CSW's "hash wars" impact on BTC price?

[justdimin]

These are not science experiment anymore than little kids doing slime tests on youtube channels. We know what they are aiming at and we have seen the path they want to take and we have known for a while that both ways are worthless and useless, that is why they are not going with these in the real bitcoin world.

It is just a way for the rich to grab more money while they can and nothing more, Roger Vers and Jihan Wu's and Craigh wrights are just trying to spend their money on these projects so they could later on collect more. If you spend 10 into something but take out 15 that is a good investment and that's all they are trying right now. Testing something that is already not wanted is not experiment or even liked. We all know eventually bitcoin cash and all its forks will be gone, its just matter of when.

[nutildah]

The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in?

This will never be a problem. BCH has trouble coming close to filling its blocks, there's no reason why SV wouldn't also.

BTC also had problems filling blocks. All the way up to the scaleapocalypse.

We know how this story ends.

Yeah but the difference is people actually use BTC for purposes other than coddling their own egos. Nobody wants yet another altcoin pretending to be BTC. Also, BTC survived pretty well for being in an apocalypse.

[jbreher]

BTC survived pretty well for being in an apocalypse.

Yup - went from routine greater than 85% dominance down to less than a third. Such success.

[exstasie]

If you could have 480 tx/s with strong security incentives, without publishing most of them to the blockchain, wouldn't that be better?

No. If it is not published to the blockchain, it is not a bitcoin transaction.

I guess that's not an important distinction to me. The important thing is whether a protocol requires 3rd party trust. That's the point of Bitcoin. Whether transactions are published to the blockchain is more a question of distributed data storage, which can be a nice feature but isn't necessary for peer-to-peer cash transactions.

I think having the option to use different protocols with different security tradeoffs (at different costs) is great for users. Since LN is compatible with Bitcoin, users can decide for themselves when they need Bitcoin's security or transparency, or if it's really not necessary for their needs. And if you need the blockchain to arbitrate a channel dispute, it's there and parties can settle back to Bitcoin.

This just seems better to me. It creates incentives for users to not bloat the chain (causing higher latency and bandwidth costs) because they can transact more cheaply on LN. It enables cheap and instant transactions without compromising Bitcoin in any way.

[jbreher]

If you could have 480 tx/s with strong security incentives, without publishing most of them to the blockchain, wouldn't that be better?

No. If it is not published to the blockchain, it is not a bitcoin transaction.

<<...reasonable stuff..>>

Sure - options are good. But to force everything onto a side chain, by stifling the ability to transact freely onchain, is a net negative.

[Wind_FURY]

Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

Hahahaha! You posted that as if 64mb blocks was a regular thing in your network.

Nonsense. I posted it as if the network was capable of handling that much demand.

The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in?

But I believe the ABC, and SV developers are each doing good science experiments though. Keep it up.

Well, we don't yet know if the system can handle that sort of sustained throughput.

Ok.

We do know that the next block was propagated about five minutes later (luck of the draw), and the system happily linked it to the >64MB block.

Why was that? Because the normal average block size in SV is 10kb. Network stress tests?

So we have some preliminary evidence that it may.

It would be hard to assume that that would be so after just two consecutive blocks.

And we know that -- contrary to the claims of core -- nodes can indeed handle blocks larger than 4MB.

How can we know the network will not scale in unless we have a network that processes more than 4mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for a long time?

That is, if the protocol supports it, and the implementation does not contain any self-imposed bottlenecks (such as a naive mutitasking model).

The probing at the limits has not come to a conclusion. More developments are expected.

Ok, then we can agree that no developer is sure if on-chain scaling will not scale the network in.

[Crypdon]

It seems that this hash war had a detrimental effect on the entire market and it hasn't recovered properly yet. The sooner these shitcoins are removed from the market the better it will be for everyone.

[exstasie]

It seems that this hash war had a detrimental effect on the entire market and it hasn't recovered properly yet. The sooner these shitcoins are removed from the market the better it will be for everyone.

Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I think the market was looking for any excuse to sell off. Supply doesn't appear out of nowhere, and Bitmain (let alone Craig Wright) didn't even own that much BTC heading into the crash according to published numbers.

Bcash and other shitcoins aren't going anywhere either. Their positions in the Top 10 or 20 may wax and wane, but they'll always be with us. Bitcoin investors are constantly looking for ways to invest their coins to increase their stash. Altcoin speculation has traditionally been the best route (although ASICminer shares had their day).

[BitHodler]

Bcash and other shitcoins aren't going anywhere either. Their positions in the Top 10 or 20 may wax and wane, but they'll always be with us.

Yup. I would even like to think that we'll see more reasonably high ranked SHA-256 forks in the coming years, because ASIC manufactures have to sarisfy their shareholders and sell gear.

Bitcoin alone isn't enough. Bcash is the first attempt to boost sales, Bsv is another one, and it wouldn't even surprise me to see nChain and CoinGeek fork before the end of 2019 as well. It's all artificial demand they create.

The same basically applies to all the other POW coins. There is so much incentive to either launch or fork a coin, that we'll be seeing them for many more years to come. People better accept it.

They think there are only like 2000 coins because of Coinmarketcap, but I remember a statement that Binance had received listing requests of over 5000 coins/projects. Insane.

[nutildah]

BTC survived pretty well for being in an apocalypse.

Yup - went from routine greater than 85% dominance down to less than a third. Such success.

Compared to every other cryptocurrency ever, yes, its been a resounding success. No coin has ever come close to surpassing its market cap dominance or popularity. The rest of the world is still coming to terms with the idea of bitcoin and there are a bunch of ego-driven snobs doing everything they can do confuse them for their own personal gain.

[Wind_FURY]

BTC survived pretty well for being in an apocalypse.

Yup - went from routine greater than 85% dominance down to less than a third. Such success.

Compared to every other cryptocurrency ever, yes, its been a resounding success. No coin has ever come close to surpassing its market cap dominance or popularity. The rest of the world is still coming to terms with the idea of bitcoin and there are a bunch of ego-driven snobs doing everything they can do confuse them for their own personal gain.

Is market cap of all coins the "standard" used to measure "dominance"? I believe that's flawed because the market cap of many coins are not justifiable, because of very low liquidity. Plus most of the altcoins' market caps are based on speculation, not real value.

[exstasie]

Is market cap of all coins the "standard" used to measure "dominance"? I believe that's flawed because the market cap of many coins are not justifiable, because of very low liquidity. Plus most of the altcoins' market caps are based on speculation, not real value.

Bitcoin's value is also based on speculation, but you have a strong point about liquidity. If we want to talk about coins overtaking BTC, we need to talk about volume and liquidity. Market caps aren't meaningful if only an extremely tiny minority of market participants can exit at those prices.

I think we should expect dominance to continue falling over time regardless of any fundamentals. Due to altcoin proliferation and ridiculously large circulating supplies, the dominance factor can be heavily exaggerated by any bull run in the altcoin sector. Billions of XRP, XLM and USDT are totally skewing things, and that's just to name a few in the top 10 coins.

[jbreher]

I think we should expect dominance to continue falling over time regardless of any fundamentals. Due to altcoin proliferation and ridiculously large circulating supplies, the dominance factor can be heavily exaggerated by any bull run in the altcoin sector.

The point is that, if core had not intentionally crippled BTC's ability to scale on chain, due to their insane Raspberry Pi fetish, there would be no reason for 90% of these other coins to even gain a toehold.

[figmentofmyass]

The point is that, if core had not intentionally crippled BTC's ability to scale on chain, due to their insane Raspberry Pi fetish, there would be no reason for 90% of these other coins to even gain a toehold.

i get why people think that---the narrative is somewhat intuitive if all the focus is on low fees and confirmation speed. but i just don't buy it, particularly because i've seen the cycles of greed play out in altcoin markets for years and years now. as long as bitcoin doesn't existentially fail (in which case the entire market will approach $0), there will always be interest in altcoins. they represent new features and innovations and more importantly (for the market) another chance to get rich quick because "they're cheap and bitcoin is so expensive". everybody wants to catch the next big thing. when i arrived in 2013, i immediately chased litecoin instead of bitcoin for the same reason. i hear it from noobs all the time.

all that is to say, there's nothing the core devs could do to prevent all the interest in altcoins. it's inevitable and largely based in greed-based speculation. different scaling mechanisms = only one subset of changes/features that altcoins offer to speculators. people also want privacy, dapp functionality, different consensus algorithms like POS or hybrid POS, DEX functionality, etc etc etc.

[cellard]

I think we should expect dominance to continue falling over time regardless of any fundamentals. Due to altcoin proliferation and ridiculously large circulating supplies, the dominance factor can be heavily exaggerated by any bull run in the altcoin sector.

The point is that, if core had not intentionally crippled BTC's ability to scale on chain, due to their insane Raspberry Pi fetish, there would be no reason for 90% of these other coins to even gain a toehold.

Once again deluded altcoiners think that "Core" is single handedly deciding when a hardfork happens in Bitcoin. When will you understand that even if Core was on board with whatever proposal to increase the blocksize (let's say, the 2x segwit thing back then) it would still have created a division in the community, thus 2 different competing altcoins, and as a result an overall loss of the network effect and thefore value of Bitcoin? (see, Bitcoin Cash ABC vs Bitcoin SV nonsense).

Massive whales would have dumped "CoreCoin" to keep the legacy chain going because there was no consensus.

There's no realistic way that i can think of, to hardfork Bitcoin, ever. And because of this it has value, if it was easy to hardfork, then imagine the clusterfuck (see altcoins)

[jbreher]

When will you understand that even if Core was on board with whatever proposal to increase the blocksize (let's say, the 2x segwit thing back then) it would still have created a division in the community, thus 2 different competing altcoins, and as a result an overall loss of the network effect and thefore value of Bitcoin? (see, Bitcoin Cash ABC vs Bitcoin SV nonsense).

Nonsense. Core drove division by their refusal to scale on chain, and by pushing their (maybe it will pay off some day in the future) segwit nonsense instead. In contrast to the abolition of the 250K soft cap and the 500K soft cap before then, which were both non-events.

Back in 2011, 'everybody knew' that we would just bump up the block size before blocks became persistently full. But no. Veer left -> ludicrous tx fees -> loss of dominance.

[nutildah]

Is market cap of all coins the "standard" used to measure "dominance"? I believe that's flawed because the market cap of many coins are not justifiable, because of very low liquidity. Plus most of the altcoins' market caps are based on speculation, not real value.

Yes, you're absolutely right -- the market cap can be easily manipulated. I'm a cryptocurrency writer and its my job to research coins that break into the top 100 by market cap. I'd say about half of the coins I've written about in the past 3 months are tokens that found a way to manipulate coinmarketcap.com into showing them bursting onto the scene with 300% gains over a 24 hours period. They're a dead giveaway because their volume is tiny compared to their neighbors in the ranking.

Take for example FREE Coin.... It's value should be as close to zero as possible, but whenever it gets listed on a new exchange for 1 satoshi, some idiots (or else the pumpers) buy it to raise its average price... Pretty soon a meaningless token with a 10 trillion supply is sitting in the top 40 coins. CMC takes note of this and eventually excludes the new exchange from their averaging as such an exchange is considered an "outlier" compared to all the other prices. This has the effect of rightfully reducing the token from a top 40 to a top 800 coin.

Back in 2011, 'everybody knew' that we would just bump up the block size before blocks became persistently full. But no. Veer left -> ludicrous tx fees -> loss of dominance.

Have you transacted in BTC lately? Median tx fees range from 5 to 8 cents. And what are you talking about, "loss of dominance"?? BTC has always been the most dominant crypto by a longshot. It rose in market cap dominance from 38% to 51% over the last year. Meanwhile BCH fell from 7% to 2.2%...

https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentage

Why do you insist on being wrong?

[exstasie]

Back in 2011, 'everybody knew' that we would just bump up the block size before blocks became persistently full. But no. Veer left -> ludicrous tx fees -> loss of dominance.

And what are you talking about, "loss of dominance"?? BTC has always been the most dominant crypto by a longshot. It rose in market cap dominance from 38% to 51% over the last year. Meanwhile BCH fell from 7% to 2.2%...

https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentage

He's pointing to the fact that Bitcoin had dominance in the 80-95% range for years until it cratered ~ March 2017 and never really recovered. I think the drop can be generally attributed to the altcoin bubble and the launch of an unprecedented number of altcoins and ICO tokens. It's a stretch to blame it all on rising Bitcoin transaction fees, although I'm sure it played some role. Many altcoins were marketed as low-fee alternatives to BTC during the bubble.

[nutildah]

Back in 2011, 'everybody knew' that we would just bump up the block size before blocks became persistently full. But no. Veer left -> ludicrous tx fees -> loss of dominance.

And what are you talking about, "loss of dominance"?? BTC has always been the most dominant crypto by a longshot. It rose in market cap dominance from 38% to 51% over the last year. Meanwhile BCH fell from 7% to 2.2%...

https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentage

He's pointing to the fact that Bitcoin had dominance in the 80-95% range for years until it cratered ~ March 2017 and never really recovered. I think the drop can be generally attributed to the altcoin bubble and the launch of an unprecedented number of altcoins and ICO tokens. It's a stretch to blame it all on rising Bitcoin transaction fees, although I'm sure it played some role. Many altcoins were marketed as low-fee alternatives to BTC during the bubble.

Right, if you look at the chart I linked, the only category of coin gaining in the past 2 years is "Other," which signifies almost the entirety of the altcoin market (sans ETH, BCH and the handful of individualized others). There's been new coins coming on to the market ever since I've been here, but the fact is, BTC has remained far and away #1 the whole time. It's only gained worldwide popularity since then. Just because it equates for less of the total market cap space doesn't mean its utility has been diminished.

All other coins were inspired in their creation by bitcoin. Some are trying to do things bitcoin can't, others are simply riding the crypto wave. They are all dependent on the continued success of bitcoin, as BTC is the least risky investment of a high risk investment category.

Also, during late 2017 Ver was purposefully increasing the average transaction fee and spamming the network with transactions just so he could make the point of saying, "See? Bitcoin is too slow and expensive." After he ceased his manipulation, things went back to normal.

[Wind_FURY]

I think we should expect dominance to continue falling over time regardless of any fundamentals. Due to altcoin proliferation and ridiculously large circulating supplies, the dominance factor can be heavily exaggerated by any bull run in the altcoin sector.

The point is that, if core had not intentionally crippled BTC's ability to scale on chain, due to their insane Raspberry Pi fetish, there would be no reason for 90% of these other coins to even gain a toehold.

But the Core developers should not cripple decentralization, and the network's ability to scale out just because there are some groups in the community that want it to hard fork to bigger blocks. Core will not be pressured to do something because of the self-interest, and agendas of those groups.