alone in this matter)
Indeed. I've been sporting my current side-sig for a couple years now. XD |
|
|
|
Yeah, right. Further down in the tweetthread, he admits he just pulled it outta his ass. Think, people - like the vampire squid would really lay out their plan ending with the meme "9. profit". Jeebus, y'all be gullible. |
|
|
|
Yes. In my math, $403 is exactly between 1% and 2% of $2759. </s>
And you call that math?!?!? Jesus, I wonder how many 'traders' trade by such math 'zackly |
|
|
|
...
Yes. And other exchanges are using BCC. No resolution. Until such time, I will continue to use BC.
...
Lets name Bitcoin Cash BC and not BCC! That was a good post from jbreher. Well, thanks. But it wasn't my idea: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2040221.msg20401732#msg20401732I don't know whether or not it was KeyJockey's original idea, but I have no reason to doubt. |
|
|
|
Well that clears that up. You all obviously haven't got a pot to piss in.
Sure I do. I keep it next to my bed, in case I awake with the need to tap a vein. Such veiled threats.
Haha. Well, it's a lot to me. But certainly not enough to move markets. Alone, AAR. No, the pump will be in renminbi.
Not unimaginable. |
|
|
|
some exchange will help you no doubt, maybe Kraken
Thanks. More exchanges by the day. And yes, Kraken currently looks like a front-runner. While my trading stash (i.e., the Bitcoin not locked up in cold storage) is but a small fraction of my Bitcoin holdings, it's still a sizable chunk-o-change. I'd hate to leave it on an exchange that doesn't honor the BC split.
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.
Cheers! XD
These are the same clowns that stood behind Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin ABC and so on. How can I take them seriously?
These 'clowns' have conviction and big bags. BlindMayorBitcorn said so themself. How can you not take them seriously? |
|
|
|
So BTC will be off chain and BCC will process ON-Chain?
Yes, although BTC will continue to allow a limited amount of on-chain transactions, and BC is expected to (edit: eventually) implement a malleability fix, which will also simplify Lightning-style off-chain transactions on that chain as well. Is the 8mb adjustable without another fork if it needs to increase again?
No. In the immediate term, the 8MB is a hard cap - at least within the BitcoinABC client*. It is expected to implement further increases to the max block size ahead of such time as the current cap is hit. In this manner, such a hard fork is inherently non-contentious. And this incidentally matches satoshi's statement of how such an increase might be implemented throuhg a simple flag day fix tied to a given block height. Note that other clients, such as BU, XT, Classic, core patched with a simple block size increase, etc. are also compatible with the BC chain.
Yes. And other exchanges are using BCC. No resolution. Until such time, I will continue to use BC.
My question is why BCC tiker? BCC is BitConnect ticker.
Exactly as these scam Nubs couldn't even check coinmarketcap for tickers. What 'Nubs' are you talking about? ViaBTC? It seems they are the ones that set the precedent.
i'm less interested in hearing about who plans to mine than who plans to run a full node? anyone here gonna do it?
I've been running BU for many months. BU is compatible with the BC blockchain, so...
This shit does not even have a TESTNET
Are you a liar, or merely clueless? http://blockdozer.com/insight/ |
|
|
|
there's a group forking an altcoin (bitcoin cash) come august 1st.
Pretty much. Though it is possible that in time, BC will surpass BTC in the marketplace. This is due to BC's inherent support of all the important use cases that core threw overboard in their insane Raspberry Pi fetish. If this were to come about, then BC would be Bitcoin, and legacy cripplecoin would be the alt. this bumps the block limit to 8 MB. any other changes?
- SegWit stripped - RBF stripped - replay protection added what happened to bitcoin unlimited? are they a part of this BCC split?
Sort of. If one runs BU, one can run it on your choice of BC or legacy cripplecoin, by tuning the block acceptance parameters. The primary client is likely to be BitcoinABC, though one might also use Classic, XT, core with a simple bigblock patch, or any number of other clients. One other interesting attribute that you did not mention. At the point of the fork, you will be instantly awarded exactly as many BC as you have legacy Bitcoin. The fate of those BC coins are in your hands.
Is there a way to short the BTC cash futures?
If you're outside USA, you can use ViaBTC's BCC futures tokens.
The whale would then have to decide to either use their BTC to bolster BCC market or dump their BTC to harm BTC market. They couldn't do both.
Those crooks that decided to fork into Bitcoin Cash ...
There is no crime in voluntarily treating a permissionless system as a voluntary permissionless system. And you are 100% wrong about the motivations. At least for the majority of BC supporters. We are working towards a stronger, more capable Bitcoin.
Current premarket price of BTCC shows that price will be between 1% and 2% of Bitcoin value.
Yes. In my math, $403 is exactly between 1% and 2% of $2759. </s> https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/BTCC is not a BC equivalent. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
