Means that a majority of users and miners gravitate to BitcoinCash.

I realize that this is speculative, but I consider it a not-unlikely possibility. What with the massive difference in transaction capacity -- and thereby in utility -- between the chains.

While strictly true (assuming minority support, which seems likely), I think this will be the first altcoin launched where every Bitcoin holder will on day zero have an equal number of the altcoins.

If in the future BitcoinCash becomes the majority fork (a not unlikely prospect, given the massive transaction capacity advantage), then positions will flip, BitcoinCash will become simply Bitcoin, and cripplecoin will become the alt.

Any way you look at it now, we are all likely to learn something from this.

There already is BU. But BU is just a client.

There will be BitcoinCash. A larger, stronger, more capable derivative of Bitcoin, generated via hard fork. The primary client for BitcoinCash is BitcoinABC. Or BU - take your pick. Or Classic, XT, ...

---

Just no. That's an f'n ignorant-ass statement.

While Ver seems generally supportive of BU, he had absolutely nothing to do with the genesis or development thereof. He did kick in some adoption funds after it was a fully-operational client. But to claim "BU is Ver's baby" is simply wrong on all counts.

---

Just hit a standing sell order at 2674.69. My order book tells me we've not been here for 26 days. I'll take it.

So you are accusing me of being a shill, without presenting any supporting evidence. You, shitty kitty, are a cad.


Let me get this straight. Darkbot straight up accuses me of being a shill, with no evidence presented, and you assert that I am using ad hominem against Darkbot? idonthtinkthatwordmeanswhatyouthinkitmeans.png I merely used an epithet against Darkbot.

Further, I did not accuse Darkbot of being a shill. I accused you of being a shill. For it is evident for all to see. You are shilling gunbot right in your signature.


You are exactly wrong. An increase in hardware cost will not choke off usage. It will allow the network to handle more capacity. Therefore allowing more usage.

Got any logic that supports that assertion? Or are you just emoting?

Let us posit a hypothetical. Let us assume (just go with me here) that legacy Bitcoin retains its current market cap, and Bitcoin Cash rises to 10x (~420B USD). In such a case, has 'the whole thing failed'?

You'd have to ask them. I am unaware of any valid poll ever conducted on the matter.

Though lacking data, I personally am convinced that so few people run a node (I assume you mean a fully-validating, non-mining wallet?) because they have no incentive to do so.

I run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet because I value the ability to transact directly onchain. I guess most Bitcoiners don't give a shit about the ability to do so.

Then again, maybe more people that we have thought realize the falseness of the dogma that such non-mining, fully-validating wallets provide some sort of benefit to the network itself.

No. The most prevalent opinion is that after the split, the bigblock chain will be known as Bitcoin Cash. BitcoinABC is just one of the clients that will operate on this chain. As will Bitcoin Unlimited, and likely Classic, XT, and others.

That is until it becomes majority chain. Which may happen within a half year - due to increased utility over 'that other' chain. At which point, it would be likely that the bigblock chain will become known as simply Bitcoin. And the crippled chain will need to choose a new name for itself.

Of course, this assumes that Bitcoin Cash makes it through its infancy. It will likely start out with minority support. Thereby less incentive to mine. But with (relatively) unlimited transaction capacity, it can accommodate transaction demand that S2 cannot. Thereby making Bitcoin (Cash) once again attractive for all the use cases (e.g., retail purchases) that core drove away. More utility -> more use -> more velocity -> more demand -> rising price -> incentive to mine -> more security -> more utility.

A Bitcoin (Cash) that can be used as a medium of exchange as well as a store of value makes redundant a Bitcoin (legacy) capable of only a store of value. Thereby eroding the cripplecoin's value. Eventually to near-zero.

---

Well, _there's_ a logical basis for making an economic decision. /s

---

BitcoinABC is one client that works on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.                           you moron

Among all the stupid reasons to be against bigblocks, this has got to be the stupidest.

Storage is currently two-and-a-half US cents per GB.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/

BCC might have a rough initial period due to limited mining support. But if it can make it through its infancy, it will likely become dominant. The ability to accommodate transaction demand make it a long-term winner over cripplecoin.

It's been a month. Any progress?

Yep.

youdontsay.png

Four paws. Good for grabbin'

So we have some upcoming events in Bitcoinlandia that may result in hard forks of the Bitcoin blockchain. If the blockchain indeed forks, then anyone showing a balance of X on the blockchain immediately before the fork will -- after the fork -- have a balance of X coins on each of the resultant chains.

There are several approaches an exchange might take to this event. The approach that customers would deem preferential is to reflect these chains such that each customer maintains their full balance on each of the chains. But the exchange may toss the coins on one or other chain, keep the coins on one of the chains for themselves, or perhaps several other approaches.

I have been looking around the coinbase.com and gdax websites looking for a concrete statement of how they will handle any Bitcoin chain split. I have however been unable to find this. They wrote back in March that they are leaving their options open. However, since March, the probability of a Bitcoin chain split has likely risen by an order of magnitude or more.

Has anyone seen a recent statement of how they will handle such a split?

It's even worse - it's an older version from before the DoS attacks / bug failures - not the newer patched and hardened variety. Oh-the-hugemanatee!.gif


Only if forced, kicking and screaming. I will never accept SegWit coins as being the true equivalent of Bitcoins. For they are not. They are but a cheap substitute. With a vastly inferior security model.

Yes. When it is all over, we can look back, and discern WTF happened.


^^ FTFY

Why? Can't exchange without exchanging. I'm up over a full Bitcoin in just the last two days by capitalizing on the volatility.


For some use cases, yes. For others, no.


An acknowledged risk. Which is why I hold the bulk of my BTC on an airgapped system Armory install, with networked watch-only wallet running atop Bitcoin Unlimited, on my non-mining, fully validating node. But I do have a small portion of my BTC on exchange. The return has been demonstrated to be well worth the risk

---

Oh look! Price just dropped to my next standing buy order. Pocket another 23 mills of profit, enter corresponding sell. Lather, rinse, repeat.

^^ that's why.

Yes. We tremble in fear from the image of pasty geeks trying to look tough grasping poorly maintained implements of vegetation maintenance.

 

Meh. I'm still running BU. An older version from before the DDoS attacks even. Still fully protecting my non-insignificant nest egg.

Well, no. It can't be prevented by a PoW change. Though if you wanna bail, feel free. Good riddance to bad rubbish.


As I was saying...