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

[Hammonds]

I believe in Bitcoin Cash that someday it will surpass Bitcoin, and become new King of the crypto world.

Give your reasons if BCH will replace BTC in the future.
Because BCH is altcoin the same as the others.

[1714164928]

1714164928

[1714164928]

1714164928

[1714164928]

1714164928

[1714164928]

1714164928

[Mrpumperitis]

I believe in Bitcoin Cash that someday it will surpass Bitcoin, and become new King of the crypto world.

Give your reasons if BCH will replace BTC in the future.
Because BCH is altcoin the same as the others.

Bitcoin Cash gets majority of PoW then it becomes de facto Bitcoin.

[Mysticus]

Lightning network requires just a malleability fix it does not need to be segwit it just happens that segwit is the best fix available.

Yes it will work without segwit or a malleability fix but the smart contract that holds the funds securely on chain is identified by it's transaction id it will work just fine without segwit or a malleability fix the only time a issue would arise is if the opening transaction gets affected by this bug and would result is total loss of funds nothing more and this would be a deal breaker.

One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH moves the signature out of the transaction area the exact same way as segwit with the only difference being that on BCH it's just moved permanently and everyone is forced to the new system while segwit just moves it to a separate merkle tree if the user chooses to use segwit and the user still has the option to use it or carry on using  legacy addresses with the signature still in the transaction area.

With segwit you have the option to use the same security model that Bitcoin has used for the last 9 years but with one of the proposed BCH fixes this would completely change the security model for a new system and you would not be able to use the one Bitcoin has used for the last 9 years.

Are these claims true about a proposed BCH malleability fix?  If not it needs to be debunked.  If there is such a proposal I believe it could not possibly be adopted in such a way, as it appears that most Bitcoin Cash users would not accept to be forced into a new system.

Decentralization implies the freedom to keep using legacy addresses in the long term.  Massive on-chain scaling is precisely allowing for that, at a very low cost.  If a malleability fix is envisioned at a later time to add more options, it will respect the freedom of choice for users.

[tekmobile]

Lightning network requires just a malleability fix it does not need to be segwit it just happens that segwit is the best fix available.

Yes it will work without segwit or a malleability fix but the smart contract that holds the funds securely on chain is identified by it's transaction id it will work just fine without segwit or a malleability fix the only time a issue would arise is if the opening transaction gets affected by this bug and would result is total loss of funds nothing more and this would be a deal breaker.

One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH moves the signature out of the transaction area the exact same way as segwit with the only difference being that on BCH it's just moved permanently and everyone is forced to the new system while segwit just moves it to a separate merkle tree if the user chooses to use segwit and the user still has the option to use it or carry on using  legacy addresses with the signature still in the transaction area.

With segwit you have the option to use the same security model that Bitcoin has used for the last 9 years but with one of the proposed BCH fixes this would completely change the security model for a new system and you would not be able to use the one Bitcoin has used for the last 9 years.

Are these claims true about a proposed BCH malleability fix?  If not it needs to be debunked.  If there is such a proposal I believe it could not possibly be adopted in such a way, as it appears that most Bitcoin Cash users would not accept to be forced into a new system.

Decentralization implies the freedom to keep using legacy addresses in the long term.  Massive on-chain scaling is precisely allowing for that, at a very low cost.  If a malleability fix is envisioned at a later time to add more options, it will respect the freedom of choice for users.

Can't find all the information the devs do a lot of discussing in private

https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/workgroups/blob/master/wg-malfix/summaries/20180130%20-%20Meeting%20Summary.md

This is some of the proposed fixes it's to be done at some point in the future via the scheduled hard forks and affects everyone there is no opt in like segwit where you decide yourself if you want to carry on with legacy or not

BCH wants the malfix for everyone this means the security model has to change permanently

One of the criticisms of segwit is that it does not fix it for everyone (because it's optional)

[jbreher]

One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH moves the signature out of the transaction area the exact same way as segwit with the only difference being that on BCH it's just moved permanently and everyone is forced to the new system

with one of the proposed BCH fixes this would completely change the security model for a new system and you would not be able to use the one Bitcoin has used for the last 9 years.

Are these claims true about a proposed BCH malleability fix?  

So tek claims. He is partially right about the first one. A separation of signature data from the rest of the transaction data has indeed been proposed as a malleability fix. Funny thing about proposals - anyone can make one. Even an insane one. Not saying the concept of separating sig from tx is necessarily insane, just saying that there are essentially zero barriers to making a proposal.

To get the proposal implemented, however, requires consensus. There is no consensus for this proposal at this time.

If not it needs to be debunked.  

Despite a direct challenge, tek has provided zero rationale for tek's claim that this proposal will change Bitcoin's security model. Zero. Tek merely dodges the question. See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2040221.msg34496915#msg34496915

It is possible there is a proposal for BCH that separates sig from tx and changes the security model. Possible. until tek coughs up the text of the relevant proposal, there is no knowing.

Salacious claims require support of evidence. The ball is in tek's court. Put up or shut up. *

If tek can establish such a proposal actually exists, it is then impingent upon tek to show that there is a snowball's chance in hell of it ever getting adopted. As if.

Unless tek steps forward with some evidence, you can safely consider this claim debunked, dispatched, and discredited. *

If there is such a proposal I believe it could not possibly be adopted in such a way, as it appears that most Bitcoin Cash users would not accept to be forced into a new system.

I think you sum up the situation rather well - Bitcoin Cash users are unlikely to accept being forced into such a system.

*edit: tek posted while I was composing this. From a quick scan, tek has identified a specific proposal, though tek's claims will still be debunked using this new evidence. Stay tuned.

[segotiwul]

we can invest more intelligently by exploiting the wisdom of smart people through cripto. Our goal is to reduce the barriers to entry into the crypto investment market by providing tools that make crypto trading opportunities accessible to professional users and mainstream users. because we can succeed if we follow the rules that exist in this crypto.

[tekmobile]

One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH moves the signature out of the transaction area the exact same way as segwit with the only difference being that on BCH it's just moved permanently and everyone is forced to the new system

with one of the proposed BCH fixes this would completely change the security model for a new system and you would not be able to use the one Bitcoin has used for the last 9 years.

Are these claims true about a proposed BCH malleability fix?  

So tek claims. He is partially right about the first one. A separation of signature data from the rest of the transaction data has indeed been proposed as a malleability fix. Funny thing about proposals - anyone can make one. Even an insane one. Not saying the concept of separating sig from tx is necessarily insane, just saying that there are essentially zero barriers to making a proposal.

To get the proposal implemented, however, requires consensus. There is no consensus for this proposal at this time.

If not it needs to be debunked.  

Despite a direct challenge, tek has provided zero rationale for tek's claim that this proposal will change Bitcoin's security model. Zero. Tek merely dodges the question. See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2040221.msg34496915#msg34496915

It is possible there is a proposal for BCH that separates sig from tx and changes the security model. Possible. until tek coughs up the text of the relevant proposal, there is no knowing.

Salacious claims require support of evidence. The ball is in tek's court. Put up or shut up.

If tek can establish such a proposal actually exists, it is then impingent upon tek to show that there is a snowball's chance in hell of it ever getting adopted. As if.

Unless tek steps forward with some evidence, you can safely consider this claim debunked, dispatched, and discredited.

If there is such a proposal I believe it could not possibly be adopted in such a way, as it appears that most Bitcoin Cash users would not accept to be forced into a new system.

I think you sum up the situation rather well - Bitcoin Cash users are unlikely to accept being forced into such a system.

The proposed fixes are listed here

https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/workgroups/blob/master/wg-malfix/summaries/20180130%20-%20Meeting%20Summary.md

Yes they are proposals nothing more I'm not saying that any will be adopted just that their is a chance

As for Bitcoin Cash users won't accept being forced into a new system the whole premise of Bitcoin cash is users nodes don't matter only mining nodes matter so you will get forced if the exchanges upgrade and the miners upgrade the users are forced to either upgrade because you use SPV wallets or sell taking huge losses


The only reason BTC users can have a say is the users run the majority of the nodes therefore the miners etc won't switch as it's not in their interest to mine something the vast majority of users define worthless

[Mrpumperitis]

https://twitter.com/BTCNewsUpdates/status/984270024968998912
Long time Bitcoin Core advocate "Cobra" confirms:

▪️Lightning is a threat to BTC's value
▪️Lightning is better used with other coins
0 use case left, no more reason to hold or buy BTCs. 📉🔥

Cobra-Bitcoin
A lot of people miss that. From the Bitcoin maximalist point of view, LN is actually a bit of a threat to Bitcoin's value long term. Rather than exclusively being a scaling solution for Bitcoin, it's actually a scaling solution for any coin with a malleability fix.

When stores start shifting from accepting BTC payments to LN, any altcoin with a malleability fix gains new adoption as a result. So why use Bitcoin in the first place if you can just use some shitcoin, open a channel into Lightning (at much cheaper cost), and spend at any LN-accepting merchant?

Bitcoin maximalism fits better with on-chain scaling philosophy in some ways in that respect, or scaling through sidechains.



So, if you want to use ln, you can with other coins , no need to hold og btc...tek thoughts?


also did you see ln in action? ooooooo 
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8bmyp6/roger_gets_a_demo_of_lightning_network/

[tekmobile]

https://twitter.com/BTCNewsUpdates/status/984270024968998912
Long time Bitcoin Core advocate "Cobra" confirms:

▪️Lightning is a threat to BTC's value
▪️Lightning is better used with other coins
0 use case left, no more reason to hold or buy BTCs. 📉🔥

Cobra-Bitcoin
A lot of people miss that. From the Bitcoin maximalist point of view, LN is actually a bit of a threat to Bitcoin's value long term. Rather than exclusively being a scaling solution for Bitcoin, it's actually a scaling solution for any coin with a malleability fix.

When stores start shifting from accepting BTC payments to LN, any altcoin with a malleability fix gains new adoption as a result. So why use Bitcoin in the first place if you can just use some shitcoin, open a channel into Lightning (at much cheaper cost), and spend at any LN-accepting merchant?

Bitcoin maximalism fits better with on-chain scaling philosophy in some ways in that respect, or scaling through sidechains.



So, if you want to use ln, you can with other coins , no need to hold og btc...tek thoughts?


also did you see ln in action? ooooooo 
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8bmyp6/roger_gets_a_demo_of_lightning_network/

You posted that earlier and yes I saw

That vid of Roger and LN that's using eclair it's one of the early betas and has some issues I'm well aware of those I've had many failures with eclair that is not a issue with LN though just buggy early beta software that will be fixed

I've never had such issues with LND you just need to use the command line

Eclair also has other issues it currently cannot receive LN payments either only make them and does not advertise itself to the network or route payments for others

LND is the most reliable client so far yes there is still a lot of work to do

Bitcoin is the currency like USD
The block chain is where you store your money like your bank account
LN is a payment network like visa or MasterCard etc

When you go to shops etc you don't go and make a bank transfer to pay for something you use a payment processor and can only spend money that is on your bank account (your channel balance)

[Mrpumperitis]

^ eclair rings a bell...lol

https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2018/04/bitcoin-lightning-network-wallet-app-removed-from-google-play-as-developers-lose-signing-key/
Bitcoin’s first Lightning Network-enabled wallet app, Eclair Wallet, has recently been removed from Google’s Play Store by the developers, as they lost access to the app’s signing keys. This, as the developers noted on social media, prevents them from fixing bugs and working on the app


so was this demo before or after the devs lost the keys?

[jbreher]

The proposed fixes are listed here

https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/workgroups/blob/master/wg-malfix/summaries/20180130%20-%20Meeting%20Summary.md

Finally. We get to something concrete and debatable. Thanks.

Yes they are proposals nothing more I'm not saying that any will be adopted just that their is a chance

Exactly. Three people met and discussed what -- if anything -- to do about malleability. The outcome: nothing at this time. Slight preference for MalFix, but no consensus.

True, one of the participants was the individual who currently leads the market-leading client implementation. Was he the holdout? Who knows? Doesn't matter.

But you fail to support your claim that MalFix would result in Bitcoin Cash abandoning Bitcoin's tried and true security model. Again, put up or shut up. You may just be parroting my observation that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset has caused Bitcoin Segwit to abandon Bitcoin's tried and true security model. But you seem to fundamentally misunderstand Bitcoin. For it is not the separation of sig from tx within The SegWit Omnibus Changeset that has abandoned Bitcoin's security model. Rather, it is the misguided abortional crude hack of pretending that an anyonecanspend tx is anything other than exactly that, which has opened post- SegWit Omnibus Changeset Bitcoin Segwit to a myriad of new attack vectors.

Go sharpen your pencil and get back to us.

Again, until you provide some evidence, all can safely consider this claim debunked, dispatched, and discredited.

As for Bitcoin Cash users won't accept being forced into a new system the whole premise of Bitcoin cash is users nodes don't matter only mining nodes matter

Again, you fundamentally misunderstand Bitcoin. Non-mining, fully-validating clients (often misrepresented as 'full nodes') have no power to effect the network itself. This is true whether discussing Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Segwit, or any other PoW satoshi-pattern cryptocurrency. Miners have the power to enact any change they want to - or the majority thereof does. This power is counterbalanced only by the power of users and holders to abandon any chain that does not implement the characteristics they desire. In contrast, the only power non-mining, fully-validating clients possess is to divorce themselves from the network. Period. Other than suiciding themselves, they do not affect they network in any way.

The above is true regardless of Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Segwit. For better or for worse, this is the system satoshi bequeathed us. True, miners are likely to use such chain abandonment as a signal of user/hodler displeasure. However, they are fully aware that such non-mining, fully-validating clients are subject to Sybil attacks. The only non-Sybillable resources are mining power and Bitcoin ownership, which is what makes the system work to begin with.

so you will get forced if the exchanges upgrade and the miners upgrade the users are forced to either upgrade or sell taking huge losses

Exactly - and exactly identical for Bitcoin SegWit as for Bitcoin Cash.

The only reason BTC users can have a say is the users run the majority of the nodes therefore the miners etc won't switch as it's not in their interest to mine something the vast majority of users define worthless

No. Non-mining, fully-validating clients are the only entities in the system subject to Sybil attack. While they bring benefits to their owners, they do nothing for the network itself. They are merely a Sybiled proxy for economic power. Again, this is exactly identical for Bitcoin SegWit as for Bitcoin Cash.

[tekmobile]

^ eclair rings a bell...lol

https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2018/04/bitcoin-lightning-network-wallet-app-removed-from-google-play-as-developers-lose-signing-key/
Bitcoin’s first Lightning Network-enabled wallet app, Eclair Wallet, has recently been removed from Google’s Play Store by the developers, as they lost access to the app’s signing keys. This, as the developers noted on social media, prevents them from fixing bugs and working on the app


so was this demo before or after the devs lost the keys?

Probably after since the keys were lost shortly after it was released and it was promptly removed from the play store because a bug was discovered that could cause pending payments I don't know when this demo happened but I'm presuming it was recently

[jbreher]

I hate to feed the Blockstream/Core/LN trolls here in the Bitcoin Cash thread. But I will point out here that Bitcoin Cash is free of the cancer that is The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, upon which the current implementation of LN is dependent. As for LN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=pOZaLbUUZUs

I'm curious what Adam's "large teams full time job" will come up with to debunk (*ahem!*) the above.

Go ahead shills - rip it to shreds. If you can.

[tomkat]

One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH moves the signature out of the transaction area the exact same way as segwit with the only difference being that on BCH it's just moved permanently and everyone is forced to the new system

with one of the proposed BCH fixes this would completely change the security model for a new system and you would not be able to use the one Bitcoin has used for the last 9 years.

Are these claims true about a proposed BCH malleability fix?  

So tek claims. He is partially right about the first one. A separation of signature data from the rest of the transaction data has indeed been proposed as a malleability fix. Funny thing about proposals - anyone can make one. Even an insane one. Not saying the concept of separating sig from tx is necessarily insane, just saying that there are essentially zero barriers to making a proposal.

To get the proposal implemented, however, requires consensus. There is no consensus for this proposal at this time.

If not it needs to be debunked.  

Despite a direct challenge, tek has provided zero rationale for tek's claim that this proposal will change Bitcoin's security model. Zero. Tek merely dodges the question. See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2040221.msg34496915#msg34496915

It is possible there is a proposal for BCH that separates sig from tx and changes the security model. Possible. until tek coughs up the text of the relevant proposal, there is no knowing.

Salacious claims require support of evidence. The ball is in tek's court. Put up or shut up.

If tek can establish such a proposal actually exists, it is then impingent upon tek to show that there is a snowball's chance in hell of it ever getting adopted. As if.

Unless tek steps forward with some evidence, you can safely consider this claim debunked, dispatched, and discredited.

If there is such a proposal I believe it could not possibly be adopted in such a way, as it appears that most Bitcoin Cash users would not accept to be forced into a new system.

I think you sum up the situation rather well - Bitcoin Cash users are unlikely to accept being forced into such a system.

The proposed fixes are listed here

https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/workgroups/blob/master/wg-malfix/summaries/20180130%20-%20Meeting%20Summary.md

Yes they are proposals nothing more I'm not saying that any will be adopted just that their is a chance

As for Bitcoin Cash users won't accept being forced into a new system the whole premise of Bitcoin cash is users nodes don't matter only mining nodes matter so you will get forced if the exchanges upgrade and the miners upgrade the users are forced to either upgrade because you use SPV wallets or sell taking huge losses


The only reason BTC users can have a say is the users run the majority of the nodes therefore the miners etc won't switch as it's not in their interest to mine something the vast majority of users define worthless

I'd say the "Do Nothing" option is the best for now, so BCH can watch how BTC's LN evolves, and if it's really worth fixing malleability.
If BTC's LN proves to be good idea, then BCH might eventually intoduce a fix, but for now it's not really neccessary.

[BitPotus]

vicious little dump on BCH .

[Mrpumperitis]

^ eclair rings a bell...lol

https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2018/04/bitcoin-lightning-network-wallet-app-removed-from-google-play-as-developers-lose-signing-key/
Bitcoin’s first Lightning Network-enabled wallet app, Eclair Wallet, has recently been removed from Google’s Play Store by the developers, as they lost access to the app’s signing keys. This, as the developers noted on social media, prevents them from fixing bugs and working on the app


so was this demo before or after the devs lost the keys?

Probably af..........

What matters is ln doesnt work!, so take that segwet millibilly fix...turn it sideways and.....(you know the rest..dont you? )

 

[tekmobile]

^ eclair rings a bell...lol

https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2018/04/bitcoin-lightning-network-wallet-app-removed-from-google-play-as-developers-lose-signing-key/
Bitcoin’s first Lightning Network-enabled wallet app, Eclair Wallet, has recently been removed from Google’s Play Store by the developers, as they lost access to the app’s signing keys. This, as the developers noted on social media, prevents them from fixing bugs and working on the app


so was this demo before or after the devs lost the keys?

Probably af..........

What matters is ln doesnt work!, so take that segwet millibilly fix...turn it sideways and.....(you know the rest..dont you? )

 

Like I said early beta client just because eclair still has some issues other don't

Eclair is going for the pretty GUI first while LND & c-lightning is concerntating on cli tools first.

While CLI is not user friendly it is far more versatile and there are GUIs from the creators of LND in the works and also ZAP wallet from Jack mallers

Just because eclair has some issues it does not mean the LN network is broken

[Mrpumperitis]

tek tek....tek...tell me ...did you?......did you ?......

ok we try again....take that segwet millibilly fix...turn it sideways and ......   

 

[tekmobile]

tek tek....tek...tell me ...did you?......did you ?......

ok we try again....take that segwet millibilly fix...turn it sideways and ......   

 

Segwit is not just a malleability fix it also allows for further optimization through signature aggregation etc via a soft fork

Signature aggregation saves quite a bit if space and allows for many more transactions to be included in a block therefore further optimizing the available space and keeping node running costs and system resources down

[Cenil]

If bitcoin cash gets the majority of Pow then it becomes the de facto Bitcoin.
then the split from Bitcoin with protocol upgrades to improve the capacity of the chain.
And without changing the economic rules of Bitcoin.