Bitcoin Forum
September 28, 2020, 10:56:57 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 [920] 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees  (Read 691908 times)
Khaos77
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 73

Flag Day ☺


View Profile
May 25, 2019, 02:54:48 PM
 #18381

Same thing can happen to bitcoin,

the biggest difference is that someone would, uh, notice.

Who said they don't, but btc requires 3 confirmations,
so the below list of less than 3 confirmations is also ignored as it is below the required confirmations.  Smiley

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/orphaned-blocks
Quote
Orphaned Blocks
Detached or Orphaned blocks are valid blocks which are not part of the main chain.
They can occur naturally when two miners produce blocks at similar times
or they can be caused by an attacker (with enough hashing power) attempting to reverse transactions.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Chain_Reorganization
The term "blockchain reorganization" is used to refer to the situation where a client discovers a new difficultywise-longest well-formed blockchain which excludes one or more blocks that the client previously thought were part of the difficultywise-longest well-formed blockchain. These excluded blocks become orphans.

With BTC wait 3 confirms to be assumed safe.
With BCH wait 6 confirms to be assumed safe.

Any reorg higher than those #s,
then double spends could occur, and then you have the panic, anything below those #s, and no one really cares.

1601333817
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1601333817

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1601333817
Reply with quote  #2

1601333817
Report to moderator
1601333817
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1601333817

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1601333817
Reply with quote  #2

1601333817
Report to moderator
1601333817
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1601333817

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1601333817
Reply with quote  #2

1601333817
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 3643



View Profile
May 25, 2019, 03:12:57 PM
 #18382

With BTC wait 3 confirms to be assumed safe.
With BCH wait 6 confirms to be assumed safe.

Any reorg higher than those #s,
then double spends could occur, and then you have the panic, anything below those #s, and no one really cares.

There's a reason why with BTC its 3 and BCH its 6, you forgot to mention that part...





.
.




░██████████████████░
████████████████████
█████████▀░░░███████
█████████░░▄████████
███████▀▀░░▀▀███████
███████▄▄░░▄▄███████
█████████░░█████████

█████████░░█████████

█████████▄▄█████████

████████████████████

░██████████████████░
░██████████████████░
████████████████████
████████████▀▀▀█▀███
███░▀█████▀░░░░░▀███
███▌░░░▀▀▀░░░░░░████
████▄░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████▀░░░░░░░░░█████

██████▄░░░░░▄▄██████

█████▄▄▄▄███████████

████████████████████

░██████████████████░
░██████████████████░
████████████████████
████████████████████
███████████▀▀░░▐████
███████▀▀░░░░░█████
████▀░░░▄█▀░░░▐█████
█████▄▄█▀░░░░░██████

███████▌▄▄▄▐██████

████████████████████

████████████████████

░██████████████████░
Khaos77
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 73

Flag Day ☺


View Profile
May 25, 2019, 03:41:05 PM
 #18383

With BTC wait 3 confirms to be assumed safe.
With BCH wait 6 confirms to be assumed safe.

Any reorg higher than those #s,
then double spends could occur, and then you have the panic, anything below those #s, and no one really cares.

There's a reason why with BTC its 3 and BCH its 6, you forgot to mention that part...


The reason is the same for both,
that is the recommend confirmations from the developers for assumed safe transactions.   Smiley

Feel free to outline a post why there is a difference in the numbers of confirmations required by the developers.



.
afbitcoins
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1980
Merit: 1047



View Profile WWW
May 25, 2019, 03:49:59 PM
 #18384

Its a bit concerning for bitcoin cash that the miners have the power to 51% attack the network so trivially. Even if they seem to have reasons, they shouldn't be able to

I don't really understand what exactly you expected from a shitcoin like BCH. Undecided


I'm not a fan of bitcoin cash. In the beginning it was interesting as a candidate for the version of bitcoin following the original ethos. But that is well and truely dead in the water now. Especially after the damaging Bitcoin SV split. I don't like SV either

Dash has the most interesting approach to mitigate against 51% attacks



Mitigating 51% attacks with LLMQ-based ChainLocks

https://blog.dash.org/mitigating-51-attacks-with-llmq-based-chainlocks-7266aa648ec9

Quote
Implications and effects on the network

ChainLocks have a few very important effects on the whole (Dash) network and its economics. The most important effect for normal users and merchants is that transactions can be considered fully confirmed after the first on-chain confirmation inside a block protected by ChainLocks. Transactions can no longer vanish from the chain since reorganization of signed/locked blocks is not possible. This means that there is no need anymore to wait for 6 or more confirmations until a received transaction can be considered secure.

It also has effects on the economics of mining. It removes all incentives for miners to cause chain reorganizations. Many attacks based on secret or selfish mining become impossible as they all depend on miners withholding longer and secret chains. Under the current consensus rules, such chains would override the publicly known chain and cause a chain reorganization when published. With ChainLocks however, miners are incentivized to publish every block immediately, even if they in theory have enough hash power to overrule every other miner. Failure to publish creates substantial risks for a malicious miner since any secret chain (even if thousands of blocks longer) would be immediately invalidated if another honest miner publishes a valid block that receives a CLSIG before the secret chain is revealed.

hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 607

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2019, 03:56:20 PM
 #18385

Its a bit concerning for bitcoin cash that the miners have the power to 51% attack the network so trivially. Even if they seem to have reasons, they shouldn't be able to

I don't really understand what exactly you expected from a shitcoin like BCH. Undecided


I'm not a fan of bitcoin cash. In the beginning it was interesting as a candidate for the version of bitcoin following the original ethos. But that is well and truely dead in the water now. Especially after the damaging Bitcoin SV split. I don't like SV either

Dash has the most interesting approach to mitigate against 51% attacks



Mitigating 51% attacks with LLMQ-based ChainLocks

https://blog.dash.org/mitigating-51-attacks-with-llmq-based-chainlocks-7266aa648ec9

Quote
Implications and effects on the network

ChainLocks have a few very important effects on the whole (Dash) network and its economics. The most important effect for normal users and merchants is that transactions can be considered fully confirmed after the first on-chain confirmation inside a block protected by ChainLocks. Transactions can no longer vanish from the chain since reorganization of signed/locked blocks is not possible. This means that there is no need anymore to wait for 6 or more confirmations until a received transaction can be considered secure.

It also has effects on the economics of mining. It removes all incentives for miners to cause chain reorganizations. Many attacks based on secret or selfish mining become impossible as they all depend on miners withholding longer and secret chains. Under the current consensus rules, such chains would override the publicly known chain and cause a chain reorganization when published. With ChainLocks however, miners are incentivized to publish every block immediately, even if they in theory have enough hash power to overrule every other miner. Failure to publish creates substantial risks for a malicious miner since any secret chain (even if thousands of blocks longer) would be immediately invalidated if another honest miner publishes a valid block that receives a CLSIG before the secret chain is revealed.



The split was inevitable since too many idiots try to fiddle around with the legit and copyrighted version.

Anybody welcome to go on protest now and show up in real live.

https://twitter.com/justicemate/status/1132050812530675712?s=21

Clear all that fud, thats no longer needed in PosM world


Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 3643



View Profile
May 25, 2019, 04:02:56 PM
 #18386

With BTC wait 3 confirms to be assumed safe.
With BCH wait 6 confirms to be assumed safe.

Any reorg higher than those #s,
then double spends could occur, and then you have the panic, anything below those #s, and no one really cares.

There's a reason why with BTC its 3 and BCH its 6, you forgot to mention that part...


The reason is the same for both,
that is the recommend confirmations from the developers for assumed safe transactions.   Smiley

Feel free to outline a post why there is a difference in the numbers of confirmations required by the developers.

"The reason is the same for both" doesn't even make sense as an answer.

But to give you an outline, it has to do with hash rate. It means that a BCH transaction is much more vulnerable at 3 confirmations than BTC.

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bch.html





.
.




░██████████████████░
████████████████████
█████████▀░░░███████
█████████░░▄████████
███████▀▀░░▀▀███████
███████▄▄░░▄▄███████
█████████░░█████████

█████████░░█████████

█████████▄▄█████████

████████████████████

░██████████████████░
░██████████████████░
████████████████████
████████████▀▀▀█▀███
███░▀█████▀░░░░░▀███
███▌░░░▀▀▀░░░░░░████
████▄░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████▀░░░░░░░░░█████

██████▄░░░░░▄▄██████

█████▄▄▄▄███████████

████████████████████

░██████████████████░
░██████████████████░
████████████████████
████████████████████
███████████▀▀░░▐████
███████▀▀░░░░░█████
████▀░░░▄█▀░░░▐█████
█████▄▄█▀░░░░░██████

███████▌▄▄▄▐██████

████████████████████

████████████████████

░██████████████████░
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2884
Merit: 1504


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
May 25, 2019, 11:08:42 PM
 #18387

With BTC wait 3 confirms to be assumed safe.
With BCH wait 6 confirms to be assumed safe.

Any reorg higher than those #s,
then double spends could occur, and then you have the panic, anything below those #s, and no one really cares.

There's a reason why with BTC its 3 and BCH its 6, you forgot to mention that part...


The reason is the same for both,
that is the recommend confirmations from the developers for assumed safe transactions.   Smiley

Feel free to outline a post why there is a difference in the numbers of confirmations required by the developers.

"The reason is the same for both" doesn't even make sense as an answer.

But to give you an outline, it has to do with hash rate. It means that a BCH transaction is much more vulnerable at 3 confirmations than BTC.

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bch.html

True.

But hashrate per chain is plastic. Hashrate is freely transferable between BTC, BCH, and SV. Currently, it is 1.8% more profitable to mine on BTC than it is on BCH (source: coin.dance). What would happen if BCH becomes significantly more profitable?

So, yes. To reiterate Khaos77's statement, the reason is the same for both.

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
dineo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 134
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2019, 08:04:45 AM
 #18388

We have added Bitcoin Cash to the new Exchange: https://www.dinerocadames.com/exchange/?market=BCH_BTC
Goxten
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 45
Merit: 1


View Profile
May 29, 2019, 08:20:56 AM
 #18389

We have added Bitcoin Cash to the new Exchange: https://www.dinerocadames.com/exchange/?market=BCH_BTC

It surprises me why this fake-coin is still being listed over to new exchanges. Why?
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 2082



View Profile
May 29, 2019, 08:42:55 AM
 #18390

We have added Bitcoin Cash to the new Exchange: https://www.dinerocadames.com/exchange/?market=BCH_BTC

It surprises me why this fake-coin is still being listed over to new exchanges. Why?

Because exchanges have only one aim: Making money from the traders by collecting fees.

Most exchanges don't want to get involved in politics.

Binance did it by removing BSV but they still keep BABABC. BSV was way over the top I guess. Bcash is not much different but Roger is keeping the heat just enough (to not  make the chicken all burnt out) so he doesn't get kicked too.

It is very clear binance don't like bcash but they still keep it. It is Because there are people who trade bcash and binance makes money from those trades. It is a though decision for them.

And if you are a newly established exchange, way way smaller than binance, you don't even have a choice, you have to add whatever which makes you money. Ripple, bcash... even bitconnect (remember thise days people were trading that shit on the major exchanges  even though everybody knew that it was a scam)




▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▄▄▄▄                  ▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄        ▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ▀████████████████▄  ████                 █████   ▀████▄    ▄████▀  ▄██████████████   ████████████▀  ▄█████████████▀  ▄█████████████▄
              ▀████  ████               ▄███▀███▄   ▀████▄▄████▀               ████   ████                ████                   ▀████
   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████  ████              ████   ████    ▀██████▀      ██████████████▄   ████████████▀       ████       ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████▀
   ██████████████▀   ████            ▄███▀     ▀███▄    ████        ████        ████  ████                ████       ██████████████▀
   ████              ████████████▀  ████   ██████████   ████        ████████████████  █████████████▀      ████       ████      ▀████▄
   ▀▀▀▀              ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀▀▀▀        ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀        ▀▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▀        ▀▀▀▀▀

#1 CRYPTO CASINO & SPORTSBOOK
  WELCOME
BONUS
.INSTANT & FAST.
.TRANSACTION.....
.PROVABLY FAIR.
......& SECURE......
.24/7 CUSTOMER.
............SUPPORT.
BTC      |      ETH      |      LTC      |      XRP      |      XMR      |      BNB      |     more
tbct_mt2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 581


First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold


View Profile
May 29, 2019, 02:28:38 PM
 #18391

Exchanges only delisted coins with some of following reasons:
- Legal requirements from governments.
- too low volume over long period.
- serious issues repeatedly occur with wallet, upgrades, and so on.
If coins don't have such issue(s), one or all of them, exchanges won't have plans to delist coins.

Tinno
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 101
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 29, 2019, 03:21:10 PM
 #18392

But is there a link where you can read more about the attack 51% committed to the Bitcoin Cash?
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 607

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2019, 08:43:11 PM
Merited by Bitbobb (1)
 #18393

Former bch mogul speaking on Bloomberg

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/calvin-ayre-invest-in-bitcoin-sv-not-other-crypto-tokens~1694302

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
Khaos77
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 73

Flag Day ☺


View Profile
June 02, 2019, 06:26:00 AM
 #18394

Clarifications

Bitcoin Cash & Bitcoin SV both offer real scaling potential , as true scaling can only occur ONCHAIN.

Bitcoin Segwit using LN is not scaling, it is Offloading.
As BTC segwit offloads transactions to the LN network because the btc onchain network is inferior due to it's transaction capacity being purposefully limited by it's core devs.

Bitbobb
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 525


Less hops. More wins.


View Profile
June 02, 2019, 02:23:46 PM
 #18395

Clarifications

Bitcoin Cash & Bitcoin SV both offer real scaling potential , as true scaling can only occur ONCHAIN.

Bitcoin Segwit using LN is not scaling, it is Offloading.
As BTC segwit offloads transactions to the LN network because the btc onchain network is inferior due to it's transaction capacity being purposefully limited by it's core devs.



bch dev forced changes into the base layer which caused a split.  These changes work incrementally to remove the miner competition from the BitCoin experiment.  In other words bch devs do not want BitCoin they want to destroy BitCoin but lock up the name "BitCoin" and associate it with crime etc.

hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 607

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
June 02, 2019, 04:37:25 PM
 #18396

Clarifications

Bitcoin Cash & Bitcoin SV both offer real scaling potential , as true scaling can only occur ONCHAIN.

Bitcoin Segwit using LN is not scaling, it is Offloading.
As BTC segwit offloads transactions to the LN network because the btc onchain network is inferior due to it's transaction capacity being purposefully limited by it's core devs.



bch dev forced changes into the base layer which caused a split.  These changes work incrementally to remove the miner competition from the BitCoin experiment.  In other words bch devs do not want BitCoin they want to destroy BitCoin but lock up the name "BitCoin" and associate it with crime etc.

Yep

They rather want checkpointcoin withs ctor dsv avalanche schnorr & moar

Nothing to to with legit orig BitCoin

There is only one that can be stable

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
gembitz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 369


*Brute force will solve any Bitcoin problem*


View Profile
June 03, 2019, 01:41:49 AM
 #18397

Clarifications

Bitcoin Cash & Bitcoin SV both offer real scaling potential , as true scaling can only occur ONCHAIN.

Bitcoin Segwit using LN is not scaling, it is Offloading.
As BTC segwit offloads transactions to the LN network because the btc onchain network is inferior due to it's transaction capacity being purposefully limited by it's core devs.



bch dev forced changes into the base layer which caused a split.  These changes work incrementally to remove the miner competition from the BitCoin experiment.  In other words bch devs do not want BitCoin they want to destroy BitCoin but lock up the name "BitCoin" and associate it with crime etc.


lol you finally woke?   Cheesy   bwaahaha

#makebitcointalkgreatagain-_-*my posts are strictly for entertainment purposes only. It should not be regarded as investment/trading advice.*advocate to promote sharing and free software for the bitcoin community* #EFF #FSF ===> START WITH NOTHING AND BUILD IT INTO SOMETHING!
Bitbobb
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 525


Less hops. More wins.


View Profile
June 03, 2019, 01:39:31 PM
 #18398

Clarifications

Bitcoin Cash & Bitcoin SV both offer real scaling potential , as true scaling can only occur ONCHAIN.

Bitcoin Segwit using LN is not scaling, it is Offloading.
As BTC segwit offloads transactions to the LN network because the btc onchain network is inferior due to it's transaction capacity being purposefully limited by it's core devs.



bch dev forced changes into the base layer which caused a split.  These changes work incrementally to remove the miner competition from the BitCoin experiment.  In other words bch devs do not want BitCoin they want to destroy BitCoin but lock up the name "BitCoin" and associate it with crime etc.


lol you finally woke?   Cheesy   bwaahaha

yes, feeling woke.  good morning gemyyybittzzzz.  

sirsplashalot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 522
Merit: 123



View Profile
June 04, 2019, 11:02:12 AM
 #18399

Clarifications

Bitcoin Cash & Bitcoin SV both offer real scaling potential , as true scaling can only occur ONCHAIN.

Bitcoin Segwit using LN is not scaling, it is Offloading.
As BTC segwit offloads transactions to the LN network because the btc onchain network is inferior due to it's transaction capacity being purposefully limited by it's core devs.



bch dev forced changes into the base layer which caused a split.  These changes work incrementally to remove the miner competition from the BitCoin experiment.  In other words bch devs do not want BitCoin they want to destroy BitCoin but lock up the name "BitCoin" and associate it with crime etc.

This move officially makes Bitcoin Cash ‘BCash.’ I have no idea why Ver forced this.

Worried about my trust rating? I am too. Bitcointalk users ‘Lauda’ and ‘gmaxwell’ have abused their superior powers in trust system to align their views with the ‘correct views.’ In no legal system in any jurisdiction do we have a definition for what Bitcoin is, they do not have the power to tell us what it is based on the rule of law.
adamvp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 629


View Profile
June 09, 2019, 11:32:56 AM
 #18400

The Bitcoin Cash fiasco: a reorg or a 51 percent attack?
https://app.algory.io/app/cryptonews/768694/the-bitcoin-cash-fiasco-a-reorg-or-a-51

Interesting article about BCH: 51%  issue;
Secondly BSV is now over worth 0,5 BCH (I personally consider BSV as a scam so it is quite worrying that market valuation of bch and bsv is going so close..)
Pages: « 1 ... 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 [920] 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!