Will you sell your BitcoinABC or hold on to it?

[The One]

Bitcoin Cash chain will not have any premine.  www.bitcoincash.org

Would it not be better to call it Bitcoin and after all Bitcoin Core is an altcoin, since they added the word "Core"?

If not BitcoinSN.

[pdpanzer]

we will see a repeat of the eth/etc situation. one fork will remain dominant; the other fork will fall to a fraction of the price after a slow ride down. there is too much going on in all of this; the opportunity is being seized by too many camps to push a reinterpretation of bitcoin. core, despite if I agree with all its decisions, is a result of the democracy we have all decided to participate in, up to this point. also from a legal standpoint; it would seem that core was the specific asset people added to portfolios and iras. if this value splits, who get the additional value? same for exchanges. they will make a mint overnight, simply because the average investor in this space has absolutely no saavy and believe they will liquidate this new found wealth; this will contribute to the non dominate chain dropping even faster.

ABC = no adoption

Unlimited = will  be like ETC vs ETH

Bitcoin Core = ETH

I don't like any of what Bitcoin Core is doing. I am surprised that these side chains are defended like it was in Satoshi's mind or true to Bitcoin. Core is creating a horrible mess and the cost will come later.

[eternalgloom]

I'm not going to touch any of my coins until all of this is over. Sorry I just think that a split is the worst option.
Might just leave Bitcoin altogether and switch to Litecoin as my main form of cryptocurrency.

[Pixmartz]

we will see a repeat of the eth/etc situation. one fork will remain dominant; the other fork will fall to a fraction of the price after a slow ride down. there is too much going on in all of this; the opportunity is being seized by too many camps to push a reinterpretation of bitcoin. core, despite if I agree with all its decisions, is a result of the democracy we have all decided to participate in, up to this point. also from a legal standpoint; it would seem that core was the specific asset people added to portfolios and iras. if this value splits, who get the additional value? same for exchanges. they will make a mint overnight, simply because the average investor in this space has absolutely no saavy and believe they will liquidate this new found wealth; this will contribute to the non dominate chain dropping even faster.

ABC = no adoption

Unlimited = will  be like ETC vs ETH

Bitcoin Core = ETH

I don't like any of what Bitcoin Core is doing. I am surprised that these side chains are defended like it was in Satoshi's mind or true to Bitcoin. Core is creating a horrible mess and the cost will come later.

I think it's a policy that developers create to gain more profit.
The decision to be taken depends on what will happen after August 1st. All set by large users who play in the market to determine the right choice and influence where other users will follow.

[Daisuke]

we will see a repeat of the eth/etc situation. one fork will remain dominant; the other fork will fall to a fraction of the price after a slow ride down. there is too much going on in all of this; the opportunity is being seized by too many camps to push a reinterpretation of bitcoin. core, despite if I agree with all its decisions, is a result of the democracy we have all decided to participate in, up to this point. also from a legal standpoint; it would seem that core was the specific asset people added to portfolios and iras. if this value splits, who get the additional value? same for exchanges. they will make a mint overnight, simply because the average investor in this space has absolutely no saavy and believe they will liquidate this new found wealth; this will contribute to the non dominate chain dropping even faster.

ABC = no adoption

Unlimited = will  be like ETC vs ETH

Bitcoin Core = ETH

I don't like any of what Bitcoin Core is doing. I am surprised that these side chains are defended like it was in Satoshi's mind or true to Bitcoin. Core is creating a horrible mess and the cost will come later.

I think it's a policy that developers create to gain more profit.
The decision to be taken depends on what will happen after August 1st. All set by large users who play in the market to determine the right choice and influence where other users will follow.

True. And as for me, for now, it is much better if you will hold your bitcoins and wait until what will happen after August 1st because most probably, from what I have read from the discussions, bitcoin's price will get high compared to its price at present resulting for the bitcoin holders to gain more profit.

[lighpulsar07]

I will hold it first, then i will be sell once bitcoin ABC is available fom all exchanges. i really don't like bitcoin abc and bitcoin cash because they are just making it more messier than before. well anyway, the market will decide what will be price off those bitcoin forks anyway.

