Topic: BCH bleeding death? - page 2. (Read 2587 times)
I think BCH will recover a bit after a chaotic and crazy november. People are pulling out of it because there are way too many bitcoins out there and they want some free coins in case the fork creates two separate chains, but eventually it'll come back
BCC will fail. BCC price driving force is in China. They did not anticipate that their government will pull the plug on them. Bitcoin gold might have a better future.
That is what they want you to think, so you dump your BCH at fire-sale prices.
Chinese government and Bitmain are likely working closely together on increasing their share of The Real Bitcoin pie. Perhaps China will open the floodgates again when they are ready after all the fools have sold.
Have any of you ever played poker.
Told you so:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-12/bitcoin-explodes-5600-30-end-chinas-golden-week-holiday
If you thought it was all finally ended when China closed the exchanges, think again. We're going to have endless rumours about how they are going to open the exchanges again, even though no sensible country bans and then reopens things on a six-monthly basis over and over.
If you thought it was all finally ended when China closed the exchanges, think again. We're going to have endless rumours about how they are going to open the exchanges again, even though no sensible country bans and then reopens things on a six-monthly basis over and over.
miners expect Bitcoingold to come so bitcoincash falls rapidly.
I think Bitcoincash can not survive for a long time
If bitcoin dies then cash bitcoin gold not even born. Now the prices of all altcoins will go down. This is because bitcoin began its rapid growth. Everyone wants to make money and so the market altcoins do not have enough money. After stopping the growth of bitcoin will start a backlash and the price of altcoins will go up and the price of bitcoin will decline.I think Bitcoincash can not survive for a long time
What i dont think btc gold will be affected even if btc cash would go down eventually. They are separate coins but derived from the same coin. Along with other altcoin, they dont affect each other even if their platform goes up or down.
miners expect Bitcoingold to come so bitcoincash falls rapidly.
I think Bitcoincash can not survive for a long time
If bitcoin dies then cash bitcoin gold not even born. Now the prices of all altcoins will go down. This is because bitcoin began its rapid growth. Everyone wants to make money and so the market altcoins do not have enough money. After stopping the growth of bitcoin will start a backlash and the price of altcoins will go up and the price of bitcoin will decline. I think Bitcoincash can not survive for a long time
Very interesting. I respect your knowledge, Hyperme.sh 
It was supposed to be some bland, boring topic, a question asked, a few more or less educated guesses as answers, but thanks to your involvement we were given a chance to learn a lot about Bitcoin. I must say, I was getting confused in all that fork drama, now everything is much clearer. Can we have more? In the meantime, going back to page 1, need to read it all again.
It was supposed to be some bland, boring topic, a question asked, a few more or less educated guesses as answers, but thanks to your involvement we were given a chance to learn a lot about Bitcoin. I must say, I was getting confused in all that fork drama, now everything is much clearer. Can we have more? In the meantime, going back to page 1, need to read it all again.
Following quotes are paraphrased to hide identity.
When the community decides to support a HF, that is also destroying immutability. But the 51% attack to take already confirmed SegWit donations is not even possible if users do not use a brain dead SegWit wallet which issues “pay to anyone” transactions. It is the creation of SegWit wallets which has enabled a booty to pile up which enables a 51% attack. That is why I said SegWit wallets are a security attack on Bitcoin. Yet you somehow think the drunk-on-koolaid community is important.
Your delusions about community are hilarious. You drink your slave masters’ koolaid.
There is no consensus until the whales have voted. The whales have not voted yet, they’re waiting for the SegWit booty to pile up.
There’s no damn way the whales are going to allow that SegWit crap. Absolutely zero. Blockstream is a gimmick to take BTC from fools who are fooled by the concept of democracy applied to cryptocurrency.
You claim you are for immutability but then you talk out two sides of your mouth in a duplicitous manner.
Are you for immutability or not?
The whales are. Go against them at your peril.
Do you really think those whiny faggots at Blockstream are relevant? The devil at Trilema who loves porn is in control (well he and other whales who hate democracy and love immutability). And you hate it don’t you because he is so immoral? Cryptocurrency is not about any one person’s morals. It is about protocol and game theory. Please. Understand. This.
There is no hardfork required for miners to take the SegWit donations ongoing. The hardfork is only to collect and double-spend the SegWit that was already confirmed in blocks. But even this “51% attack” is entirely legal in the protocol. A 51% attack is not an illegal outcome. The protocol is a competitive game theory and there is nothing illegal when adhering to the protocol. Not even immoral. Perfectly just.
You do not seem to understand that what ever is legal in the protocol is just and right and good. The law is the protocol, not your wishy-washy ambiguous idea of what the community decided.
The SegWit that is being issued is “pay to anyone”. Miners taking that while conforming to Satoshi’s protocol is not equivalent to mutating the protocol (in Satoshi’s protocol the SegWit transactions are “pay to anyone”). It is entirely within the protocol. Whereas increasing the money supply limit would change the protocol. So you’re incorrect to equate the two as functionally equivalent. One is protocol legal, the other is protocol illegal.
Incorrect. You can’t equate any fork to Satoshi’s protocol because no fork is ever final. This is why only Satoshi’s protocol can ever be the winner. Nothing else has any certain lasting stability. If the community idiotically approves a new protocol which creates a booty to fund a 51% attack, why are they surprised when their consensus is not stable? Lol. Really you’re smarter than this aren’t you.
You fundamentally do not understand that proof-of-work is never final. It is probabilistic. There is never any final community consensus.
You have some basic holes in your understanding of Byzantine systems. There are systems such as Byzantine Agreement which do reach finality but they have a liveness threshold and can stall. Proof-of-work is probabilistic and can never stall (unless there are no miners at all so we can say the liveness threshold is asymptotically ~0), but it is never final. My new decentralized ledger algorithm is also probabilistic but it is not proof-of-work and it is not proof-of-stake. It is something totally new which scales better, can’t be subverted by the whales, and which does not consume electricity.
No you fail to understand. The SegWit is going to be removed from BTC by miners taking it as donations, because flies go to honey and miners go to profitability of booties.
BCH is only going to benefit in that while BTC is being attacked, it will be a safe haven. And also for big blockers who do not want to return to 1MB as the SegWit scaling lie is totally obliterated.
Lol. Look at the Rube Goldberg machine they’ve created which is all for making donations to the miners and they’ve sold you the users on the idea that it is technological astute.
I also told everyone in my private group that BTC would go back up to $5100+ before the alts started moving back up. Which is precisely what happened.
Follow-up discussion excerpted only for the most important parts and also again paraphased to conceal writing style:
Well in the case of SegWit is very simple. The reality is that SegWit creates a booty that incentivizes (funds!) a 51% attack. The Bitcoin whitepaper states the security assumption that miners will not have the private keys to most transactions otherwise the security is destroyed. So SegWit is a direct attack on Bitcoin’s original security model.
Other bug fixes to Bitcoin which were apparently accepted by The Real Bitcoin, apparently improved security not weakened it.
My stance is that any other changes are altcoins and should not be marketed as Bitcoin. If we want to improve a cryptocurrency then airdrop it and fork it. But name it something else. Do not cheat like Blockstream did and force a contentious fight which to some extent arguably stalled the entire sector for 2 years.
Cryptocurrencies that have ongoing developers (and able to be exchanged for other currencies not just spent on goods & services so thus having an expectation of capital appreciation) are securities and have to be regulated. See the new SAFT whitepaper which I recently analysed for more on that.
If the initial protocol has not been designed to be secure against 51% attacks, then its not viable. And this is why I explained recently at the inception of this discussion about SegWit, that long-term proof-of-work is not viable.
My point is that the ability of the community to HF is design flaw of proof-of-work. And it will get worse as transaction fees rise relative to block rewards, for the game theory research reasons I recently shared.
SegWit was a HF. Any fork which continues where SegWit forked off, is Satoshi’s protocol. So the former is an altcoin and the latter is Bitcoin.
Actually afaik the “pay to anyone” aspect of SegWit is compatible with Satoshi’s protocol (and allows the miners to take them as donations) and thus really any fork containing SegWit transactions is not a HF, except that SegWit also included other changes which required a HF. In any case, a fork which accepts SegWit transactions as donations is not a fork of Satoshi. Thus no HF ever occurred. SegWit is the only HF here in this case.
Any HF which funds and basically forces economically returning to the former protocol is self-defeating and responsible for its own demise.
So the objectivity here is that the possibility of HFs remove all objectivity. Thus the ability of 51% attacks creates subjectivity and thus the only objective solution is that all HFs should be considered altcoins. No anointing by politics. All dispute is solved economically in free markets when all HFs compete against each other as altcoins.
Any one who wants to create new functionality can airdrop to an altcoin or create an altcoin with an entirely new distribution.
Otherwise all we have is discord. Creating altcoins enables the market to vote with its money. Nobody should be anointed except by the market. Blockstream employed deception and other tactics to try to subvert the free market process, but they are going to have their heads handed to them on a silver platter as they deserve for their inept and corrupt malfeasance.
The free market works.
True only because Rube Goldberg machines self-destruct.
In software adding complexity can never be slowed down (it is like a snowball that requires more and more fixes and changes) except by extricating the cancer. So your assumption was misplaced on the face of it, but you’re rescued by the fact that complexity bloat is complete failure in software engineering and will thus cause immutability by self-destruction.
Quote
Possibly BCH could go to ~$1500 after the coinbase dump which may drive it lower.
A contentious HF to steal SegWit txns would be rejected by our community thus is not in long-term interest of the miners. If 51% of the miners can implement any change they want then miners can do anything they want which means community is irrelevant and immutability is non-existent.
A contentious HF to steal SegWit txns would be rejected by our community thus is not in long-term interest of the miners. If 51% of the miners can implement any change they want then miners can do anything they want which means community is irrelevant and immutability is non-existent.
When the community decides to support a HF, that is also destroying immutability. But the 51% attack to take already confirmed SegWit donations is not even possible if users do not use a brain dead SegWit wallet which issues “pay to anyone” transactions. It is the creation of SegWit wallets which has enabled a booty to pile up which enables a 51% attack. That is why I said SegWit wallets are a security attack on Bitcoin. Yet you somehow think the drunk-on-koolaid community is important.
Your delusions about community are hilarious. You drink your slave masters’ koolaid.
There is no consensus until the whales have voted. The whales have not voted yet, they’re waiting for the SegWit booty to pile up.
There’s no damn way the whales are going to allow that SegWit crap. Absolutely zero. Blockstream is a gimmick to take BTC from fools who are fooled by the concept of democracy applied to cryptocurrency.
You claim you are for immutability but then you talk out two sides of your mouth in a duplicitous manner.
Are you for immutability or not?
The whales are. Go against them at your peril.
Do you really think those whiny faggots at Blockstream are relevant? The devil at Trilema who loves porn is in control (well he and other whales who hate democracy and love immutability). And you hate it don’t you because he is so immoral? Cryptocurrency is not about any one person’s morals. It is about protocol and game theory. Please. Understand. This.
Quote
No functional difference exists between a contentious hardfork to reverse and steal SegWit and one to just give the miners extra BTC by increasing the limit on the eventual money supply.
There is no hardfork required for miners to take the SegWit donations ongoing. The hardfork is only to collect and double-spend the SegWit that was already confirmed in blocks. But even this “51% attack” is entirely legal in the protocol. A 51% attack is not an illegal outcome. The protocol is a competitive game theory and there is nothing illegal when adhering to the protocol. Not even immoral. Perfectly just.
You do not seem to understand that what ever is legal in the protocol is just and right and good. The law is the protocol, not your wishy-washy ambiguous idea of what the community decided.
The SegWit that is being issued is “pay to anyone”. Miners taking that while conforming to Satoshi’s protocol is not equivalent to mutating the protocol (in Satoshi’s protocol the SegWit transactions are “pay to anyone”). It is entirely within the protocol. Whereas increasing the money supply limit would change the protocol. So you’re incorrect to equate the two as functionally equivalent. One is protocol legal, the other is protocol illegal.
Quote
You view these as functionally distinct presumably because (of an either correct or misplaced) preference for the original BTC implementation but that implementation is no more it was altered via a consensus decision so for better or for worse SegWit is bitcoin now as it was activated with broad if imperfect consensus.
Incorrect. You can’t equate any fork to Satoshi’s protocol because no fork is ever final. This is why only Satoshi’s protocol can ever be the winner. Nothing else has any certain lasting stability. If the community idiotically approves a new protocol which creates a booty to fund a 51% attack, why are they surprised when their consensus is not stable? Lol. Really you’re smarter than this aren’t you.
You fundamentally do not understand that proof-of-work is never final. It is probabilistic. There is never any final community consensus.
You have some basic holes in your understanding of Byzantine systems. There are systems such as Byzantine Agreement which do reach finality but they have a liveness threshold and can stall. Proof-of-work is probabilistic and can never stall (unless there are no miners at all so we can say the liveness threshold is asymptotically ~0), but it is never final. My new decentralized ledger algorithm is also probabilistic but it is not proof-of-work and it is not proof-of-stake. It is something totally new which scales better, can’t be subverted by the whales, and which does not consume electricity.
Quote
If SegWit is critically flawed then BCH will win by simply out competing BTC and BTC will die a slow death gradually with time.
No you fail to understand. The SegWit is going to be removed from BTC by miners taking it as donations, because flies go to honey and miners go to profitability of booties.
BCH is only going to benefit in that while BTC is being attacked, it will be a safe haven. And also for big blockers who do not want to return to 1MB as the SegWit scaling lie is totally obliterated.
Quote
But I have not been convinced that that is going to happen the majority of the talent seems to be backing BTC but I will of course continue to follow this closely.
Lol. Look at the Rube Goldberg machine they’ve created which is all for making donations to the miners and they’ve sold you the users on the idea that it is technological astute.
Quote
You have been more accurate then not with your predictions on price fluctuations so I have learned not to ignore them.
I also told everyone in my private group that BTC would go back up to $5100+ before the alts started moving back up. Which is precisely what happened.
Follow-up discussion excerpted only for the most important parts and also again paraphased to conceal writing style:
Quote
You imply that all non-initial conditions are invalid, despite protocol changes achieved via consensus HFs. What criteria do you apply which allows for past Bitcoin changes that were made and presumably accepted by all of us?
Well in the case of SegWit is very simple. The reality is that SegWit creates a booty that incentivizes (funds!) a 51% attack. The Bitcoin whitepaper states the security assumption that miners will not have the private keys to most transactions otherwise the security is destroyed. So SegWit is a direct attack on Bitcoin’s original security model.
Other bug fixes to Bitcoin which were apparently accepted by The Real Bitcoin, apparently improved security not weakened it.
My stance is that any other changes are altcoins and should not be marketed as Bitcoin. If we want to improve a cryptocurrency then airdrop it and fork it. But name it something else. Do not cheat like Blockstream did and force a contentious fight which to some extent arguably stalled the entire sector for 2 years.
Cryptocurrencies that have ongoing developers (and able to be exchanged for other currencies not just spent on goods & services so thus having an expectation of capital appreciation) are securities and have to be regulated. See the new SAFT whitepaper which I recently analysed for more on that.
Quote
A 51% attack on either the initial protocol or a subsequent protocol achieved by HF are functionally equivalent.
If the initial protocol has not been designed to be secure against 51% attacks, then its not viable. And this is why I explained recently at the inception of this discussion about SegWit, that long-term proof-of-work is not viable.
My point is that the ability of the community to HF is design flaw of proof-of-work. And it will get worse as transaction fees rise relative to block rewards, for the game theory research reasons I recently shared.
Quote
Your distinction seems to be an arbitrary value judgement.
SegWit was a HF. Any fork which continues where SegWit forked off, is Satoshi’s protocol. So the former is an altcoin and the latter is Bitcoin.
Actually afaik the “pay to anyone” aspect of SegWit is compatible with Satoshi’s protocol (and allows the miners to take them as donations) and thus really any fork containing SegWit transactions is not a HF, except that SegWit also included other changes which required a HF. In any case, a fork which accepts SegWit transactions as donations is not a fork of Satoshi. Thus no HF ever occurred. SegWit is the only HF here in this case.
Any HF which funds and basically forces economically returning to the former protocol is self-defeating and responsible for its own demise.
So the objectivity here is that the possibility of HFs remove all objectivity. Thus the ability of 51% attacks creates subjectivity and thus the only objective solution is that all HFs should be considered altcoins. No anointing by politics. All dispute is solved economically in free markets when all HFs compete against each other as altcoins.
Any one who wants to create new functionality can airdrop to an altcoin or create an altcoin with an entirely new distribution.
Otherwise all we have is discord. Creating altcoins enables the market to vote with its money. Nobody should be anointed except by the market. Blockstream employed deception and other tactics to try to subvert the free market process, but they are going to have their heads handed to them on a silver platter as they deserve for their inept and corrupt malfeasance.
The free market works.
Quote
Regarding immutability my current thinking is that the protocol will gradually move to immutability over time as consensus for change becomes harder to achieve.
True only because Rube Goldberg machines self-destruct.
In software adding complexity can never be slowed down (it is like a snowball that requires more and more fixes and changes) except by extricating the cancer. So your assumption was misplaced on the face of it, but you’re rescued by the fact that complexity bloat is complete failure in software engineering and will thus cause immutability by self-destruction.
miners expect Bitcoingold to come so bitcoincash falls rapidly.
I think Bitcoincash can not survive for a long time
I think Bitcoincash can not survive for a long time
Bitmain will abandon it
What is your source for that news?
One of the things I learned about investor psychology is that the majority is always dead wrong. With so many comments about the imminent death of BCH, we must be very close to a bottom and new move up.
I think there is a 60-70%+ probability Bitcoin Cash will get a massive boost in November, because of this issue:
Segwit2x and Bitcoin Cash target mostly the same public (big blockers). I believe that Segwit2x will have a hard time to win the fork battle in November. Only if the whole NYA "cartel" keeps supporting it and they can maintain >80% of the hashrate then Segwit2x has a chance against "Bitcoin Core" to become "the Bitcoin".
But if Segwit2x fails to become the "primary" Bitcoin chain, then it will very likely disappear relatively fast. Why? Because it is not really what most Big blockers want. It's a very moderate compromise for them, and if it isn't successful in becoming "the Bitcoin", then Big blockers will very likely support Bitcoin Cash massively.
I view Bitcoin Cash as an experiment and not as a serious Bitcoin competitor. But I still have my "airdrop coins" and will hold them until November because I think it's likely they will appreciate.
If the upcoming segwit2x has problems I think Bitcoin Cash will be interested investors.
Segwit2x and Bitcoin Cash target mostly the same public (big blockers). I believe that Segwit2x will have a hard time to win the fork battle in November. Only if the whole NYA "cartel" keeps supporting it and they can maintain >80% of the hashrate then Segwit2x has a chance against "Bitcoin Core" to become "the Bitcoin".
But if Segwit2x fails to become the "primary" Bitcoin chain, then it will very likely disappear relatively fast. Why? Because it is not really what most Big blockers want. It's a very moderate compromise for them, and if it isn't successful in becoming "the Bitcoin", then Big blockers will very likely support Bitcoin Cash massively.
I view Bitcoin Cash as an experiment and not as a serious Bitcoin competitor. But I still have my "airdrop coins" and will hold them until November because I think it's likely they will appreciate.
And you know this was Bitmain’s plan all along to feign support for SegWit, but kill it in multiple steps.
The first step is yes killing 2x. The NY agreement was always a farce that fails in November. That was part of the plan.
The second step is attacking SegWit.
Going to be a lot of shocked people around here when BCH hits $1500, just like when someone said buy LTC at $6 and it hit $85.
miners expect Bitcoingold to come so bitcoincash falls rapidly.
I think Bitcoincash can not survive for a long time
I think Bitcoincash can not survive for a long time
bch will continue to exist, we can not compare with Bitcoingold because it has not appeared, if more stable than bch then the bad possibilities are definitely there. I think bch will continue to innovate and increase value. We can see it with blockchain that began to welcome its existence.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/blockchaininfo-releases-full-bitcoin-cash-support-users-receive-coins
https://cointelegraph.com/news/blockchaininfo-releases-full-bitcoin-cash-support-users-receive-coins
Also it is one the few coins that can still trade on ShapeShift. ShapeShift has been purging many of the ICOs tokens ostensibly due to securities regulation concerns.
bch will continue to exist, we can not compare with Bitcoingold because it has not appeared, if more stable than bch then the bad possibilities are definitely there. I think bch will continue to innovate and increase value. We can see it with blockchain that began to welcome its existence.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/blockchaininfo-releases-full-bitcoin-cash-support-users-receive-coins
https://cointelegraph.com/news/blockchaininfo-releases-full-bitcoin-cash-support-users-receive-coins
I had high hopes with bitcoin cash,the price did go to like some 600-700$
I sold at $800s. I expected it to decline. I bought more at $350. Probably premature. I should have waited for $240 - $290. But I was overworking, sleepless when I made that decision, so I was not as clear thinking as now.
I don’t have very high hopes for it. I’m not expecting it to take over and become the real Bitcoin. I am expecting another trade up to maybe $1000 to $1500, presuming the entire market does not collapse and traders take profits on BTC and want to trade into something undervalued.
I view BCH more as a safe haven away from attacks that could come on SegWit. And as a trading vehicle for profit taking on BTC. And as the only BTC clone airdrop with any legitimacy at all, given Bitmain’s support. And given that if anyone was going to attack SegWit with a mining attack, I would think Bitmain might be the one with such a scheme up their sleeve.
Hi guys,
Seems BCH is going down fast. Is this the moment were BCH is going to bleed death?
Will the downtrent turn or continue?
Please let me know what you think
I don't know,I had high hopes with bitcoin cash,the price did go to like some 600-700$ but after the crash of all the crypto markets ,it hasnt been recovering since and its price is now a little over 300$. Now that bitcoin gold is coming,eventually bitcoin cash will have to go down Seems BCH is going down fast. Is this the moment were BCH is going to bleed death?
Will the downtrent turn or continue?
Please let me know what you think
. But still I do have some hope left and maybe,it will recover on the long run,fingers crossed.Actual BCC Price should be now :
1 BCC = 0.08125 BTC
1 BCC = 0.08125 BTC
$5700 x 0.08125 = $463
The real Bitcoin is what exists as the main chain, preferred by the people who use it most. It can be a fork if it ends up like that one day, it can be the old original chain. It does not matter. The real Bitcoin is not fixed, it will evolve. Immutable as ever, on the path/chain most chosen.
The Real Bitcoin is the one the whales decide is the main chain. I do not think whales like insecure SegWit except if they can mine SegWit transactions as donations to themselves per Satoshi’s protocol wherein SegWit are “pay to anyone”.
The rest of us do not matter. We’re irrelevant. If you want democracy, then cryptocurrency is not the correct place to be.
Re: Bitcoin cash or Bitcoin gold?
I think both of them will don't have any value because they are just Bitcoin clones
I think both of them will don't have any value because they are just Bitcoin clones
Then SegWit has no value also because it is just a clone with some insecure scaling shit that will crash and burn. But are you holding SegWit lineage or real BTC protocol tokens? Do you even know? Just saying “BTC” is meaningless if you do not know the lineage of your tokens. SegWit lineage tokens can be hypothetically double-spent at any time in the future by miners.
But if you need to take profits on BTC at some nosebleed prices, what token will you buy? I would buy the one that is at ATL not one that is near an ATH.
Given all the uncertainty that could exist as to what BTC really is (is it SegWit, SegWit2x, or Satoshi protocol?), seems to me that a token which is entirely separated but essentially a Bitcoin clone with a scaling solution, may catch a bid as BTC moves to levels where some traders want to take some profits and buy something that is low so they can sell high.
Now imagine an attack on SegWit begins (by Bitmain?) to steal all the SegWit transactions and gains support because the booty will be shared with other miners. Wouldn’t there be a stampede to buy BCH? Why would they buy Bitcoin gold which is entirely unproven with a new PoW that has no mining cartel support. If you want Bitcoin gold, why not buy Monero instead then you get a GPU mined coin (for now) and some degree of anonymity as well. Also Monero has an algorithmically scaling block size and active ongoing development (albeit somewhat slow perhaps). So you just buying the name and hype of Bitcoin gold with Equihash.
Afaics, BCH is the only one that is unique. It has the support of the mining cartel who might end up being the one who capitalizes on the SegWit booty. And it is at an ATL. And BTC is moving towards a nosebleed phase transition ATH.
But maybe I am wrong and BCH will be scorned and has no utility as a trading vehicle. Then why does LTC catch a bid? Perhaps LTC has been around longer, more active development?
Tension grows... Soon main miners will not stand and start dumping their coin and stop mining. This will be the end.
This happens with everything that is growing in this world. Like all the altcoins that are just created for specific purposes and then due to non-carefulness they are just ruined in nowhere. It seems easy but that create the panic and disturbance in crypto world. And often displays themselves as the dumps in market. They are just ruining crypto fame. 
I am not surprised. All bitcoin cash holders including miners were in for profit. Now bitcoin gold is coming and they will jump to it. They will take profit and get out. Same old story.
Bitcoin difficulty : 1.12 T (1120 G)
Bitcoin Cash difficulty : 91 G
1120 ... 1
91 ... A
A= 1x91 /1120 = 0.08125
Actual BCC Price should be now :
1 BCC = 0.08125 BTC
Bitcoin Cash difficulty : 91 G
1120 ... 1
91 ... A
A= 1x91 /1120 = 0.08125
Actual BCC Price should be now :
1 BCC = 0.08125 BTC
Mostly all btc forks are bs, just get rich quick schemes,
I hate what is happening to crypto lately...
There can be only one (team and btc).
Even worse - great alt project cannot swim up from under thousands of garbage projects.
People cant even read a WP today...
I hate what is happening to crypto lately...
There can be only one (team and btc).
Even worse - great alt project cannot swim up from under thousands of garbage projects.
People cant even read a WP today...
That is what they want you to think, so you dump your BCH at fire-sale prices.
Chinese government and Bitmain are likely working closely together on increasing their share of The Real Bitcoin pie. Perhaps China will open the floodgates again when they are ready after all the fools have sold.
Have any of you ever played poker.
SegWit is an insecure altcoin, which will be stolen and discarded.
Bitcoin gold is some nonsense about ASIC resistance, which can’t exist. Equihash has been analysed.
All the forks of The Real Bitcoin (aka BTCSatoshi not BTCSegWit) will probably die eventually. Immutability of Bitcoin is golden. Everything else rusts.
First time I have ever heard of BTCSatoshi, and you are simply not the first to claim the Real Bitcoin and you will hardly be the last. The real Bitcoin is what exists as the main chain, preferred by the people who use it most. It can be a fork if it ends up like that one day, it can be the old original chain. It does not matter. The real Bitcoin is not fixed, it will evolve. Immutable as ever, on the path/chain most chosen.
BCH is worthless to be honest, the new bitcoin fork bitcoin gold be the new hype project. So people will invest BCG instead of BCH. Avoid buying BCH.
BCC will fail. BCC price driving force is in China. They did not anticipate that their government will pull the plug on them. Bitcoin gold might have a better future.
That is what they want you to think, so you dump your BCH at fire-sale prices.
Chinese government and Bitmain are likely working closely together on increasing their share of The Real Bitcoin pie. Perhaps China will open the floodgates again when they are ready after all the fools have sold.
Have any of you ever played poker.
SegWit is an insecure altcoin, which will be stolen and discarded.
Bitcoin gold is some nonsense about ASIC resistance, which can’t exist. Equihash has been analysed.
All the forks of The Real Bitcoin (aka BTCSatoshi not BTCSegWit) will probably die eventually. Immutability of Bitcoin is golden. Everything else rusts.
You can flush both down the crapper quite simply because they are 'Chinese' driven.
You can see the price of Bitcoin Cash or WTF its called. Its crap and will always be crap and crap is worthless.
You can see the price of Bitcoin Cash or WTF its called. Its crap and will always be crap and crap is worthless.
Just like LTC $6 to $85 and NEO from pennies to $30. Yeah you’re a genius.
seem this is really truth. people still fall in love with bitcoin and doesnt make any move even bch is better
Btc price is soaring high and it is the factor that BCH price is tumbling . It will still happen and tak e a dip further as btc prices keep moving upwards. As it was created on event of fork such coins might not have a very good future in terms of elasticity and its demand.
Jump to: