The recent pump of Bitcoin Cash proves nothing about you being right about your overall hypothesis in this thread ("Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi?"), and you should be smart enough to know that. The market can stay irrational for long periods of time, and day-to-day, week-to-week and even month-to-month value functions are practically meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Sure, there are a lot of shills/FUD/money pumping Bitcoin Cash lately, but that does nothing to disprove my claim that Bitcoin Cash is simply a pump and dump scam, or prove your hypothesis. Ironically, you are here beating of your chest about how 1337 your speculation skills are when all you are is simply a participant (and propagator of the pump) in a pump and dump... congratulations I guess? I don't participate in such practices, because there are victims... the eventual bag holders.

Bitcoin Segwit tied with the Lightning Network tied with Atomic Swaps tied with other ALT coins with the same (Segwit; LN; Atomic Swaps... for alternative payment channels and additional features like privacy etc.) is an infinitely better road map. Not only is it a better scaling road map, but it is also a better overall road map because you get all of the features of the alternative cryptocurrency chains via atomic swaps. Most FUD and Bitcoin Cash hype I have been seeing lately compares Bitcoin Cash to Bitcoin as it is now (without Segwit widely used and without the LN), which is an unfair, short sided, and deceptive comparison. Not to mention most of the FUD (high Bitcoin fees and slow Bitcoin confirmations) can be easily manipulated by perhaps the biggest Bitcoin Cash supporters... the Bitcoin miners that have patented ASICBoost (which ironically   only works on Bitcoin Cash). Since they mine transaction fees, such manipulation would be super cheap.

I know you'd like to think you're always right by simply categorizing others as dumb (nothing new there...), but you will learn eventually that speculation is not a black and white subject... there is a lot of grey area. Congrats on scamming greater fools though!  

EtherDelta is generally safe, but the possibility still exists that there are exploitable bugs (or a backdoor) in the smart contract's code.

Me personally... I would only use an amount I was willing to lose on ED.

But then again Vitalik and company will probably fork and reverse the blockchain if ED defaults. Similar to how they did it with the DAO, and possibly now the Parity Wallet bug.

Bump.

It is interesting how a lot of the currently top market capitalized cryptocurrencies match up with the poll's top results, most voting of which was done in late 2015 or during 2016.

Here are the results that have garnered greater than 3%:

Proof of Work Consensus Algorithm (all variants)   - 21 (3.6%)
Large Network Effect (BTC, LTC ... arguable for a few other cryptos as well)   - 21 (3.6%)
High Scalability   - 37 (6.3%)
High Transaction Speeds   - 29 (4.9%)
High liquidity   - 26 (4.4%)
Privacy / Anonymity   - 35 (6%)
Decentralized Exchange   - 21 (3.6%)
Decentralized Markets   - 22 (3.8%)
Confidential Transactions   - 18 (3.1%)
Ring Signatures   - 18 (3.1%)
Mobile Wallets   - 24 (4.1%)
Solid Developers   - 38 (6.5%)
Innovative Features   - 23 (3.9%)
Fair Distribution   - 36 (6.1%)
Supportive and Productive Community   - 32 (5.5%)

By scanning over the list, it is actually pretty cool to me how accurately this poll represents (and quasi-predicted) the currently top market capitalized cryptocurrencies.

Are there any not in the poll's options that you think should be considered? I was able to come up with many on my own, but I am interested in seeing what is suggested without swaying any opinions.

In addition/combination to the poll's results, I have compiled about 80 data points to analyze alternative cryptocurrencies. So, I know there's a lot more that can be considered...

Social Consensus prevailed?

https://www.coindesk.com/2x-called-off-bitcoin-hard-fork-suspended-lack-consensus/

Or... this is part of the plan?

Theoretically, if they are trying to anoint Bitcoin Cash as the true Bitcoin, then keeping the Segwit chain with as small of blocks as possible plays in their favor... since having big blocks is their selling point.

Possibly (and ironically), the only sure way for the Segwit chain to squash Bitcoin Cash like a bug is to raise its block size. Sending the big blockers that have backed Bitcoin Cash home with their tales between there legs. A small increase in block size will not effect many people as far as decentralization, because people mostly use hosted and light wallets. Raising the block size can provide a temporary relief while things like the Lightning Network can be worked out.

It is getting annoying to me that Bitcoin Cash shills keep comparing Bitcoin Cash transaction capacity and fees as they exist today to Bitcoin (the Segwit chain) without The Lightning Network. It is a short-sided and unfair comparison, and I think in at least some cases, this is done specifically in order to be intentionally misleading, to pump Bitcoin Cash's value, and/or to promote the herein purported "flippening conspiracy".

Furthermore, the more I think about it... claiming that Segwit is flawed and insecure due to the "anyone can spend" vulnerability is almost like telling a half truth. Especially when Bitcoin Cash or another cryptocurrency is championed over Bitcoin (the Segwit chain). Why? Because the purported attack is effectively a simple 51% attack, of which other chains are vulnerable to as well. Someone with enough money and resources to perform such a 51% attack on Segwit can instead initiate a double spend attack any chain- whether it has Segwit or not. Double spending large sums of money to a dozen large Bitcoin companies and causing such economic loss and chaos would surely crash the price and confidence in Bitcoin (or any other cryptocurrency for that matter- Segwit or no Segwit).

Starting with Litecoin, I have been one of the biggest advocates for alternative cryptocurrencies since the early days:


There used to be a time when I knew almost everything about the top 100 or so market capitalized cryptocurrencies. I have been slacking since "ICO Mania" started though.

I am determined to get caught up with the times, and thus will be analyzing most top 100-200 alternative cryptocurrencies over the coming months. This analysis will be posted publicly ITT and on my website, as peer review and debate is the only path to enlightenment.

I will analyze cryptocurrencies in the order they are suggested in this thread. Reply with the ticker of cryptocurrencies you want analyzed. I will try to analyze one a day, and out links to each cryptocurrency's analysis here in the OP.

Warning: I will be very blunt. If you ask me to analyze a crap coin, then I will not hesitate to tell everyone that I think it is a steaming pile of crap.  

Let the games begin... what alternative cryptocurrency is first?

UPDATES:

Monero Analysis:
https://www.decentralized.tech/blogs/evaluation-evaluating-monero

I think that it will drop more once the news spreads.

It will drop especially more as the talks of a roll back and fork al la The DAO continue.

I don't think the market realizes yet that a hard fork and rollback is the only way to unlock the $120 million worth of ETH.

I'm just learning of the news. I am shocked that Ethereum has not fallen more than a few percent today. I would expect it to drop tens of percentage points on such news. Maybe because so many funds are locked up..

It is indeed a well written piece of FUD. Let's face it, the Segwit opposition is growing and will not be stopped any time soon. There are more and more Bitcoin Cash shills every day. I think Bitcoin Cash will continue to gain steam up until the fork, but what happens after the fork is anyone's guess. My guess is the Segwit1x fork will be crowned Bitcoin. Just hedge your bets and you will be OK.

Cause speculation:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2259054.0
https://theflippening.github.io/open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-from-another-miner/

+ people shilling this speculation on social media

@mint

I apologize, there was a death in the family this week and I've been preoccupied with that.

I've been thinking a lot about this the past week while watching the market. There are still some things bugging me about your speculation, but I am starting to see more and more people disseminate similar rhetoric (along with the recent market activity), which leads me to take it more seriously. I will share some new thoughts that have been running through my brain, along with regurgitating some thoughts that I feel have not (or can not) be proven wrong. The issues I still have with your speculation are as follows:

- There seems to be disagreement as to which chain is allegedly going to be attacked. Some purport that Segwit1x will be the target of the attack, but at the same time others purport that Segwit1x and Segwit2x will both be targets of the attack. Both seem just as likely.

- There seems to be much disagreement as to who the beneficiary of an attack on Segwit1x (or Segwit2x) would be. Some claim Segwit2x would be the winner, but at the same time some claim Bitcoin Cash, some claim Litecoin, some claim other ALT coins or ALT coins in general, and some claim that the entire cryptocurrency market as a whole will succumb to a crypto winter. Part of this depends on whether both Segwit forks are attacked, or if only one Segwit fork is attacked. If it is the latter, then the other Segwit fork is the likely victor- not Bitcoin Cash. If the former occurs, then Bitcoin Cash is not necessarily the clear victor. A solid argument could be made for each of the preceding bolded outcomes to be the most likely to occur.

- I am starting to see shills pop up and spread propaganda regarding the imminent attack you have theorized. I look at things through a very skeptical lens anytime there is a proliferation of shills. I'm not sure if you've realistically considered this, but there is a possibility that you are being used as a pawn in a plot to pump and dump Bitcoin Cash (and the purported attack is simply being used as a scare tactic to feed the pump and dump). How did you first come to your thesis on this attack? Were you nudged in this direction by someone, or something someone else wrote? Someone with your status and following would be an ideal pawn. Perhaps someone created the final piece(s) that helped you link everything together, and (unbeknownst to you) nudged you towards it? Perhaps you are in on the pump and dump yourself (I don't think this is true, but at the same time I will not eliminate it as a possibility)? It doesn't help anything that a very shady cast of characters seems to be somehow involved behind the curtains of this whole thing (Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Calvin Ayre, Craig Wright, etc...). Also, remember that this is not the first case of people spreading propaganda regarding what has been termed "the flippening". It has occurred at least twice previously with both Ethereum and Litecoin as being possible flippening candidates, but look at the scoreboard now...

- I am still not buying that Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin. Who's to say what Bitcoin is or isn't? Proponents of Bitcoin Cash seem to argue that Bitcoin Cash is most like the Bitcoin that Satoshi had originally envisioned. But at the end of the day, cryptocurrencies are software programs. They can evolve, and be upgraded for the betterment of the program. This has always been an answer to me (along with the concept of the Network Effect) for the argument against Bitcoin that goes like: "Won't Bitcoin become valueless if a better cryptocurrency is created?". Furthermore, do you think for a second that the sheep and speculators even care about some ideal cyberphunk-like Satoshi pipe dream? No- all they care about is profitable speculation, and this attack has the potential to kill the goose that will lay their golden eggs (in the whole cryptocurrency market succumbing to winter scenario). IMO, that is a risk that is not worth taking. Especially seeing as though everyone in the ecosystem (attackers, whales, miners, speculators, sheep, etc.) shares this risk equally.

- Another new more meta concept I've been tossing around in my head is that puppet masters require the existence of puppets/sheep for their puppet mastery to function properly. Wouldn't it be more advantageous for the sheep herders to weaken and possibly destroy the wolves that can destroy their flock (rather than weaken and destroy the sheep) to upkeep the status quo? Perhaps it is you, the wolf, that is being played here by TPTB? This would make sense if the alleged attack is indeed a simple pump and dump scam involving Bitcoin Cash at the core of the onion. Will the wolves be left holding valueless bags of Bitcoin Cash? As stated previously, the alleged attack has the potential to weaken and destroy sheep while empowering wolves. Wolves of which that are more dangerous to the sheep herders, much more so than the sheep at least.

- I still think that you are downplaying the risks of the alleged attack. As I have stated previously, the people speculating on Bitcoin are smarter than your average sheep. If you anger the Bitcoin "sheep", then I see a very real potential that these sheep mutate into wolves. Then TPTB are worse off than they started. TPTB already have a golden goose. TPTB are on track to becoming the richest and most powerful people in the world (if they are not already- as you purport). This will happen organically over time as Bitcoin becomes more popular. There is no need to force the issue with a risky attack. Why risk it? I just can't wrap my head around that....

At this point I believe the most likely outcome is that TPTB are pumping and dumping Bitcoin Cash. Meanwhile, they are using this alleged attack as a scare tactic to exponentially increase their gains on the dump. And Segwit1x or Segwit2x will remain Bitcoin. It is still unclear to me whether Social Consensus or Proof of Work will win out in the end, but if I had to pick one... I would go with Social Consensus and the Segwit1x chain for reasons I have already argued/blogged about. For a long term hodl-type portfolio, I see solid alternative cryptocurrencies as being a decent hedge against this whole Bitcoin clusterfuck, but FIAT/Metals/Stocks are probably the best way to hedge your bets at this time. I say ride the BCH pump for the time being if you are more into short term outlooks and trading, because the pump will not slow down until the Segwit/Segwit2x fork.

@mint

Ironically, most "truthers" get angsty when I start question their theories. Isn't that the point of being a truther... questioning what you've learned about everything everywhere?

I am saying that potentially you are wrong about who created Bitcoin. There have been so many different people that have been called Satoshi Nakamoto before, with all sorts of proof in each case. Now you think you've solved it? Think about how crazy you sound to the old timers that have heard the "Satoshi Was Found" story 100 times by now. You do appear to have some proof, but as far as I can tell, you and I both will most likely never know who Satoshi was. There is not a way to prove you wrong, just as there is not any way to prove that you aren't wrong. So please stop asking me to do so. Maybe you are right? I can't prove either way...

Same with the purported Segwit attack by the miners... that's way out in left field too. There is no way to definitively prove it right or wrong. I think it is more unlikely than the first theory, due to the amount of risk mounting an attack on Bitcoin Segwit/2x will have for the attackers, yet I still admit that it is possible. However, you claim Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash are safe havens if such an event were to occur, but I have deduced the opposite.

There will be many thousands of very angry people (real people, regular joe blows...) that got screwed, because a lot of people own only Segwit/Segwit2x tokens. I can imagine the "Bitcoin Was A Scam" news headlines scaring investors away from the crypto market in general, but even more so with Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. Litecoin has Segwit too, so it's susceptible to the attack they already did on Bitcoin, and is owned by Zihan's gang too. Why would the "sheep" in your scenario flock to Bitcoin Cash or Litecoin? To give more money in transaction fees etc. to the same mining cartel that stole your money in the Segwit attack? To pump the value of the guilty whales tokens? No, just no... all you have to do is let the other "sheep" know what happened. People are a little smarter than sheep brah. Just saying...

IMO, SHA256 (and possibly Scrypt) as a hashing method is done as far as I'm concerned if this attack goes down, and so is any cryptocurrency that uses it. If this attack happens, then I will sell every single SHA256 token I have, and I will spend a very long time trying to convince people of that being the only way to punish the thugs that attacked Bitcoin. Let the bag holder's (miners/whales) be stuck with useless and valueless bags (usless mining hardware or effectively valueless tokens).

Hopefully, we as a community can set precedence for such an event in PoW cryptocyrrencies... If someone amassed enough hash power to attack a certain hashing algorithm, then as punishment the cryptocurrencies using such hashing algorithm are sold off, never used again, and campaigned against. A true show of force from the community could prevent future similar attacks from rogue miners and whales. This is the only way in my mind to punish 51% attackers, and I would hope most people in the community will back me up.

I don't think that Litecoin would benefit as much as other cryptocurrencies, because Zihan and his gang are balls deep in Litecoin mining too. Bitcoin Cash is supported and owned by the same thugs that attacked Bitcoin too. Why would the speculators (aka. "sheep") flock there? I will not support any cryptocurrency in which its miners blatantly attack other cryptocurrencies, and I am sure many will support me here.

I think the biggest benefactors of such an event will be different forms of PoS, PoW cryptocurrencies that utilize a different hashing algorithm, and cryptocurrencies that had nothing to do with the attack. Ethereum, Ripple, Monero, etc... (all other let's say... top 50 alternative cryptocurrencies) would perform better post-attack, because community confidence in Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin will be shattered.

