BitPico throwing down against Roger Ver

[mu_enrico]

Even if this attack is a success, I don't think BCH value will be down to the worrying level. They will simply fix it and everything will be same as before. People are not rational nowadays, altcoin like XVG, BTG, EOS, etc. still hold high value despite multiple attacks and/or bugs in their network.

[1715536281]

1715536281

[1715536281]

1715536281

[pooya87]

Even if this attack is a success, I don't think BCH value will be down to the worrying level. They will simply fix it and everything will be same as before. People are not rational nowadays, altcoin like XVG, BTG, EOS, etc. still hold high value despite multiple attacks and/or bugs in their network.

some things aren't fixable!
for example when you have 32 MB blocks and the whole reason why your altcoin exists is to have a bigger block, you can't just fork back and turn it to a smaller size block again.
or when your coin (BTG) is successfully attacked and is easy to wipe its blockchain with a 51% attack you can't do much about it. and it has lost value. it was 0.3BTC at some point and now it is 0.003BTC.
or when your blockchain is more than 1 TB (ETH) you can't do anything about it. it is your blockchain and you can't discard it, you are already centralized.

[Zin-Zang]

BCH is a system made up of inanimate entities. Accordingly, BCH doesn't claim anything.

Correct, in this instance I was referring to the backers of BCH, passing it off as BTC.
 
Sorry if that wasn't clear

Nope. Still not clear.

So who are 'the backers'? The uncountable masses who hold and use BCH, or do you have a more specific set of people in mind?

I'll help. Roger Ver. Roger Ver is using his influence to trick people into thinking BCH is "the real bitcoin." He's stated this numerous times. He goes out of his way to add confusion about bitcoin for the sake of his own profit. One needn't look further than bitcoin.com for confirmation of this, where he uses his ownership of the domain to muddy the distinctions between the two, frequently creating links that go to BCH-related content when they should be going to BTC-related content.

There, happy now?

Interesting enough , if people are confused about which coin is which, and the guy actually succeeds in bringing Bitcoin Cash's network down,
odds are those confused people Sell everything with the name Bitcoin in it including Bitcoin-segwit , not just cash.
He might cause a super crash in all bitcoin named coins, just because people don't bother to learn the difference.  

All it will take is 1 media outlet forgetting to add Cash on the end and say Hacker Crashes Bitcoin, and we might see a super sell off.

Still want to see if he can pull off crashing the network or if it is just smoke and mirrors.

[jbreher]

BCH is a system made up of inanimate entities. Accordingly, BCH doesn't claim anything.

Correct, in this instance I was referring to the backers of BCH, passing it off as BTC.
 
Sorry if that wasn't clear

Nope. Still not clear.

So who are 'the backers'? The uncountable masses who hold and use BCH, or do you have a more specific set of people in mind?

I'll help. Roger Ver. Roger Ver is using his influence to trick people into thinking BCH is "the real bitcoin." He's stated this numerous times. He goes out of his way to add confusion about bitcoin for the sake of his own profit. One needn't look further than bitcoin.com for confirmation of this, where he uses his ownership of the domain to muddy the distinctions between the two, frequently creating links that go to BCH-related content when they should be going to BTC-related content.

There, happy now?

I wasn't unhappy before.

So let me see if I understand you. One single person is passing BCH off as BTC*, so you believe that then entire chain should be attacked.

Is that correct?

* (an assertion, BTW, with which I do not see any evidence of)

(Incidentally, are you nutildah also steamtyme?)

[Steamtyme]

It's worth posting the plain text interview bitpico did with for some website:


Looks like they tried to bring the LN network down too and they couldn't, I cannot wait to see how Bitcoin Cash handles the pressure. Their nodes are certainly centralized by some Amazon VPS in China. Full 32 MB blocks are going to crash most of the nodes if they have the resources to sustain the attack. Doesn't look to good for BCH, if it gets exposed it will be the end of the "blocks as big as needed" scaling approach.

