The movement of Bitcoin Cash shows that it is pretty much just another altcoin. I realized that many people were of the opinion that Bitcoin Cash will take over should the real Bitcoin drop. Can't really see that happening.
I'm not even sure why people would want BCH to become BTC when one of the main person behind BCH split already mentioned that BCH is not BTC. Bitcoin Cash is the Real Bitcoin, segwitcoin is the fork. And it is not a become, it already is. Segwitcoin propaganda has hidden that from the majority. Also goes to show that the Bitcoin Cash Holders think for their-selves and don't follow a playbook like segwit supporters (that regurgitate everything G.Maxwell says.) ╥Aztek Why did the team behind BCH NOT declare BCH as the new BTC then? Your argument might make more sense if they did openly say BCH is the new BTC. I might even agree with you too if BCH was declared as the real BTC but why isn't that the case?? The upcoming Segwitx2 (if it happens) is going to call their Segwitx2 as the real BTC and not some other name like BCH. There's no need to declare Cash the real Bitcoin. For me, both Cash and Segwit should be considered forks of the original Bitcoin chain. Now, we just need to wait for the market to handle this mess. |
|
|
|
Another very old trick folks Technobabble Look up its defination. You think this guy put all this together in the last 5 min? I understand it. But most of you see it as: Well put together Looks very professional And admit it, MOST not all, have no idea what it means Im going to bed now, well continue tomm The floor is yours WHALES DONT BE SUPRISED IT THEY PUSH IT BACK UP TO 500 SOON, THEN IT WILL FALL AND FALL, AND YOU WILL HAVE HOPE IT WILL GO BACK UP AGAIN, AND YOU WILL BE LEFT HOLDING A WORTHLESS BAG HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF AND THIS IS TEXTBOOK, ONE FOR THE AGES And then on the thread tomm, you will hear inexperienced Bitcoin Cash Coin bagholders repeating these talking points, having no idea what they really mean. Just like the mass media fake news Wake up people, but I feel bad, this one is so slick many of you will lose your shirt Okay.. I will summarize: The only system of economics that has proven to sustain itself without a central authority is the free market. But the free market is messy; while the world as a whole wins overall with increased wealth, new technologies, and greater standards of living, some participants in the system do far better than others. The ideology of Core is the same tired argument that has called for intervention in this "messy" system to make it better and more fair. Invariably those trying to control the system end up making it worse, and everyone using it poorer. Those who advocate for a central authority to manage economies (or Bitcoin) are under the mistaken impression that those who support the system by profiting from it (mining coins) are doing so out of pure greed. "Greedy capitalists" is a common refrain among those who fail to understand free markets, why people actually participate in them, and how we all benefit from them. People who understand the libertarian ideals of Satoshi's original vision know that miners are providing a service to the network in exchange for payment. The miners are trading their precious electricity and depreciation on the mining tools they've invested in, for something they want more: coins. Meanwhile the network is trading their precious coins for something they want more: network stability. There is nothing greedy about this exchange! Both parties want what the other has more than what they themselves have and both parties end up marginally RICHER afterwards: The network profits from increased usability, while the miners profit directly in coins. However, if you believe miners are in this only because you believe they're "greedy" then the reasoning behind Core's behaviour becomes obvious. Their vision of Bitcoin is the new socialist utopia, where miners use their infrastructure to support the network out of a sense of duty to the network rather than profiting monetarily. They cannot comprehend that mutual benefit is required for all parties to continue participating in the network, and the foundation of mutual benefit is self-interest. Contributing to the network out of sense of duty is in fact a form of slavery."That mining has profits at all is a bug." - Luke-jr  Yeah, quotes from Luke make my days  - let's treat him as a curiosity rather than reference point though. It's generally getting clear Bitcoin Core is now so far from the original that it just can't be considered Bitcoin anymore. Obviously it carries the name Bitcoin, but its properties are getting very different from "peer-to-peer electronic cash system". |
|
|
|
It's not fake FUD. It is an issue I have raised before. We should be conscious of it rather than dismissing it.
Well, we could decide to rename that thing - maybe just XEL? Or we could write it with a "k" at the end? We could also try to find out if this would be necessary first. It's up to you @community. Yes that would be one way to get round it. In fact I may be wrong but I think Elastic itself may be considered too generic to be copyrighted anyway. So Elastik (assuming nobody else has used it) would be better. Elastik.com is available for purchase ( https://uniregistry.com/market/domain/elastik.com). Of course, it's probably best to search trademarks databases (US / Europe, etc) and talk to a trademark specialist before doing anything like this. It might be cheaper to just research and create a new name that becomes valuable and unique to the project. There are naming consultants that help startups create unique names with domains and trademarks cleared. It's always an uphill battle to use a common word as a brand name. We changed logo several weeks ago, and now the name? I don't see the reason. Perhaps later, if it's really going to become an issue but now it's just not needed. |
|
|
|
In the eyes of governments would the donation phase for XEL be seen as an ICO or something different? Officials are crazy enough to interpret anything they want in their favor, but I'd not say that the donation is ICO. |
|
|
|
...
For Bitcoin, I believe the best path is SegWit2x, simply because the majority hashrate will follow that.
This is not so certain imo. Those guys will likely chicken out because of Core's pressure. Some of them will probably switch to Cash, provided that it will be profitable at the fork time. |
|
|
|
Someone decided to dump from ~13.5 to ~10.5 and ruined great looking trend  |
|
|
|
Price is rising because of beta release wallet planned somewhere in september. So price corelates with foreseable big news expected very soon.  There's no official information on this - please provide a link, or stop spreading misinformation. Also, I'd suggest to use the new thread here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1957064.0. This thread is old and not maintained anymore. |
|
|
|
It's not fake FUD. It is an issue I have raised before. We should be conscious of it rather than dismissing it.
Well, we could decide to rename that thing - maybe just XEL? Or we could write it with a "k" at the end? We could also try to find out if this would be necessary first. It's up to you @community. I do not think it is necessary, at least now. If/when elastic team meet problems due to trademark then community and team could consider rebranding. IMO I also think it's not needed at this point. There're many entities in the world that share the same names, especially if the name is common word. The differences then come from logos, slogans, and other stuff rather than the name itself. |
|
|
|
I read somewhere that this coin has masternodes, does it? Nonetheless I'll follow up this coin!
There was an idea of supernodes and guard nodes some time ago, but it looks like devs are now rewriting the node in order to get rid of them, and avoid unnecessary complicated network strucuture. Not sure what's the actual status though, since neither EK nor coralreefer didn't specify exactly what is the planned network model. |
|
|
|
I struggle to see how core can keep miners on their chain after x2, but they've surprised me before.
That being said, I'm stocking up BCH in anticipation for that moment. Bought most @ 0.061 so not too worried about holding bags...
That's going to be interesting indeed. They're weasels, and no one should underestimate them. Quite a few miners support them (some 30-40%), and many S2X proponents will probably chicken out, so Core will have their chance for sure. |
|
|
|
Lack of liquidity?
It's $1M (USDT) + 2k BTC every day on Bittrex alone.
Then there's also ETH market + many more exchanges.
Many of us have still many BCH to dump. Those liquidity numbers only reflect speculators trading back and forth. It doesn't take much to send the price of BCH down, believe me I have been seeing this everyday first hand. OK, but you quoted me without your previous post which was about taking you months to offload your coins It is going to take me months to slowly offload my B cash. Lack of liquidity is the major reason. Selling all of it as that project has no future. Using Changely and Shapeshift as well to protect my privacy. Bit of a pain but worth it to avoid KYC exit.
So, unless you have tens of millions worth of BCH, I think you could easily use existing demand to sell your coins on various markets, no...? |
|
|
|
Are you guys still holding Bitcoin Cash? I sold it as soon as I could but that was a bad idea, because the price went up after that. But on the long run, I think BCC will wall to 100 usd or so.
Holding both Cash and Core until November at minimum. Then going to see the outcome of S2X and decide what to do. |
|
|
|
@tomcat it's hard to believe a Senior member here wouldn't understand spam? Read up on the history of email spam and I think you'll begin to understand the issue.
I'll repeat - I strongly believe that people can do what they want with their money. If anyone wants to play with thousands of small transactions for whatever reason, then let it be that way. If you want to throw your pennies to The Trevi, or just burn a case full of money, then I don't see a problem - it is your money. My point is: let people do what is allowed in the system. The only limit I'd think of would be to not allow zero-fee transactions by default, but anything above zero is legitimate because it's paid. |
|
|
|
It is going to take me months to slowly offload my B cash. Lack of liquidity is the major reason. Selling all of it as that project has no future. Using Changely and Shapeshift as well to protect my privacy. Bit of a pain but worth it to avoid KYC exit.
Lack of liquidity? It's $1M (USDT) + 2k BTC every day on Bittrex alone. Then there's also ETH market + many more exchanges. |
|
|
|
That was a tiny instantaneous attack im meaning a continuous one and yes the small one was wiped in one block but how would it cope if every 8MB block was full its going to take a considerable longer time to verify which means the creator of the block has a good head start while the others are mining on just the headers while its verified meaning more empty blocks
Again your words are cheap , Spam Bitcoin Cash continuously and prove your point , or let your inability to do so , prove mine. ╥Aztek Ive no intention of doing so just stating if it was to happen it would fail just like BTC does having a larger block does nothing long term its just a short term fix just like segwit is The only difference is segwit does allow for greater scaling in the future LN gets a lot of grief due to some issues it has but don't forget its still in alpha and these issues are being worked on and the only reason LN gets the main focus is because its being developed by core/blockstream but it will not be the only player in the game now transaction malleability is fixed it makes it much easier for 3rd parties to make and use there own solutions which could be better or could be worse we have the choice and users will vote with their BTC. I don't think LN is a holy grail of crypto, and probaly won't solve capacity issues. Just as an example, why would anyone prefer to use 2 on-chain transactions (open channel > [transfer] > close channel) for a simple transfer over a simple single on-chain TX? I know, the channels are meant for re-using over longer period of time, but here we go with another problem - you must be online to send-receive money, right? So if you want to pay someone, that someone must be online at the same time. LN is more for merchants, peyment hubs and other centralized players, and not for poor little users sending their money few times per month or year. |
|
|
|
I'd say there're no spam transactions at all.
Every transaction is legitimate regardless of its purpose.
It's like saying pennies are not money, and we should get rid of them.
OK, we could do it, but what would we need 2 (or 8 in BTC) decimal places for, then?
Ok so if I was to setup a botnet right now with the sole purpose to send 1000s of very low value transactions with just a very low fee to and from addresses that I own it would be legitimate and you wouldn't class it as spam even though the BCH network has no way of coping with this kind of throughput and would bring it to its knees Yes, you can do what you want with your money. If the network cannot handle transactions that are technically correct, then it will just collapse, and better solution will emerge. |
|
|
|
I'd say there're no spam transactions at all.
Every transaction is legitimate regardless of its purpose.
It's like saying pennies are not money, and we should get rid of them.
OK, we could do it, but what would we need 2 (or 8 in BTC) decimal places for, then?
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spam"Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc." certain transactions exist solely to screw up bitcoin's functionality. that's spam by anyone's measure. i dunno how you combat it, but one address sending itself thousands of low or no fee transactions only has one purpose. I could agree that no fee TXs could be treated as spam eventually, but anything with non-zero fees is legitimate for me. Also, there's no way anyone can recognize what is the purpose of any transaction, except its originator. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