You don't want to anger the sheep herd, as they may just kill you to death with their cuteness! Oh... and they will make sure that the other sheep know Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin is a scam! You already have The sheep where you want them, why anger them uneccesarily and cause a potentially devastating amount of blowback? The social media pitchfork mafia will never rest.

I think that in this post I have elaborated on different dynamics of what I have termed Social Consensus in prior posts/bligs, and how I think it should ideally play out.

Bump

I don't buy tokens unless they have a working implementation, so I've sat on the sidelines when it comes to ICOs. Have any ICOs gone on to create a working software release? I'm not talking about a basic skeleton implementation to send/receive tokens, but instead an implementation that closely resembles a full featured version of the token's intended road map.

What recent ICOs already have full featured working implementations? I have a feeling there aren't very many that aren't still vaporware.

No, it is not. This is a reocurring issue when I've entered into debates with you over the years. You combine speculation with conspiracy theories with technobabble with facts, then pass it off as fact using logical fallacies. Mainly, the argument from ignorance fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Since you use enough of the latter (technobabble and facts), people assume you are correct and have a hard time debating you. To make it even harder, you link to long diatribes (that link to more diatribes that link to more diatribes), which in turn require a massive amount of effort (days to weeks worth) just to understand your argument and respond thoroughly. But by tying in speculation and conspiracy theories, it is impossible to argue the opposite side, due to the fact they are speculation and conspiracies.

Theres nothing wrong with speculation, as other people and I speculate on different dynamics of the crypto world all the time, but it becomes a problem when you refuse to admit that your speculation is just that... speculation. Most people can admit they are speculating, and not preaching purely factual information.

I still feel like you are overlooking the very basic macroeconomic principle from which cryptocurrencies garner their value... supply and demand. The bag holder's (including whales' tokens and miners' hardware investments) bags which are worth nothing if no one wants to buy them. The purported scheme you are claiming is happening blatantly under everyone's nose will shatter confidence in all forks of Bitcoin, and thus kill the demand also. If the people you speak of are indeed behind Bitcoin, then surely they are smart enough to realize this.

On the off chance that your SPECULATION happens to be right, then I will reconsider repurchasing some of the Bitcoin Cash I've already dumped (at a huge profit nonetheless). I suggest that you hedge your bet as well.

It is silly to say that miner's "profit tends to remain the same regardless of the price decline". If they were to initiate an attack on the real Bitcoin (Bitcoin Segwit- as decided by Social Consensus), then the public perception and confidence in cryptocurrencies will be shattered.

Everyone's not going to simply throw in the towel, eat the economic losses, and move to an alternative cryptocurrency (Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Satoshi- as decided by Social Consensus).

The whales' bags are worth next to nothing if no one is willing to buy them at decent prices. Miners and whales are smarter than this... they will not risk killing the good thing they have going. They are already well on their way to becoming the richest of the rich. They can do so by doing nothing, and letting this whole Bitxoin thing play out naturally.

Bitcoin has indeed forked numerous times. There have been at least two hard forks and numerous soft forks. A simple Google search will prove such, but this is a good place to start:

I don't think anyone is arguing that mining is decentralized. It has been common knowledge in the community since at least 2013 that due to economies of scale ASICs bring,  proof of work (and all other consensus algorithms for different reasons) tends toward centralization.

But the miners work for us. We are not slaves. This is the beauty of the free market. Whales and Miners are effectively bag holders. Their mined coins are worth nothing if no one is willing to buy them. Their transaction fees tend to 0 if no one wants to transact on their blockchain, and they are left with expensive paper weights. What you theorize is a suicide mission. They are smarter than that.

At the end of the day, the community owns Whales and Miners... It is not the other way around. You will come to realize this come mid November. Judging from the market, I guess yoy have already lost at least some money on this theory, but I hope you don't lose too much more money on this looney Bcash/Bitcoin Satoshi suicide mission.

Social Consensus > Miners Consensus

https://www.decentralized.tech/blogs/part-2-bitcoin-core-bitcoin-cash-bitcoin-gold-and-bitcoin-2x-oh-my

I am going to be blunt with you all. Unfortunately, noobs (this happens every single time Bitcoin reaches new all time highs and an influx of new user enter the economy) do not heed the warnings of experienced cryptocurrency market participants like me.

I assume most of you are heavily invested in highly risky and volatile ICOs, most if which were doomed to fail from the start (if not outright scams). The cryptocurrency community has already lived through many crap clone coins and IPOs (aka. ICOs) before the ICO craze started. The market is playing out exactly how the crap clone coins and IPO flood played out. Do your research. ICOs are an old type of scam in the crypto world. Sure, some may be successful, but most (probably 96%+) will fail.

No, that is not a good move. The best move is to transfer all if your Bitcoins to an address where you know the private key. That way you are not held hostage to the whims or druthers of a centralized entity. They could decide to keep your forked coins, or not implement a way for you to redeem them.

This is applicable to my recent blog post on Social Consensus:

I disagree with your stance on BCH/Bitcoin Satoshi/Bitcoin Segwit.

Although what you espouse as being a fatal issue with Segwit may or may not be true (I do not know enough about the technical to comment on that, as I haven't put in the time to research). I am not arguing this point... let's assume that it is true.

I think that you are underestimating the power of "Social Consensus". The market, press, and users have all already determined that Bitcoin Segwit is Bitxoin, and there can only be one Bitcoin. All others (Bitcoin Satoshi, Bitcoin Cash, etc.) are alternative cryptocurrencies, as decided by Social Consensus.

After that Social Consensus has been reached, there is no turning back (or reverting back) to Bitcoin Satoshi or Bitcoin Cash. This remains true even if the fatal Segwit flaws rear their ugly head on the real Bitcoin (aka. Bitcoin Segwit... as determined by Social Consensus).

Old Bitcoin forks can not reestablish themselves as the real Bitcoin fork once they have established themselves as being alternative cryptocurrencies (due to Social Consensus) because of the economic realities of such. This is the source of my dissent with your stance... the economic realities of what would happen if the real Bitcoin (Bitcoin Segwit) operates for months to years, then it is all the sudden determined that... suprise, Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Satoshi is actually the real Bitcoin. The market, press, users, and miners (which, as a whole, constitute as Social Consensus) will never allow such a coupe because of the huge economic losses they will suffer from it should it occur.

If theft of coins due to fatal flaws in Segwit does occur, then I think a new fork will become the new real Bitcoin... not Bitcoin Cash and not Bitcoin Satoshi. Similar to how Ethereum and Ethereum Classic split. Segwit will be fixed/removed from the codebase and the chain rolled back to before the attacks, and then due to Social Consensus Bitcoin (Segwit then minus Segwit)  will become the real Bitcoin, and Bitcoin Segwit will become an alternative cryptocurrency. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi will remain alternative cryptocurrencies.

I recently wrote about Social Consensus, and how it's power is underestimated by decentralized/autonomous protocol idealists. At the end of the day, Social Consensus trumps all other types of consensus (PoW/PoS/etc.)

https://www.decentralized.tech/blogs/part-2-bitcoin-core-bitcoin-cash-bitcoin-gold-and-bitcoin-2x-oh-my


I can't argue with the above. I agree that it would likely constitute as fraud or theft.

@Ether Delta

I agree that Ether Delta (and exchanges like it) are probably some of the best DEX iimplementations thus far because they do not use IOUs or derivatives. However, seeing as though you can only trade ERC20 tokens (which are effectively all very risky and volatile investments) they are still not ideal.

I am still awaiting a more optimal DEX that can exchange tokens between different blockchain without IOUs or derivatives.