Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?

[monsterer2]

Read the answer to shelby's question on stack overflow: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/57275/could-miners-possibly-steal-segwit-transactions-on-the-real-bitcoin

[1713529774]

1713529774

[1713529774]

1713529774

[thejaytiesto]

What I don't get is, if segwit is such a flaw, how come all these programmers are saying it's perfectly fine, risking their reputation for life? I mean everyone in Core is wrong? Andreas A is wrong?, why are they gambling with their reputation? because I don't believe no one of these guys has realized the supposed flaws that have been commented about segwit for a while.

I am asking myself exactly the same question. I'Ve googled for Segwit and stealing transaction and didn' find a lot of matches. Why is there not more discussion about it?

The idea is that the transactions made under the segwit format would become an eventual prize pot for hackers to steal (well, in this case it would be miners), so we would be under a DAO-type disaster but instead of ETH stuck in some exploitable smart contract, it would be the BTC in all the segwit addresses (that is what I understand as a non-coder)

My question is: If Peter Wuille, Gmaxwell, Luke Dash Jr, Adam Back, Eric Lombrozo, TheBlueMatt, and the list goes on and on, of people that have either contributed or publicly supported segwit, either don't know that this can happen or know that it will happen and ignore it, it seems like they are all a bunch of kamikazes ready to ruin their reputation pretty much for life. The question is obviously: Why?

And I don't believe for a second none of them are aware of the potential disaster described by anonymint, so why are they ignoring it? Maybe they consider it only a theoretical risk that can never happen in practice? It just seems strange to me, that all of them are willing to gamble with their reputation, hoping that nothing goes wrong.

[monsterer2]

And I don't believe for a second none of them are aware of the potential disaster described by anonymint, so why are they ignoring it? Maybe they consider it only a theoretical risk that can never happen in practice? It just seems strange to me, that all of them are willing to gamble with their reputation, hoping that nothing goes wrong.

Even if it were possible to do what shelby claims (which I highly doubt), 100% of miners have locked into segwit which means there will be 0% hash power on the old fork because 100% of miners have committed to mine on the new fork.

Basically, the old fork will be dead, everyone having moved over to the segwit fork, so the point would be moot anyway.

Cheers, paul.

[sui_generis]

This guy is such a bullshitter. Where's his perfect coin, or even a whitepaper for it?

As far as his attack scenarios, they never manifest, never. This is the guy who had 100 reasons for why Ethereum would fail, and yet look where we are today. Is it technically possible for a big miner to steal coins with SegWit, as Shelby claims will happen? Yes, but such an action would crater the price of Bitcoin, destroying not only the value of the stolen BTC (which would probably be blacklisted), but also the value of the attacker's mining hardware. In other words, the attack may be technically possible, but the economic incentives are so thoroughly against such an attack, that it will never happen.

[jbreher]

The idea is that the transactions made under the segwit format would become an eventual prize pot for hackers to steal (well, in this case it would be miners), so we would be under a DAO-type disaster but instead of ETH stuck in some exploitable smart contract, it would be the BTC in all the segwit addresses (that is what I understand as a non-coder)

My question is: If Peter Wuille, Gmaxwell, Luke Dash Jr, Adam Back, Eric Lombrozo, TheBlueMatt, and the list goes on and on, of people that have either contributed or publicly supported segwit, either don't know that this can happen or know that it will happen and ignore it, it seems like they are all a bunch of kamikazes ready to ruin their reputation pretty much for life. The question is obviously: Why?

And I don't believe for a second none of them are aware of the potential disaster described by anonymint, so why are they ignoring it? Maybe they consider it only a theoretical risk that can never happen in practice? It just seems strange to me, that all of them are willing to gamble with their reputation, hoping that nothing goes wrong.

This problem has been pointed out to core devs almost since SegWit was A Thing. They acknowledge that it is technically possible, but they ridicule any notion that it is a practical risk. I believe they are gravely mistaken. The risk is unacceptable. While perhaps small initially, the risk grows unboundedly with the cumulative UTXO ever used in segwit transactions.

[IadixDev]

What I don't get is, if segwit is such a flaw, how come all these programmers are saying it's perfectly fine, risking their reputation for life? I mean everyone in Core is wrong? Andreas A is wrong?, why are they gambling with their reputation? because I don't believe no one of these guys has realized the supposed flaws that have been commented about segwit for a while.

I am asking myself exactly the same question. I'Ve googled for Segwit and stealing transaction and didn' find a lot of matches. Why is there not more discussion about it?

The idea is that the transactions made under the segwit format would become an eventual prize pot for hackers to steal (well, in this case it would be miners), so we would be under a DAO-type disaster but instead of ETH stuck in some exploitable smart contract, it would be the BTC in all the segwit addresses (that is what I understand as a non-coder)

My question is: If Peter Wuille, Gmaxwell, Luke Dash Jr, Adam Back, Eric Lombrozo, TheBlueMatt, and the list goes on and on, of people that have either contributed or publicly supported segwit, either don't know that this can happen or know that it will happen and ignore it, it seems like they are all a bunch of kamikazes ready to ruin their reputation pretty much for life. The question is obviously: Why?

And I don't believe for a second none of them are aware of the potential disaster described by anonymint, so why are they ignoring it? Maybe they consider it only a theoretical risk that can never happen in practice? It just seems strange to me, that all of them are willing to gamble with their reputation, hoping that nothing goes wrong.

Im not sure they would consider the opinion of bitcoin scene is all that matter for their reputation .

[hv_]

What I don't get is, if segwit is such a flaw, how come all these programmers are saying it's perfectly fine, risking their reputation for life? I mean everyone in Core is wrong? Andreas A is wrong?, why are they gambling with their reputation? because I don't believe no one of these guys has realized the supposed flaws that have been commented about segwit for a while.

I am asking myself exactly the same question. I'Ve googled for Segwit and stealing transaction and didn' find a lot of matches. Why is there not more discussion about it?

The idea is that the transactions made under the segwit format would become an eventual prize pot for hackers to steal (well, in this case it would be miners), so we would be under a DAO-type disaster but instead of ETH stuck in some exploitable smart contract, it would be the BTC in all the segwit addresses (that is what I understand as a non-coder)

My question is: If Peter Wuille, Gmaxwell, Luke Dash Jr, Adam Back, Eric Lombrozo, TheBlueMatt, and the list goes on and on, of people that have either contributed or publicly supported segwit, either don't know that this can happen or know that it will happen and ignore it, it seems like they are all a bunch of kamikazes ready to ruin their reputation pretty much for life. The question is obviously: Why?

And I don't believe for a second none of them are aware of the potential disaster described by anonymint, so why are they ignoring it? Maybe they consider it only a theoretical risk that can never happen in practice? It just seems strange to me, that all of them are willing to gamble with their reputation, hoping that nothing goes wrong.

Quite interesting logic here, but I wonder about 2 points as well

1. Same question hold why most of the hashpower do (did) not support what these big and influencing core list strongly support and offer ?  Reputation is much more risky to hashpower (hardware, bitcoin, long-term) investment than to coding business.

2. What chances have core to stay in power for as long as possible and do side chain coding business on 2nd layers, where a stupid block size increase solves a lot and makes this business redundant? - They just try to win where there is nothing really, but they have the historic track record allowing this to some degree.


So I conclude the SW will still be delayed (attacked), no matter with or w/o the 2x by most hashpower - to get core to the final thing: Change PoW. This will be the ultimate alt CoreCoin  to get rid of them.
 

[thejaytiesto]

What I don't get is, if segwit is such a flaw, how come all these programmers are saying it's perfectly fine, risking their reputation for life? I mean everyone in Core is wrong? Andreas A is wrong?, why are they gambling with their reputation? because I don't believe no one of these guys has realized the supposed flaws that have been commented about segwit for a while.

I am asking myself exactly the same question. I'Ve googled for Segwit and stealing transaction and didn' find a lot of matches. Why is there not more discussion about it?

The idea is that the transactions made under the segwit format would become an eventual prize pot for hackers to steal (well, in this case it would be miners), so we would be under a DAO-type disaster but instead of ETH stuck in some exploitable smart contract, it would be the BTC in all the segwit addresses (that is what I understand as a non-coder)

My question is: If Peter Wuille, Gmaxwell, Luke Dash Jr, Adam Back, Eric Lombrozo, TheBlueMatt, and the list goes on and on, of people that have either contributed or publicly supported segwit, either don't know that this can happen or know that it will happen and ignore it, it seems like they are all a bunch of kamikazes ready to ruin their reputation pretty much for life. The question is obviously: Why?

And I don't believe for a second none of them are aware of the potential disaster described by anonymint, so why are they ignoring it? Maybe they consider it only a theoretical risk that can never happen in practice? It just seems strange to me, that all of them are willing to gamble with their reputation, hoping that nothing goes wrong.

Quite interesting logic here, but I wonder about 2 points as well

1. Same question hold why most of the hashpower do (did) not support what these big and influencing core list strongly support and offer ?  Reputation is much more risky to hashpower (hardware, bitcoin, long-term) investment than to coding business.

2. What chances have core to stay in power for as long as possible and do side chain coding business on 2nd layers, where a stupid block size increase solves a lot and makes this business redundant? - They just try to win where there is nothing really, but they have the historic track record allowing this to some degree.


So I conclude the SW will still be delayed (attacked), no matter with or w/o the 2x by most hashpower - to get core to the final thing: Change PoW. This will be the ultimate alt CoreCoin  to get rid of them.
 

Miners reputation is way less relevant for their financial future than coders.

A miner can fuck around with their signaling intention to manipulate the price and make some money. At the end of the day, people are still going to accept their hashrate on their coins because hashrate is hashrate. As far as their mining-gear sales, it's not clear to me it would have an impact. Bitmain has fucked around to the max and they still are the monopoly in sales.
I want to see what happens once intel, nvidia and AMD join the mining game along other bigger actors.

But what I mean is, Bitmain seems to be still doing ok ASIC sales wise.

Now if a coder fucks up at the scale of the theoretical segwit disaster... his career is over. Who is going to hire you if you will be remembered for such a fail?

Well you may still get some jobs, but as far as street creed as a coder goes, that would be a fatal mistake, specially in bitcoin. Any big mistake in bitcoin will cost a lot to the coder involved in the fuckup.

This is why I don't understand why all these people are willing to gamble with their hard earned reputation across years, taking the risk to become a DAO-developer tier joke. I mean who is going to buy a project made by the DAO guys now? lol

So that's what I don't get at all. And these people are all rich as fuck already, so im ruling out money. Therefore, why are they doing it?

[hv_]

What I don't get is, if segwit is such a flaw, how come all these programmers are saying it's perfectly fine, risking their reputation for life? I mean everyone in Core is wrong? Andreas A is wrong?, why are they gambling with their reputation? because I don't believe no one of these guys has realized the supposed flaws that have been commented about segwit for a while.

I am asking myself exactly the same question. I'Ve googled for Segwit and stealing transaction and didn' find a lot of matches. Why is there not more discussion about it?

The idea is that the transactions made under the segwit format would become an eventual prize pot for hackers to steal (well, in this case it would be miners), so we would be under a DAO-type disaster but instead of ETH stuck in some exploitable smart contract, it would be the BTC in all the segwit addresses (that is what I understand as a non-coder)

My question is: If Peter Wuille, Gmaxwell, Luke Dash Jr, Adam Back, Eric Lombrozo, TheBlueMatt, and the list goes on and on, of people that have either contributed or publicly supported segwit, either don't know that this can happen or know that it will happen and ignore it, it seems like they are all a bunch of kamikazes ready to ruin their reputation pretty much for life. The question is obviously: Why?

And I don't believe for a second none of them are aware of the potential disaster described by anonymint, so why are they ignoring it? Maybe they consider it only a theoretical risk that can never happen in practice? It just seems strange to me, that all of them are willing to gamble with their reputation, hoping that nothing goes wrong.

Quite interesting logic here, but I wonder about 2 points as well

1. Same question hold why most of the hashpower do (did) not support what these big and influencing core list strongly support and offer ?  Reputation is much more risky to hashpower (hardware, bitcoin, long-term) investment than to coding business.

2. What chances have core to stay in power for as long as possible and do side chain coding business on 2nd layers, where a stupid block size increase solves a lot and makes this business redundant? - They just try to win where there is nothing really, but they have the historic track record allowing this to some degree.


So I conclude the SW will still be delayed (attacked), no matter with or w/o the 2x by most hashpower - to get core to the final thing: Change PoW. This will be the ultimate alt CoreCoin  to get rid of them.
 

Miners reputation is way less relevant for their financial future than coders.

A miner can fuck around with their signaling intention to manipulate the price and make some money. At the end of the day, people are still going to accept their hashrate on their coins because hashrate is hashrate. As far as their mining-gear sales, it's not clear to me it would have an impact. Bitmain has fucked around to the max and they still are the monopoly in sales.
I want to see what happens once intel, nvidia and AMD join the mining game along other bigger actors.

But what I mean is, Bitmain seems to be still doing ok ASIC sales wise.

Now if a coder fucks up at the scale of the theoretical segwit disaster... his career is over. Who is going to hire you if you will be remembered for such a fail?

Well you may still get some jobs, but as far as street creed as a coder goes, that would be a fatal mistake, specially in bitcoin. Any big mistake in bitcoin will cost a lot to the coder involved in the fuckup.

This is why I don't understand why all these people are willing to gamble with their hard earned reputation across years, taking the risk to become a DAO-developer tier joke. I mean who is going to buy a project made by the DAO guys now? lol

So that's what I don't get at all. And these people are all rich as fuck already, so im ruling out money. Therefore, why are they doing it?

OK - I hear you.

I've been working with many devs in industry for several years and I know devs are getting in love with pure code, functions and features - but just for sake of being code heroes. They lose contact to the earth and to economics totally and do lot of code work overtime just for own nerdy pleasure - I did escape.

I know it is really needed to split tasks - things are getting way too complex and (protocol !!) code is only needed to ensure minimum requirements to enable easy client dev. All other stuff has to be done in the different clients and their very needs.

Scaling comes mostly for free, if you keep code clean and easy (put it concurrent!) and get other hardware tech  for free on top (get Moore !!).

Economics is the chooser.

I do not see we are even close to..

[thejaytiesto]

What I don't get is, if segwit is such a flaw, how come all these programmers are saying it's perfectly fine, risking their reputation for life? I mean everyone in Core is wrong? Andreas A is wrong?, why are they gambling with their reputation? because I don't believe no one of these guys has realized the supposed flaws that have been commented about segwit for a while.

I am asking myself exactly the same question. I'Ve googled for Segwit and stealing transaction and didn' find a lot of matches. Why is there not more discussion about it?

The idea is that the transactions made under the segwit format would become an eventual prize pot for hackers to steal (well, in this case it would be miners), so we would be under a DAO-type disaster but instead of ETH stuck in some exploitable smart contract, it would be the BTC in all the segwit addresses (that is what I understand as a non-coder)

My question is: If Peter Wuille, Gmaxwell, Luke Dash Jr, Adam Back, Eric Lombrozo, TheBlueMatt, and the list goes on and on, of people that have either contributed or publicly supported segwit, either don't know that this can happen or know that it will happen and ignore it, it seems like they are all a bunch of kamikazes ready to ruin their reputation pretty much for life. The question is obviously: Why?

And I don't believe for a second none of them are aware of the potential disaster described by anonymint, so why are they ignoring it? Maybe they consider it only a theoretical risk that can never happen in practice? It just seems strange to me, that all of them are willing to gamble with their reputation, hoping that nothing goes wrong.

Quite interesting logic here, but I wonder about 2 points as well

1. Same question hold why most of the hashpower do (did) not support what these big and influencing core list strongly support and offer ?  Reputation is much more risky to hashpower (hardware, bitcoin, long-term) investment than to coding business.

2. What chances have core to stay in power for as long as possible and do side chain coding business on 2nd layers, where a stupid block size increase solves a lot and makes this business redundant? - They just try to win where there is nothing really, but they have the historic track record allowing this to some degree.


So I conclude the SW will still be delayed (attacked), no matter with or w/o the 2x by most hashpower - to get core to the final thing: Change PoW. This will be the ultimate alt CoreCoin  to get rid of them.
 

Miners reputation is way less relevant for their financial future than coders.

A miner can fuck around with their signaling intention to manipulate the price and make some money. At the end of the day, people are still going to accept their hashrate on their coins because hashrate is hashrate. As far as their mining-gear sales, it's not clear to me it would have an impact. Bitmain has fucked around to the max and they still are the monopoly in sales.
I want to see what happens once intel, nvidia and AMD join the mining game along other bigger actors.

But what I mean is, Bitmain seems to be still doing ok ASIC sales wise.

