Bitcoin is less decentralized than it used to be but it is still good enough. The hard fork to BitcoinCash is more or less a proof that there are powerful people and miners in Bitcoin who are very unhappy with the direction of the network that all they can do is hard fork away instead of gaining control.
We all know miners want bigger blocks. If the network was centralized, we would have bigger blocks by now We already have bigger blocks by now I refer to Bitcoin Cash obviously. This could be thought of as a nice workaround instead of a direct attack against original Bitcoin which would likely hurt it seriously if not kill it on the spot. In other words, the network is centralized (at least, was before the split) but the miners chose by far less risky way to exert their influence since, as I already said, exerting this influence directly would most certainly wreak havoc in Bitcoin, thereby killing the golden goose that Bitcoin has been for the last couple of years But I refer to "if the network was centralized" then the whole network would have big blocks by now. That is why I said that to some boundary, Bitcoin is still decentralized. No one entity has 100% control over the network. Which Bitcoin do you refer to specifically? I made it clear that I meant the Bitcoin Cash network (as I wrote right away). You had me confused. I refer to the real Bitcoin. The one with the more hash power. Until BCC becomes the blockchain with the more hash power, I will remain calling BTC Bitcoin, BCC BitcoinCash. But this is in fact irrelevant since in a few months we will likely have large blocks in the main chain as well anyway. Do you mean Segwit2x? Do not make any conclusions yet. Let us see it happen first. Would it mean that by then we will have network centralized? Regardless, to exert control over something, you typically don't have to control 100% of it. It is usually a lot less than that, and sometimes even less than 50%
Yes. That is why I said Bitcoin is still "fairly" decentralized enough. |
|
|
|
"pro-Core, pro-Segwit", so you are anti-Satoshi? I signed up for Satoshi's Bitcoin, a "P2P electronic cash system". Not a Bitcoin that requires 3rd party permission (lightning network), to transact.
BCash is really the original Bitcoin with simple scaling implemented.
BSegwit is an abomination to me, a centralized elitist altcoin that has very little to do with the original Bitcoin now. Sure it's going up in price all the time, that's cool, but it ain't Bitcoin, it's BSegwit altcoin based on Bitcoin and uses Bitcoin blockchain as its transaction history.
Anti-Satoshi? No, I am pro-decentralization and anti-Bitmain. Are you a pro-Bitmain? Are you willing to accept the network to become controlled by a small group of Chinese miners whose real goal is only to make money? What do you think of Asic Boost? Do you agree with that? |
|
|
|
|
The best strategy for Bitcoin that has worked very well for me is "buy the dips". I have been doing that since last year everytime there was a dump or a "price crash". Thankfully it worked or I would have invested 20% of my monthly salary for nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
It is laughable that we are starting to see discussions of Bitcoin reaching "crazy" prices like $20,000 and $40,000 per coin. My initial reaction would be to think "Are you crazy?", but then I remembered that $4000 per Bitcoin was also a "crazy" price to reach early last year.
|
|
|
|
|
They were the pioneers that helped build Bitcoin into what it is today. Some would say they are the lucky ones. No, they are the smart ones who had the vision and the motivation to take the risk with disregard of the status quo.
Most of us would not understand and know the value of the technology if it was shown to us on 2009 - 2010.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is less decentralized than it used to be but it is still good enough. The hard fork to BitcoinCash is more or less a proof that there are powerful people and miners in Bitcoin who are very unhappy with the direction of the network that all they can do is hard fork away instead of gaining control.
We all know miners want bigger blocks. If the network was centralized, we would have bigger blocks by now We already have bigger blocks by now I refer to Bitcoin Cash obviously. This could be thought of as a nice workaround instead of a direct attack against original Bitcoin which would likely hurt it seriously if not kill it on the spot. In other words, the network is centralized (at least, was before the split) but the miners chose by far less risky way to exert their influence since, as I already said, exerting this influence directly would most certainly wreak havoc in Bitcoin, thereby killing the golden goose that Bitcoin has been for the last couple of years But I refer to "if the network was centralized" then the whole network would have big blocks by now. That is why I said that to some boundary, Bitcoin is still decentralized. No one entity has 100% control over the network. |
|
|
|
I tend to agree with most people on this forum, a huge pump is inevitably coming for BCC I cant say when but like everyone else here I can see the miners switching chains with the snap of their fingers if Core doesn't get onboard with 2MB block scenario.
There is more incentive for the Core developers to keep fighting the hard fork to Segwit2x because the miners are gaining more leverage with BitcoinCash around. They need to keep their control as stewards of the network. If Segwit2x is a success and becomes the main chain, Core is thrown out and left out. I am afraid we are headed for another hard fork. Jihan Wu and Bitmain, along with BitPay and Coinbase are just a few of the 58 companies that signed the NYA. They seem willing to throw out the Core developers in favor of Jeff Garzik's btc1. I would not bet against Bitmain not following through on their commitment. That would be stupid because the miners might affect the profitability of their mining operations once again. There are rumors that Bitmain is also behind the "unknown miner" in BitcoinCash who is mining at a loss. Also if it really forks again, what will happen to BitcoinCash? The risk and effort they put in it will be for nothing. |
|
|
|
Haha I guess the answer is new coin emission , while market is being dumped.  Bingo. This is why I avoid coins with still a lot of growth size in distribution. Basically inflation. Yes, Ripple is doing this. They are dumping billions of XRP in the market while the price is falling and the funny part is their followers are so happy to catch the loss. |
|
|
|
|
What you need is a mentor for trading, not for cryptocurrencies. From your post I have the impression that you are kicking yourself because you have missed the big moves and profit made by the altcoins a few months ago. Am
I right?
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is less decentralized than it used to be but it is still good enough. The hard fork to BitcoinCash is more or less a proof that there are powerful people and miners in Bitcoin who are very unhappy with the direction of the network that all they can do is hard fork away instead of gaining control.
We all know miners want bigger blocks. If the network was centralized, we would have bigger blocks by now.
|
|
|
|
We're there!
Yes! Congratulations to everyone who kept holding through the good times and the bad. I did not think this was possible for this year but I am still happy I made the right decisions in buying the dips. It is now paying off handsomely. |
|
|
|
I tend to agree with most people on this forum, a huge pump is inevitably coming for BCC I cant say when but like everyone else here I can see the miners switching chains with the snap of their fingers if Core doesn't get onboard with 2MB block scenario.
There is more incentive for the Core developers to keep fighting the hard fork to Segwit2x because the miners are gaining more leverage with BitcoinCash around. They need to keep their control as stewards of the network. If Segwit2x is a success and becomes the main chain, Core is thrown out and left out. |
|
|
|
The core developers cant stop the hardfork, only miners backing out of the agreement can.
And there's a very good chance they will. Segwit was production ready regardless of how anyone feels about it. As far as I can tell no one's seen 2X code yet outside of the little bunch of fellas making it. I don't think miners are bonkers enough to pin all their investments on something so rushed from a bunch of unknowns. Yes, that will only hurt the Chinese miner's investments more. But with BitcoinCash around, maybe they would be willing to let go of Segwit2x and slowly start supporting BCC. I believe both could become successful in their own way and make more people rich in their progression. |
|
|
|
NYA's role was to do one thing. To get rid of the Core developers. That is why they are fighting with all their might to block the hard fork to 2mb block sizes because they know that will be the end of them as stewards of the network. They can still contribute, but their influence is not as great as they are today.
It will not happen. Besides, there is BitcoinCash if some people want bigger blocks. If the big blockers want Segwit, they can activate it there too. Bye bye.
With 8MB blocks there is no need to implement segwit and increase capacity further. Moreover, now BCH and BTC will follow different paths, including development. But you do not understand, Segwit is not a scaling solution. It was originally a fix for the malleability problem of Bitcoin. BitcoinCash will the something of the same to fix the same problem. There is already a proposal called Flexible Transactions and some people in the BitcoinCash community are arguing that it is better than Segwit. |
|
|
|
I'm holding both. Who is buying? most likely somebody a fuck of a lot richer than you, and he ain't in this to take a loss.
I am also holding both. I have been lurking the BitcoinCash community and there are rumors that the "unknown miner" is someone who was from the Hong Kong Agreement and that he plans to make BCC much more than it is right now. Another name that was cited was John McAfee. |
|
|
|
|
NYA's role was to do one thing. To get rid of the Core developers. That is why they are fighting with all their might to block the hard fork to 2mb block sizes because they know that will be the end of them as stewards of the network. They can still contribute, but their influence is not as great as they are today.
It will not happen. Besides, there is BitcoinCash if some people want bigger blocks. If the big blockers want Segwit, they can activate it there too. Bye bye.
|
|
|
|
|
BTMs are a scam. The prices they want per Bitcoin is way above the real market price. It would be better to wire transfer money to an exchange that will cost $10 at most.
Why move Bitcoin backwards by making ATMs? Mobile wallets and NFC technology should be the new norm.
|
|
|
|
Currently:
On BSegwit chain around $1.1
On BCash chain around $0.15
So draw your own conclusion
Is that the transaction fees to move $2 worth of coins in Bitcoin and BitcoinCash? But I moved $30 worth of BTC a few days ago and it cost me around $0.21 in fees. |
|
|
|
LOL, your subject has nothing to do with your question, what the hell  Yes it looks that way but the hard decision comes from the question. If I sell now and BitcoinCash goes to $1000 by December while Bitcoin's price stays the same then I would have lost. But I see that some of the opinions here are more or less the same as mine, and that is to keep holding some for a profit. |
|
|
|
There are too many paranoid people in Bitcoin right now. Or maybe they want the price to crash because they sold when the price went down to $1800? Some people go far to say that the market is being manipulated "MtGox style". How can an "entity" manipulate the whole market through Bitfinex if Bitfinex does not have the market dominance than MtGox once had? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
