Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees - page 607. (Read 704812 times)

I am planning to buy some BCH as altcoin in future but my waiting is going on until it touches the real value. It will exist for long time but some timely pumps so buying at under 0.07 will be good gamble on it. That is what my buy target is at and the day is on the way to appear sooner when my orders will get filled at these prices.

https://themerkle.com/current-batch-of-bitmain-miners-can-only-be-paid-for-with-bitcoin-cash/



╥Aztek

I would think someone would be concerned what attitude known whales have toward the coin. 100K+ coins could do serious damage to the BCH market if dumped.

I was referring to size and how easily it would fit

Seriously? who cares? They might as well stick those 100k coins+ up to their arses and see if it fits, LOL

Cold storage? offline ^^

Depends how they are stored I guess  

Seriously? who cares? They might as well stick those 100k coins+ up to their arses and see if it fits, LOL

I wonder what the Winklevoss twins have done or intend to do with their 100K+ BCH coins.

Yes those that had BTC in a wallet they owned the keys for had a choice and the ones in wallets where the coins were split had a choice but when they had BTC in a wallet where the BCH balance has not yet been released then no they didn't have a choice their balance is locked and cannot be touched until released and only then are they able to have the choice if they wand to hold or sell

users always have a choice, IMHO

Just more coins to be flooded to the market don't know how many they held though but the more that are unlocked and come to the market the more accurate the BCH value will be because so far it's taking into consideration coins that are locked up and the users have no choice.

There are these to now be released and moved/sold, xapo that need to be moved or sold and coinbase in january 

Just more coins to be flooded to the market don't know how many they held though but the more that are unlocked and come to the market the more accurate the BCH value will be because so far it's taking into consideration coins that are locked up and the users have no choice.

There are these to now be released and moved/sold, xapo that need to be moved or sold and coinbase in january 

lol, who gives a flying shit about that exchange anyways, not even in top ten list.

We are pleased to announce that as of Saturday, October 7, 2017, Gemini will allow all customers to view their BCH balance and request a withdrawal via the BCH withdrawal request page.  If you choose to request a BCH withdrawal, your entire BCH balance will be transferred to your chosen withdrawal address.

 

BCH requests are not sent onto the blockchain immediately. The first time we will process all submitted BCH withdrawal requests will be Wednesday, October 11 at 1pm EDT. After that point, requests will be honored within 5 business days from the time of your request. Example: If you request on Saturday, October 21, 2017, your transfer will be executed on or by Friday, October 27, 2017.

 

Although we do not currently have plans to open order books for BCH trading, we will continue to update our customers as the BCH situation evolves further.

Segwit2x is nothing short of a coup attempt by businesses & miners in the Bitcoin space to oust the core developers of the Bitcoin code and force their control in the direction of Bitcoin technical development.

That is it, in a nutshell. This takeover attempt lead by Barry Silbert’s New York Agreement is veiled (albeit somewhat thinly in my mind) by the Segwit & big block debate to take attention away from the true intention of the miners & businesses. The ambition of Bitcoin miners & businesses will always inherently lean toward centralized control as they are unwilling to sacrifice efficiency for network security. This intention is in stark contrast to the aspirations of the average Bitcoin users who desire security and decentralization above all else. While there exists some debate between users regarding block size I believe even those who champion a push for larger blocks would outright condemn the ensuring totalitarian control over the network.

We must realize as a community that the Segwit2x code is not the argument, whether you desire big or small blocks, Segwit or no Segwit it is not relevant. The point remains the method by which the centralized mining cartels & businesses are attempting to force this change through the protocol and what is likely to happen in the future should they succeed. Should Segwit2x client change be successful;

A) It will be proven without a doubt that the Bitcoin network with all its hash power security and global scale CAN BE gamed. Any protocol changes that the miners / businesses want or are PAID / COERCED to want can be made, full stop. If they want Bitcoin to be inflationary rather than deflationary or to have 42 million minable coins rather than 21 million its just a matter of 1’s and 0’s at this point.

B) Power of development for the Bitcoin project will be taken out of the hands of the Core development team. The same team that has kept the Bitcoin network secure and stable with near 100% uptime for the past 8+ years. It is anyone’s guess who will stay on to develop the Segwit2x client.

C) Bitcoin’s status as a decentralized currency will be stripped. Bitcoins future will be entirely in the hands of centralized business’s and mining bodies. I am sure they will form some type of administrative group to discuss THEIR needs. The users will not be represented. (Sound familiar?).

D) There is no guarantee that the Bitcoin project will even remain open source. Once enough hash power and economic support lend themselves to the Segwit2x client the new miner controlled development team can easily flip the switch to closed source is they so desired.

The miners and businesses operating on the Bitcoin blockchain are entirely incentivized to centralize the networks development & operation as much as is possible. Centralized control will always be more efficient than decentralized consensus and thus adds to the bottom lines of businesses and miners alike. The users MUST NOT allow these bodies to take control of the network. Miners and business’s exist to serve the users & the network, NOT the other way around.

I suppose it is in the nature of human beings to desire power and control over others. Why this is exactly I can’t say, but I doubt anyone would argue the point. An attack of this type was bound to occur sooner or later in the Bitcoin space, I had no doubts of this. However I am taken back a bit by the lack of common understanding of exactly what is taking place here. For years a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network was in the forefront of every users mind and yet in the midst of a hostile takeover attempt all I see is complacency. Many posts on Reddit and Twitter are content to see that Segwit will be pushed through “in some form” but take no account to the method by which it occurs. They have been so aptly sold on the benefits of Segwit that they pay little attention to men pulling the strings behind the cloth. We would be far better off to have Bitcoin as it stands today without Segregated Witness then to allow manipulation of the protocol in this manner.

The only true power we as users have is to educate one another on the issues, whether they lie in the technical, economical or game theory realms as we move forward. At this point it seems clear that decentralized systems such as Bitcoin will always be under attack by centralized authorities wishing to take more control. If the Bitcoin project is to succeed the user base will need to be dynamic in their defense & understanding.

Coinbase is selectively enforcing their support for controversial hard forks.

Legally speaking, they don't have a valid reason to embrace Bcash and Silbert2X while ignoring Bitcoin Gold, CLAMS, Litecoin Classic, Ethereum Dark, etc.

It's far worse an indiscretion than merely arbitrary or random inclusion/exclusion, because Coinbase has investors and advisers drowning in DCG conflicts-of-interest.

Brian Armstong should have stuck to his guns and actually had the balls to enforce his original "If you want your stupid Bcash then get your coins the fuck off Coinbase before the fork" policy instead of (yet again) being a total cuck and surrendering to the mob of Free Shit Army whiners.

By refusing to fight and win the good fight (against over-entitled moonchildren) sooner, he's doomed Coinbase to losing a much bigger war in the long term.

To elaborate, Coinbase's massive insurance/regulatory compliance overhead compounds the technical infrastructure costs of supporting new coins/forks.

Thus Coinbase must make profit faster than it spends resources supporting controversial hard forks.

So, given Coinbases's new "We Cuck To All Shitty Forks Now" policy they will (given a sufficient number of forks to support) go bankrupt.

"Welcome to Coinbase.  We lose money on each new Bitcoin fork but make up for it in volume!" -Brian Armstrong basically

Ha ha, just kidding.  We all know Coinbase will only support the controversial forks that keep the drug-money-laundering CIA shekels from Barry flowing into their next financing round.

https://twitter.com/bradmillscan/status/916440400944082944

https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/223


Well, that pretty much says it all? EDIT: or not... wtf: