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. I haven't dumped it. I'm covered either way. I'm not afraid. I'm annoyed by the power struggles of evil Dr.Sumthings around the world that want to impose their will to a whole community, with the likely hope of being able to manipulate the rules at will once they're in control. The evil Dr.Sumthing always fails in the end, as we all know from uncountable James Bond movies. That's why I'm not afraid. TL;DR: Not afraid, but pissed off. |
|
|
|
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. I think Bash sounds good. Or even "Ash", after some price movement eventually makes short work of it. |
|
|
|
The community doesn't realize yet it has been besieged.
I think most people involved in BTC (the community) do realize this is an attack. I, for one, do. A siege, though, is not a generic attack. It involves being starved by the enemy outside, which can't happen as long as we keep our provisions (BTC) - that is, if we don't trade BTC for BCH. I am convinced that the value of BCH will vanish soon, unless it is artificially (and expensively) pumped from the BCH side. Which they are welcome to do, as far as I'm concerned. I'm going to trade my BCH back into BTC if I see steady rates in the order of 0.3-0.5 BCH/BTC. I dont expect it to come back to 0.3-0.5 rate ever. Upcoming days BCH will drop in value drasticly. At the moment of speaking BCH is already down to 275 Euro on Kraken. Get a decent price for em while you still can.... Thanks for your suggestion, HanvanBitcoin. I see what you mean and it's reasonable. However, I've thought a bit about it. I need to set up an account and move all my coins to new addresses before I can actually sell. For the time being, I like to consider my hedl BCH as an insurance on the unlikely black swan of BTC losing value as the real chain. And I'm waiting for a possible pump in November. Deferred rewards and all that. |
|
|
|
The community doesn't realize yet it has been besieged.
I think most people involved in BTC (the community) do realize this is an attack. I, for one, do. A siege, though, is not a generic attack. It involves being starved by the enemy outside, which can't happen as long as we keep our provisions (BTC) - that is, if we don't trade BTC for BCH. I am convinced that the value of BCH will vanish soon, unless it is artificially (and expensively) pumped from the BCH side. Which they are welcome to do, as far as I'm concerned. I'm going to trade my BCH back into BTC if I see steady rates in the order of 0.3-0.5 BCH/BTC. |
|
|
|
we're gonna see a whale jump out of the ocean. Also someone's made an error.
I can't figure out your cryptic statement. Someone on which side? What makes you think an error was made? This war is going to evolve to involve fiat and nations
You mean PBoC vs. Fed? Care to elaborate? |
|
|
|
... 31/07 Infofront  01/08 Vin 02/08 Steelboy 03/08 D_eddie 04/08 Bitserve 05/08 Bikerleszno 06/08 Last of the v8s ... Who's going to be lucky mooooooon!!! Ouch! Too early. I knew it. It seems we're having a slow liftoff. I think the lucky guy will have an initial B in his name  |
|
|
|
I don't think I can handle more ETF hype and then another "sorry, no"
The ETF is still mere speculation, but futures and options should be here "real soon now." |
|
|
|
Futures and options based on BTC coming soon. The SEC probably will change opinion on ETFs soonish. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-02/bitcoin-etf-approval-odds-are-way-analyst-says?page=1I am confident this would cause an immediate surge in the USD price of BTC. It's the longer term effects I am unsure of. Many say Wall Street will be able to manipulate the crypto market by naked shorting the stuff. I think an ETF backed by actual collateral can't. How about a clearing house for options and other derivatives? |
|
|
|
Calling 2850 tomorrow
I guess it's going to be higher than that. Likely an ATH. |
|
|
|
It currently stands at $460 BCH / 2700 BTC at Kraken, and $720 BCH /2700 BTC at Bitterx. Such a high price is definitely unexpected.
Such a price isn't supported by any significant volume of trades. Only the lucky first will be able to profit from "free money". Free money can exist only for a short time, like virtual particles in quantum mechanics. Then conservation laws kick in without mercy. Give it time. |
|
|
|
Exchanges, on the other hand...
Lets say there is a miner underground movement to recompile the client with 8MB block limit. They can do it, and they don't even have to tell anyone. However, the first ones to do it are risking it, because their big blocks will probably not end up in the longest chain. However, if more than 50% do it, we get a hard fork, and small block miners are forced to switch. And, believe me, exchanges would be first ones to switch, as they have most to lose. Yes: if all miners switch, there's only one way things can go. However, if a minority stubbornly sticks to the old chain, we have 2 chains. The exchanges will probably list both coins and let the market do the rest. Which the market is doing right now. Let's give it some time. |
|
|
|
ETH splits = combined value lower than value before split
BTC splits = combined value higher than value before split
Combined value higher? Let's wait until transfers work almost normally. Let's plug the BTC price before the split into the equation. Let's recalculate. Higher still? I'm not defending ETH shills, by the way. Only predicting red BCH candles given a sufficiently long time frame. |
|
|
|
As for actual value, there is no other value other than somebody willing to buy them from you, and this is true for both BTC and BCH.
There is big difference! Everybody is willing to buy BTC. Only Ver and Wu are willing to buy BCH. Hope that clears your confusion. It is also not a 0/1 matter of "will buy/won't buy". Price does matter. I am not a BCH believer, but I would buy say, 1000 BCH for 0.01 BTC, just for the heck of it and the remote possibility of profiting off some future pump that might or might not happen. I wouldn't, on the other hand, buy BCH at the fake prices suggested by the exchanges that actually (say they) deal with BCH. I could sell some though, if it was actually possible (or easy). |
|
|
|
You are right. I expressed my thought sloppily.
"Half of the BTC value at the time of the split has been traded..."
Ultimately implying that the mere existence of a new chain does not mean there is actual value stored in it.
Lets say that 10 million BCH have been traded in the next week, and price ends up at $5. At this point the selling pressure will stop, and it could be a good moment to buy. After all, all those 10 million did find somebody interested in buying them. As for actual value, there is no other value other than somebody willing to buy them from you, and this is true for both BTC and BCH. Exactly. Well said. By a 50/50 split, I meant the BCH price = BTC price (fiat-wise), or BTC:BCH=1:1. |
|
|
|
Sounds like you are saying that users (other than the miners) have any say in what blocks get accepted, and what blocks get rejected.
Nodes do. Financially heavy nodes, more so. Your node (financially heavy? Say what?) can reject blocks and transactions however it wants, and this will have zero effect on what blocks miners create. Exchanges, on the other hand... |
|
|
|
When I say 50/50, I mean value wise. So I actually meant "half of the BTCs have been traded for BCH".
At the moment, the number of extant BTC=BCH.
So, you are not aware that in any BTC/BCH trade, the number of both BTC and BCH stays exactly the same? So, there is no such a thing as "half of the BTCs are traded for BCH". You are right. I expressed my thought sloppily. "Half of the BTC value at the time of the split has been traded..." Ultimately implying that the mere existence of a new chain does not mean there is actual value stored in it. |
|
|
|
This Shitcoin Cash experiment teaches that Bitcoin should have a difficulty adjustment enhacement. It might prove usefull in the future.
It might be dangerous, too. It would make it quicker, then easier to orchestrate a 51% attack by swinging the difficulty wildly, progressively retiring miners from BTC and then coming back on full force at attack time. This could be prepared and deployed when the hashrate is dropping for other reasons (some other problem on the BTC network). Both things could be dangerous but, at the very least, it requires some consideration. The adjustment algorithm could take into account some long timeouts, sorta a failsafe that should never ever activate in ideal conditions but just in case of total failure in producing new blocks for a long time. I see where you come from and I basically agree. I think it's the same underlying motivation I feel for a variable, liquid PoW schedule that can rule out monolithic mining farms, cartels or trusts. |
|
|
|
"Please, tidy up the kitchen, will you?" (Abide by my rules and I'll take your blocks for good.)
"No, I'm going to do the bedroom. The kitches is a remnant from an era when people used to cook for themselves. Now it's catering all over. Bedroom." (I make the rules, I'm the miner.)
Sounds like you are saying that users (other than the miners) have any say in what blocks get accepted, and what blocks get rejected. Nodes do. Financially heavy nodes, more so. |
|
|
|
When half of BTC holders will have exchanged their BTC for BCH, then it will be a 50/50 split. Until then, you need fresh money to add value to the new chain. I think this is quite intuitive from a macroscopic, detached point of view.
Sounds like you are saying that there is currently something other than the 50/50 split. Can you elaborate more on "half of BTC holders will have exchanged their BTC for BCH"? When I say 50/50, I mean value wise. So I actually meant "half of the BTCs have been traded for BCH". At the moment, the number of extant BTC=BCH. But the value? They can say 500$/BCH all they want, but as long as I won't (or can't!) get 500$ for each of my BCH, it's just talk. Words are wind. |
|
|
|
That's a good explanation. But what happens if 51% of hashpower want bigger blocks but Core Developers refuse?
The way I see it - oversimplified without a doubt: The miners are employees. You pay them mining rewards and transaction fees to run the system the way you want it to be run. ("Please, tidy up the kitchen, will you? Ah, good, here's money for your good service. Thanks.") The day they start having different objectives and incentives, what happens is "Please, tidy up the kitchen, will you?" (Abide by my rules and I'll take your blocks for good.) "No, I'm going to do the bedroom. The kitches is a remnant from an era when people used to cook for themselves. Now it's catering all over. Bedroom." (I make the rules, I'm the miner.) "I won't pay you for the bedroom." (I won't accept your blocks as valid.) "Do bedroom. Do bedroom." (Fork.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
