How do cryptocurrency adherents explain this? I mean, that value has to come from somewhere.
As I recall, when the fork just happened, the explanation was that the price of BCH was largely meaningless, because you couldn't actually withdraw them as cash, either directly or via BTC or other coins. You could only trade within confines of exchanges where they materialized. Did that change since then?
Demand is constrained: only miners and those who bought BCC since Aug 1 fork have any BCC to sell. Most of us struggle with "hmm how do I recover/import my BTC wallet keys into BCC? Holy crap it's worth how much?!" And finally much of the BCC is semi-orphaned by the fact that they hold pre-fork currency but have no idea that BTC exists.
If you actually have the private keys to your bitcoin (ie. you have your bitcoin in bitcoin wallet software on your computer such as in the official client or the electrum client), and you had them at the time of the fork (Aug 1), then yes. If you had your bitcoins held by a 3rd party like an exchange, then it's up to them to decide whether they want to support a fork like bitcoin cash at all and credit it to your account.
correct. All indicators (miners not switching, 60% Korean volume, 0 dev support, plethora of FUD articles about core) are showing that it's a P&D and now is a great time to sell all your BCH back to BTC.
It is a possibility, of course, but I don't think it's very likely. Segwit is (finally) about to activate on BTC which means we'll eventually get Lightning Network on mainnet.
Segwit is not going to activate on BCH because the BCH proponents are ideologically opposed to Segwit.
Additionally, almost no businesses are taking payment in BCH. BCH has to build its ecosystem up from scratch like any other altcoin. I think it has similar chances of "overtaking Bitcoin" as, for example, Litecoin.
EDIT: I don't know why the BCH price has gone up so much. It's almost certainly in even more of a bubble than BTC is currently in.
Segwit is not necessary for Lightning Network. It's a false dichotomy: on-chain scaling does not preclude off-chain scaling (which is what LN is).
Bitcoin with Segwit will prioritize off-chain scaling (hence the 1MB blocksize limit and the current moves to prevent increasing it to 2mb), while Bitcoin Cash wants to enable on-chain scaling as the mainstay; but by no means are they mutually exclusive.
The Segwit activation raises new questions and concerns: the agreement to proceed with Segwit was a compromise known as Segwit2x (Segwit + 2mb blocks). Now it appears much of the Core team has no intention of honoring the 2x part (see core software 0.15 changelog: it will block any nodes signaling for segwit2x). Yet the 2x part is locked in - meaning we are currently headed towards a hard fork.
I tried being as neutral as possible but you're right that my language implies that they signed it. I should've worded that differently. However, I still wouldn't let them off the hook entirely: intentionally blocking nodes signaling Segwit2x in 0.15 is definitely a political move. There are clear sides that are forming; and I don't mean to make any value judgment here on which side is "in the right." I'm simply trying to explain the volatility of the current situation and the various points of contention between the groups that are forming.
> intentionally blocking nodes signaling Segwit2x in 0.15 is definitely a political move
This is incorrect. There was a straightforward technical reason given in the pull request -- not enacting this change would likely partition the bitcoin network when the split happens. A network partition could be a drastic event that if exploited would result in much lost money and bankruptcy.
A partition of the connectivity graph. Imagine we have two Bitcoin Core nodes connected by an intermediate Segwit2X [sic] node:
1X(a) ----- 2X ----- 1X(b)
When the 2x node starts relaying post-fork blocks, it is seen as misbehaving by the 1x peers and dropped by both of its neighbors. The unattended consequence is that 1x(a) is no longer connected to 1x(b). If the mining network is only connected to one of these partitioned networks, then it is possible that the other will not hear of new blocks. The bitcoin nodes will have a different view of the network simply because they are not connected to each other. Worse there might be a few miners on the less hashrate side that still move the network forward a few blocks. If this situation persists, e.g. because network operators are asleep at the wheel, it could be exploited by selectively connecting and broadcasting double-spends to the two networks.
