CSW's "hash wars" impact on BTC price? - page 3.

exstasie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1521

Quote from: jbreher on December 26, 2018, 04:15:22 AM

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

That's impressive. I'm all for different protocols having different approaches to scaling.

I do wonder how the mining incentives will play out long term. That's the main reason why I support smaller block sizes in Bitcoin: to produce higher fees that can eventually replace the block subsidy (for mining security). With unlimited block size, I feel the design is too dependent on either an endless stream of transaction demand or endless price rise.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 26, 2018, 02:45:39 AM

Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

exstasie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1521

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 26, 2018, 02:45:39 AM

I believe they were against the idea because bigger blocks are inherently centralizing. They were also against the idea of risking a network split. A hard fork also amputates the network of full nodes.

The elephant in the room was the possibility of a network split. In a truly decentralized network, a hard fork would be nearly impossible to coordinate without splitting the network. That's still the main danger today and it's why having any sense of urgency around increasing block size is an unacceptable position.

I think there is/was a general feeling that increasing block size = kicking the can down the road. It doesn't solve anything and puts the entire design at the mercy of technological improvements.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: pooya87 on December 26, 2018, 12:44:37 AM

Quote from: exstasie on December 25, 2018, 10:45:01 PM

Quote from: cellard on December 25, 2018, 07:03:41 PM

I believe Roger Ver still doesn't understand that Core cannot raise the blocksize. If they did agreed, it would just cause a clusterfuck similar to what we've seen with Bitcoin Cash, because even if Core agreed, there are big Bitcoin pockets that wouldn't, so as soon as the split happened, the dump wars would begin and it wouldn't be pretty.

At this point that's true, partly because Core mounted such strong arguments against a hard fork block size increase and because that contingent is so entrenched in the community now. And partly because hard forks get harder to pull off over time as stakeholders with differing interests develop.

Back in 2015, if Core had merged the code and not explicitly opposed it, I bet you'd find a lot less opposition than now.

eventually block size also has to increase unless the adoption stops here and doesn't grow any further.

Eventually, maybe. But not because there's a small group in the commumity who wants to pressure the Core developers to do it now because "reasons".

Quote

there is just so much you can do with soft forks such as SegWit and other proposals such as Schnorr and signature aggregation that it can offer for multisignatures to reduce their size but in the end it won't be enough in the long run.

Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.

Quote

and i don't think the developers were opposing block size increase, they were opposing increasing it right now without activating SegWit first and enabling LN to mature first.

I believe they were against the idea because bigger blocks are inherently centralizing. They were also against the idea of risking a network split. A hard fork also amputates the network of full nodes.

exstasie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1521

Quote from: pooya87 on December 26, 2018, 12:44:37 AM

eventually block size also has to increase unless the adoption stops here and doesn't grow any further. there is just so much you can do with soft forks such as SegWit and other proposals such as Schnorr and signature aggregation that it can offer for multisignatures to reduce their size but in the end it won't be enough in the long run.
and i don't think the developers were opposing block size increase, they were opposing increasing it right now without activating SegWit first and enabling LN to mature first.

I agree the Core developers aren't totally opposed to block size increases. But I also think the arguments from 2-3 years ago have really entrenched the "small blockers" and that complicates things politically. I think there is a significant portion of the community that would oppose a hard fork and would prefer to see fees rise......not necessarily a majority, but enough to make a hard fork very difficult to implement without causing a network split.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: exstasie on December 25, 2018, 10:45:01 PM

Quote from: cellard on December 25, 2018, 07:03:41 PM

I believe Roger Ver still doesn't understand that Core cannot raise the blocksize. If they did agreed, it would just cause a clusterfuck similar to what we've seen with Bitcoin Cash, because even if Core agreed, there are big Bitcoin pockets that wouldn't, so as soon as the split happened, the dump wars would begin and it wouldn't be pretty.

At this point that's true, partly because Core mounted such strong arguments against a hard fork block size increase and because that contingent is so entrenched in the community now. And partly because hard forks get harder to pull off over time as stakeholders with differing interests develop.

Back in 2015, if Core had merged the code and not explicitly opposed it, I bet you'd find a lot less opposition than now.

eventually block size also has to increase unless the adoption stops here and doesn't grow any further. there is just so much you can do with soft forks such as SegWit and other proposals such as Schnorr and signature aggregation that it can offer for multisignatures to reduce their size but in the end it won't be enough in the long run.
and i don't think the developers were opposing block size increase, they were opposing increasing it right now without activating SegWit first and enabling LN to mature first.

exstasie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1521

Quote from: cellard on December 25, 2018, 07:03:41 PM

I believe Roger Ver still doesn't understand that Core cannot raise the blocksize. If they did agreed, it would just cause a clusterfuck similar to what we've seen with Bitcoin Cash, because even if Core agreed, there are big Bitcoin pockets that wouldn't, so as soon as the split happened, the dump wars would begin and it wouldn't be pretty.

At this point that's true, partly because Core mounted such strong arguments against a hard fork block size increase and because that contingent is so entrenched in the community now. And partly because hard forks get harder to pull off over time as stakeholders with differing interests develop.

Back in 2015, if Core had merged the code and not explicitly opposed it, I bet you'd find a lot less opposition than now.

Abdelrhmn55

brand new

Activity: 0

Merit: 0

Okkay

cellard

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1252

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 25, 2018, 12:52:03 AM

I understand Roger Ver's frustration on Core, and I do not believe Bitcoin Cash's path to scaling is necessarily "bad", there will always be trade-offs.

I believe he is a fair man, a passionate man, and fights for his beliefs. Those are admirable traits. But I do not agree in his methods in marketing Bitcoin Cash.

Plus this from a Bitcoin Unlimited developer,

Hahahaha!

What do you mean "his frustration with Core"? what frustration? Are you perhaps implying that Core can single-handedly solve Roger Ver's frustration by, singlehandedly, raising the blocksize to whatever the fuck would meet Roger Ver's demands? Something doesn't add on to me.

I believe Roger Ver still doesn't understand that Core cannot raise the blocksize. If they did agreed, it would just cause a clusterfuck similar to what we've seen with Bitcoin Cash, because even if Core agreed, there are big Bitcoin pockets that wouldn't, so as soon as the split happened, the dump wars would begin and it wouldn't be pretty.

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 1492

@Pursuer. It might be bullshit but it throws more unwanted obstacles on Roger and Jihan and it would cause them to spend more than they can afford in this hashwar.

Pursuer

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1163

Where is my ring of blades...

although I love to see what the result of it is but the lawsuit seems like pure bullshit. 90% of the things it mentions are not even illegal. for example the miners they own are theirs and they are free to do with them whatever they like. you can't sue someone for mining something they prefer. as for their pools, they weren't shady about what they are mining. it was clear what each of them support and if some miner wanted they could have left their pool and mined elsewhere.

the only thing that makes a little sense is the ticker thing which again is not exactly illegal according to the law since there is no standard for the tickers. calling some shitcoin BCH or BCHSV doesn't make a difference they are both still shitcoins that are abusing the name of a trusted cryptocurrency called "bitcoin". so if anything they are both criminals.

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 1492

This hashwar is not yet finished hehehe. However both of them cannot mine forever at a loss and there will be more lawsuits thrown versus each other that will cost them more.

Who has more bitcoins to burn, Roger Ver or Craig Wright? The winner will be known before December 31, 2019, I reckon.

Vitalik announcing the winner of the hashwar

A new lawsuit alleges that proponents of Bitcoin Cash ABC – one of two competing iterations of the bitcoin cash cryptocurrency that split off during a hard fork last month – illegally manipulated the market, damaging investors as a result.

Florida-based United Investment Corp. filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida claiming that Roger Ver, bitcoin.com, Bitmain and co-founder Jihan Wu, crypto exchange Kraken and founder Jesse Powell, and Bitcoin ABC developers Amaury Sechet, Shammah Chancellor and Jason Cox centralized bitcoin cash and manipulated the price during its contentious hard fork.

The suit claims that bitcoin.com and Bitmain (and their respective founders) “hijacked the [bitcoin cash] blockchain,” especially by dedicating mining power in theory assigned to mining the bitcoin blockchain to mining what was then referred to as the Bitcoin ABC chain.

In a separate statement sent to CoinDesk, UnitedCorp said the defendants perpetrated “a scheme of fraud” by colluding to control the network.

UnitedCorp claims that it “justifiably relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations by investing millions of dollars in development and deployment of infrastructure specifically for the mining of bitcoin cash,” and has suffered damages as a result.

Further, the suit claims that “Bitmain, Bitcoin.com, and Ver have been unjustly [enriched] by the conduct described above.”

The company claims similar damages from the role Bitcoin ABC developers played in setting up a checkpoint on the network, claiming that doing so “violated the ground rules of the network that other users had relied on and respected for years, and artificially pumped up the chain implementation with computer hashes to dominate the temporary software upgrade.”

This checkpoint also centralized the market, the suit claims.

In an email, Sechet told CoinDesk that Bitcoin ABC did not centralize the network, adding, “In fact I explained that the result of the actions being taken by various actors in the ecosystem would result in centralization.”

Finally, the suit alleges that Jesse Powell and Kraken impacted the price by designating the Bitcoin ABC chain as bitcoin cash, and granting it the “BCH” ticker.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/mining-firm-claims-bitcoin-abc-proponents-hijacked-bitcoin-cash

rickadone

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1024

It is not just an "ego" fight at all. Ego definitely plays a big role and for someone like Craig it is definitely an ego thing which I can understand because he really thinks he is the person with Satoshi connection and he knows what he wants and so forth however in reality he probably has no clue what would Satoshi wanted. He is a prick and he wants to win, that side could be all ego.

Moreover for places like bitcoin.com and bitcoin cash original guys with bitmain and so forth it looks like it is more about money. They would have to give the reigns to Craig and would have to lose a lot of money, yeah they are losing money right now at these current rates but at least they did not lost the coin itself, that would have been a bigger loss for them. So right now they are losing a little compared to what they could have lost.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

I understand Roger Ver's frustration on Core, and I do not believe Bitcoin Cash's path to scaling is necessarily "bad", there will always be trade-offs.

I believe he is a fair man, a passionate man, and fights for his beliefs. Those are admirable traits. But I do not agree in his methods in marketing Bitcoin Cash.

Plus this from a Bitcoin Unlimited developer,

Hahahaha!

cellard

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1252

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 24, 2018, 01:17:53 AM

Quote from: cellard on November 23, 2018, 10:52:05 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 23, 2018, 03:52:17 AM

Quote from: coinplus on November 22, 2018, 01:58:37 PM

Quote from: Herbert2020 on November 22, 2018, 02:25:57 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 19, 2018, 12:03:08 AM

...
It showed that users mattered in Bitcoin during the proposed 2X hard fork by signers of NYA which had the biggest mechants and, I believe, by the people who controlled more than 50% of the hashing power. Bitcoin Cash does not have that philosophy.

the biggest thing that the 2x shenanigans proved was that everyone who is involved in bitcoin (users, nodes, miners, businesses,...) care too much about bitcoin and they don't want to destroy it by splitting it into two because of some nonsense argument, and ruin it forever.

in comparison you can see nobody cares about BCash so they easily split it into two and ruin it even more that it already is.

What I even loved more about the whole thing is the fact that the punk himself, which in this case referring to Roger, had a taste of his own medicine and that is something I was actually hoping will end up happening right from time and getting him even more screwed.

Sometimes, I keep asking how long he is going to keep fooling around before realizing he does not even have a chance. Like you said, BCH became practically dead to me right from the onset, and no matter how hard Roger tried to pump it to make it gain relevance, that only put it more in the shitcoin category. Even as it is now, it is pretty much overvalued. It should be less than 0.00000001 usd.

Although, I believe Roger Ver has been getting an unfair amount of hate. His heart is in the right place, and we should never forget what he has done for Bitcoin.

But he did it to himself by spreading FUD and by promoting "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin", which by social consensus, isn't. He can argue that "Bitcoin Cash is also Bitcoin" though. Haha. Cool

At some point you have to put things on a balance and start questioning: Has Roger Ver done more bad than good at bitcoin after all of this?

He has caused a lot of losses directly or indirectly. By tricking people via bitcoin dot com that they were using Bitcoin but they were using BCash. By redirecting hashrate contracted via cloud mining on his pool into Bcash-ABC for the hashwars, and as a result, causing loses to Bitcoin loses as the price went down most likely helped by decrease of hashrate and dumping of coins to support his mining operation.

This compared to just talking about Bitcoin like he did early on, looks like he's doing more damage than good to me.

Then I looked at this in the bitcoin.com website,

I am back to "Roger Ver is scamming" again, and deserves much hate. Hahaha.

This is a very fraudulent attempt in marketing Bitcoin Cash ABC as the real Bitcoin for newbies.

Right when my opinion of him was changing after watching him and Charlie Lee debate about Lightning. Did you watch that video? It gave me the impression that Roger Ver is a fair man, but over-passionate.

Yeah I think I did watch some of that Charlie Lee interview of Lightning Network. In which by the way he said that he would pay Charlie Lee a sum of money if LN had a number of stores by a period of time, and apparently there are already more than that number of stores out there so I wonder if he paid Charlie Lee.

Roger Ver has been scamming people by calling Bitcoin "Bitcoin Core" and redirecting people around in confusing ways on his website. He always talks about the whitepaper but he isn't respecting the actual only thing that matters: Accumulated proof of work is what dictates where consensus of what Bitcoin is is.

Pursuer

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1163

Where is my ring of blades...

so far based on what I have seen this was mainly a social media drama mainly on twitter and reddit instead of being an actual hash war. maybe there was some small scale war too but in an actual hash war one usually expects to see some 51% attacks on the weaker chain and considering they are both small and BSV has been much smaller we should have seen something and unless I missed it, there has been no attacks of any sort. which makes everything that was said by CSW, etc nonsense.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: cellard on November 23, 2018, 10:52:05 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 23, 2018, 03:52:17 AM

Quote from: coinplus on November 22, 2018, 01:58:37 PM

Quote from: Herbert2020 on November 22, 2018, 02:25:57 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 19, 2018, 12:03:08 AM

...
It showed that users mattered in Bitcoin during the proposed 2X hard fork by signers of NYA which had the biggest mechants and, I believe, by the people who controlled more than 50% of the hashing power. Bitcoin Cash does not have that philosophy.

the biggest thing that the 2x shenanigans proved was that everyone who is involved in bitcoin (users, nodes, miners, businesses,...) care too much about bitcoin and they don't want to destroy it by splitting it into two because of some nonsense argument, and ruin it forever.

in comparison you can see nobody cares about BCash so they easily split it into two and ruin it even more that it already is.

What I even loved more about the whole thing is the fact that the punk himself, which in this case referring to Roger, had a taste of his own medicine and that is something I was actually hoping will end up happening right from time and getting him even more screwed.

Sometimes, I keep asking how long he is going to keep fooling around before realizing he does not even have a chance. Like you said, BCH became practically dead to me right from the onset, and no matter how hard Roger tried to pump it to make it gain relevance, that only put it more in the shitcoin category. Even as it is now, it is pretty much overvalued. It should be less than 0.00000001 usd.

Although, I believe Roger Ver has been getting an unfair amount of hate. His heart is in the right place, and we should never forget what he has done for Bitcoin.

But he did it to himself by spreading FUD and by promoting "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin", which by social consensus, isn't. He can argue that "Bitcoin Cash is also Bitcoin" though. Haha. Cool

At some point you have to put things on a balance and start questioning: Has Roger Ver done more bad than good at bitcoin after all of this?

He has caused a lot of losses directly or indirectly. By tricking people via bitcoin dot com that they were using Bitcoin but they were using BCash. By redirecting hashrate contracted via cloud mining on his pool into Bcash-ABC for the hashwars, and as a result, causing loses to Bitcoin loses as the price went down most likely helped by decrease of hashrate and dumping of coins to support his mining operation.

This compared to just talking about Bitcoin like he did early on, looks like he's doing more damage than good to me.

Then I looked at this in the bitcoin.com website,

I am back to "Roger Ver is scamming" again, and deserves much hate. Hahaha.

This is a very fraudulent attempt in marketing Bitcoin Cash ABC as the real Bitcoin for newbies.

Right when my opinion of him was changing after watching him and Charlie Lee debate about Lightning. Did you watch that video? It gave me the impression that Roger Ver is a fair man, but over-passionate.

fasdorcas

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 527

Quote from: TomCrypto on November 22, 2018, 02:32:46 AM

A small update on the losses for both team during this hash wars :
[im g]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dsjc6O-XgAE97QF.jpg:large[/img]

I don't understand why they keep wasting money and energy....

They have not seen anything yet. They are just going to end up as screwed up as any shit coin eventually. A waste of time, a waste of resources, a waste of space, those are pretty much the definition of shit coins. Roger really messed up right from time as a result of his own greed. He knew what was right, but he was looking forward to making more money, so I guess he is just so dumb enough not to have known that he does not have anything in this space.

I can imagine how real Satoshi will be laughing out hard right now, (if he is a single person anyway and if he is still alive), seeing all these things play out.

cellard

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1252

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 23, 2018, 03:52:17 AM

Quote from: coinplus on November 22, 2018, 01:58:37 PM

Quote from: Herbert2020 on November 22, 2018, 02:25:57 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 19, 2018, 12:03:08 AM

...
It showed that users mattered in Bitcoin during the proposed 2X hard fork by signers of NYA which had the biggest mechants and, I believe, by the people who controlled more than 50% of the hashing power. Bitcoin Cash does not have that philosophy.

the biggest thing that the 2x shenanigans proved was that everyone who is involved in bitcoin (users, nodes, miners, businesses,...) care too much about bitcoin and they don't want to destroy it by splitting it into two because of some nonsense argument, and ruin it forever.

in comparison you can see nobody cares about BCash so they easily split it into two and ruin it even more that it already is.

What I even loved more about the whole thing is the fact that the punk himself, which in this case referring to Roger, had a taste of his own medicine and that is something I was actually hoping will end up happening right from time and getting him even more screwed.

Sometimes, I keep asking how long he is going to keep fooling around before realizing he does not even have a chance. Like you said, BCH became practically dead to me right from the onset, and no matter how hard Roger tried to pump it to make it gain relevance, that only put it more in the shitcoin category. Even as it is now, it is pretty much overvalued. It should be less than 0.00000001 usd.

Although, I believe Roger Ver has been getting an unfair amount of hate. His heart is in the right place, and we should never forget what he has done for Bitcoin.

But he did it to himself by spreading FUD and by promoting "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin", which by social consensus, isn't. He can argue that "Bitcoin Cash is also Bitcoin" though. Haha. Cool

At some point you have to put things on a balance and start questioning: Has Roger Ver done more bad than good at bitcoin after all of this?

He has caused a lot of losses directly or indirectly. By tricking people via bitcoin dot com that they were using Bitcoin but they were using BCash. By redirecting hashrate contracted via cloud mining on his pool into Bcash-ABC for the hashwars, and as a result, causing loses to Bitcoin loses as the price went down most likely helped by decrease of hashrate and dumping of coins to support his mining operation.

This compared to just talking about Bitcoin like he did early on, looks like he's doing more damage than good to me.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: coinplus on November 22, 2018, 01:58:37 PM

Quote from: Herbert2020 on November 22, 2018, 02:25:57 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 19, 2018, 12:03:08 AM

...
It showed that users mattered in Bitcoin during the proposed 2X hard fork by signers of NYA which had the biggest mechants and, I believe, by the people who controlled more than 50% of the hashing power. Bitcoin Cash does not have that philosophy.

the biggest thing that the 2x shenanigans proved was that everyone who is involved in bitcoin (users, nodes, miners, businesses,...) care too much about bitcoin and they don't want to destroy it by splitting it into two because of some nonsense argument, and ruin it forever.

in comparison you can see nobody cares about BCash so they easily split it into two and ruin it even more that it already is.

What I even loved more about the whole thing is the fact that the punk himself, which in this case referring to Roger, had a taste of his own medicine and that is something I was actually hoping will end up happening right from time and getting him even more screwed.

Sometimes, I keep asking how long he is going to keep fooling around before realizing he does not even have a chance. Like you said, BCH became practically dead to me right from the onset, and no matter how hard Roger tried to pump it to make it gain relevance, that only put it more in the shitcoin category. Even as it is now, it is pretty much overvalued. It should be less than 0.00000001 usd.

Although, I believe Roger Ver has been getting an unfair amount of hate. His heart is in the right place, and we should never forget what he has done for Bitcoin.

But he did it to himself by spreading FUD and by promoting "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin", which by social consensus, isn't. He can argue that "Bitcoin Cash is also Bitcoin" though. Haha. Cool

Topic: CSW's "hash wars" impact on BTC price? - page 3. (Read 1894 times)