https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6q0uio/coinbase_announces_no_support_for_bcc/dkun2xg/
more clarification here.
"Coinbase here. Wanted to clarify our blog post and email for customers asking if Coinbase is keeping bitcoin cash for ourselves.
Coinbase does not intend to interact with the Bitcoin Cash blockchain, or to access bitcoin cash (BCC). In order to safely and securely access bitcoin cash, Coinbase would need to undertake a process of designing and testing significant changes to our systems – including hot and cold storage. This is one of the core reasons customers will not be able to withdraw bitcoin cash after the fork on August 1st, 2017.
If this decision were to change in the future and we were to access bitcoin cash, we would distribute to customers bitcoin cash (BCC) associated with bitcoin (BTC) balances at the time of the fork on August 1st, 2017. Coinbase would not keep the bitcoin cash associated with customer bitcoin (BTC) balances for ourselves."
Topic: Regarding the HF, what is Coinbase thinking? (Read 471 times)
It sounds as if it is true that BCC has no replay or wipeout protection ,,THAT may be why Coinbase may have made the decision NOT to support BCC. To minimize exposure to a replay attack, and to protect their customers funds value. I just found that replay threat issue on another thread, and it makes Coinbase look like geniuses if that is the case.
BCC does have a replay protection, preventing BCC transactions to be replayed on the BTC network. It's only that BTC transactions can be replayed on the BCC network, unless you use a special OP_RETURN value in your transaction... which is a kinda meh solution. So if you want to access your BCC it may be wise to move your BCC first, before doing any BTC transactions after the split.
So won't a hardfork, (since one fork will win and one will wither and die,) make all Bitcoin held by that exchange (Coinbase, CB) worthless in the end if BCC "wins"? What are they thinking? Do they want to go out of business?
The probability of that happening is just about zero. Even most miners aren't supporting BCC. There have been 1:1 forks before and there can be regularly.I think that not supporting BCC is only a problem if Coinbase is capable of easily supporting it if they want to. It's likely that BCC will be worth a few percent of what BTC is, in which case Coinbase are taking a relevant amount of what their users should own, but Coinbase can take the relevant steps in the unlikely scenario that the price goes higher.
So am I correct that as for Coinbase present position it is "BTC or die"??
Pretty much. But to be fair, all that most of the other exchanges have given is very vague commitments, and it doesn't seem like they'll support it the minute it gets released.Coinbase took a while to handle the ETH/ETC situation as well.
It sounds as if it is true that BCC has no replay or wipeout protection ,,THAT may be why Coinbase may have made the decision NOT to support BCC. To minimize exposure to a replay attack, and to protect their customers funds value. I just found that replay threat issue on another thread, and it makes Coinbase look like geniuses if that is the case.
We should say this as network split rather than hardfork because this time HF is not because of any issue in bitcoin chain rather than it will be outcome of few greedy minds. Only few miners are opposing segwit and they might even mine both coins after split so demand for this new bitcoin clone will be nothing compared to what bitcoin have.
That's why many exchange platform along with coinbase might not support any forked coin but they should give those forked coin to their users according to balance users will have during blockchain snapshot.
That's why many exchange platform along with coinbase might not support any forked coin but they should give those forked coin to their users according to balance users will have during blockchain snapshot.
It is clear that coin getting more support will win and support will be determined by the number of people using particular coin. From current picture we can presume that most of the users have made their mind not to step out to BCC from BTC. So I would rather refer Coinbase decision to be smart and clever one because at one place Coinbase will be safe from any kind of disturbance or modification in its wallet and also all Coinbase users will be using BTC thus help in building one-sided support for BTC against BCC.
First, I am a rookie at understanding this, and I am trying to understand, so please be gentle...
So Coinbase has made a public statement they will not support BCC.
So won't a hardfork, (since one fork will win and one will wither and die,) make all Bitcoin held by that exchange (Coinbase, CB) worthless in the end if BCC "wins"? What are they thinking? Do they want to go out of business?
They explain that the hardfork has its security concerns, 51% attack, whatever, fine I get that, but if BCC becomes the new main fork, CB would have to be betting on some catastrophic failure of BCC in order to justify this position. That seems a high risk position to me,,, unless this is just posturing for some reason and they do end up supporting BCC at the last minute (assuming they have to act in supporting the new software before they are locked out on Aug 1)
So am I correct that as for Coinbase present position it is "BTC or die"??
So Coinbase has made a public statement they will not support BCC.
So won't a hardfork, (since one fork will win and one will wither and die,) make all Bitcoin held by that exchange (Coinbase, CB) worthless in the end if BCC "wins"? What are they thinking? Do they want to go out of business?
They explain that the hardfork has its security concerns, 51% attack, whatever, fine I get that, but if BCC becomes the new main fork, CB would have to be betting on some catastrophic failure of BCC in order to justify this position. That seems a high risk position to me,,, unless this is just posturing for some reason and they do end up supporting BCC at the last minute (assuming they have to act in supporting the new software before they are locked out on Aug 1)
So am I correct that as for Coinbase present position it is "BTC or die"??
One thing I am sure of is that before Coinbase would have come out to take a position they would have thought it through even beyond what we are discussing here. I think what they are trying to do is not to preempt what is yet to happen since no one can say authoritatively that the hardfork will happen and when it does, no one can say which one will survives just on speculation. Finally, if BCC eventually be the surviving one, decisions can be changed without too much difficulty just that the circumstances of the earlier decision has changed as well.
So won't a hardfork, (since one fork will win and one will wither and die,) make all Bitcoin held by that exchange (Coinbase, CB) worthless in the end if BCC "wins"? What are they thinking? Do they want to go out of business?
The probability of that happening is just about zero. Even most miners aren't supporting BCC. There have been 1:1 forks before and there can be regularly.I think that not supporting BCC is only a problem if Coinbase is capable of easily supporting it if they want to. It's likely that BCC will be worth a few percent of what BTC is, in which case Coinbase are taking a relevant amount of what their users should own, but Coinbase can take the relevant steps in the unlikely scenario that the price goes higher.
So am I correct that as for Coinbase present position it is "BTC or die"??
Pretty much. But to be fair, all that most of the other exchanges have given is very vague commitments, and it doesn't seem like they'll support it the minute it gets released.Coinbase took a while to handle the ETH/ETC situation as well.
Since Bitcoin can be forked by anyone and at anytime, I doubt it makes sense for brokers like Coinbase to just support every fork that comes along.
Also, it confuses the public to support more than one forked coin. The very reason why Coinbase didn't support the purchasing and storage of both ETC and ETH on their site. Why should they? Why would they want to create more headaches for themselves?
Also, it confuses the public to support more than one forked coin. The very reason why Coinbase didn't support the purchasing and storage of both ETC and ETH on their site. Why should they? Why would they want to create more headaches for themselves?
First, I am a rookie at understanding this, and I am trying to understand, so please be gentle...
So Coinbase has made a public statement they will not support BCC.
So won't a hardfork, (since one fork will win and one will wither and die,) make all Bitcoin held by that exchange (Coinbase, CB) worthless in the end if BCC "wins"? What are they thinking? Do they want to go out of business?
They explain that the hardfork has its security concerns, 51% attack, whatever, fine I get that, but if BCC becomes the new main fork, CB would have to be betting on some catastrophic failure of BCC in order to justify this position. That seems a high risk position to me,,, unless this is just posturing for some reason and they do end up supporting BCC at the last minute (assuming they have to act in supporting the new software before they are locked out on Aug 1)
So am I correct that as for Coinbase present position it is "BTC or die"??
So Coinbase has made a public statement they will not support BCC.
So won't a hardfork, (since one fork will win and one will wither and die,) make all Bitcoin held by that exchange (Coinbase, CB) worthless in the end if BCC "wins"? What are they thinking? Do they want to go out of business?
They explain that the hardfork has its security concerns, 51% attack, whatever, fine I get that, but if BCC becomes the new main fork, CB would have to be betting on some catastrophic failure of BCC in order to justify this position. That seems a high risk position to me,,, unless this is just posturing for some reason and they do end up supporting BCC at the last minute (assuming they have to act in supporting the new software before they are locked out on Aug 1)
So am I correct that as for Coinbase present position it is "BTC or die"??
Jump to: