We should make a list of dates for the BCH dump. Or a poll.
October 1 2018 at midnight China time. |
|
|
|
Thank you for clearing that up, I guess what I really want to know is who claims all of the lost coins on the BTC chain that are turned into BCH?
There are no lost coins on the BTC chain. When BCH split from BTC, it did not require BTC be lost or destroyed. All of the coins that existed on the BTC chain at that point were now BCH coins on the BCH chain too. After the split, any new BTC created are only on the BTC chain and any new BCH are now only on the BCH chain. Now if what you mean by "lost" are coins that were originally on the BTC chain that are not recoverable, because no one has the private key; those coins are also not recoverable of the BCH chain. Edit: Maybe this explanation will help further. A blockchain, when used in a cryptocurrency, is a type of ledger that records transactions. There are certain rules that must be followed to make entries into this ledger. If someone tries to make an entry in that ledger that does not follow the rules, the entry is rejected and does not become a part of the ledger. When BCH came into existence, it basically copied the BTC blockchain. It's almost like taking any file on your computer, copying it and then saving it with a different name. BCH also implemented new rules that went into effect on block 478,558. In order to add a new transaction to the BCH blockchain/ledger those new rules had to be followed from that point forward. These new rules violate the rules for the BTC blockchain, so they won't be added to the BTC blockchain. So now we have two distinct blockchains. Although they appear to be them same for the first 478,557 blocks, they are now completely different. |
|
|
|
I have very conflicted thoughts on BCH so if someone could straighten them out I would really appreciate it. Half of me believes that BCH can change the world if it is adopted as a global currency, but the other half of me is very suspicious about its creation. I understand that it was forked from BTC because of the segwit issue. I learned that when a new coin is created from a fork, that all the previous coins that were unaccounted for or lost are created again in the form of the new forked coin. Am i correct? Forgive me for the noob question but I am just that, a crytpo noob. Furthermore, I have been told that CSW owns more than one million BCH created from the BTC that was unaccounted for during the fork and that he was asked by developers to burn it but he refused (again i dont know if this is true or not im just stating what i was told) , this makes me very suspicious of BCH. This is all so confusing, will someone please clarify for me if this is all just a scheme to dump on people.
A good friend of mine who has been in crytpo since the beginning explained it to me like this: BCH is just BTC without segwit and with bigger blocks, it still uses the SHA-256 algorithm so in terms of using it as a currency it is better, but security wise it is still the same.
Again I apologize for being all over the place, I am a noob and I have a lot of questions to ask.
The BCH & BTC chains have the same history before BCH did a hardfork. Everyone who had BTC coins at that moment also had the same amount of BCH. I have not heard that CSW was asked to burn his coins. However, if this is true, why should he be asked to burn his BCH coins? No one else was asked to burn their BCH. This may be related to CSW making claims in the past that he is Satoshi, the creator of Bitcoin. So far CSW has made no conclusive proof that he is indeed Satoshi. Also, BCH is not just BTC without segwit. It has several modifications to the code. 1st modification is that it added replay protection. Each transaction has a flag added to the signature, so that the transactions do not get played again on the BTC chain and vice versa. Also, BCH has a difficulty adjustment on each block, instead of a difficulty adjustment every 2016 blocks. There are other modifications as well and in November, Bitcoin ABC is implementing a hardfork which will introduce additional changes. Furthermore, at the moment, BCH is not as secure as BTC because it has less hashrate. That means it is cheaper to implement a 51% attack on BCH than BTC. However, this can change if miners simply start switching their hashrate to BCH instead of BTC. This may happen if BCH is used much more, since the total amount of the fees the miners collect each block could exceed what they could get on the BTC chain. People may start finding BCH more attractive since the bigger blocks make each individual tx less expensive. BTC is trying to solve the limited transaction problem by moving the transactions off chain through the Lightning Network. Although, someone could transact very cheaply, this can only happen once the have opened a channel. The act of opening a channel must be performed on chain, and could end up being very expensive if the BTC blocks start filling up. I suppose normal folks could use a gateway which would open up several channels at once using only one tx, and be slightly cheaper per individual. In my opinion, it seems like a rather convoluted and less secure way to transact. I could be wrong since I cannot really make much sense out of it.  |
|
|
|
but that means that someone can still exploit the network by not updating. Infact if a mining pool wants money they can exploit the network by downgrading, right?
if the bug is found then there is no way you can exploit it because the network will be aware of it after it is found and the "network" will always reject anything that is invalid within seconds. if a mining pool decides to do it then they will essentially fork themselves on an alternative chain that is rejected by the rest of the network and will be mining an altcoin. Yes, but currently, there still seems to be a good number of nodes still running software that is vulnerable. https://coin.dance/nodes That means an attacking miner can fool a good portion of the network until the legitimate chain once again becomes the chain with the most work from the standpoint of the vulnerable nodes. I suppose an attacker couldn't do too much damage with the small time frame. |
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/9j81ca/someone_exploited_the_core_bug_to_generate_01_btc/If this si true......  sell. level 2 suchClouds Score hidden · 11 minutes ago Is 0.1 tBTC just an abritrary number? It was arbitrarily selected, but it was the value of the output. He sent 0.1 tBTC to the address then spent that output twice in one transaction. You can only clone what you already have. Also where is the proof that it was created out if thin air? Click on the transaction itself and click Show Scripts and Coinbase to see the duplicate input. But also, 0.101 was paid as a fee (more than the value of the output), so even the address page shows a problem: blockchain.info thinks the final balance of the address is negative. This was actually done on the testnet, not the mainnet. However, if people don't update their nodes to run the patched version, people could get fooled if a malicious miner starts mining these blocks on purpose.People using SPV wallets can only hope that the nodes they are connected to are running the latest patched version. |
|
|
|
I think there's no proof that Bitcoin has zero value, how can be a great coin become have no value if many people are still want to buy this coin
If no one wants to buy use it as a medium of exchange anymore, then it has zero worth. The chances are probably small in the short term. However, can we really determine that in 100 years, people are going to still find Bitcoin has worth?
The OP didn't really make that distinction from the start. Now that the issue is intrinsic value, I'd agree. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. Satoshi himself made that point in his early postings. What the market uses as money never boils down to its intrinsic value.
Whether it has value is another matter entirely. That determination is up to the market.
It appears the OP will never get it. Therefore, we will never have the time to explain it to him.  I suppose we all can try though.  |
|
|
|
A hacker can theoretically deplete everyone's wallet, or exploit all the coins available, or do other global destructive things in a short order. Therefore, Bitcoin will be worth zero if we are not careful.
Yes, if Bitcoin is found to have a serious flaw and cannot reasonably be useful as a medium of exchange and/or a store of value, then it is worth absolutely nothing since it has no other purpose. (Unless it can be fixed before serious damage occurs. Or reversed altogether.) However, I do not think the people of Venezuela take solace by the fact that at least their paper money can be used as a cheap fuel for a fire, or make paper purses, when things get bad.  |
|
|
|
|
The OP is correct. Bitcoin, in and of itself, has no intrinsic value. However, this does not prevent it from being P2P electronic cash. All you need is a community to agree that Bitcoin can be used a medium of exchange. Without a community that agrees to this, Bitcoin is basically useless.
Now one can argue that Bitcoin is not suitable as money with the following traits.
Is it fungible? For the most part. One can argue that you can distinguish one UTXO from another UTXO, and this history can be used to make one UTXO more valuable than another.
Is it durable? For the most part. I suppose one can argue that it is possible to erase all copies of the Bitcoin blockchain. Also, one can lose their private key, and no longer have access. However, the Bitcoins are still registered on the blockchain as UTXO. The entries have not been destroyed.
Is it divisible? Yes, currently it is divisible down to one satoshi.
Is it portable? Yes, in several forms.
Is it acceptable? Yes, as long as someone has a connection to the internet, they can find someone to accept it, ATM
Is it uniform? For the most part. However, the community obviously cannot agree exactly how much value a Bitcoin represents. Thus the high level of volatility.
Is it limited in supply? Well it is supposed to be. However, as we recently discovered, there could be code introduced that could effect this either deliberately or unintentionally.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Core needs to explain how a Bitcoin Cash developer is finding critical inflation bugs in their software. This is totally unacceptable and there needs to be some accountability or post-mortem about the processes that led to this. The community should consider forking Bitcoin Core if there isn't an adequate response here IMO. this is what cobra wrote in the r\bitcoin thread. he is trying to get the mob riled up. Actually, what people should be doing now is giving a tip to awemany. bitcoincash:qr5yuq3q40u7mxwqz6xvamkfj8tg45wyus7fhqzug5 (If you want to verify this tipping address, please visit his Medium post about the whole incident. https://medium.com/@awemany/600-microseconds-b70f87b0b2a6) He did a great service to not only BTC, but BCH as well.(The way he discovered it was by finding the bug in Bitcoin ABC when he noticed something seemed off when testing both BU and Bitcoin ABC.) In fact there are a great deal of other altcoins that also have/had this bug. This bug was overlooked by many more teams than just the Bitcoin Core team. |
|
|
|
I plan to continue working on a competing implementation to Bitcoin Core. It was because of Bitcoin Unlimited that this bug was caught, when Awemany noticed it while working on the consensus changes for the November fork in BCH. This tells me that multiple implementations and competing development teams is a good thing.
I'm just disappointed that awemany hasn't received more tips. I personally tipped him .01 BCH. He hasn't even gathered 39 BCH, yet, last time that I checked. I would think the BTC and BCH community would be more grateful and giving. (As well as LTC, BTG etc. etc. communities.) |
|
|
|
Much more orphans. If you're using POW, the delay in the block relays would be much more significant than the block interval.
If the number of required confirmations remains the same, the security of the merchant accepting the transactions would decreases significantly. As compared to before, less resources is required to attack the chain and double spend your own transaction. I can't think of any significant advantage to lowering the block time to that amount.
Instead of a strict targeted block time, would it be possible to adjust difficulty partly based on orphan rate? So that as orphan rate increases, difficulty would also adjust upward, increasing block time (and lowering orphan rate). I'm not certain that all of the mining nodes are going to agree on exactly what the orphan rate will be. It is quite possible that some orphan blocks are never relayed to the whole network. This may cause the mining nodes that are not aware of a particular ophan block to mine at a lower difficulty than other mining nodes. And these miners that never had this information would end up getting their block orphaned because their new chain would have less accumulated work than a miner who found a block at the higher difficulty rate. |
|
|
|
member when we used to observe walls?
i memeber
All this sideways action, for so long, is making some of us go all bonkers 'n sheeit. Know what I mean ? Feeling despair and malaise for so long is starting to take it's toll. Will this suffice, until morale improves ?  Let's make it a little more interesting.   |
|
|
|
Nice song. It seems I couldn't appreciate that style of music until recently.
Bcash doesn't deserve such a nice song though. It's just a shitcoin for fucks sake!
Full disclosure: I still hold a few BCH (single digits), because of reasons.... but I wouldn't mind wiping my ass with 'em.
You are a BCH whale compared to me. I have some dust scattered here and there. I was nice and purchased .01 BCH to give to Awemany, today. I'll get some more BCH when and if I actually find that I can use it, and there are no other alternatives that are more convenient. After all, one of the narratives is that BCH is not supposed to be used for a store of value; so why hold much unless absolutely necessary? |
|
|
|
Full credit to Awemany. Just goes to show that not everyone involved in BCH is a criminal and fraudster.
Actually everyone involved in BCH is a criminal and fraudster. The bug was introduced in the code before Bitmain Cash fork took place. They revealed the bug because they couldn't exploit it in any other way. As HairyMaclairy said a little bit upthread -- albeit in an erroneous context -- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You likely have your finger on the pulse of the bcash community more than anyone else here. How's everything looking in regard to the possible hardfork? I will take the liberty to give my input. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92cwKCU8Z5c |
|
|
|
so...
has the flippening been cancelled? what is going on?
Postponed until after the expected hash battle in November. Come back in December to see who is victorious.  |
|
|
|
Here is an excerpt from a recent post by Greg Maxwell. It appears that this is indeed true. ..snip
Through all the history of Bitcoin, altcoin forks copying the code, other reimplementations and many other consensus bugs, some serious and some largely benign, this is the first time someone working on another serious implementation that someone actually uses has actually found one. I might be forgetting something, but I'm certainly not forgetting many. Kudos to awemany. In all other cases they either had the same bugs without knowing it, or accidentally fixed it creating fork risk creating vulnerability without knowing it. It also isn't like there being multiple implementations is new-- for the purpose of this point every one of the 1001 altcoins created by copying the Bitcoin code count as a separate implementation too, or at least the ones which are actively maintained do.
