[ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees

[jbreher]

Segwit it nothing more than a malleability fix

False. There are many ways of implementing a malleability fix. The approach taken by segwit completely upends the bitcoin security model. All due to implementing it in a way that resisting it required a hard fork.

[1714990447]

1714990447

[1714990447]

1714990447

[1714990447]

1714990447

[1714990447]

1714990447

[jbreher]

fuck BCH and BTC private

Yes, if you plan on fucking BCH and fucking BTC, you best do it in private.

[jbreher]

Everyone who has Ethereum, can receive this token, for each 30 tokens, you can get 3 bitcoins
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3707551

Impossibru. Basic arithmetic fail.

[tekmobile]

LN makes commerce simple I purchased some steam vouchers the other day from bitrefill took me about 20 seconds from clicking buy to getting the code email and activating it

Amazing. Just the way bitcoin used to work before blocks started getting persistently full.

Except no or very few accept 0-conf you amost always have to wait for 3-6 confirmations

Almost as soon as I pasted the payment address into lncli and pressed enter the email showed up it took longer to actually open steam to redeem the code

Also donated a whole 1 satoshi (0.0000001 BTC) to one of the lightning explorers not because I thought that's was all they was worth but because you can something you cannot do and never could on Bitcoin or Bitcoin cash

[pikebu]

BCH Good News For the community of bitcoin cash ( investors and traders )
https://news.bitcoin.com/chinese-exchange-bitasia-now-supports-0-confirmation-bch-transactions/
Earlier this week the Chinese exchange Bitasia announced it started accepting zero-confirmation transactions
Bitcoin cash BCH will be more fast on this exchanger and fresh money will come to in, be ready to up trend 

And yet there is a nice site that lists loads of double spends on BCH

https://doublespend.cash

0-conf just is not safe under any circumstances

I think the programmers of exchanger has made calculating about this risk (doubles spends and other risk) because they won't makes disappointing of their costumers to trading bitcoin cash BCH on their market, and zero confirmation of bitcoin cash will takes new costumers to trade on there.

[jbreher]

Except no or very few accept 0-conf you amost always have to wait for 3-6 confirmations

Freekin' payment processors used to accept 0-conf transactions. Until persistently full blocks ruined The Bitcoin Experience.

[bgibso01]

I must say bitcoin Cash went through a lengthy since its release. We have a great deal to expect within 2018

[vothuong1]

Whats ur thought about bitcoin private? potential rival to bch or btc? Who are the developers?

[vothuong1]

I must say bitcoin Cash went through a lengthy since its release. We have a great deal to expect within 2018

Its reached top market cap soon after its release, one of the most hyped coin, where btc takes almost a decade.

[abdulaziz07]

It shows pretty well the advantage of the 8mb block size vs the 1 mb block size. Which tool did you use to create this graphic on txhighway

[estenity]

binance from china then japan,going to Malta ?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-23/the-world-s-biggest-cryptocurrency-exchange-is-moving-to-malta

[Mrpumperitis]

The masses decide what 'Bitcoin' is by the adoption and usage exactly how they decide what their search engine or web browser is.

With SW as a SF BTC is a fork as well and it might be the NetscapeAltavista for the masses.

It still follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you if you don't trust or want to use segwit then you don't have to you decide by the type of address you use

If you carry on using legacy addresses then you are using the exact same Bitcoin as you were several years ago nothing changed in that respect the data is still stored in the block in the exact same way as before.

The only time the data structure changes is when you use a segwit enabled address which in laymens terms just moves the signature data from the transaction field to a separate merkle tree that's pretty much it

Again, isnt that because it was closer to a uahf, disguised as a uasf.....in order to prevent a fork off...which led to segwet coin being called btc and retaining the ticker...

As for ltc, did they need a segwit malleability fix aswell in order to use LN?  

The system that was in place was for miners to signal when they was ready in order to activate a improvement this was not a issue when Bitcoin was early and spread out but since asics and large pools becoming the norm it was getting abused as any miner with over 10% could stop something even if 90% agreed

UASF was just that users running a node that activated segwit without the miners so they had 2 choices come along or signal  ready and activate which they did

And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix and chose segwit for LN

The nodes that do nothing and cost nothing to set up out voted the miners lols
The nodes activated a uahf, why do i say this....because a HF isnt forced on you...."follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you" tek

yea i thought litecoin may have had TM issues, was unsure on what cobbles had changed back in the day when making ltc....TM wasn't one of them anyways lol.