Now if a coder fucks up at the scale of the theoretical segwit disaster... his career is over. Who is going to hire you if you will be remembered for such a fail?

Well you may still get some jobs, but as far as street creed as a coder goes, that would be a fatal mistake, specially in bitcoin. Any big mistake in bitcoin will cost a lot to the coder involved in the fuckup.

This is why I don't understand why all these people are willing to gamble with their hard earned reputation across years, taking the risk to become a DAO-developer tier joke. I mean who is going to buy a project made by the DAO guys now? lol

So that's what I don't get at all. And these people are all rich as fuck already, so im ruling out money. Therefore, why are they doing it?

OK - I hear you.

I've been working with many devs in industry for several years and I know devs are getting in love with pure code, functions and features - but just for sake of being code heroes. They lose contact to the earth and to economics totally and do lot of code work overtime just for own nerdy pleasure - I did escape.

I know it is really needed to split tasks - things are getting way too complex and (protocol !!) code is only needed to ensure minimum requirements to enable easy client dev. All other stuff has to be done in the different clients and their very needs.

Scaling comes mostly for free, if you keep code clean and easy (put it concurrent!) and get other hardware tech  for free on top (get Moore !!).

Economics is the chooser.

I do not see we are even close to..

But you are saying that EVERYONE involved in segwit, either coding it or promoting it, have lost their mind and are promoting it because they are nerds that value the code above everything else?

If you are implying that blocksize increases are the solution, according to data gathered on full nodes performance, it isnt:



I mean anything higher than 2MB is just nuts in practice. The exponential growth would be too much. And what does 2MB solve really? it's just nothing in the big picture. The cons outweighs the pros. Fee market will prevail unless you want only corporations and rich people to run nodes (and assuming these rich people  care about staying on a decentralized network, they would need non-rich people to run nodes too because they are the bulk of the population that would allow a widespread network, otherwise it's not really decentralized).

The paradox is that, if there is no further scaling, there will be less and less incentive to run full nodes since less and less people will be able to to make transactions. But most non-rich people would understand by then that BTC is mostly to hold and not to constantly move it, and I think some scaling would eventually be allowed.

Anonymint often quotes the Trilema guy, and I was once reading his blog and I think even him considered an eventual blocksize increase if the hardfork meet certain requirements (I think this is what I understood unless he was trolling, but it seemed a serious blog entry, I dont have the time to find it now just look around).

But that is a very different thing from pretending to hardfork in 3 months for example. The fees are still low and the fees will need to go way higher for any of that to get a serious consideration.

[hv_]

Shelby is a good human but(!) critical thinker.

This is not there in core (AFAIK) - we have a strong leader there and cooperative effects (very odd but strong binding force seen in nature like cellulose or DNA or other polymers - Shelby had other words from German history for this dictatorship) - so it is not easy to break this and oppose or you will be Hearniated.

To me I do not fear 8 or 10MB or more at all - the constraints are 'in-silico' , 'in-relay' and in economics combined and embedded.

Satoshi did not want flood control, but memory prices were way higher 2010 - so he agreed and kept the limit increase un-discussed as a no-brainer.

Decentralization collapse that Shelby sees - I also don't fear as well - there is a clear repulsion force from the Nash Equilibrium - there cannot be a winning (mining) team for long (Risk of Reputation plays in here, despite you argued against, but this is higher level I think ) - I'm sure Bitmain knows that as well - these guys are not stupid otherwise they will be washed out - fine for Nash as well.

[olliejjc16]

If anything is a bitcoin killer its Radix but I can't see bitcoin dying it will survive as an asset based investment.

[contraband]

He been quiet here, but thats due to the ban.

BUT, hes quiet on Steem as well

AND, his health should finally be coming back to normal, and now finally hes looking like hes busy coding.

I think that even if he doenst have the bitcoin killer, it will still be a coin that would be in the top 5, and thats a big deal for everyone involved

[Spoetnik]

He seems far more interested in his buddy Dan's scam coin Steem than the Bitcoin killer he said long ago that would be released in early 2017.

Besides since he's banned its not like he's coming here to post it

[nightrider]

Eagerly awaiting the mythical whitepaper solving all our problems. Of course I remain skeptic, if something sounds too good to be true it usually is.
 

It's not really good boy, do not be too eager for it. You can regret it. That's a reminder.

[contraband]

He seems far more interested in his buddy Dan's scam coin Steem than the Bitcoin killer he said long ago that would be released in early 2017.

Besides since he's banned its not like he's coming here to post it

Steem is a scam? Why? From what Ive seen it seems to be a great idea.

What about it is a scam.

And like I said, hes doing what we talked about; not posting and coding I would imagine.

And believe me hes still around, just not posting much

[sud]

He seems far more interested in his buddy Dan's scam coin Steem than the Bitcoin killer he said long ago that would be released in early 2017.

Besides since he's banned its not like he's coming here to post it

Well, it's not like making a new account is impossible. :p

[Spoetnik]

He seems far more interested in his buddy Dan's scam coin Steem than the Bitcoin killer he said long ago that would be released in early 2017.

Besides since he's banned its not like he's coming here to post it

Well, it's not like making a new account is impossible. :p

You're right and those too will also get banned like all his others.
He has a large list of banned accounts.
And as a reminder.. I do not.
I have one account and have never logged into another one even once.. Ever.

And to the other guy.
Feel free to do your homework.
There is plenty of topics on Dan and all his coins.
Google is your friend

And congrats on leap frogging over the reason I even brought up Steem guys. Lol

[Hyperme.sh]

Proof-of-work coins such as Bitcoin, Monero, and Zcash will lose all their security in the coming crisis, because miners won't be able to exchange BTC for fiat to pay their electricity.

Considering how stupid that statement is, I highly doubt the answer is yes.

Did he actually say that?

What a stupid cunt.

Proof-of-work coins such as Bitcoin, Monero, and Zcash will lose all their security in the coming crisis, because miners won't be able to exchange BTC for fiat to pay their electricity.

Are you serious? No electricity because miners won't have access to cash!!

I was referring to Jim Rickards' prediction that the elite will shut down the financial system for a period of time. I am saying that if that period of time is of sufficient duration that BTC can't be exchanged for fiat to pay for electricity, then mining farms have to shut down.

If the world is in such a chaos that the entire world financial system can be shut down and no one can move any fiat for some period of time, then proof-of-work miners can also be affected because they have bills to pay.

Whereas, a proof-of-stake system would not be so affected because it doesn't require consumption of an external resource. We might argue that such chaos would also shut down the entire Internet, but I tend to think the Internet is much more global, resilient and diverse than a few mining farms in China.

So please enlighten us as to which of us is stupid?

I didn't take the time to read all 16 pages, but regarding the financial elite turning off financial transfers in a doomsday scenario, thus forcing miners to turn off their machines, why wouldn't the electric provider accept Bitcoin or litecoin as payment for their service?

I'd rather not focus on that upthread diversion. It wasn't a particularly strong point. That is not the main problem with Bitcoin.

The intended point was simply that if we didn't have to rely on PoW (and its numerous disadvantages), it would be better (assuming all of PoW's positive attributes were retained).

Well, well, after all this time, @iamnotback’s highly ridiculed claim actually has some merit:

Re: Why hasn't any government stopped Bitcoin?

There is another very important factoid that I only recently realized.

The AML regulations which are spreading all over the world due to the terrorism theme the Zionists have foisted on the world (as explained in great detail in the videos I linked for all you to watch and keep plodding y’all to watch), make it illegal for miners to sell virtual currencies except on an AML regulated exchange (which of course the Zionists will control with their control over the regulators). You may not legally sell mined BTC to a private party or P2P. You can spend it on goods & services, but a mining operation can’t survive by spending its BTC, as it needs cash flow to pay electricity and upgrade mining hardware.

Thus you can clearly see that the Zionists are employing the nation-state laws to give themselves an eventual monopoly on who can mine Bitcoin. This is in addition to the ASICBOOST thing which I already explained upthread leverages the patent law of nation-states to give the Zionists a 30% electrical efficiency advantage.

They planned this out exquisitely.

The high IQ¹ genius Nicholas Taleb will publish his blogs to the blogging platform with the most readers, the best tools, and also the one that is the most antifragile (and a blockchain controlled by whales doesn't qualify as antifragile).

Sadly I think I recently read that he invested in Medium.

[Hyperme.sh]

They never pay attention:

they used bitcoin for marketing and probably they sold every bch they have. probably it will disappear in few months. same thing will happen to bitcoin gold.

WARNING! You better read my post in this thread.