BCH fans can't also claim that this is a blackhat attack. The fact that they are advertising it and giving a deadline is very whitehat. When Jihan, Roger and co spammed the Bitcoin network, they didn't say anything. The attack could be even more brutal if made by surprise at key times, but they are being nice.

Definitely worth posting.

As far as the attack; their obviously not trying to hide it. It's as transparent a test as I can think of. It's no different than equipment before being installed you test with the anticipated result of finding the limits.

That's cute, but it's probably not going to work. The article's author is confused about how a 51% attack works. What BitPico seems to be planning is a "stress test" of extremely large transactions. They believe the following will result:



And something tells me Bitmain won't let their baby be attacked so easily. If the majority of Bcash's hash rate is controlled by Bitmain or its proxies (and I believe that's true), they may be able to sidestep the attack very easily by censoring the attack transactions. The attack transactions will apparently be extremely large :


That's pretty absurd when a well-capitalized company like Bitmain is extremely invested in Bcash's success. I would also be very curious to see what funds BitPico has set aside to pay transaction fees. Attacks like this are not free, and their model depends on driving transaction fees up.

Yeah the first reading left me a little confused. Franky helped clear most of that up for me.

I wholly expect Bitmain will have its issues with those, but like I said I firmly believe this to be a schoolyard callout, as in prepare yourself as best you can I'm coming.

Looking up BitPico they talk about Whales. Know I don't follow wallets, but if any large holders cashed out and bought back in over the last 8 months they have funds to spare.

I'll help.

Thanks. I'm not as active away from work.

in any case i hope they stop the social media bullshit and stick to the attack and then release more clarifying information about it. i believe they are exaggerating a lot of things.

I only like the social media aspect because it creates some transparency. It says watch us and then you can judge us and the coin.

I honestly don't know enough to guess if they are overstating

(Incidentally, are you nutildah also steamtyme?)

No, I guess take my word for it.  

Although I do realize I have started at a negative level of credibility with you. Consider it my way of making up for lost time in adoption.

To add to the "backers" I would put bitmain in there. Definitely created a market almost instantly by accepting BCH as a form of payment for gear.

Here's the thing regardless I'm torn on this coin, for entirely selfish reasons. I don't think it affects overall crypto adoption when you consider the thousands of other coins and forks. I just think if your coin is as great as advertised, run it on it's own merits; which I guess this testing may quantify. I mine BTC, this coin at the moment does pull a massive amount of hashrate away from BTC,an amount it helped create, helping keep mining an option.

[MemoryDealers]

Here is why I think BCH is Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

I gave clear and consise reasons why I think that is the case.  Feel free to refute them with logic and evidence.

[buwaytress]

Not really sure if anyone attacking Bcash really can be called Bitcoin purists. Merely acknowledging Ver's baby might almost be called recognition of it as a "competitor". Methinks the purists aren't at all bothered by what's going on with alternative chains and only focusing on Bitcoin.

I mean, I can understand having a point to prove, but should we prove it with the 30 or so forks (more?!) of Bitcoin? They're the ones with points to prove, after all. Not Bitcoin.

[talkbitcoin]

Here is why I think BCH is Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

I gave clear and consise reasons why I think that is the case.  Feel free to refute them with logic and evidence.

i don't think anybody has a problem with what you "think". you are entitled to your opinion but the problems start when try to force it on others specially newcomers.
like when newbies come to your website (bitcoin.com) and you sell them BCH when they thought they were buying bitcoin!

[sufiasyl]

In crypto market most of the coins are come after the invention of btc based on this btc make innovation in internet so people can buy many things with this coins also in market there are many coins like btc are available but they are not good enough like btc.

[Siren]

so a bunch of core supports want to make more and more altcoins that have a satoshi genesis block and hundreds of thousands of blocks of tx data..
ok. let me guess bitcoin copper, bitcoin zinc, bitcoin nickel, bitcoin tin. bitcoin aluminium

more social drama distractions.

Why not complete the periodic table of the elements so we wont wait for another in future,its tiring about reading all this damn forks and if does i guess this is the end of cryptocurrency lol

But i love the concept of the OPs post regarding the tears of roger ver,i wanna see more like this in the future

[joebrook]

Not really sure if anyone attacking Bcash really can be called Bitcoin purists. Merely acknowledging Ver's baby might almost be called recognition of it as a "competitor". Methinks the purists aren't at all bothered by what's going on with alternative chains and only focusing on Bitcoin.

I mean, I can understand having a point to prove, but should we prove it with the 30 or so forks (more?!) of Bitcoin? They're the ones with points to prove, after all. Not Bitcoin.

Exactly what i was thinking as well. By attacking them they are labeling it as a competitor and they have even given it a lot of attention as well. This is indeed not necessary at all.

[Kakmakr]

This can go two ways:

The Bitcoin Cash network can survive the attack and the Roger Ver minions will argue that it is their proof that it is a robust network. < In my opinion this attack will just prove that it is very expensive to attack networks with big block sizes >

On the other hand, if it is successful, then Core supporters will have more ammunition that BCrash is trash. <Most of the Roger Ver minions will have the same excuse that we had, when we <core> was attacked.

So attacks like this will not prove anything, it will just give everyone a opportunity to complain about the other side, using dirty tactics. 

[LunaticMovement]

Maybe this was had to happen one day. Bitcoin cash is fraudulently forked from Bitcoin . Though Roger very always denied this fact.

[jbreher]

Bitcoin cash is fraudulently forked from Bitcoin .

I think you need to learn the definitions of 'open source' and 'permissionless'.

[Andrew S]

They will still conduct an attack and draw the appropriate conclusions.  Or maybe they want to launch something new, so they want to taint bitcoin.

[cellard]

Here is why I think BCH is Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

I gave clear and consise reasons why I think that is the case.  Feel free to refute them with logic and evidence.

I don't think you can just divide in % "things that make Bitcoin Bitcoin". You are either in the Bitcoin chain or you aren't. That means, longest chain is what determines what the actual Bitcoin network is, not "what satoshi said", otherwise you wouldn't need a decentralized network, or at least he would have hard-coded an automatic blocksize increase, not leave it out open to consensus, if there is no such consensus, then it continues being Bitcoin, like it or not.
The #1 thing that gives Bitcoin value is it's certainty and safety. ANY altcoin is prime to move value from A to B, yet NO altcoin can compete with Bitcoin in terms of certainty, of a solid network that's hard to change.

Satoshi either knew that 1MB was it, or didn't realize how at some point it would be too late to make such a change and get everyone on board. If you can hop through hardfork to hardfork it just means your project it's either irrelevant or centralized. When a project gets too big, it's simply impossible to get everyone agreeing. There's no clear way to decide about blocksize increases when the project is as big as Bitcoin is.

Now what you could do is have blocks as big as possible at the beginning like BCH did, to make room for transactions, yet that posses very big theoretical centralizing risks that we may find in practice this september if the BitPico attack is serious, then it would finally be proven that big blocks don't cut it and it would be a risk to store wealth there. If miners thought that BCH was safer than BTC, they would go all in on BCH, but they know there are risks and they don't want to be paid in a token that could plummet.

[DarrinEspacio]

Mainly in market there are many coins are available based on those 1500 coins btc is the best crypto system also this give huge profit to their customers also they are offering many facilities to the customer yes altcoins are doing also well based on this topic Bcash acting like bitcoin.

[squatter]

Here is why I think BCH is Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

I gave clear and consise reasons why I think that is the case.  Feel free to refute them with logic and evidence.

Whether or not "BCH is Bitcoin" isn't the issue here. This isn't a philosophical argument about bigger blocks.

BitPico is claiming the network is extremely easy to attack, and is supposedly mounting such an attack to destroy public trust in the coin. I'm not convinced their attack model is viable, and this feels like a publicity stunt. But I'm watching to see what they produce.

[pooya87]

I honestly don't know enough to guess if they are overstating

i guess we will see the results and know soon enough. but as @Kakmakr said above, this social media drama is just going to breed more drama whether their project fails or succeeds.

That means, longest chain is what determines what the actual Bitcoin network is, not "what satoshi said",

this statement is for when a different kind of fork happens. like for example when an orphan block happens, there are two chains for a little while: one chain which will grow longer as others build on it and that is the Bitcoin chain, and one chain that people abandon so it would be shorter and contains that orphaned block(s).
otherwise when you fork to create another coin intentionally (like BCH) your chain can be longer but that doesn't make it bitcoin. in fact BCH chain is already longer. there are other forked coins that are much longer too, for example you can fork and decrease the time between blocks (eg. 1 block per minute) so you will have a longer chain in a short time.
edit: this part was wrong (thanks to @jbreher) but the main point stands. the "longest chain" aka the chain with the most "poof of work" is talking about another kind of fork. reading the bitcoin paper the "longest chain" is always used in that context not this new form of forking bitcoin. the forks like BCH that create an altcoin can technically end up having a longer chain (with the most proof of work) and still not be bitcoin.

[Zin-Zang]

If BCH network/protocol design is as good as they claim, they don't need to worry about anything and they can rant/promote about their coin after the attack
Besides, lots of cryptocurrency already attacked and still survives until today.

Even if this attack is a success, I don't think BCH value will be down to the worrying level. They will simply fix it and everything will be same as before. People are not rational nowadays, altcoin like XVG, BTG, EOS, etc. still hold high value despite multiple attacks and/or bugs in their network.

some things aren't fixable!
for example when you have 32 MB blocks and the whole reason why your altcoin exists is to have a bigger block, you can't just fork back and turn it to a smaller size block again.
or when your coin (BTG) is successfully attacked and is easy to wipe its blockchain with a 51% attack you can't do much about it. and it has lost value. it was 0.3BTC at some point and now it is 0.003BTC.
or when your blockchain is more than 1 TB (ETH) you can't do anything about it. it is your blockchain and you can't discard it, you are already centralized.

Hmm,
Sorry but from a technical standpoint ,
if the 32MB is a security problem, but can only be exploited if 32 mb blocks are created,
A hard fork dropping BCH back down to 8MB limit would circumvent the problem.
and even if somehow the BCH blockchain was forever tainted (which is doubtful), they could still run a swap to a new blockchain that had the fixes already included.

As long as their community is willing to support it, it will survive, as that is the thing about all coins, their strength comes from their supporters not just code.
So even if the guy crashes the BCH network and highlights a new security issue, it's supporters are not going to just give up,
thinking that is a serious underestimation of your competition.
Wishful thinking on the segwit-core crowd part , but not realistic thinking.

The #1 thing that gives Bitcoin value is it's certainty and safety.
ANY altcoin is prime to move value from A to B, yet NO altcoin can compete with Bitcoin in terms of certainty, of a solid network that's hard to change.

Chinese Miners control over 51% of both segwit-core & bitcoin cash, both are centralized.
Your phrase

NO altcoin can compete with Bitcoin in terms of certainty, of a solid network that's hard to change.

If there is a large enough consensus any Proof of Work blockchain can be changed.
Observe that the btc miners rewrote 24 blocks on March 12, 2013 :
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448/
Six hours were overwritten according to the article.

The economic damage was significant, but fairly small; the only monetary losses that have been reported are the $26,000 USD worth of mining block rewards from the 24 mined blocks of 25 BTC that are now forever lost in the now abandoned chain, as well as a $10,000 double spend against OKPay. Aside from the lost mining revenue and this double spend, transactions were not affected and no bitcoins were “lost”; any transaction that was included in the now abandoneded chain was included in the new chain as well, so any bitcoins that were spent during the fork are now at their proper destinations.