Why would litecoin have TM issues anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code and litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant

LN makes commerce simple I purchased some steam vouchers the other day from bitrefill took me about 20 seconds from clicking buy to getting the code email and activating it

Why would litecoin have TM issues  .................. "And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix" your comment above.
anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code .....yes it does , thats why bch is special like og btc, the only version that is segwit free (pleeeease dont start that clashit stuff lol)
 litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant ...id say ltc and blockstream took over and killed of btc the way it was meant to be but stole the ticker.

anyways forget ltc.

Back to this uasf/uahf, ...so you agree it was an uahf activated by useless ,free to create nodes.

Segwit it nothing more than a malleability fix yes it now allows for larger blocks but that was just a side effect

One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH is very much segwit-like

Segwit moves the signature out of the transaction area into a separate merkle root that allows for backwards compatibility

BCH's proposed fix moves the signature from the transaction area just the same as segwit but simply moves it to the end instead of to a separate merkle tree but this means it must HF and nobody gets to choose it's forced

Its a fix without the miners consent, the people that have real investment in the coin.
It pretends to be a sf but really its a hf.

Whenever bch makes any major future changes, it will be the miners that choose what happens, not free to create nodes that were used to hijack btc.

[tekmobile]

The masses decide what 'Bitcoin' is by the adoption and usage exactly how they decide what their search engine or web browser is.

With SW as a SF BTC is a fork as well and it might be the NetscapeAltavista for the masses.

It still follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you if you don't trust or want to use segwit then you don't have to you decide by the type of address you use

If you carry on using legacy addresses then you are using the exact same Bitcoin as you were several years ago nothing changed in that respect the data is still stored in the block in the exact same way as before.

The only time the data structure changes is when you use a segwit enabled address which in laymens terms just moves the signature data from the transaction field to a separate merkle tree that's pretty much it

Again, isnt that because it was closer to a uahf, disguised as a uasf.....in order to prevent a fork off...which led to segwet coin being called btc and retaining the ticker...

As for ltc, did they need a segwit malleability fix aswell in order to use LN?  

The system that was in place was for miners to signal when they was ready in order to activate a improvement this was not a issue when Bitcoin was early and spread out but since asics and large pools becoming the norm it was getting abused as any miner with over 10% could stop something even if 90% agreed

UASF was just that users running a node that activated segwit without the miners so they had 2 choices come along or signal  ready and activate which they did

And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix and chose segwit for LN

The nodes that do nothing and cost nothing to set up out voted the miners lols
The nodes activated a uahf, why do i say this....because a HF isnt forced on you...."follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you" tek

yea i thought litecoin may have had TM issues, was unsure on what cobbles had changed back in the day when making ltc....TM wasn't one of them anyways lol.

Why would litecoin have TM issues anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code and litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant

LN makes commerce simple I purchased some steam vouchers the other day from bitrefill took me about 20 seconds from clicking buy to getting the code email and activating it

Why would litecoin have TM issues  .................. "And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix" your comment above.
anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code .....yes it does , thats why bch is special like og btc, the only version that is segwit free (pleeeease dont start that clashit stuff lol)
 litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant ...id say ltc and blockstream took over and killed of btc the way it was meant to be but stole the ticker.

anyways forget ltc.

Back to this uasf/uahf, ...so you agree it was an uahf activated by useless ,free to create nodes.

Segwit it nothing more than a malleability fix yes it now allows for larger blocks but that was just a side effect

One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH is very much segwit-like

Segwit moves the signature out of the transaction area into a separate merkle root that allows for backwards compatibility

BCH's proposed fix moves the signature from the transaction area just the same as segwit but simply moves it to the end instead of to a separate merkle tree but this means it must HF and nobody gets to choose it's forced

Its a fix without the miners consent, the people that have real investment in the coin.
It pretends to be a sf but really its a hf.

Whenever bch makes any major future changes, it will be the miners that choose what happens, not free to create nodes that were used to hijack btc.

Something we agree on the miners will decide major changes the same miners that pushed for the fork do you see a issue here

The miners are just employed to secure the network and are the tiniest percentage <1% of all users so why should they decide what everyone should be forced to accept

Going back to supply inflation just say BCH takes on a stupid infinite block reward subsidy and abolishes all fees somthing like 10 BCH forever per block.