To prevent this from happening the Bitcoin Core team added code to 0.15 and higher that will per-emptively disconnect peers that advertise themselves as Segwit2x. Therefore a 0.15 node will only connect to peers that will relay good blocks from its perspective, and it is much less likely that such a network partition would occur. As long as there exists some nodes that don't auto-disconnect (e.g. old bitcoin nodes) then the Bitcoin Core 0.15+ and the Segwit2x networks will remain connected until the fork occurs.
That's technically correct (the best kind of correct!) but there was no need to block them now when those nodes are still compatible and in line with the consensus rules of the core code.
But that was not the argument with which this feature was justified.
It wasn't "we can forgo replay protection with this" but (among others) "we are even helping the hardforking side, during the BCH hardfork many BCH nodes connected to BTC nodes and couldn't propagate their transactions".
But as long as the hardfork hasn't happened, there is no reason to do this. This just makes signalling even less useful than it already is because nodes will be encouraged to lie about their intentions.
It is exactly the argument that was used. I don't know where you are getting your information, but I would seriously question the veracity of whatever source you are using.
Segwit enables 4MB blocks so all this talk about "1mb blocks" is kinda silly. If you don't understand the technology and block weight don't try to make claims.
LN can work without segwit but it works much better with segwit and segwit enables a lot of other things like side chains and shorr signatures etc.
No there was no agreement called Segwit2X. The BCH people agreed segwit2x but the developers weren't even invited.
To call something a compromise or an agreement when one side was never even invited is disingenuous at best.
But this kind of misrepresentation has been going on for years and is the primary basis of attack against core-- because there are no technical arguments against core.
>If you don't understand the technology and block weight don't try to make claims.
Then just correct me graciously. These are all things I've read from public figures in the Bitcoin community so I'm not "making claims" and this stuff is certainly not readily available information.
Flextrans will provide the capability of Lightning Network on Bitcoin Cash as well.
The only point for BCH is that transaction congestion won't force people to use layer 2 settlement layers, as there is a philosophy of an onchain scaling solution as well where transactions will remain cheap.
The block reward will still be supplanted by transaction fees in this solution, eventually. Whether with blocks being extremely large, or with a few halvings later.
Flextrans wouldn't be implemented solely for the lightning network. It would just be possible to do that as well.
edit: annnnnd a downvote without even a rebuttal, reminds me of a bitcoin reddit. a little disheartening.
No it won't. FlexTrans is ... lets just say it's not fully baked yet.
Also the people creating congestion on BTC are the people who made BCH-- there is no natural congestion on BTC. Segwit quadruples capacity and lowers fees-- I expect we will quickly see segwit transactions be super cheap while the Jihan spam attack drives up non-segwit transactions making it really obvious that this is, in fact a spam attack (it's already obvious if you understand things well enough to look at the blocks yourself. Jihan is including his low fee spam transactions in his own blocks even though it otherwise wouldn't be economical to do so.)
> BCH has to build its ecosystem up from scratch like any other altcoin.
Perhaps, but BTC is throwing its ecosystem away with a core team that is committed to congestion and high fees. Bitcoin Cash already has the customer side of the customer-vendor double-sided marketplace handled as well as Bitcoin does because they have approximately the same distribution among bitcoin owners.
It isn't the same hurdle as litecoin--half of the chicken and egg problem is already solved. Because of the fees, and the damper they will place on sales, there's an incentive to switch to boot.
Please study the technology before making such claims. SegWit quadruples capacity, and lowers fees-- in fact the lower fees is one of the objections that resulted in BCH. The only reason there is any congestion on BTC is that the creators of BCH -- the "big blockers" have been spamming the network-- to drive up fees. If you have a significant portion of the mining hash power you can spam BTC with transactions to drive up fees and make a profit.
It's not core that wants high fees-- why would they?
Most people don't know of BCH and since it was done in such a half assed manner most wallets don't really support it yet.
Lightning Network wants non-full blocks to work properly. It needs to be able to settle reliably in the future, full blocks destroys the predictability.
Also LN does not need a malleability fix to work, it just makes the implementation easier.
Not any time soon. At present it's an altcoin with the main sponsors (Roger Ver and ViaBTC) still trying to push it along in the hope of organic trading action starting.
