ok serious question here. can someone give a good tl;dr on this split. gotta admit i dont follow this at all. but i do have an amount of bch (from the original btc/bch fork) thats been on my trezor for ages.
trezor might do some wizardry to figure it out but i just wanna know any gotchas right now. like replays or whatever, as i may send it to an exchange.
any info appreciated.
Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees - page 11. (Read 704506 times)
https://beincrypto.com/swiss-financial-institutions-bet-on-eth2-bch-and-usdc/
BCH will go up, this is a good coin
have time to buy at a low price
BCH will go up, this is a good coin
have time to buy at a low price
Every fork is just another dilution attack.
No x is the real bitcoin no y is. Even the argument can be used to validate the shitcoins
I just hope we don't end up so flooded with cheap imitation watches that the real Rolex loses its value too!
Don't kill the goose
No x is the real bitcoin no y is. Even the argument can be used to validate the shitcoins
I just hope we don't end up so flooded with cheap imitation watches that the real Rolex loses its value too!
Don't kill the goose
Bitcoin Cash was cool for a minute. But it became less cool when they kept hard-forking. Anybody else feel this way? 
Right, it took a while once the hard core of the protocol was destilled again, that was actually the White Paper
Thx to Satoshi
Bitcoin Cash was cool for a minute. But it became less cool when they kept hard-forking. Anybody else feel this way?
How much is maximum supply of bcha?
AFAIK, its the exact same as it is for Bitcoin, which is very slightly less than 21 million. I've been watching BCHA and can't help but wonder if its going to grow into its own thing at some point. Who knows what the fair price for it is as there's barely any exchange or merchant support.
How much is maximum supply of bcha?
...snip...
I can see why you felt the importance of pointing this out.
Now that these forks/counterfeits/competing versions are out there, isn't the 'ugly' scenario Satoshi referred to, virtually inevitable in the long-run ?
The problem (probably unforseen) has always been that a fork effectively creates a large number of holders with a significant stake in supporting both chains, in the same way that airdrops kick start projects. I'm not sure how that can be democratically mitigated.
I can see why you felt the importance of pointing this out.
Now that these forks/counterfeits/competing versions are out there, isn't the 'ugly' scenario Satoshi referred to, virtually inevitable in the long-run ?
The problem (probably unforseen) has always been that a fork effectively creates a large number of holders with a significant stake in supporting both chains, in the same way that airdrops kick start projects. I'm not sure how that can be democratically mitigated.
It is inevitable in the long-run and cannot be democratically mitigated. That is exactly what satoshi meant with the last two sentences in that quote.
Again, this is why all Bitcoin forks are counterfeit derivatives of original bitcoin (BTC).
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)
Excerpt quote; "In finance, a derivative is a contract that derives its value from the performance of an underlying entity ..."
One cannot simply split from the underlying asset and expect the value to gain above the underlying and majority consensus.
The 'fallout' in this regard will always be worse for the split chain. Hence, 'ugly'.
/\BTI is the only original fork with real use case ~ all these billionare scumbags riding coattails on our success make me laugh! :-D *good to see you bud!*
My bch stuck at paper , how can i sweep it when network has two chain also unstable and may i lose it
...snip...
I can see why you felt the importance of pointing this out.
Now that these forks/counterfeits/competing versions are out there, isn't the 'ugly' scenario Satoshi referred to, virtually inevitable in the long-run ?
The problem (probably unforseen) has always been that a fork effectively creates a large number of holders with a significant stake in supporting both chains, in the same way that airdrops kick start projects. I'm not sure how that can be democratically mitigated.
I can see why you felt the importance of pointing this out.
Now that these forks/counterfeits/competing versions are out there, isn't the 'ugly' scenario Satoshi referred to, virtually inevitable in the long-run ?
The problem (probably unforseen) has always been that a fork effectively creates a large number of holders with a significant stake in supporting both chains, in the same way that airdrops kick start projects. I'm not sure how that can be democratically mitigated.
It is inevitable in the long-run and cannot be democratically mitigated. That is exactly what satoshi meant with the last two sentences in that quote.
Again, this is why all Bitcoin forks are counterfeit derivatives of original bitcoin (BTC).
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)
Excerpt quote; "In finance, a derivative is a contract that derives its value from the performance of an underlying entity ..."
One cannot simply split from the underlying asset and expect the value to gain above the underlying and majority consensus.
The 'fallout' in this regard will always be worse for the split chain. Hence, 'ugly'.
Fork went as expected. No shock or surprises.
News update unrelated to fork: https://www.bitcoininsider.org/article/97839/bitcoincom-announces-partnership-luxury-watchmaker-franck-muller
News update unrelated to fork: https://www.bitcoininsider.org/article/97839/bitcoincom-announces-partnership-luxury-watchmaker-franck-muller
All Bitcoin forks are counterfeit derivatives of original bitcoin (BTC).
Including, Bitcoin Cash, BCH, BCHN, BCHA, ABC, BSV etc.
Bitcoin is BTC at https://bitcoin.org
Including, Bitcoin Cash, BCH, BCHN, BCHA, ABC, BSV etc.
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
Bitcoin is BTC at https://bitcoin.org
I can see why you felt the importance of pointing this out.
Now that these forks/counterfeits/competing versions are out there, isn't the 'ugly' scenario Satoshi referred to, virtually inevitable in the long-run ?
The problem (probably unforseen) has always been that a fork effectively creates a large number of holders with a significant stake in supporting both chains, in the same way that airdrops kick start projects. I'm not sure how that can be democratically mitigated.
All Bitcoin forks are counterfeit derivatives of original bitcoin (BTC).
Including, Bitcoin Cash, BCH, BCHN, BCHA, ABC, BSV etc.
Bitcoin is BTC at https://bitcoin.org
Including, Bitcoin Cash, BCH, BCHN, BCHA, ABC, BSV etc.
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
Bitcoin is BTC at https://bitcoin.org
That is a significant quote you found.
It underlines the nature and concept of the digital currency projects. It also indirectly indicates the importance of BCH, giving a democratic choice, like a free vote, and political opposition.
There is always some probability that any project (even BTC) will fail , but of course, the larger the community, the less likely that is.
Even governments could well see some potential usefulness (to them) of independent digital currencies, and there is no telling which one they may choose to back (for whatever reason), giving a range of possible negative or positive consequences.
So basically Amaury just killed the golden goose and is now busy searching for the remaining golden eggs inside those measly 7 blocks since the fork.
We all wondered what would happen with 'competing implementations' and this is doing an admirable job of informing us. It continues squabbling and splintering until it's an absolute laughable irrelevance.
Cheers, guys.
Cheers, guys.
is this, like, paycoin 2.0 ? only slimier?
We all wondered what would happen with 'competing implementations' and this is doing an admirable job of informing us. It continues squabbling and splintering until it's an absolute laughable irrelevance.
Cheers, guys.
Cheers, guys.
And yes, it all started with 'devs' wanting / allowing them to be 'better' than Satoshi, ... or Gavin
None of them really made deep efforts to see and understand what was initial deliverd - and why
We all wondered what would happen with 'competing implementations' and this is doing an admirable job of informing us. It continues squabbling and splintering until it's an absolute laughable irrelevance.
Cheers, guys.
Cheers, guys.
All Bitcoin forks are counterfeit derivatives of original bitcoin (BTC).
Including, Bitcoin Cash, BCH, BCHN, BCHA, ABC, BSV etc.
Bitcoin is BTC at https://bitcoin.org
Including, Bitcoin Cash, BCH, BCHN, BCHA, ABC, BSV etc.
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
Bitcoin is BTC at https://bitcoin.org
AAAannnd the only Satoshi compatible version is? - not SegWitbtc - sorry
All Bitcoin forks are counterfeit derivatives of original bitcoin (BTC).
Including, Bitcoin Cash, BCH, BCHN, BCHA, ABC, BSV etc.
Bitcoin is BTC at https://bitcoin.org
Including, Bitcoin Cash, BCH, BCHN, BCHA, ABC, BSV etc.
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
Bitcoin is BTC at https://bitcoin.org
AAAannnd the only Satoshi compatible version is? - not SegWitbtc - sorry
All Bitcoin forks are counterfeit derivatives of original bitcoin (BTC).
Including, Bitcoin Cash, BCH, BCHN, BCHA, ABC, BSV etc.
Bitcoin is BTC at https://bitcoin.org
Including, Bitcoin Cash, BCH, BCHN, BCHA, ABC, BSV etc.
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
Bitcoin is BTC at https://bitcoin.org
Jump to: