warning for fans of new coins:
https://forum.bits.media/index.php?/topic/952-%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81-bitcoin/&do=findComment&comment=948202
Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees - page 583. (Read 704412 times)
I mean what I say, and I say what I mean, their devs are probably dumping hard at the time we speak. Allow it to be listed on Shiittrex and see for yourself how valuable a coin it is (irony).
BCH and BCG are like Microsoft Restore Points... They took a Restore Image from the Bitcoin network at a certain time, and base their future transactions from that Restore Point. Pure copy cats.
In the case of BCG, they are supposed to pre-mine - create from thin air thousands of bitcoins before we can access our BCG clones...
On a side note:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/78c0gp/the_devs_of_bitcoingold_are_so_good_that_they_are/
"The devs of BitcoinGold are so good that they are offering a reward of 250 BTG for those who can develop a replay protection in time."
I wonder what will happen with BCH when bitcoin gold tomorrow is available, will the price skyrocket?
BTG / BTC Last: 0.07799899 24High: 0.19600000 24Low: 0.00111190
I wonder what will happen with BCH when bitcoin gold tomorrow is available, will the price skyrocket?
Bitcoin Gold has just listed on Coin Market Cap
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-gold/
So far it's valued at more than BitCash
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-gold/
So far it's valued at more than BitCash
ridiculous. they don't have a blockchain and it looks like they won't for quite a while yet - https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/785aqe/daily_discussion_monday_october_23_2017/dosannj/
there's no way it should be listed. it's nothing but a future that may not ever be redeemable.
Neither did Cash or Segwit2x before being listed
When the fork block happens it's just a save of the blockchain nothing more the actual release it slated for 1 week later this was made public over a month ago now if the code is not ready in time this may be pushed back but I asked them about this maybe last week and was told things were still on schedule
Current future market value if it holds or increases puts Gold in #3 and pushes ripple down to #4 and cash down to #5
Bitcoin Gold has just listed on Coin Market Cap
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-gold/
So far it's valued at more than BitCash
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-gold/
So far it's valued at more than BitCash
ridiculous. they don't have a blockchain and it looks like they won't for quite a while yet - https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/785aqe/daily_discussion_monday_october_23_2017/dosannj/
there's no way it should be listed. it's nothing but a future that may not ever be redeemable.
rip bcg
Bitcoin Gold has just listed on Coin Market Cap
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-gold/
So far it's valued at more than BitCash
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-gold/
So far it's valued at more than BitCash
When will this finally end: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7892sd/the_worst_part_of_the_ln_system_is_your/
I'm tired of this segwitt shit.
This particular 2L as currently designed relies on an artificial block size limit cap which creates a bottleneck in order to provide high incentives for miners to participate. It monetizes on backlog of transaction and high fees, which are allocated to miners, not any group in particular. Cheaper and more instantaneous transactions are shifted to the lightning network which is operated by hubs also earning revenue. Note that some of these hubs may choose to monitor transactions and can possibly censor who is allowed to participate in this no longer strictly peer-to-peer network.
We lose the immutability and instead we have a peer-to-hub-to-peer network that is mutable and at best decentralized, and certainly not distributed (see https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800). For regular day-to-day and recurring transactions, it is not a considerable risk or inconvenience. And one could choose to use the main chain any time to bypass the lightning network and truly transact peer-to-peer. But since the main chain has an entry barrier in the form of artificially instilled high transaction fees, common people are not able to use bitcoin as we have known it until now. Peer-to-peer bitcoin becomes institution-to-institution bitcoin with peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L.
To reiterate and stress, note the following lightning network design flaw again. Yes, activating SegWit and allowing 2L such as lightning allows for lower transaction fees to coexist side by side with more costly on-chain transactions. For those using this particularly prescribed 2L, the fees remain low. But since these 2L are managed by hubs, we introduce another element to trust, which is contrary to what the bitcoin network was designed to do at the first place. Over time, by the nature of the lightning network in its current design, these third party hubs grow to be centralized, just like Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover, etc. There is nothing wrong with that in general because it works just fine. But recall that bitcoin set out to create a different kind of a network. Instead of decentralized, distributed, immutable network with miners and nodes, with the lightning network we end up with at best decentralized but mutable network with hubs.
Note that Bitcoin Core SegWit has a US-based organization backing it with millions of dollars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream and https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money). Their proponents are quite political and some even imply $1000 fees on the main bitcoin blockchain (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees).
I'm tired of this segwitt shit.
This particular 2L as currently designed relies on an artificial block size limit cap which creates a bottleneck in order to provide high incentives for miners to participate. It monetizes on backlog of transaction and high fees, which are allocated to miners, not any group in particular. Cheaper and more instantaneous transactions are shifted to the lightning network which is operated by hubs also earning revenue. Note that some of these hubs may choose to monitor transactions and can possibly censor who is allowed to participate in this no longer strictly peer-to-peer network.
We lose the immutability and instead we have a peer-to-hub-to-peer network that is mutable and at best decentralized, and certainly not distributed (see https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800). For regular day-to-day and recurring transactions, it is not a considerable risk or inconvenience. And one could choose to use the main chain any time to bypass the lightning network and truly transact peer-to-peer. But since the main chain has an entry barrier in the form of artificially instilled high transaction fees, common people are not able to use bitcoin as we have known it until now. Peer-to-peer bitcoin becomes institution-to-institution bitcoin with peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L.
To reiterate and stress, note the following lightning network design flaw again. Yes, activating SegWit and allowing 2L such as lightning allows for lower transaction fees to coexist side by side with more costly on-chain transactions. For those using this particularly prescribed 2L, the fees remain low. But since these 2L are managed by hubs, we introduce another element to trust, which is contrary to what the bitcoin network was designed to do at the first place. Over time, by the nature of the lightning network in its current design, these third party hubs grow to be centralized, just like Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover, etc. There is nothing wrong with that in general because it works just fine. But recall that bitcoin set out to create a different kind of a network. Instead of decentralized, distributed, immutable network with miners and nodes, with the lightning network we end up with at best decentralized but mutable network with hubs.
Note that Bitcoin Core SegWit has a US-based organization backing it with millions of dollars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream and https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money). Their proponents are quite political and some even imply $1000 fees on the main bitcoin blockchain (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees).
I would worry more that the cash miners support B2X more and jump over leaving cash dead like all the other failed forks before it (classic, xt, unlimited)
The Segwit2x futures only put at at around 1.5 BTC or ~$900 so far its not looking like much of a threat but it it does succeed we still have all our coins on the other chain
Also the miners are trying to force the EDA right now (one reduction is already guaranteed to happen)
Well at least they actually went through with the Bitcoin Cash fork. Classic, Xt and Unlimited never even got to germinate since no one was willing to lead the charge. I think Segwit 2X is more of a threat, because they actually have designated a particular block; so they definitely know exactly when they have to all start to charge, in a coordinated manner. However, with no replay protection, I wonder how many of these miners will actually participate in the mutiny they all keep pledging that they will, with their "signaling." We'll see how many of them actually have the balls and which will just quietly go on mining the original chain.
Last I heard, 2x mining signalling is at over 90%. So they'd be foolish to mine the 1x chain - that will all get orphaned on 2x chain. Have you even considered what will happen to 1x block interval with an instant 90% less hashpower? I'm estimating it will be a block every 100 minutes, each completely full of transactions with very high fees... I don't think using a Segwit address will make much of a difference... and I don't like Garzik and his henchmen one bit... but Kore is done, fired, and I won't shed any tears about them.
Probably the same as when antpool, viabtc, btctop and the rest moved all power to cash... oh wait never mind I forgot the miners go to whats profitable and I can't see the B2x chain being more profitable so far futures put it at near $1000 plus BTG which currently has futures at around $300 so meh I either double up or still own the most profitable chain whichever wins
EDIT: Segwit2x futures are now just over $1000 and BTG futures on yobit that recently launched are close to $1000 both much higher than I ever expected
I would worry more that the cash miners support B2X more and jump over leaving cash dead like all the other failed forks before it (classic, xt, unlimited)
The Segwit2x futures only put at at around 1.5 BTC or ~$900 so far its not looking like much of a threat but it it does succeed we still have all our coins on the other chain
Also the miners are trying to force the EDA right now (one reduction is already guaranteed to happen)
Well at least they actually went through with the Bitcoin Cash fork. Classic, Xt and Unlimited never even got to germinate since no one was willing to lead the charge. I think Segwit 2X is more of a threat, because they actually have designated a particular block; so they definitely know exactly when they have to all start to charge, in a coordinated manner. However, with no replay protection, I wonder how many of these miners will actually participate in the mutiny they all keep pledging that they will, with their "signaling." We'll see how many of them actually have the balls and which will just quietly go on mining the original chain.
Last I heard, 2x mining signalling is at over 90%. So they'd be foolish to mine the 1x chain - that will all get orphaned on 2x chain. Have you even considered what will happen to 1x block interval with an instant 90% less hashpower? I'm estimating it will be a block every 100 minutes, each completely full of transactions with very high fees... I don't think using a Segwit address will make much of a difference... and I don't like Garzik and his henchmen one bit... but Kore is done, fired, and I won't shed any tears about them.
First of all, your puny 8-32MB blocks don't even come close to scaling to PayPal or Visa. (An off chain solution like lightning network probably would, however.) You need close to 1 GB blocks to even start to compare. Let's say you want to start up a block explorer or other information service. I doubt a $10/mo VPS is going to be enough to run a decent block explorer. Pruning the blockchain or running an SPV is fine, for personal use. However, if I want to contribute more by providing some kind of service, the start up cost is going to be huge. How are we supposed to have a decentralized economy when entry to even provide a block explorer will be prohibitive? Only mega whale oligarchs will have the means to provide us with the information services. What could go wrong?
Also, this argument that we will have technology necessary in 10 or 20 years really doesn't fly. Do we want Bitcoin to scale on the level of Visa and Paypal in a couple of years or do we want to wait a decade or more? Since technology is advancing, the systems Visa and Paypal will use will probably make them be able to scale even better. Your on-chain solution will be forever playing catch up and will never compete.
Also, this argument that we will have technology necessary in 10 or 20 years really doesn't fly. Do we want Bitcoin to scale on the level of Visa and Paypal in a couple of years or do we want to wait a decade or more? Since technology is advancing, the systems Visa and Paypal will use will probably make them be able to scale even better. Your on-chain solution will be forever playing catch up and will never compete.
Bones, do you sense the irony when a Kore supporter uses the phrase "your puny 8MB-32MB blocks"? Forget about Visa/Paypal and their centralized nonsense. People who use cryptos understand the value of not requiring permission to pay someone and giving up their personal data in the process - this isn't for your average dumbshit consumer, and it's not ready for the whole world, conceptually or technically. But sure, let's scale up as fast as we can. Don't you think sticking with "micro-puny" 1MB blocks is a bad place to give up on this goal? As far as your VPS, you can get a dedi for $50 a month, you're saying you want to run a blockchain business and you can't afford that?
As far as BCH being mined in China - I don't like the idea of EVERYTHING being made in China either, but you've been living in a cave if this is news to you.
Nice meme. How about a joke, "two shitwits walk into a bar...".
I notice that some exchanges are freezing BTC deposits for the Bitcoin Gold drop. I still can't understand how anyone would trust BTCGPU code...
Finally, last I checked, the average BTC blocksize is 1.03MB since the Segfault deployment. Garbage.
BCH or ETC - what to buy? BCH fell 3 times, ETC in 2, but BCH fresh, I'm afraid the entry point is not yet reached when the end of sales of a large number of coins by developers and miners.
has etc managed to do one interesting thing since its creation? i can't find anything. i guess the only thing it has going for it is inheriting eth miners when the time comes.
and why are you considering forks instead of real coins anyway?
BCH or ETC - what to buy? BCH fell 3 times, ETC in 2, but BCH fresh, I'm afraid the entry point is not yet reached when the end of sales of a large number of coins by developers and miners.
https://forum.bits.media/index.php?/topic/55384-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D1%8B-%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82-%D0%B8-%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8-%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%85-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82/&do=findComment&comment=946422
https://forum.bits.media/index.php?/topic/55384-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D1%8B-%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82-%D0%B8-%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8-%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%85-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82/&do=findComment&comment=946422
I would worry more that the cash miners support B2X more and jump over leaving cash dead like all the other failed forks before it (classic, xt, unlimited)
The Segwit2x futures only put at at around 1.5 BTC or ~$900 so far its not looking like much of a threat but it it does succeed we still have all our coins on the other chain
Also the miners are trying to force the EDA right now (one reduction is already guaranteed to happen)
Well at least they actually went through with the Bitcoin Cash fork. Classic, Xt and Unlimited never even got to germinate since no one was willing to lead the charge. I think Segwit 2X is more of a threat, because they actually have designated a particular block; so they definitely know exactly when they have to all start to charge, in a coordinated manner. However, with no replay protection, I wonder how many of these miners will actually participate in the mutiny they all keep pledging that they will, with their "signaling." We'll see how many of them actually have the balls and which will just quietly go on mining the original chain.
I expect most to stay on the core chain with the only ones mining on B2X are the ones mining on cash now
Jump to: