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

[Cryptotourist]

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.

Same thing can happen to bitcoin,

Nope.

[1714153595]

1714153595

[1714153595]

1714153595

[1714153595]

1714153595

[hv_]

do you think anyone who populates this thread cares about stuff like that?

what i'm more interested in is what the exchanges make of it. there's got to be a point where trading profit is out gunned by the dangers of hosting coins this weak. they all seemed far too willing to adopt it. maybe they need to land themselves with a huge bill to realize they're playing with fire.

the centralization and laziness of development is gonna bite truly hard at some point.

This is a fair point, the fact they are using Bcash in the first place is good evidence they do not care about security. It is when merchants and exchanges start to drop BCH because its too chaotic and dangerous to use that the price will start to be effected in due time.

We already see that Bcash has moved away from cumulative work determining chain consensus due to their use of developer timestamps but they still can be double spent and reorged at the chaintip causing damage. The fact they are ok with these developer checkpoints and changing the difficulty algo reflects how little they care about the whitepaper or satoshi's intentions despite their narrative.

Cannot add much more, so there is only on proper way to fix that, get to the protocol description of Satoshi and use only this, that is also removing any problems we see with developer middle men or blockstreamers.

[nutildah]

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...

[afbitcoins]

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.

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

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_]

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.

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

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

[nutildah]

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.  

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]

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.  

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.

[dineo]

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

[Goxten]

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]

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)

[tbct_mt2]

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.

[hv_]

Former bch mogul speaking on Bloomberg

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

[Khaos77]

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]

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_]

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

[gembitz]

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?     bwaahaha

[Bitbobb]

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?     bwaahaha

yes, feeling woke.  good morning gemyyybittzzzz.  

[sirsplashalot]

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.

[adamvp]

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..)

[DrearyUrbanite]

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?

If there is a large community of traders for a specific coin the incentives aren't too hard to recognize when it comes to the question why new exchanges list these coins.