Obviously you won't agree same as all other users that have value and does not want it diluting with such high inflation but the miners would be a dream come true they will hold so much wealth so why wouldn't they pass it.

The whole premise of crypto currency is to take back financial freedom and not to be just slaves to the current banking system and allowing the miners to control the code and changes is just the same you are just giving them total control instead of banks

[bitcoinPsycho]

The masses decide what 'Bitcoin' is by the adoption and usage exactly how they decide what their search engine or web browser is.

With SW as a SF BTC is a fork as well and it might be the NetscapeAltavista for the masses.

It still follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you if you don't trust or want to use segwit then you don't have to you decide by the type of address you use

If you carry on using legacy addresses then you are using the exact same Bitcoin as you were several years ago nothing changed in that respect the data is still stored in the block in the exact same way as before.

The only time the data structure changes is when you use a segwit enabled address which in laymens terms just moves the signature data from the transaction field to a separate merkle tree that's pretty much it

Again, isnt that because it was closer to a uahf, disguised as a uasf.....in order to prevent a fork off...which led to segwet coin being called btc and retaining the ticker...

As for ltc, did they need a segwit malleability fix aswell in order to use LN?  

The system that was in place was for miners to signal when they was ready in order to activate a improvement this was not a issue when Bitcoin was early and spread out but since asics and large pools becoming the norm it was getting abused as any miner with over 10% could stop something even if 90% agreed

UASF was just that users running a node that activated segwit without the miners so they had 2 choices come along or signal  ready and activate which they did

And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix and chose segwit for LN

The nodes that do nothing and cost nothing to set up out voted the miners lols
The nodes activated a uahf, why do i say this....because a HF isnt forced on you...."follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you" tek

yea i thought litecoin may have had TM issues, was unsure on what cobbles had changed back in the day when making ltc....TM wasn't one of them anyways lol.

Why would litecoin have TM issues anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code and litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant

LN makes commerce simple I purchased some steam vouchers the other day from bitrefill took me about 20 seconds from clicking buy to getting the code email and activating it

Why would litecoin have TM issues  .................. "And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix" your comment above.
anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code .....yes it does , thats why bch is special like og btc, the only version that is segwit free (pleeeease dont start that clashit stuff lol)
 litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant ...id say ltc and blockstream took over and killed of btc the way it was meant to be but stole the ticker.

anyways forget ltc.

Back to this uasf/uahf, ...so you agree it was an uahf activated by useless ,free to create nodes.

Segwit it nothing more than a malleability fix yes it now allows for larger blocks but that was just a side effect

One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH is very much segwit-like

Segwit moves the signature out of the transaction area into a separate merkle root that allows for backwards compatibility

BCH's proposed fix moves the signature from the transaction area just the same as segwit but simply moves it to the end instead of to a separate merkle tree but this means it must HF and nobody gets to choose it's forced

Its a fix without the miners consent, the people that have real investment in the coin.
It pretends to be a sf but really its a hf.

Whenever bch makes any major future changes, it will be the miners that choose what happens, not free to create nodes that were used to hijack btc.

Something we agree on the miners will decide major changes the same miners that pushed for the fork do you see a issue here

The miners are just employed to secure the network and are the tiniest percentage <1% of all users so why should they decide what everyone should be forced to accept

Going back to supply inflation just say BCH takes on a stupid infinite block reward subsidy and abolishes all fees somthing like 10 BCH forever per block.

Obviously you won't agree same as all other users that have value and does not want it diluting with such high inflation but the miners would be a dream come true they will hold so much wealth so why wouldn't they pass it.

The whole premise of crypto currency is to take back financial freedom and not to be just slaves to the current banking system and allowing the miners to control the code and changes is just the same you are just giving them total control instead of banks

you nailed it tek . thats it in a nutshell. bye bye bch

[Mrpumperitis]

The masses decide what 'Bitcoin' is by the adoption and usage exactly how they decide what their search engine or web browser is.

With SW as a SF BTC is a fork as well and it might be the NetscapeAltavista for the masses.

It still follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you if you don't trust or want to use segwit then you don't have to you decide by the type of address you use

If you carry on using legacy addresses then you are using the exact same Bitcoin as you were several years ago nothing changed in that respect the data is still stored in the block in the exact same way as before.

The only time the data structure changes is when you use a segwit enabled address which in laymens terms just moves the signature data from the transaction field to a separate merkle tree that's pretty much it

Again, isnt that because it was closer to a uahf, disguised as a uasf.....in order to prevent a fork off...which led to segwet coin being called btc and retaining the ticker...

As for ltc, did they need a segwit malleability fix aswell in order to use LN?  

The system that was in place was for miners to signal when they was ready in order to activate a improvement this was not a issue when Bitcoin was early and spread out but since asics and large pools becoming the norm it was getting abused as any miner with over 10% could stop something even if 90% agreed

UASF was just that users running a node that activated segwit without the miners so they had 2 choices come along or signal  ready and activate which they did

And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix and chose segwit for LN

The nodes that do nothing and cost nothing to set up out voted the miners lols
The nodes activated a uahf, why do i say this....because a HF isnt forced on you...."follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you" tek

yea i thought litecoin may have had TM issues, was unsure on what cobbles had changed back in the day when making ltc....TM wasn't one of them anyways lol.

Why would litecoin have TM issues anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code and litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant

LN makes commerce simple I purchased some steam vouchers the other day from bitrefill took me about 20 seconds from clicking buy to getting the code email and activating it

Why would litecoin have TM issues  .................. "And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix" your comment above.
anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code .....yes it does , thats why bch is special like og btc, the only version that is segwit free (pleeeease dont start that clashit stuff lol)
 litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant ...id say ltc and blockstream took over and killed of btc the way it was meant to be but stole the ticker.

anyways forget ltc.

Back to this uasf/uahf, ...so you agree it was an uahf activated by useless ,free to create nodes.

Segwit it nothing more than a malleability fix yes it now allows for larger blocks but that was just a side effect

One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH is very much segwit-like

Segwit moves the signature out of the transaction area into a separate merkle root that allows for backwards compatibility

BCH's proposed fix moves the signature from the transaction area just the same as segwit but simply moves it to the end instead of to a separate merkle tree but this means it must HF and nobody gets to choose it's forced

Its a fix without the miners consent, the people that have real investment in the coin.
It pretends to be a sf but really its a hf.

Whenever bch makes any major future changes, it will be the miners that choose what happens, not free to create nodes that were used to hijack btc.

Something we agree on the miners will decide major changes the same miners that pushed for the fork do you see a issue here

The miners are just employed to secure the network and are the tiniest percentage <1% of all users so why should they decide what everyone should be forced to accept

Going back to supply inflation just say BCH takes on a stupid infinite block reward subsidy and abolishes all fees somthing like 10 BCH forever per block.

Obviously you won't agree same as all other users that have value and does not want it diluting with such high inflation but the miners would be a dream come true they will hold so much wealth so why wouldn't they pass it.

The whole premise of crypto currency is to take back financial freedom and not to be just slaves to the current banking system and allowing the miners to control the code and changes is just the same you are just giving them total control instead of banks

What is the cost of setting up a node that allows a vote on major changes to the whole system?.....It is so cheap, that it becomes an exploit as the uasf/hf has shown.
Its not like the nodes that vote have to hold a minimum amount of btc (thats how it should be done)


I understand the whole premise of crypto, and taking back financial freedom and not being slaves to bankers system, this is why i support bch. 

[dishku]

binance from china then japan,going to Malta ?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-23/the-world-s-biggest-cryptocurrency-exchange-is-moving-to-malta

I'm confused to see this news into this thread because from my point of view this is not relevant to this coin. Please explain about this even they are not offering any kind of dedicated market pairs with BCH

[BuyCheck]

How is Bcash still a thing when the Bitcoin mempool is almost empty? Roger got some deep pockets..

[Mrpumperitis]

How is Bcash still a thing when then Bitcoin mempool is almost empty? Roger got some deep pockets..

https://blockmanity.com/bitcoin-com-wallet-not-support-bitcoin-core-bitcoin-cash/
Roger Ver, the CEO of Bitcoin.com, the entry point for new people to learn about Bitcoin,
 just announced
 Bitcoin.com wallet will no longer support the Bitcoin core by default and would give preference to Bitcoin Cash.
 Roger Ver announced this news at the Satoshi Vision Conference in Tokyo, Japan.
LOL  

big old btc dump incoming imo  

[tekmobile]

The masses decide what 'Bitcoin' is by the adoption and usage exactly how they decide what their search engine or web browser is.

With SW as a SF BTC is a fork as well and it might be the NetscapeAltavista for the masses.

It still follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you if you don't trust or want to use segwit then you don't have to you decide by the type of address you use

If you carry on using legacy addresses then you are using the exact same Bitcoin as you were several years ago nothing changed in that respect the data is still stored in the block in the exact same way as before.

The only time the data structure changes is when you use a segwit enabled address which in laymens terms just moves the signature data from the transaction field to a separate merkle tree that's pretty much it

Again, isnt that because it was closer to a uahf, disguised as a uasf.....in order to prevent a fork off...which led to segwet coin being called btc and retaining the ticker...

As for ltc, did they need a segwit malleability fix aswell in order to use LN?  

The system that was in place was for miners to signal when they was ready in order to activate a improvement this was not a issue when Bitcoin was early and spread out but since asics and large pools becoming the norm it was getting abused as any miner with over 10% could stop something even if 90% agreed

UASF was just that users running a node that activated segwit without the miners so they had 2 choices come along or signal  ready and activate which they did

And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix and chose segwit for LN

The nodes that do nothing and cost nothing to set up out voted the miners lols
The nodes activated a uahf, why do i say this....because a HF isnt forced on you...."follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you" tek

yea i thought litecoin may have had TM issues, was unsure on what cobbles had changed back in the day when making ltc....TM wasn't one of them anyways lol.

Why would litecoin have TM issues anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code and litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant

LN makes commerce simple I purchased some steam vouchers the other day from bitrefill took me about 20 seconds from clicking buy to getting the code email and activating it

Why would litecoin have TM issues  .................. "And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix" your comment above.
anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code .....yes it does , thats why bch is special like og btc, the only version that is segwit free (pleeeease dont start that clashit stuff lol)
 litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant ...id say ltc and blockstream took over and killed of btc the way it was meant to be but stole the ticker.

anyways forget ltc.

Back to this uasf/uahf, ...so you agree it was an uahf activated by useless ,free to create nodes.

Segwit it nothing more than a malleability fix yes it now allows for larger blocks but that was just a side effect

One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH is very much segwit-like

Segwit moves the signature out of the transaction area into a separate merkle root that allows for backwards compatibility

BCH's proposed fix moves the signature from the transaction area just the same as segwit but simply moves it to the end instead of to a separate merkle tree but this means it must HF and nobody gets to choose it's forced

Its a fix without the miners consent, the people that have real investment in the coin.
It pretends to be a sf but really its a hf.

Whenever bch makes any major future changes, it will be the miners that choose what happens, not free to create nodes that were used to hijack btc.

Something we agree on the miners will decide major changes the same miners that pushed for the fork do you see a issue here

The miners are just employed to secure the network and are the tiniest percentage <1% of all users so why should they decide what everyone should be forced to accept

Going back to supply inflation just say BCH takes on a stupid infinite block reward subsidy and abolishes all fees somthing like 10 BCH forever per block.

Obviously you won't agree same as all other users that have value and does not want it diluting with such high inflation but the miners would be a dream come true they will hold so much wealth so why wouldn't they pass it.

The whole premise of crypto currency is to take back financial freedom and not to be just slaves to the current banking system and allowing the miners to control the code and changes is just the same you are just giving them total control instead of banks

What is the cost of setting up a node that allows a vote on major changes to the whole system?.....It is so cheap, that it becomes an exploit as the uasf/hf has shown.
Its not like the nodes that vote have to hold a minimum amount of btc (thats how it should be done)


I understand the whole premise of crypto, and taking back financial freedom and not being slaves to bankers system, this is why i support bch. 

The nodes themselves don't vote the users do with our money

We create value as with UASF we gave it value therefore the miners not supporting segwit would be stuck on a worthless chain and were either forced to upgrade or go their own way on a minority chain hence BCH that is the minority chain one that they can control one that will never push something they won't agree with because they are the ones controlling the code so the users have to either knuckle down and just accept or fork off

[BuyCheck]

How is Bcash still a thing when then Bitcoin mempool is almost empty? Roger got some deep pockets..

https://blockmanity.com/bitcoin-com-wallet-not-support-bitcoin-core-bitcoin-cash/
Roger Ver, the CEO of Bitcoin.com, the entry point for new people to learn about Bitcoin,
 just announced that Bitcoin.com wallet will no longer support the Bitcoin core by default and would give preference to Bitcoin Cash.
 Roger Ver announced this news at the Satoshi Vision Conference in Tokyo, Japan.
LOL  

big old btc dump incoming imo  

As long as he refers to it as Bcash, instead of trying to deceive new users into buying fake Bitcoin, fine with me!