Please upvote for visibility: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4tzf9o/please_sell_us_your_ethc_eth_classic/

I imagine most of r/ethereum is not interested in seeing this upvoted, as it suggests there are indeed people who value ETHC. But maybe we can get sellers to come out of the woodwork there. I mean, who doesn't like free money (assuming sellers have no intention of ever transacting with the ETHC chain)?

I would be very careful buying at any price. No signed message = free money for the account seller. There is no proof that he owns the account, and no proof you can provide admins if he tries to recover the account from you by claiming it was hacked. Granted -- there is no guarantee that he could recover the accounts (only Theymos can see to that). But it seems like an unnecessary risk.

Frankly, I just think they are both useful for different reasons. Reversible transactions do have a purpose. So do irreversible transactions. Dealing with reputable banking institutions and using identity verification have purposes. So does a pseudonymous peer-to-peer network. I don't think bitcoin is merely a payment channel, either, so I don't think comparing to Paypal is very useful.

I see bitcoin as a more portable, divisible digital gold -- highly secure, immutable, censorship-resistant. Most uses of Paypal do not require that.

If so, ETH Foundation/devs accomplished it in a very deceitful way. Leveraging the hashpower of the silent majority of non-voting miners to enforce the fork was incredibly dishonest. Inaction cannot possibly be construed as voting to change the protocol rules and migrating to a new system. Calling this "consensus" is incredibly insulting to everyone involved.

And the pro-fork vote was set to default in geth and other clients. Again, leveraging non-voters to enforce the fork. Disgusting.

I've also seen reports that in the case of one pool, miners voted against the fork, and the pool admins ignored their vote and built on the forked chain. Trying to find more info on that.

To top it off, consensus among exchanges -- not Ethereum users -- is/was being used to squeeze defectors on the minority chain by removing market liquidity from ETHC. There is something very disturbing about centralized exchanges having such influence over the definition of the best blockchain. This is an FUD tactic that forces investors -- quite possibly against their will -- to support the fork strictly out of fear for capital preservation. There are clear incentives to remain on an exchange-supported fork. Those incentives have absolutely nothing to do with what users want (i.e. user consensus).

OP: Would you consider adding a note to the topic's title regarding OTC buying/selling? Maybe we could get a bit more activity ITT if people see it in the title.

I bid up to 0.3 BTC for 30,000 ETHC. (0.00001 BTC/ETHC). Will buy any amount at that rate up to 0.3 BTC.

Good one!

I guess the troll box can be useful for one thing -- sentiment. That can tell you a lot more than "tips" (like those from Twitter/forum/etc pumpers) which are intended to leave you bagholding.

Most people are losing. 80% of the market is losing. I think if you are consistently losing and cannot employ a statistically sound trading system, that you should definitely quit.

Sure, your Paypal account could get hacked if you don't protect it with a strong password and good security practices. Encryption does the rest. One could also fairly easily have his bitcoin private keys stolen if he left them unencrypted.

Never say never. Markets are a tricky thing. Once the consensus is that $100 is impossible, you'd be surprised which way the tide turns. Particularly if this rally off 2015 lows ends up printing a major lower high on the monthly charts. There is the possibility that the last 1.5-2 years of trending upwards was a correction to a larger downtrend.

KNC miner, dear Classic supporters, have been REKT. Bankruptcy.

http://swedishstartupspace.com/2016/05/27/knc-miner-declares-bankruptcy-chinese-competition-too-tough/

Not gonna lie though, it makes me sick to see Luke state that this is to appease the industry. Why pander to them? They can learn how to make their model profitable or fuck off and die. Coinbase, Bitpay, Blockchain.info can't innovate, can't provide the revenue dream they sold to their investors? So they blame the tech, thinking big blocks and maybe a good ol' change of the guard will re-kindle their bankrupt "cheap transactions = mass adoption = profit" business plan. We should be boycotting these companies for their CEOs' complete and utter retardedness, constantly running their mouths about that which they clearly do not understand (or worse). I just wish someone would one-up Brian Armstrong, who compared incompatible bitcoin versions to Firefox and Internet Explorer -- but that one is hard to beat.

You're missing the point here. No old node will accept these outputs as valid payment; they will never confirm. So miners wouldn't be able to spend these "new coins" unless nodes reinstall their software to relax consensus rules. I.e. Those coins are stuck on another network. This is a hard fork.

Now add to your premise the notion that supply is limited, and block subsidy will be significantly reduced (halvings), and quickly. What then?

Merchants enforce minimum purchase amounts on credit cards all the time, to prevent cheap users from saddling them with processing fees that do not justify accepting such small payments at all. This is quite the same.

Bitcoin could be more expensive than your bank...why not? Nobody owes you extremely cheap tx, certainly not miners and nodes that bear the real cost to relay them. Bitcoin is capable of micro payments -- see Lightning Network and payment channels -- but patience will be required.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-448#post-16025



LOL.

Never have the tears of my enemy tasted so sweet.

So your solution is to give that information to Choopa, instead? To what end?


You're only establishing that XT nodes were DDOS attacked. How do XT/Classic users plan to maintain a network, if none of them can run a node? The majority of nodes being run by one, or a few, entities on two central cloud services opens the entire network to Sybil attack. Even if the controllers of said nodes were honest, Amazon or Choopa could easily shut down all such nodes (whether by their own volition or by being ordered to do so). What then?

The only difference between one person controlling one node and one person controlling a thousand nodes is that in the latter situation, his nodes can be used to mount Sybil attacks (with or without his knowledge).


No, that only makes sense if bitcoin does not scale and we endlessly increase throughput capacity. Why would people run datacenter nodes if they could run them at home?


How do you figure? The entire point of bitcoin is to use the redundancy of data verified by all nodes to establish trustlessness. Enforcing consensus rules is how you know you got paid, rather than trusting someone else to tell you. Nodes/miners can follow their own rules, sure -- and the very point of enforcing the consensus rules is to fork them off if they do so. If a miner includes a 21 million BTC transaction in his last block, you'd surely want to reject it. A lite node will not do so on its own.

Technically, he is both. He was one of 94 contributors to the last release of Bitcoin Core. That there were 92 other contributors besides Gavin and Jeff Garzik, might suggest that they are indeed in the minority regarding their ideas. (See: release notes)

How does that solve the problem of having massive amounts of nodes run by a few entities on central cloud service? I would hope that we wouldn't need to depend on mass centralization to prevent DDOS attacks on the network. That wouldn't be very robust.

That may be your definition of SPV mining but the important fact about Gavin's code is that miners are not validating transactions.


And? Are you suggesting that the benefits of double spending will never outweigh the costs in that case? That seems very silly. Do you realize that after the next reward halving, the reward vs. risk for miners to double spend doubles? And that this is true of every halving? Security from dishonest miners becomes increasingly important as time goes on.


Read up thread. That's apparently not true and there is nothing the stock node software can do about it.


On its face, no it's not. It depends how much an attacker will gain by doing so.