..snip
Thats kinda cool to see actually. how much is a bug bounty worth these days? In his Medium post, he states that he requested a bounty be paid in BCH to this address: bitcoincash:qr5yuq3q40u7mxwqz6xvamkfj8tg45wyus7fhqzug5. So far he has been given a little over 38 BCH, which is currently worth a little less than $18,500. Not sure if any of the tips sent to this address is a bug bounty from Blockstream, the Bitcoin Foundation, or Bitcoin Core team. |
|
|
|
This is really concerning and I'm pretty sure that this was not the last bug to be found. Bitcoin is still under heavy development and some bugs are very hard to discover. New code can introduce new bugs.
Banks, media, governments, whales, ..., nobody can kill bitcoin. Only a critical bug can stop this project immediately.
But
Every day bitcoin survives without an exploited bug proofs the stability and secureness of this technology.
I am confident that even if a critical bug is discovered only by it actually being triggered on the mainnet, the problem will be mitigated quickly. Honey badger will continue to survive. There are already quite a few instances of this happening in Bitcoin's history, and each time the development team pulled through. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures |
|
|
|
Bitmain and Bitfury are most likely to deploy many of their new ASICs on their own farms, and I believe their cost to produce is way less than the price they give to the public. I suspect that most large mining farms in China will be able to recoup their equipment cost in a few months, if that long.
Hmmm. And here I thought that the WO consensus was that Bitmain was circling the drain, and were destined to kill BCH in the process. Guess that must have been a premature call. Yes, it was looking rather bleak for Bitmain. However, it appears Bitmain has pulled through once again. Also, it appears that with this new development, they will be able to ensure they will have the hashrate to make sure the Bitcoin ABC hardfork goes through. Poor Craig Wright will probably be rebuffed again. |
|
|
|
I guess you didn't get the memo. The person who discovered and responsibly disclosed this devastating bug was a bcasher.
Do you have a reputable source for that statement? (eg excluding Peter R) If you are referencing the BU dev who supposedly found it, his cryptographic proof fell apart. It is time stamped more than 8 hours after the bug was disclosed. Here is an excerpt from a recent post by Greg Maxwell. It appears that this is indeed true. ..snip
Through all the history of Bitcoin, altcoin forks copying the code, other reimplementations and many other consensus bugs, some serious and some largely benign, this is the first time someone working on another serious implementation that someone actually uses has actually found one. I might be forgetting something, but I'm certainly not forgetting many. Kudos to awemany. In all other cases they either had the same bugs without knowing it, or accidentally fixed it creating fork risk creating vulnerability without knowing it. It also isn't like there being multiple implementations is new-- for the purpose of this point every one of the 1001 altcoins created by copying the Bitcoin code count as a separate implementation too, or at least the ones which are actively maintained do.
..snip
|
|
|
|
6920 then 5200 then 6500 then capitulation around 3K in january 2019
With this difficulty there's close to 0% chance for ever getting back to $3000. Yes, electricity prices * difficulty are not directly correlated to BTC price, obviously, but no miner can afford to subsidize electricity costs to BTC network. You can not operate with a long terms loss, they will simply: a) turn off the machines, or b) stop dumping immediately what has being mined, making permanent bottom on break-even price level. Guess which one is more likely to happen. Bitmain just announced that it has finally developed a better Asic chip. It will be 42J/TH. Bitfury also announce that they have a new Asic chip which gets 55mW/GH. https://www.coindesk.com/bitmain-ceo-announces-new-7nm-bitcoin-mining-chip/ I put in some figures, and it appears at the current difficulty and 5 cents/kwH price in China, that brings the electricity cost down to less than $1,500 USD to produce 1 BTC. If the difficulty doubles, it will still be less then $3000 USD to produce a BTC. And I suspect some of the larger mining farms in China are getting a better deal than 5 cents/kwH. Therefore, the break-even floor is going to be lowered. However, I really don't think BTC is going to go much below 5000 USD. After all, Bitcoin core just patched up a major bug that was present for almost 2 years, and the market responded like it was just noise. Are you taking into account the cost of the new devices and operational costs in your ROI calculation or only the electricity cost (which I also presume it may be way lower than 5 cents/khw for some)? No, I didn't factor that in. Mainly because Bitmain and Bitfury are most likely to deploy many of their new ASICs on their own farms, and I believe their cost to produce is way less than the price they give to the public. Also, the larger farms that are independent(?) of Bitmain will probably get a deep discount due to volume. I suspect that most large mining farms in China will be able to recoup their equipment cost in a few months, if that long. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
