Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees - page 83. (Read 704506 times)

About the stable Bitcoin protocol and building things on top of it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YG8gqBd3Mg

Frankly it doesn't matter if SV has more hash rate at this point. It's already lost the battle. It will be its own coin. The exchanges aren't about to backtrack on their decisions -- there's no need. They're comfortable with ABC being BCH. Nobody wants anything to do with Crag's fork of an altcoin. He's revealed himself to be a whiny little bitch. Now he's resorting to threatening lawsuits -- the sign of a true loser. You can argue with me until you're blue in the face, and I have but one word for you: scoreboard.

http://hashwars.cash/

Icutgrass205 seems to use a lot of misplaced commas.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1696712.50;imode

Well think about it this way, with DSV there comes legal issues. SV is the closest thing to the original bitcoin available. Remember also that a lot of the hash power on ABC is rented hash power from btc mining pools. SV can scale for the world, and as for the hash rate. Squire mining will supposedly be releasing new asics next year that are 50% more efficient than anything on the market. That could be rumor though, I guess only time will tell.

but i think  a battle between Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin ABC , is currently trailing in the battle for the largest share of the network’s hashing power and right now, ABC controls BCH , bch abc will win

SV for the long term investment, it will scale better. Locked down protocol means more enterprises will be confident in building something on top of the protocol. Unlike ABC who's devs want to make changes to the protocol every 6 months.

so what should i buy now? bch abc or  bch sv?  which one  will go to moon?

No, I don't think their hands are tied at all. That's another of Wright's ridiculous statements. Bitmain has a HUGE investment in BCH assets. Not only they can, as a business, do whatever deemed necessary to protect that investment but they are compelled to. As long as you can reasonably justify (even if wrong in the end) the decision it is ok from a corporate/shareholders perspective.

Also, not only Antpool has joined the party directly but we don't know if they have redirected some of their hash to Bitcoin.com pool. Also, we don't know if they are contributing to some of Bitcoin.com expenses on loses (compensation that could be in BTC, BCH, USD or even free machines and/or future discounts).

To me there is not much difference using "owned" vs rented hash... in the end it is all a cost you are willing to assume. And in none of both cases it implies a long term commitment, as you are equally losing money for spending the hash in loss until you can't or don't want anymore.

It is hard to guess where additional hashpower could come from for SV, but it is not hard at all to guess multiple sources where hashpower can come from for ABC:

- From their actual KNOWN hashpower currently mining BTC and other SHA256 coins.
- From newly produced not yet sold machines. They could even sell them on discount to other miners in exchange of mining deals of ABC.

The thing is, BCH was a minority chain of BTC. Satoshi already warned about the most probable fate of any minority chain. For some reason, it has been artificially allowed to coexist along BTC besides sharing the same PoW algo where BTC is king. That was always risky for reasons now evident.

About the checkpoints... I think all exchanges are using it, what I don't know is how frequent the checkpoint is. If it were me, I would set a checkpoint with a frequency higher than the minimum confirmation requirement to avoid double spends (which is probably the biggest fear of exchanges).

Sure, I understand it. You don't seem to understand it however. For your characterizations are hyperbole.

Well, from one perspective, such an action would be merely Nakamoto Consensus writ large. In orphaning the ABC chain, possibly repeatedly, the forks would be healed, and there would be a single Bitcoin Cash going forward.

I imagine civil suits may ensue. However, a cursory reading of the last paragraph of the white paper would seem to be dispositive toward dismissing any such suit.


Unknown, but seems unlikely. The hypothetical requires assumption of more SV mining power than ABC has displayed to date. It is certainly possible that ABC has also been mining a secret empty block SV chain as well. Hard to envision, however, where such hash power may have come from. ABC could also start later with greater hash, but that necessarily limits the depth of the potential reorg.

The 'centralized checkpoint' is an interesting twist as well. How much economic weight is running code incorporating this feature?

I was actually kind of surprised that the massive redirect from BTC to ABC came from Bitcoin.com. I had envisioned it coming from Bitmain. Perhaps Bitmain's hands are tied due to the pending IPO?

He didnt say HE, he said the miners would be able to mine those coins down the line.. You like to twist words a lot dont you.

Impossibru. Doge genesis not derived from Satoshi genesis.

So 'splain me The SegWit Omnibus Changeset then?

The funny part is that Bitcoin Cash in the form of SV is the closest thing to a Bitcoin Protocol 0.1 that we've had in almost a decade.

So you choose to ignore the part where Craig recently said ...
He had plans to steal users funds.."sunken treasure"  (User funds, is all of us...long term holders,dev funds, investors money, exchanges,whales wallets...)
and wanted to make users pay more than once to store info on the blockchain...like paying for gas on ETH.
Do you understand this?

Even if there were some truth to the Squire/Samsung story (which I strongly don't think so) what you are describing are Wrights threats of attacking another coin (ABC) to cause maximum disruption (and presumably high economic loses) for no legitimate reason. Don't you think that action could have some serious legal ramifications?

And, even if it was considered not ilegal.... Don't you think ABC side could do the same to SV if they were willing to? Fortunately it seems like they don't want to go that route, unlike Wright... or this would be a clear case of mutual destruction.

Fully agree on the entertaining and instructive part though.

You can sit here on the forums and cry about CSW being a mean person, I'll keep supporting him and his quest to bring p2p electronic cash for the world that can scale on chain. PoSM doesn't work, we will see what the markets say in the future bitcoin is an economic system, not a get rich quick scheme.

I'll stand alone against the trolls, do your research my friend.

It also doesn't change the fact that the media and the markets have decided he's a lying loser. You backed the wrong horse. Arguing with strangers on a forum aren't going to help you recoup your losses. Have a nice morning/afternoon/evening.