Topic: Could bitcoin based physical coins gain value if BCC reigns supreme? (Read 1092 times)

You can't register an address without access to the private key.

How would one register for byteball with a casascius coin without redeeming it first? You can't send a tx from the key inside the coin, nor can you sign from it. You can claim CLAMS if it was funded before a certain date and no registration needed.

If there is a way, please let me know as I would want to register my coins!  

This thread is inherently useless as it is initiated with deep misunderstanding of the valuation of these coins and the proposed altcoin. BCH is not ruling anything, and physical premiums can only go one way: down. I have predicted this back in 2016, and the "prediction" has already fulfilled itself. Compare the premiums of pretty much anything 12 months ago in this section and now.

There is no airdrop. The fork technically beings in ~1 hour and 10 minutes, but in reality nothing happens until they actually mine a block with their consensus rules. Their hashrate, being pretty much nonexistent, makes this pretty unpredictable. The first block could take several days to be mined.

No worries, friend. Apology accepted, thanks for bringing us back! I think your comment is spot on, pre-fork BTC funded coins will have access to both chains, inherently making these coins more valuable than those that come after it.

As for self-funded or unfunded coins, technically they can be funded with anything. You could load them up with a million Doge even if the metal on the coins says "Bitcoins". And if they are funded after the fork they would not have access to both chains.

The airdrop of BCC only applies to bitcoins on the blockchain at the time of the fork - 12:20p UTC Aug 1st (i believe).

I think the first quality BCC coin could have value, especially if BCC fades away...it'll become this super meaningful relic of a truly important day in bitcoin history. More important than halving events or gold parity, etc.

Thanks - I came to the same conclusion earlier but wasn't able to post about the replays. Good call on the rest, thanks!

1 private key-holding Casascius Bitcoin entitles:
-main chain holdings
-BCC holdings (by existence)
-Byteball holdings (if registered)
-CLAM holdings (if registered)
-Stellar holdings (if registered)

Necessarily the sum has to be greater than itself alone.

As to BCC, my understanding (not certainty) is that replay attacks cannot happen because the format between chains is incompatible.

Yes, mine are all original 2012 and 2013, never redeemed and still funded.  Well, I guess I’ll be keeping them and see what happens after the fork.  It will be interesting...

If it was funded prior the the fork, it will have 2 balances - one on the BTC blockchain, and another on the BCC chain. So yes, you theoretically should be able to redeem both.

Personally, I'm a bit wary of replay attacks after googling around (Remember ETH/ETC fork?), but guess we'll see soon...

I’m a bit confused...so, when I redeem a physical bitcoin after the fork, will I be redeeming just the BTC? Or will I be able to redeem that coin for BTC and Bitcoin Cash?

Why not have 10 Bitcoins then, or maybe 20?  This is the fundamental problem that BCC introduces.  If there can be 2 Bitcoins, then there can be 100.  And the more versions/forks we have, the less relevant any of them become.

So it's not a question of whether or not BCC has a relevant use case compared to BTC, or that BTC needs to implement some scaling tech, because it certainly needs it.  The issues is that the job of educating the general public will become exponentially more difficult when you introduce multiple versions of what is essentially the same currency.  At best you will only dilute the value of each by the perceived value of all of them as one. 

It would make much more sense for the future if we could have found a way to keep it all once chain.  But as with all things in this world since time immemorial, greed and ego reign supreme.  And make no mistake, this fork is all about greed and power.   It is certainly not what is best for Bitcoin, cryptocurrenies in general, or bringing us any closer to mass-adoption. 

With that said, I hope I am the one who is wrong, because the fork is happening. 

Sorry all, I didn't mean to hijack this thread with my passionate ramblings.  My apologies.

On to the topic at hand, I agree that this fork could possibly be a boon for pre-fork funded coins since they will contain both tokens. 

JUPITYR raised a good question:

"The question I have is what about unfunded BTC denom coins that are funded after August 1st....do they still technically work on both chains?  Or are you funding them with either BTC or BCC?" 

I don't believe you'd be able to fund them with BCC because the public/private key associated with the coins is part of the bitcoin blockchain, not the new bcc blockchain.  I could be wrong.  If you could fund unfunded coins with bcc, I could see issues arise where bad actors market/sell coins as if they are loaded with btc.  It may require additional due diligence on our part.

Actually yes, because if you own a one bitcoin physical coin, this coin now(Considering that the coin is loaded) loaded with 1 btc+1bcc, so lets say, bcc worth 0.1btc, then your coin is loaded with 1.1btc approx, so it totally makes it worth more if you are trading it against bitcoin.

JUPITYR...like I said, I hope I'm wrong.

When I said Segwit was crap, I was referring to it being a bill of goods I believed was being shoved down out throats.  Not the tech itself. I should have have explained myself better.  

As to bitcoin being fundamentally a store of value, I couldn't disagree more.  The first application to run on the Bitcoin protocol was a CURRENCY application called...bitcoin.  And this new currency was, I believe, meant to give each and every citizen of the world sovereignty over their own money and not be held hostage by any government or private bank.  Store of value is awesome, but I think secondary.

And how does a hard fork confuse the public any more than a soft fork???  Most people I talk to don't even know about the hard fork/soft fork debate and they don't care really beyond how it affects price.  All of the different altcoins...THAT is what is confusing.  Why do we need them?
  Did you know that bitcoin can be used to write smart contracts...don't need Ethereum.  It can be a currency...don't need Dash or Zcash.  It can scale to 100,000 transactions per second...don't need lightning network.  At it's core it is able to do all of these things BUT it needs to scale.  My question was simply why didn't Core write and support code that would allow bitcoin to scale.  Curious.

I am of course going to support BCC and look forward to any physical coins that may come from it.  Why not?  Who knows, maybe we end up in a world with two bitcoins where one is a store of value and one is used as a currency.  Would that be bad?  I don't know, though I'd prefer one bitcoin to rule them all.

 

AV8RJEFF....SegWit is crap?  Yes, it is working terribly for Litecoin.   

Fundamentally BTC was only ever a store of value.  If it was meant to be a purely transaction based currency, then it would not have a 21 million hard cap and take ever increasing amounts of electricity and computational power to mine it.  You want a fiat-like transaction system, then you have Visa/MC and central banks who can create money at will and transmit it with little or no effort while racking up fees left and right on users of their system. 

No, Bitcoin does not NEED a hard fork and will only serve to confuse a populous already confused about cryptocurrencies in general.  BCC will lead to several forks of BTC and in the end we will all wish we kept it to one, because none of them may have much value when all is said and done.

Fattcat..chainsaw..av8..all excellent points! I am no expert either..that is why I will hold on to both. If one drops and the other rises..I will be covered. My btc will stay in my cold storage and I will ride the wave. Godspeed to BTC

It is my belief that things are quite the opposite!  I think the "bankers" and "wall street elitists" are backing the soft fork.  Here's why.

Segwit is CRAP!  It's a bill of goods being sold to all of us that don't really educate ourselves on the tech (95% of BTC users, including myself).  We are gullible and easily manipulated.  It solve some problems that we are suffering through, so on the surface we're all glad to have it, but it's a band aid at best.   

Bitcoin CAN scale all by itself.  Don't need Segwit.  Don't need lightning network.  It can scale right now.  BUT it needs a hard fork, which is a big deal to be sure, but not as big a deal as the Segwit camp makes it out to be.  Bitcoin as hard forked several times already.

Here's the deal...Segwit was better marketed.  Period!  And why?  I think Bitcoin Core sold out.  I can't prove it.  I have no evidence, but there is no other answer in my mind.  They could have written the code to scale and compete with Visa/MasterCard on transaction per second and give us low, low transaction fees.  But they didn't.  Why? 

This is why BCC was born, to be the Bitcoin we all really want.  Fast/instant transactions with low fees.  Segwit/Lightning won't/can't do this!

But I'm no expert and you're welcome to hate on me for this opinion.  I just try to listen to as many experts as I can and then read between the line.  Time will tell.  And for the record...I hope I'm wrong.

Sorry, I'm done rambling. 

Cheers all.


 

You hold the private keys. This gives you full choice. That is inarguably superior to having less choice.
The effect for Casascius coins is net positive.

If BCC grows in acceptance, thenBTC will eventually be shut out, or the chain will no loger support it. I think thats the idea behind enguaging SegWit2. The first SegWit  they wanted to enguage will do a soft fork....which, I think, is the one (if theres absolutely going to one or the other started up) that we want to start. Thats the one that will do a soft fork.

I'm guessing the BTCblockchain will be unstable for days...maybe even weeks...before we actually see how it reacts to everyone screwing with it. No one knows for certain which of the programs/in this PROGRAMMING WAR/ will manage to hold control. Which will give way to the other, at any specific point. My guess is, that all the best things of BTC will be targeted by ALL the participants in this PROGRAMMING WAR. Ultimate control will be the "spoils" and only 1 will win. As for my statement about the Chinese and a shit ton of miners signing an agreement to keep BCC a "competitive currency" it is relevant. THEY, the Chinese have been trying to knock out the American Dollar as the Global "standard" since the beginning of time. And if you think for 1 minute, that THIS wasn't part of the plan all along....you're sadly mistaken. IT'S ALL ABOUT HAVING CONTROL OFBTC....who will be the victor to control the future...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The Chinese, Core supporters, Bitcoin Unlimited, BCC...all of these people have: Programmers. The one who has the SMARTEST one, the most forward thinking one, a real stratigic thinker...will probably win.

Absolutely no thought whatsoever has gone into "what happens to the original BTC"? Therefore, at some point, we may ALL have to crack our graded coins and peel them, weather we want to or not. Or lose our azzes. Even if no ne else will say it. Soft fork? Hard fork? Our survival, Core, depends on which Segwit programmer out-thought the other and covered more "if-then" logic, and trapped the other in a never-ending loop. Digital programming war....plain and simple. Bitcoin is going to get schitzophrinic (sp?) and only after it smoothes out will we be able to know if we have to get crackin' or not.


Or....maybe I'm just wrong.

That is nice. Why not hold on to both? I mean all my coins will have both, and since I do not have plans on selling any BTC the new BCC will be an alternative investment. What if it climbs in value as well in time? Better than going to FIAT money.

Depending upon how things go after the fork, there could definitely be a premium for coins funded prior to August 1st, 2017 since they will contain coins that can be redeemed on either chain.

The question I have is what about unfunded BTC denom coins that are funded after August 1st....do they still technically work on both chains?  Or are you funding them with either BTC or BCC?

So for example...on August 5th, I fund one of my previously unfunded Lealana 0.1 brass tokens with BTC.  Since the chains are identical, could I take that coin I funded on BTC and cash it in on BCC's chain as well?  Or are the two chains only identical up to the point of the split on August 1st?