Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 16060. (Read 26710350 times)

You mean a stable, flawlessly working, decentralized, secure version of the Bitcoin network that everyone is happy with (i.e., Bitcoin^TM) is attempting to be subverted and attacked by another version (BCH) that sucks on so many levels it is nearly unusable, and people actually still want to debate which one is "better"?

Funny how Roger Ver et al continues to try and gaslight people into believing that a nearly unusable trainwreck of a fork is somehow "better" than Bitcoin. Yeah, when Satoshi designed Bitcoin he was definitely thinking "It should be slow, flaky, >95% mining centralized, hashrate all over the place, blocks that take hours, no merchant support, no broker support, cannot be purchased directly, >50% of all trading on one shady Korean exchange, etc. etc."

There is no way the BCH camp can in any way, shape, or form spin BCH into anything positive. It sucks badly and it should die a slow, painful death. There are literally shit altcoins that are way better in function than BCH.

https://www.hudson.org/research/13981-the-united-states-of-anonymity
trap or true?

It sounds as if you believe that Bitcoin _cannot_ become the default currency of the world _because_ it has a built-in incentive to hold. I have heard this position asserted several times, and I have never understood it.

I get that more spending means 'more jobs' (though only to a first-level approximation). However, one cannot eat Bitcoin. And one needs to eat. Regardless of the incentive to hold money, people still want to eat. And house themselves. And get from point A to point B. And...

Bottom line, all these require spending.

Yes, an economy dictated by a deflationary money would be radically different than the one we have today. But is this a bad thing? Being more frugal efficient with the Earth's resources may be a good idea.

And the machines are coming for our jobs anyhow. We are going to need to sort out how each human fits into an economy of abundance anyhow.

---

It could buy me a truck to pull it
It could buy me a Yeti 110 iced down with some silver bullets
Yeah, and I know what they say,
Money can’t buy everything
Well, maybe so,
But it could buy me a boat

---

Prost!

---

Prost!

---

https://www.facebook.com/Kill-The-Fed-181798821860025/

---

In the wasteland of altcoins, hope springs eternal.

---

In theory. However, such has not seemed to have been borne out in practice.

---

Umm... it's a more capable version of S1X? Inherently more utility usually goes hand-in-hand with more concrete value.

Though it is interesting that it is hitting this, given each so-called 'futures market' I am familiar with includes an asymmetric advantage to the legacy choice.

---

I am surprised you find it necessary to ask this.

Cheers!

(I been tryin' ta tell ya)
((all y'all))

---

XD

I simply believe that price follows value follows utility. And vote accordingly with my wallet.

S1X -- in comparison -- is lacking along several axes.

BCH is still on sale. Just sayin'

---

Absolutely. I've yet to see a verifiable claim that malleability has resulted in actual loss. I mean, it is a possible vector, so I'm willing to grant that actual cases do exist. But avoiding loss by malleability is trivial with due diligence.

MtGox? Bitch, please. Proven to be nothing but a MagicalTux deflection smokescreen.


If you are looking for absolute guarantees, you're gonna have a bad time. The world just doesn't work that way.

I note publicly -- with no lack of irony -- that Coinbase is still a viable entity. Profitable even.

---

Funny. I expect BCH to fall against BTC up until just before the fork, and skyrocket thereafter.

---

Well, actually, everyone's opinion is factored in.

Do you think no miners are users?

Do you think all non-mining users are united behind S1X?

---

That is inconsistent with my experience. I've had no issues whatsoever in syncing. Which client have you used? Oh. No, I don't remember 0.14 being bad. I'm running 0.15.0.0-unk. Maybe give it another try?


Further, you realize that the 8MB 'limit' is merely a setting, right?

Very well said, Sir.

Eh, you know what I mean.

Not sure about the RP information diffusion because I see a lot of users talking about dumping B2X like they never read about RP in the first place, and why the lack of it is dangerous.

It seems they want to dump it despite the constant repetition that the lack of RP can create a dangerous situation for their own BTCs, as a malicious miner can replay the transaction on the mainchain.

They want to dump it simply because of the image of Garzik portrayed as a megalomaniac by the general consensus, or because it is "free coins". They forget the technicals or simply ignore it.

And this is happening at the same time as the sharks come in with their wallets full of fiat money to speculate in future markets.

except the 2MB typo for BCH, 8, but otherwise spot on

Spot on with every point made here, couldn’t have put it any better myself.

Buncha hired goons

My take on these different fork coins is as follows: Although 2 MB blocks is not bad, BCH is dysfunctional and since it does not work properly, it's useless.

BTG really has no future, the idea of going back to using GPU:s for mining is a nice idea and full of bitcoin nostalgia. But there is already a bunch of coins that you can mine using your GPU, and BTG has no upside in relation to  those coins.

SW2X on the other hand has both big blocks and Seg Wit, and that is in my opinion better than BTC:s SW1X. However, their attempt to kidnap the bitcoin name with a hardfork with no replay protection and their poor dev team makes the majority of users dislike them. That and the fact that people because of the high BTC price likes status quo will probably make them fail.

Andreas A. supports lightning network solution over big blocks if that helps to ease anyone's mind.

$8OOO per BTCBTCBTCBTCBTCBTC

 

====> moooooooooonnnnn!!!

Uh maybe they shoulda translated that fudfest into chinese?

I hope the current bunch of miners bankrupt themselves and we get some subservient ones to replace them.

They'll know their place second time around.

BUT BUT 5!!! Independent development teams  .  
No seriously this is probably the worst shitcoin in crypto top100. Any other shitcoin out there with same broken functionality and such shitty devs would be worth lese then 100 sats.

Agreed.

You're right, of course, I just wanted to point out the difference. In fact, being the better coin, there's even more incentive for BTC to win over BCH.

I don't know, but if it does make mining unprofitable it might actually crash bitcoin, we need the miners.

One of the key securities of Bitcoin is that it will not be successfully forked. If such an event were to occur it would mean it cannot be trusted and therefore die and become mutable. On principle alone we must go forward only with consensus to changes from the majority of users not hash power manipulation and FUD.
This will come down to what we believe in.
Lets talk about Lightning Network. Is it a patented solution that has the ability to shut down miners?

But since it didn't, I cant use that as an analogy. I can only use the user support as an analogy.

If you've ever used BCH you'd realize there's nothing to hedge. Personally speaking, it's one of the most problematic altcoins I've ever used - and the only one where its marketcap stood out as insane compared to its inherent qualities.

-There are virtually no nodes to sync - you connect to bitcoin-core of the BTC chain and you get disconnected all the time.
-Blocks can take hours.
-On top of that exchanges require several confirmations, compounding the delay problem.

Anyone taking BCH for a spin cannot reach any other conclusion than "this is so broken it's not even funny". I don't know if they fixed anything in the software since launch, but the 0.14.something-abc I tried, was f'ed up pretty badly.

In terms of investment fundamentals, the threat of massive dumps if price becomes attractive to dump, again isn't funny. But that's what happens when people get "free coins". They are very happy to dump them if they are worth something. Some have strategically kept their BCH to inflict maximum damage to possible BCH pumping - and that's also not a good prospect for a potential investor.

BTC has just 4 mn coins to mine and that's it. With forked coins (whether BCH, BTG, S2X etc etc) the store-of-value-proposition is problematic because first they have to mine another 4 million coins as well (just like BTC), but the market also has to absorb millions of coins that will get dumped for BTC. And every time the price rises, the more incentive there is to dump free-fork-coins-for-BTC. There's an inherent uncertainty of unloading the bag first or holding it while it gets devalued by others dumping, so the game theory regarding store-of-value for forked coins is not very good...