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.) |
|
|
|
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). |
|
|
|
The controlled max supply claim to fame is now obliterated. There are more than 21,000,000 tokens.
The whole premise of Bitcoin is being undermined and people are A-Okay with it, fools that they are.
The premise is max 21M tokens per chain (per coin). This is a new chain, or a new coin if you like. No violation. Value doesn't spread out magically from one chain to the next. 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. |
|
|
|
If we get enough miners involved we can do a Bitcoin Wall Observer (BWO) fork next month.
If we do, we should at least call it bitcoin clone. Cause that's what it is. BWOC? WOBC? An honest name is a good start. It would be good 4 letter stuff, honestly. |
|
|
|
Bet CLOSED! Let the game begins... Thank you all for supporting this game and I wish you all good luck. Let's make contact when ATH touched. Final list: ... 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 ... My mental movie is unfolding neatly. I think Bitserve or Bikerleszno are in for the prize. Possibly myself if things get hurried up!  |
|
|
|
Ok let's get to the point here......is bitcoin going to drop below 2000 tomorrow or can I get on with my work without checking the ticker app on my phone every 5 seconds after 1pm GMT.
Who am I to make predictions? Well, I'll give it a shot anyway. Happen what may, as long as someone's just holding, why would they care? My bet is little will happen because of the BCH fork. Should anything actually happen, it will be a temporary disruption. BTC will probably move along just fine - some disruption happens twice a year on average. |
|
|
|
(snip)
Wouldn't it be 12:20 PM UTC?
That's the time of the BCC hardfork if I'm not mistaken Oops, that's the hardfork indeed. I mixed up. |
|
|
|
Cool. Thanks  Wouldn't it be 12:20 PM UTC? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin, like any so-called crypto currency, is the old like world scheme of Ponzi. Only in the new high-tech pack.
Want an example? You are welcome:
1. Assume that all people in the world convert half of their savings from ordinary national currencies to crypto-currencies. What does it mean? This means that the producers of crypto-currency, received half of the world's volume of national currencies - half of the total world currency bascet.
Right, the producers. You go to the factory and buy freshly produced bitcoins. The used ones are worth much less (around 50%, depending on how used up they are). 2. After a while, the fictitious value of investments in crypto-currencies increased 4-fold (as we see in the case of Bitcoin and the mass of other crypto-currencies). What does it mean? This means that now, every person in the world, reasonably expects to receive in exchange for his crypto currency (as a return on his genius) in 4 times more volume of the national currency.
3. Let's assume that all these people, at the same time, decide to fixed their investment profit-to exchange their crypto-currencies that went up four times, (if they take profit in the form ordinary national currencies).
All of them expect to receive now 4 times more national currency than they used to, they spent on buying crypto-currencies.
QUESTION: Where does this whole currency come from? From producers or producers of crypto-currency? But they simply do not have such volumes of ordinary currency, and never were. Because, previously selling the Crypto currency, in exchange for the usual currency, the organizers and the receivers only received the initial value of the crypto currency in the usual currency. Which was at the time of the transaction only - 1/4 of the amount of currency, which is now payable to all owners of the crypto currency.
The national currency comes from national producers. It's a different factory. You go to this national factory if you want national currency. CONCLUSION: Bitcoin, like any so-called crypto currency, is the old world scheme of Ponzi. Where each participant can receive a gain of the investments only one way - due to those new participants who have entered this pyramid later.   Actually, it's only that those who get to the bitcoin factory first, get to choose the best pieces. Later customers are treated worse by the producers at the bitcoin factory - they get the irregularly minted, lopsided, defective coins. However, this problem will be fixed: BIP200 already promises to deal with quality control at the factory, so no need to worry. /s TL;DR It's the holders, not the producers. Early adopters do have an advantage. If float (measured in USD) gets 4x, by definition it means that every holder will get 4x fiat when bartering btc against USD. Hm, as long as all holders don't want to barter on the same day: the producers of USD need a little extra time to print more if necessary. |
|
|
|
I don't think I'm winning micro's ATH game.
I told you... 4 AUG. There's no way the ATH is broken before 1 AUG has passed away. Also we needed some little correction after the recent surge from the lows of $1900-. After Aug 1st, right. But they will hurry up to Aug 3rd  |
|
|
|
Relax guys, even ViaBTC is now saying that they intend to adhere to the Segwit2x agreement: https://www.bitcoin.com/public-service-announcementAs suspected, it was just a game theory move (a ridiculous one though) to exercise some pressure to "guarantee" the second part of the agreement (2x blocksize). I don't even think the drop has been due to this... it's just a minor correction before propeling to new highs early August. Are you kidding? They propped this BCC altcoin up for one purpose. As the 2X date approaches, they are going to have loads of fun switching their hashrate back and forth from Bitcoin to BCC blockchain, in an attempt to strong arm the core developers/community and FUD the shit out of the market and cause massive amounts of hysteria, fear and price volatility. Mark my words. Roger and Jihan will be cackling with glee the whole time. Not kidding, yet you are probabilistically right. That's why I am NOW (after Segwit passed with flying colors) in favor of the FIXED 2MB blocksize increase. It won't do any harm if done right and it will remove any standing argument for their FUD attempts. Win-Win. Reasonable thoughts, but I am wary of any on-chain scaling solution that makes it harder to run a full node. My position is: with segwit working, comes the Lightning Network. With the LN, many more people will want to run a full node, if only to have a LN node up. LN routes on Tor, so the more we are, the merrier. Besides, several small channels can help decentralize the LN, should any bank or similar wish to stake serious collateral to open lots of channels. Additionally, on the LN there's a chance to collect small fees: for channel operation (they will probably be low or zero, at least at the beginning), or for LN watching, ready to issue a penalty transaction if someone tries to cheat. Stifling growth of the number of nodes at this stage seems unwise to me. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
