All sides have won in a way. Those who wanted to take Bitcoin in a direction most users didn't want to go now have their own network and block chain to make with what they will.
The split has also highlighted the complex tangle of factors that makes Bitcoin work. That mix has proven extremely difficult to replicate, with both Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Cash competing for users, miners, developers, and popular press attention in a market jam-packed with Bitcoin-wannabes.
It seems contradictory to me to simultaneously believe PoW crypto is a good idea while also believing that you and your buddies can effectively launch a 51% attack on a major network.
It's not a major network these are forks off of Bitcoin made for political reasons that claim to be Bitcoin. 95% of the hash power is on the main Bitcoin chain and not these forks. None of the primary development teams that contribute to the Bitcoin source code support these forks. It would be like making your own US Dollar and calling it USDCash or Dollar WV (Washingtons Vision) and trying to convince people its the same as a real dollar.
There are many valid criticisms of PoW but it's not contradictory to believe PoW can work (i.e. with large enough and distributed enough miner network) while simultaneously attacking particular PoW-secured networks
Bitcoin never promised anything. The technology has been quite successful as the value of Bitcoin a decade after its launch has shown. It has succeeded beyond what anyone could have possibly imagined from its origins as an experiment. This war does not affect Bitcoin.
Acting like either one of these forks is Bitcoin is disingenuous at best. The main Bitcoin chain (Bitcoin Core) has over 95% of the hash rate and exponentially more transactions. The fork of Bcash/BitcoinSV was an attempt by Chinese miners to take over the network which failed! BCH blocks aren't full because nobody is even bothering to spam the blocks. Almost no one is using the network for anything real.
> The fork of Bcash/BitcoinSV was an attempt by Chinese miners to take over the network which failed!
Bitcoin SV isn't just a miner-driven fork; the project was created by Craig Wright, who claims (without any solid proof) to be the creator of Bitcoin. It's a complicated and bizarre political situation.
Yah, CW is a joke. He has TrueCrypt partitions from, supposedly, Satoshi that have all of Statoshi's millions of bitcoins on it/them. He cannot (yet) decrypt any of these, but his claims of being Satoshi will be realized when he can decrypt. See?! I do have the private keys! Never mind it's 10 years later.
Just thinking about that is ridiculous. CW is worth $500m and some change and that's not enough..?
As for bcash, don't forget about Ver. While I get where he's coming from with having so much time and money invested in btc and such, along with wanting to have a 'cash' type coin, it's just not reality. Bcash has never stood on the solid foundation that btc has. It can't. I don't disagree with the btc people that the btc blockchain is too slow (as is) to handle massive transactions. And that being the case AND also the fact that is has not been hacked in over a decade, you just have to concede that it is what it is. It's the worlds oldest and most stable blockchain and the value is not in small transactions, but hodl.
So, SV is a fraud, bcash is welcome to try its hand at massive block sizes, but will ultimate, just be a side show.
I keep going back and forth between POW and POS/DPOS... Some chains to think about in regards to their governance, txn volume and throughput: Tron, Eos, and Eth, and IOTA. (I personally, think Eth is already v1 tech..). These are the guys I'm watching through 2020.
No the real red flag was trying to prove he had the keys and then using a cryptographic sleight of hand to fool a bunch of people. When this was discovered he backed away and said he won't be providing proof anymore. It wasn't even sophisticated.
All he has to do is sign a few words with an early wallet and the matter would be resolved instantly.
He's been caught out numerous times modifying timestamps on documents and flat out lying to deceive those with little understanding of cryptographic proofs.
He thought using some billionaire called Calvin would make people pay attention to Bitcoin SV and money would solve every problem he has but apparently it didn't work that way.
He tweeted he has enough assets to dump BTC down to $1000 in an poor attempt to threaten the BTC community but he now even deleted his Twitter account.
If he was really Satoshi, somehow he seems to have lost most of his brain in the last 10 years.
> an attempt by Chinese miners to take over the network which failed
You are missing so much of the real story. The reason Bitcoin Cash exists is that more and more people where fed up with the direction taken by the Bitcoin Core dev team (pushing alpha quality softwares as solutions)
They would not have to change the protocol for that though.
Could have just created another implementation, or better yet, contribute to one that already existed (like btcd).
With their superior programming skills they would have surely become the most trusted implementation.
So both forks worth more 6mo in than they were immediately after split; sounds like actually supports idea forking for a good reason can be value accretive..
The "market cap" of a currency is kind of a weird concept to begin with. It's based on the presumption that you could buy every single unit of the currency at the current market price, and that the currency would still even have meaning afterwards. It's a gross approximation at best for a stock; for a currency, it's absurd, and even more so for one with a market as shallow as a cryptocurrency.
24 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 59.6 ms ] threadThe split has also highlighted the complex tangle of factors that makes Bitcoin work. That mix has proven extremely difficult to replicate, with both Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Cash competing for users, miners, developers, and popular press attention in a market jam-packed with Bitcoin-wannabes.
Does anyone do that thing?
Yeah, me.
This war proves bit coin has failed in that regard.
Look at the hash rate: https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate
Bitcoin SV isn't just a miner-driven fork; the project was created by Craig Wright, who claims (without any solid proof) to be the creator of Bitcoin. It's a complicated and bizarre political situation.
Just thinking about that is ridiculous. CW is worth $500m and some change and that's not enough..?
As for bcash, don't forget about Ver. While I get where he's coming from with having so much time and money invested in btc and such, along with wanting to have a 'cash' type coin, it's just not reality. Bcash has never stood on the solid foundation that btc has. It can't. I don't disagree with the btc people that the btc blockchain is too slow (as is) to handle massive transactions. And that being the case AND also the fact that is has not been hacked in over a decade, you just have to concede that it is what it is. It's the worlds oldest and most stable blockchain and the value is not in small transactions, but hodl.
So, SV is a fraud, bcash is welcome to try its hand at massive block sizes, but will ultimate, just be a side show.
I keep going back and forth between POW and POS/DPOS... Some chains to think about in regards to their governance, txn volume and throughput: Tron, Eos, and Eth, and IOTA. (I personally, think Eth is already v1 tech..). These are the guys I'm watching through 2020.
All he has to do is sign a few words with an early wallet and the matter would be resolved instantly.
He's been caught out numerous times modifying timestamps on documents and flat out lying to deceive those with little understanding of cryptographic proofs.
The man is charlatan plain and simple.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Craig_Wright
He tweeted he has enough assets to dump BTC down to $1000 in an poor attempt to threaten the BTC community but he now even deleted his Twitter account.
If he was really Satoshi, somehow he seems to have lost most of his brain in the last 10 years.
You are missing so much of the real story. The reason Bitcoin Cash exists is that more and more people where fed up with the direction taken by the Bitcoin Core dev team (pushing alpha quality softwares as solutions)
With their superior programming skills they would have surely become the most trusted implementation.
I wonder what the market cap would be if you only count coins which have seen at least one transaction since the fork.
The "market cap" of a currency is kind of a weird concept to begin with. It's based on the presumption that you could buy every single unit of the currency at the current market price, and that the currency would still even have meaning afterwards. It's a gross approximation at best for a stock; for a currency, it's absurd, and even more so for one with a market as shallow as a cryptocurrency.