True. And as for me, for now, it is much better if you will hold your bitcoins and wait until what will happen after August 1st because most probably, from what I have read from the discussions, bitcoin's price will get high compared to its price at present resulting for the bitcoin holders to gain more profit.

what are you referring to? bitcoin itself? well you are in wrong discussion mate it's all about bitcoin ABC the bitmain's UAHF it was their response if (UASF) BIP 148 was successfully activated in august 1.

[alexsamudra]

I will sell it if the price is topmost and I will search or mine again.

[nagobinga]

It is not possible I will sell I will still maintain it because a sa 'at later would have no use for my future and the future of my child.

[fisheater]

Sell for sure, bitcoin ABC to me is an altcoin, so I won't keep it for long time. Short time for trading is fine.

[northstarh]

If BitcoinABC gains some very small traction lets say it hits an exchange at $100 BCC/USD, would you sell your BCC or hold on to it for the future incase it overtakes the Bitcoin Core ?

I think we all sold our ETC when it magically appeared on Poloniex and we basically considered it as winning the lottery since we still got to keep our ETH and the ETC was a free bonus. However we all sold it very cheap and if we were patient then we would of gotten almost the same value as ETH during the split ($15 ETH/USD).

So lets say we sell our BCC very cheap. And then in 2-3 years, after all the bugs get sorted it it eventually overtakes BTC. And when it overtakes BTC might become lower than BCC.

Another issue with this is the BTC payments we receive AFTER the fork. Lets say we decide to hold BCC. But any payment we get after the fork, we will only get it on the main Bitcoin Core chain.

Then in 2-3 years, when BCC over takes BTC, we won't have the difference in BCC since it happened after the work.

This depends on the current decision, if you keep the bitcoin and wait for the division, I'm sure you believe it, whether it passes bitcoin core or just a small coin, it is still affected by your initial decision.

[williamuk]

we will see a repeat of the eth/etc situation. one fork will remain dominant; the other fork will fall to a fraction of the price after a slow ride down. there is too much going on in all of this; the opportunity is being seized by too many camps to push a reinterpretation of bitcoin. core, despite if I agree with all its decisions, is a result of the democracy we have all decided to participate in, up to this point. also from a legal standpoint; it would seem that core was the specific asset people added to portfolios and iras. if this value splits, who get the additional value? same for exchanges. they will make a mint overnight, simply because the average investor in this space has absolutely no saavy and believe they will liquidate this new found wealth; this will contribute to the non dominate chain dropping even faster.

ABC = no adoption

Unlimited = will  be like ETC vs ETH

Bitcoin Core = ETH

I don't like any of what Bitcoin Core is doing. I am surprised that these side chains are defended like it was in Satoshi's mind or true to Bitcoin. Core is creating a horrible mess and the cost will come later.

I think it's a policy that developers create to gain more profit.
The decision to be taken depends on what will happen after August 1st. All set by large users who play in the market to determine the right choice and influence where other users will follow.

Agreed.

I think Bitcoin still has a chance to lead if more serious consideration is given to it's governance, the current situation with 'Core' is undesirable. IMO after the shenanigans we have witnessed the existing 'Core' team should be taken out of the loop. A new development team should be formed and placed under the strict supervision and control of an independent group of user representatives (users being exchanges, merchants, miners, client applications users, etc.)

[jonald_fyookball]

Hold onto it! BitcoinABC known as Bitcoin Cash IS Satoshi's vision to me. It is the real bitcoin I signed up for.

http://www.bitcoincash.org

It's the "real" bitcoin and Satoshi's vision.

Was it Satoshis vision for Bitcoin to be centralised by only people who can afford ridiculous hardware to run nodes on?

These people such as Mcafee, Wright, Ver? All trustworthy folk 

from satoshi

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

Yes, it was satoshi's vision that as the network grows, it would be expensive to run a mining node.  that doesn't mean it is centralized at all.  most users do not need to run a full node.

[jbreher]

If you run a node you will now need 4 times more storage space, can you afford it ?

Among all the stupid reasons to be against bigblocks, this has got to be the stupidest.

Storage is currently two-and-a-half US cents per GB.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/

BCC might have a rough initial period due to limited mining support. But if it can make it through its infancy, it will likely become dominant. The ability to accommodate transaction demand make it a long-term winner over cripplecoin.

[jonald_fyookball]

If you run a node you will now need 4 times more storage space, can you afford it ?

Among all the stupid reasons to be against bigblocks, this has got to be the stupidest.

Storage is currently two-and-a-half US cents per GB.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/

BCC might have a rough initial period due to limited mining support. But if it can make it through its infancy, it will likely become dominant. The ability to accommodate transaction demand make it a long-term winner over cripplecoin.

bring on the split.  as long as there's a big block version of bitcoin, then it is ensured that at least one version of bitcoin can be used as p2p electronic cash.  the other chain can be as competitive or feeble as it wants.

[Prodigan786]

My first questionis the name decided after a split it will be named as BitcoinABC (BCC) like ethereum classic (ETC) I really curious about that even who will decide which part of chain we will be lets wait till fork happens then i will decide mostly i will keep for long time.

[aesma]

If you run a node you will now need 4 times more storage space, can you afford it ?

Among all the stupid reasons to be against bigblocks, this has got to be the stupidest.

Then why are so few people running a full node ?

There are also bandwidth consideration. I have more than 250TB of storage space at home, but limited bandwidth. My Bitcoin Core wallet has crashed for some reason (PC is extremely stable, with ECC memory) and it doesn't manage to recover. It took me weeks to download the blockchain, I'm not ready to do it again.

[pedrog]

If you run a node you will now need 4 times more storage space, can you afford it ?

Among all the stupid reasons to be against bigblocks, this has got to be the stupidest.

Then why are so few people running a full node ?

There are also bandwidth consideration. I have more than 250TB of storage space at home, but limited bandwidth. My Bitcoin Core wallet has crashed for some reason (PC is extremely stable, with ECC memory) and it doesn't manage to recover. It took me weeks to download the blockchain, I'm not ready to do it again.

I wouldn't consider almost 100,000 full nodes 'few people'...

http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html

[blakeh]

If BitcoinABC gains some very small traction lets say it hits an exchange at $100 BCC/USD, would you sell your BCC or hold on to it for the future incase it overtakes the Bitcoin Core ?

I think we all sold our ETC when it magically appeared on Poloniex and we basically considered it as winning the lottery since we still got to keep our ETH and the ETC was a free bonus. However we all sold it very cheap and if we were patient then we would of gotten almost the same value as ETH during the split ($15 ETH/USD).

So lets say we sell our BCC very cheap. And then in 2-3 years, after all the bugs get sorted it it eventually overtakes BTC. And when it overtakes BTC might become lower than BCC.

Another issue with this is the BTC payments we receive AFTER the fork. Lets say we decide to hold BCC. But any payment we get after the fork, we will only get it on the main Bitcoin Core chain.

Then in 2-3 years, when BCC over takes BTC, we won't have the difference in BCC since it happened after the work.

If there is a chain split do you own both coins?

[jbreher]

My first questionis the name decided after a split it will be named as BitcoinABC (BCC)

No. The most prevalent opinion is that after the split, the bigblock chain will be known as Bitcoin Cash. BitcoinABC is just one of the clients that will operate on this chain. As will Bitcoin Unlimited, and likely Classic, XT, and others.

That is until it becomes majority chain. Which may happen within a half year - due to increased utility over 'that other' chain. At which point, it would be likely that the bigblock chain will become known as simply Bitcoin. And the crippled chain will need to choose a new name for itself.

Of course, this assumes that Bitcoin Cash makes it through its infancy. It will likely start out with minority support. Thereby less incentive to mine. But with (relatively) unlimited transaction capacity, it can accommodate transaction demand that S2 cannot. Thereby making Bitcoin (Cash) once again attractive for all the use cases (e.g., retail purchases) that core drove away. More utility -> more use -> more velocity -> more demand -> rising price -> incentive to mine -> more security -> more utility.

[jbreher]

If you run a node you will now need 4 times more storage space, can you afford it ?

Among all the stupid reasons to be against bigblocks, this has got to be the stupidest.

Then why are so few people running a full node ?

You'd have to ask them. I am unaware of any valid poll ever conducted on the matter.

Though lacking data, I personally am convinced that so few people run a node (I assume you mean a fully-validating, non-mining wallet?) because they have no incentive to do so.

I run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet because I value the ability to transact directly onchain. I guess most Bitcoiners don't give a shit about the ability to do so.

Then again, maybe more people that we have thought realize the falseness of the dogma that such non-mining, fully-validating wallets provide some sort of benefit to the network itself.