No chance among those who understand how and why bitcoin works. An unlimited bitvoin is worthless because it could be replaced to centralize ledger, and will be eventually. Bitcoin is in extraordinarily inefficient system that would serve no purpose if not for the decentralization that limits protect.
Larger blocks increase centralization. This has become a litmus test for "understanding bitcoin". There's a lot of people who thin they understand but what they understand is an narrative that's been spun for them that isn't technologically correct.
Highly unlikely. BCH is the result of non-technical people who do not trust new technology in bitcoin an wanted a coin they could control.
%98 of BCH is mined by one entity.
They wanted their own bitcoin and they have it now and they are pumping it, but they don't have a decent development team and their motives are not good.
I resisted buying BCH because I just don't think it has the same long term value as BTH like almost any altcoin. Hope I don't regret this decision in 6 months
I'm not so sure. There are a lot of people who wanted bitcoin to serve the cash use-case who aren't convinced core will keep bitcoin low-fee and workable as anything other than a settlement layer. Bitcoin cash is closer to the original vision.
Signs I'm watching:
* Merchant adoption
* bitcoin-abc doesn't have any commits in the last 21 days.
* Mining has not diversified (yet) so this doesn't appear to have gathered tons of support and it is really centralized.
https://cash.coin.dance/blocks
Those people are not paying attention, or are paying attention to the wrong people.
Bitcoin cash is not closet o the "original vision"... that's a Roger Ver claim which is asinine beyond belief.
SegWit literally fixes an issue that Satoshi identified in the white paper... and Lightening Network is literally a nice rebranding and enhancement of the payment channels that Satoshi came up with.
Segwit quadruples capacity and lowers fees-- in fact Jihan said in a blog that the segwit fees were "unfair" because they are too low. Who is it you think who wants high fees again?
You've been listening to the people who want to take over bitcoin, not the engineers.
I've been listening to both, and I question the motives of both.
Members of core have contradicted themselves so often when asked why the block size can't be raised that there must be another agenda.
When they claimed a one-line arbitrary constant was impossible to change and then gave conflicting reasons why, they lost credibility. I've only seen this waxy-flexibility of logic when someone can't reveal the real reason behind what they want, or they are purely irrational.
Core have not been good stewards. Even in the unlikely event they were "correct," the mismanagement of the community, censorship, inability to communicate or build consensus has been atrocious.
In terms of original vision, Satoshi pretty clearly described layer 1 scaling.
It would be nice to keep the blk.dat files small as long as we can.
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.
There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee. However, I haven't had time yet to add that option to the UI.
Scale or not, the test network will react in the same ways, but with much less wasted bandwidth and annoyance.
I mean, the main proponents of BCH did not mine it themselves to keep the difficulty down, it does not seem to have reached hashrate-price-difficulty equilibrium yet.
You still can't redeem and cash your Bitcoin Cash from Coinbase, correct? If Bitcoin Cash crashes before they implement their fix, I'd fully expect them to be liable for customers' losses.
Note that when they released Ethereum Classic from customers' Ethereum balances, it was well after ETC initial pump, and no, they didn't reimburse those customers for the price difference.
I wouldn't be surprised if people are just switching back and forth between BCH and real cash to inflate the transaction numbers. Hypothetically, this would be done to further the political goals of those who want to increase the blocksize.
The only real money being spend are the transactions on the exchanges. There, it becomes hard to differentiate many 'real' buys of bitcoin cash from someone just flipping back and forth between the two.
Other than Bitcoin Core most of the popular alt coins have come down in price during this rally so many traders are just exchanging one cryptocurrency for another.
The next regular difficulty adjustment took weeks to reach after the mining power decreased. It was hours between blocks for a while. Now new blocks are mined every 10 minutes again, which makes mining cost-effective again and allows transactions to go through. With a lower difficulty and a $800+ price, Bitcoin Cash mining looks good right now.
The "market cap" for BCH has to be way overestimated. It assumes there's a BCH for every BTC. But there isn't. Not everybody got their converted asset out.
Just trade it with that in mind. Bad news for commodities typically means a constriction in the supply with the same amount of demand. Price goes up, just like with oil or orange juice prices.
People thinking about bitcoin like a company's stock or the stock market contribute to why they can't comprehend the train wreck to all time high prices.
Hopefully there will be good ways to go bearish by the time Coinbase enables Bitcoin Cash.
It's a good step forward, but mature financial instruments like stocks have option contracts, which also allow expressing negative sentiments. Short sellers are vilified by company management, but they do introduce financial discipline and focus on the book value vs perceived value.
All of the BTC you had on August 1st, 2017 was replicated on the BCH chain when they forked off of the BTC chain.
Depending on your wallet there are mechanisms to separate out your BCH and BTC (Because it's a fork you need to be careful about this, as replay attacks might be possible.)
BCH added at the eleventh hour a replay protection mechanism, so that's not the biggest issue. The risks are mostly sending BCH to an address which expects only BTC (or vice versa), and allowing less tested wallet software access to your private keys (which is why the recommendation is usually to first send everything to a new BTC wallet, before importing the now spent private keys into the BCH wallet).
This is all completely hilarious. I mean think about what all of us are doing here. These coins only exist because we believe they exist and have value. I'm not naysaying -- it's legitimately funny. We're building rigs to "mine" internet coins like a slot machine that only costs electricity, and some of the world's smartest people have spent so much time thinking about it and building on it. And now we have Bitcoin Cash which is nipping at 25% the value of Bitcoin. That means anyone who bought at $300 just 3x'd their money. 3X! Do you know how hard it is for like almost anyone in the world to triple their money? I know BTC went up by like 130% in the last 60 days, but BCH is now theoretically a separate store of value. And you only 2x'd your money on that old crufty BTC. Cool kids got 3x on BCH.
The whole thing is just amazing and absurd and absurdly amazing.
By that same token (lol), isn't it hilarious what the U.S. is doing here? Money in our bank accounts only exists because we believe they exist and have value. The $100 bill in my back pocket would only be useful to wipe my ass if everyone else didn't value it.
Cryptocurrencies are brand new, so they're incredibly volatile, sure. But it can be "real money" just as much as money, because really what is money?
The fact that both BTC and BCH exist now means that there is ${BTC + BCH} market cap now, right?
If you put $3k into BCH and $3k into BTC, your investments will grow or fall independently of each other, depending on how BTC or BCH does. But if BCH reaches parity with BTC, that means the world now has ${2xBTC} of value in it, right? I mean yes, set aside the question of what "value" means, but that's what the numbers are showing?
In other words, BCH was one of the biggest things anyone could have done to grow the Cryptocoin ecosystem as a whole, then? Coinmarketcap shows $68B for BTC and $13B for BCH. Ethereum is $27B, and that took like four years to get to this point.
So, true or false: BCH just created half the total value of ETH within the last month or so?
What justifies this? Is everything going to explode? I need a mathematical or investment framework to think rationally about the implications of this.
Are we in danger of any kind of "pop"? The 2008 housing crash affected the world. Anyone know how big these babies need to grow before a pop would cause problems for the world economy?
I'm not even convinced it will pop. But I've also read Madness of Crowds, and the temperament here reads identical to the worldwide investment craze portrayed in it. It didn't last forever. (I guess once all the naysayers stop naysaying about BTC, then it's time to worry. Till then, though...)
Instantaneous price is not value. The concept of "market cap" for these coins is ... fairly weak. It's not a good real measure.
We are going to have a massive crypto bubble-- this is fundamentally new technology so its going thru the technology adoption life cycle and pops every time it gets to a wider audience--- and it hasn't yet gone mainstream. Everyone knows about it, but nobody trusts it yet.
We're at the point like in the 1990s when the idea of using your credit card on the internet seemed foolish and just asking to lose your money.
Once people become comfortable with it we will have a massive bubble, fortunes will be made and lost and it will make 2001 and 2008 look positively sedate.
I don't think BCH will still be around by the time that happens, though.
"Market cap" in cryptos is meaningless. If you add up everything on coinmarketcap.com, you get $146 trillion total. About $60 trillion is the total GDP of the ENTIRE WORLD. ($75 trillion if you include M3.)
Any number that makes out that tokens whose entire real-life pricing is based entirely on speculation is bigger in some sense than all real world economic activity may not be a good measure.
The thing about national fiat currencies like your $100 bill is that millions of people are forced by the state to transact in that currency and none other, and it is backed by the promises and threats of the state. When the confidence in that backing evaporates (as happened with Assignats for example in post-revolutionary France, originally backed by property, later backed by thin air), bad things happen and what seemed valuable can overnight lose its value. All that is solid melts into air.
Forced to transact but not forced to own. You can accumulate your wealth in gold, real estate, Dogecoin or S&P 500 stocks, and liquidate just enough to pursue a transaction.
Basketball points also only exist because we believe they exist and have value. We're building stadiums and hiring refs and training athletes and maintaining rulesets and running games, which all use up a ton of resources and take up time from very expensive humans (players, engineers, logistics experts, coaches, statisticians), all to feed an arms race for getting more of those points.
That's what I thought when Bitcoin crashed from $30 to $17 in 2011. I wrote "There's no revenue model here. All growth comes only from new investors. This is a bubble in its pure form."
What I didn't see was that the use case of getting money out of China was enough to propel Bitcoin to thousands of dollars. When that started, it looked like the People's Bank of China was going to ease up on exchange controls and crack down on Bitcoin. The PBC did neither.
"The mountains are high and the Emperor is far away."
But you can't actually get your money, unless you find someone credulous enough to buy these coins for another currency.
The absurd figures both in the growth of BTC over the 2 years (1700% gains!) and the sudden materialisation of value ex nihilo for BCH at 25% the market cap of bitcoin should be a good sign that this market is almost entirely based on speculation and could melt into thin air very soon, though it may well break new records before it does. Anyone getting in to either currency at this point is IMO going to lose their money.
Note that Bitcoin Cash will have a difficulty reduction at block 479808 (in 62 blocks as of this writing) projected around 30% further increasing the profitability vs Bitcoin [1]. It is now 52% more profitable to mine Bitcoin Cash [2].
There's a twist to this profitability statistic, which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere yet: your reward for mining a block can be spent only after many other blocks are mined on top of your block.
That changes the game significantly. What matters for a miner is not "it's more profitable with the current difficulty and price", but instead "it's more profitable with the current difficulty and the price X blocks in the future". Moreover, once they've mined a block on one chain, it's in their interest to keep that chain alive and working well for at least X blocks, so they can convert enough of their reward into fiat to pay their costs. The obvious way to do it would be to keep mining on the same chain, which generates yet more block rewards to be claimed later. All that might make the chain choice somewhat sticky for the miner: once on one chain, it's better to keep on the same chain instead of switching every time the price swings.
BCH is a hastily written hack job by a third rate team (I talked to some of them on twitter, they really don't understand a lot of what they are doing)... with a drastic difficulty retargeting algorithm. A bit of a pump combined with hash power manipulations lead to this.
This is all show to try and prop up the coin. Both the pump and the "profitability" of mining it.
%98 of the blocks of this coin are mined by an unknown entity-- in other words, it's not decentralized. It's trivial for that entity to manipulate the difficulty retargeting mechanism in his favor.
I wonder if "forking" Bitcoin will become the default method for new coins to be created in the future. It seems like it has advantages, you can pretty much "prove" that you have not premined your coin (although implementation of the fork still would be very important).
Sadly, I exchanged my BCH for BTC before this occurred. I missed out on those 2x gains! (Of course, these are all coins I mined years ago, so it's free money anyway.)
It seems the split created value. The derivative is worth what the original was worth not that long ago. Great in the short term but possibly means the combined value is less trustworthy. Derivatives of magic money I guess.
So what's to stop continued splitting until the public figures it out and then we all crash?
92 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 146 ms ] threadAs I recall, when the fork just happened, the explanation was that the price of BCH was largely meaningless, because you couldn't actually withdraw them as cash, either directly or via BTC or other coins. You could only trade within confines of exchanges where they materialized. Did that change since then?
Speculators be speculatin'.
> I mean, that value has to come from somewhere.
Demand is constrained: only miners and those who bought BCC since Aug 1 fork have any BCC to sell. Most of us struggle with "hmm how do I recover/import my BTC wallet keys into BCC? Holy crap it's worth how much?!" And finally much of the BCC is semi-orphaned by the fact that they hold pre-fork currency but have no idea that BTC exists.
If I think that Bitcoin Cash will ultimately not succeed, I should sell into this P&D, right?
Segwit is not going to activate on BCH because the BCH proponents are ideologically opposed to Segwit.
Additionally, almost no businesses are taking payment in BCH. BCH has to build its ecosystem up from scratch like any other altcoin. I think it has similar chances of "overtaking Bitcoin" as, for example, Litecoin.
EDIT: I don't know why the BCH price has gone up so much. It's almost certainly in even more of a bubble than BTC is currently in.
Bitcoin with Segwit will prioritize off-chain scaling (hence the 1MB blocksize limit and the current moves to prevent increasing it to 2mb), while Bitcoin Cash wants to enable on-chain scaling as the mainstay; but by no means are they mutually exclusive.
The Segwit activation raises new questions and concerns: the agreement to proceed with Segwit was a compromise known as Segwit2x (Segwit + 2mb blocks). Now it appears much of the Core team has no intention of honoring the 2x part (see core software 0.15 changelog: it will block any nodes signaling for segwit2x). Yet the 2x part is locked in - meaning we are currently headed towards a hard fork.
It's not a case of "not honouring" the 2x part; no members of the core team were part of the NYA.
You can't come up with an agreement and then accuse people who didn't sign it of failing to honour your agreement!
This is incorrect. There was a straightforward technical reason given in the pull request -- not enacting this change would likely partition the bitcoin network when the split happens. A network partition could be a drastic event that if exploited would result in much lost money and bankruptcy.
Rather than join a P2P network of nodes with wrong rules Core added code to not connect to nodes that give you blocks that violate consensus.
It's not controversial but the anti-core forces have nothing of substance so they make up drama.
To prevent this from happening the Bitcoin Core team added code to 0.15 and higher that will per-emptively disconnect peers that advertise themselves as Segwit2x. Therefore a 0.15 node will only connect to peers that will relay good blocks from its perspective, and it is much less likely that such a network partition would occur. As long as there exists some nodes that don't auto-disconnect (e.g. old bitcoin nodes) then the Bitcoin Core 0.15+ and the Segwit2x networks will remain connected until the fork occurs.
It wasn't "we can forgo replay protection with this" but (among others) "we are even helping the hardforking side, during the BCH hardfork many BCH nodes connected to BTC nodes and couldn't propagate their transactions".
But as long as the hardfork hasn't happened, there is no reason to do this. This just makes signalling even less useful than it already is because nodes will be encouraged to lie about their intentions.
You can read it yourself here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982
LN can work without segwit but it works much better with segwit and segwit enables a lot of other things like side chains and shorr signatures etc.
No there was no agreement called Segwit2X. The BCH people agreed segwit2x but the developers weren't even invited.
To call something a compromise or an agreement when one side was never even invited is disingenuous at best.
But this kind of misrepresentation has been going on for years and is the primary basis of attack against core-- because there are no technical arguments against core.
Then just correct me graciously. These are all things I've read from public figures in the Bitcoin community so I'm not "making claims" and this stuff is certainly not readily available information.
The only point for BCH is that transaction congestion won't force people to use layer 2 settlement layers, as there is a philosophy of an onchain scaling solution as well where transactions will remain cheap.
The block reward will still be supplanted by transaction fees in this solution, eventually. Whether with blocks being extremely large, or with a few halvings later.
Flextrans wouldn't be implemented solely for the lightning network. It would just be possible to do that as well.
edit: annnnnd a downvote without even a rebuttal, reminds me of a bitcoin reddit. a little disheartening.
Also the people creating congestion on BTC are the people who made BCH-- there is no natural congestion on BTC. Segwit quadruples capacity and lowers fees-- I expect we will quickly see segwit transactions be super cheap while the Jihan spam attack drives up non-segwit transactions making it really obvious that this is, in fact a spam attack (it's already obvious if you understand things well enough to look at the blocks yourself. Jihan is including his low fee spam transactions in his own blocks even though it otherwise wouldn't be economical to do so.)
Perhaps, but BTC is throwing its ecosystem away with a core team that is committed to congestion and high fees. Bitcoin Cash already has the customer side of the customer-vendor double-sided marketplace handled as well as Bitcoin does because they have approximately the same distribution among bitcoin owners.
It isn't the same hurdle as litecoin--half of the chicken and egg problem is already solved. Because of the fees, and the damper they will place on sales, there's an incentive to switch to boot.
It's not core that wants high fees-- why would they?
Most people don't know of BCH and since it was done in such a half assed manner most wallets don't really support it yet.
Not according to this: https://segwit.org/is-segwit-a-block-size-increase-705df6a87...
Can you address it? Thanks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6uw5kf/why_does_core_r...
Also LN does not need a malleability fix to work, it just makes the implementation easier.
%98 of BCH is mined by one entity.
They wanted their own bitcoin and they have it now and they are pumping it, but they don't have a decent development team and their motives are not good.
Signs I'm watching:
* Merchant adoption
* bitcoin-abc doesn't have any commits in the last 21 days.
* Mining has not diversified (yet) so this doesn't appear to have gathered tons of support and it is really centralized. https://cash.coin.dance/blocks
Bitcoin cash is not closet o the "original vision"... that's a Roger Ver claim which is asinine beyond belief.
SegWit literally fixes an issue that Satoshi identified in the white paper... and Lightening Network is literally a nice rebranding and enhancement of the payment channels that Satoshi came up with.
Segwit quadruples capacity and lowers fees-- in fact Jihan said in a blog that the segwit fees were "unfair" because they are too low. Who is it you think who wants high fees again?
You've been listening to the people who want to take over bitcoin, not the engineers.
Members of core have contradicted themselves so often when asked why the block size can't be raised that there must be another agenda.
When they claimed a one-line arbitrary constant was impossible to change and then gave conflicting reasons why, they lost credibility. I've only seen this waxy-flexibility of logic when someone can't reveal the real reason behind what they want, or they are purely irrational.
Core have not been good stewards. Even in the unlikely event they were "correct," the mismanagement of the community, censorship, inability to communicate or build consensus has been atrocious.
In terms of original vision, Satoshi pretty clearly described layer 1 scaling.
source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810
--------
It would be nice to keep the blk.dat files small as long as we can.
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.
There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee. However, I haven't had time yet to add that option to the UI.
Scale or not, the test network will react in the same ways, but with much less wasted bandwidth and annoyance.
As a trader you should know not to certain, you're only trying to make educated guesses.
The only real money being spend are the transactions on the exchanges. There, it becomes hard to differentiate many 'real' buys of bitcoin cash from someone just flipping back and forth between the two.
The "market cap" for BCH has to be way overestimated. It assumes there's a BCH for every BTC. But there isn't. Not everybody got their converted asset out.
People thinking about bitcoin like a company's stock or the stock market contribute to why they can't comprehend the train wreck to all time high prices.
Hopefully there will be good ways to go bearish by the time Coinbase enables Bitcoin Cash.
You can short it on Bitfinex...
Depending on your wallet there are mechanisms to separate out your BCH and BTC (Because it's a fork you need to be careful about this, as replay attacks might be possible.)
See your wallet maker for specific advice
BCH added at the eleventh hour a replay protection mechanism, so that's not the biggest issue. The risks are mostly sending BCH to an address which expects only BTC (or vice versa), and allowing less tested wallet software access to your private keys (which is why the recommendation is usually to first send everything to a new BTC wallet, before importing the now spent private keys into the BCH wallet).
The whole thing is just amazing and absurd and absurdly amazing.
Cryptocurrencies are brand new, so they're incredibly volatile, sure. But it can be "real money" just as much as money, because really what is money?
An idea.
The fact that both BTC and BCH exist now means that there is ${BTC + BCH} market cap now, right?
If you put $3k into BCH and $3k into BTC, your investments will grow or fall independently of each other, depending on how BTC or BCH does. But if BCH reaches parity with BTC, that means the world now has ${2xBTC} of value in it, right? I mean yes, set aside the question of what "value" means, but that's what the numbers are showing?
In other words, BCH was one of the biggest things anyone could have done to grow the Cryptocoin ecosystem as a whole, then? Coinmarketcap shows $68B for BTC and $13B for BCH. Ethereum is $27B, and that took like four years to get to this point.
So, true or false: BCH just created half the total value of ETH within the last month or so?
What justifies this? Is everything going to explode? I need a mathematical or investment framework to think rationally about the implications of this.
Are we in danger of any kind of "pop"? The 2008 housing crash affected the world. Anyone know how big these babies need to grow before a pop would cause problems for the world economy?
I'm not even convinced it will pop. But I've also read Madness of Crowds, and the temperament here reads identical to the worldwide investment craze portrayed in it. It didn't last forever. (I guess once all the naysayers stop naysaying about BTC, then it's time to worry. Till then, though...)
We are going to have a massive crypto bubble-- this is fundamentally new technology so its going thru the technology adoption life cycle and pops every time it gets to a wider audience--- and it hasn't yet gone mainstream. Everyone knows about it, but nobody trusts it yet.
We're at the point like in the 1990s when the idea of using your credit card on the internet seemed foolish and just asking to lose your money.
Once people become comfortable with it we will have a massive bubble, fortunes will be made and lost and it will make 2001 and 2008 look positively sedate.
I don't think BCH will still be around by the time that happens, though.
Any number that makes out that tokens whose entire real-life pricing is based entirely on speculation is bigger in some sense than all real world economic activity may not be a good measure.
The thing about national fiat currencies like your $100 bill is that millions of people are forced by the state to transact in that currency and none other, and it is backed by the promises and threats of the state. When the confidence in that backing evaporates (as happened with Assignats for example in post-revolutionary France, originally backed by property, later backed by thin air), bad things happen and what seemed valuable can overnight lose its value. All that is solid melts into air.
What I didn't see was that the use case of getting money out of China was enough to propel Bitcoin to thousands of dollars. When that started, it looked like the People's Bank of China was going to ease up on exchange controls and crack down on Bitcoin. The PBC did neither.
"The mountains are high and the Emperor is far away."
The absurd figures both in the growth of BTC over the 2 years (1700% gains!) and the sudden materialisation of value ex nihilo for BCH at 25% the market cap of bitcoin should be a good sign that this market is almost entirely based on speculation and could melt into thin air very soon, though it may well break new records before it does. Anyone getting in to either currency at this point is IMO going to lose their money.
https://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg730ztgMzm1g10...
[1]: http://bitcointicker.co/bccnetworkstats/
[2]: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks
That changes the game significantly. What matters for a miner is not "it's more profitable with the current difficulty and price", but instead "it's more profitable with the current difficulty and the price X blocks in the future". Moreover, once they've mined a block on one chain, it's in their interest to keep that chain alive and working well for at least X blocks, so they can convert enough of their reward into fiat to pay their costs. The obvious way to do it would be to keep mining on the same chain, which generates yet more block rewards to be claimed later. All that might make the chain choice somewhat sticky for the miner: once on one chain, it's better to keep on the same chain instead of switching every time the price swings.
This is all show to try and prop up the coin. Both the pump and the "profitability" of mining it.
%98 of the blocks of this coin are mined by an unknown entity-- in other words, it's not decentralized. It's trivial for that entity to manipulate the difficulty retargeting mechanism in his favor.
Stay away. This is not "bitcoin" in any sense.
BTW, not even the one actual use case for bitcoin is interested in bcash: https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/6s30ss/have...
So what's to stop continued splitting until the public figures it out and then we all crash?