Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
@lunar.
Don't forget that the BCC miners can also look forward to gobbling up a stream of anyone-can-spend outputs from the crippled fork.
Don't forget that the BCC miners can also look forward to gobbling up a stream of anyone-can-spend outputs from the crippled fork.
VeritasSapere
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 511
- 1,266
According to that logic alternative cryptocurrencies should become more dominant now, my point is that alternatives already work better today, there has been a lot of innovation in the meantime and BTCC even with higher block limits still does not work as well or might not have the lowest fees, and will have less feutures.
If BTCC is to be judged on its own merit it will have to go undergo rapid development, unless it is just a specific group of ideologs that prop it up, instead of actually building the best cryptocurrency for the world to use, which in my view is not too disimiar to ETC and what UASF would have looked like.
I also do not think there will be only one dominant cryptocurrency in the future. I think that cryptocurrency will reflect the diversity in the world through peoples freedom of choice. The interoprability of cryptocurrencies allows for seamless transactions between thousands of cryptocurrencies. I do think there will be several dominant cryptocurrencies because of the network effects of security, but the network effects of "money" in itself I think are significantly eroded due to this interoprability.
I keep talking about BTCC having to undergo rapid development in order to compete with alternatives, since without the BTC name it will have to compete more on its own merit, increasing block times would be a good start.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
I forgot to say: The UTXO is 8 years old and has a lot of intersts behind it compared to alts. (Or other alts.)
VeritasSapere
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 511
- 1,266
It gets crazy alright, I think these exchanges have to list the fork, fiduciary responsiblity is a good term here indeed. I think eventually this will have to become the standart it just seems like this is not well understood now.
In the case of coinbase they would post-fork be heavily incentivized not to list BTCC as BTC, imagine some their customers who might not be well informed, complaining that they thought they bought BTC and then their balance changed, this could be their downfall if that happened the same is true for many different entities in the space. Unfortanitly I do not think it will be that straight forward for BTCC just to become BTC again. It is simply not a practical thing, if that ever did happen it would be a colequel thing which would take atleast decades to develop, after BTCC reaches dominance.
I agree that giving the market a real chance to vote is a good thing, I do think that over the long term BTCC will do better in the market when compared to the "small blockist" vision of Bitcoin. However my concern is not over BTCC competing with BTC. I do not think it can compete with the alternative cryptocurrencies that already exist, as a minority fork. While also considering the BTC chain will most likely split again in three months, further dividing the BTC communities up even more.
You are currently describing the cryptocurrency market over the last two years, except for there being many chains where it is cheap, fast and reliable to transact. BTCC in this case will be one out of many, certainly not the best in terms of utility objectivly compared, which will the market choose? The argument is framed too often in competing with BTC, when as a minority fork BTCC will have to compete directly with all of the alternatives. "segwitcoin" is doomed to lose its dominance on its present path anyway, BTCC wont have to compete with "segwitcoin" there is no contest, the question is which cryptocurrencies will rise to dominance based on their own merit. BTCC will have to compete with instant send, smart contracts, anonymity, ERC20, ICO funding, DAO treasuries and different new forms of decentralized govenance.
@Norway This is true that is one of the advantages BTCC would have, similiar to ETC, but that still puts it in a position where it will have to play on an even playing field with its competitors without the BTC name. I also think that the "8 years old UTXO" is currently being divided into three parts, because of the 2x promise. Divide and conquer I suppose, atleast rollercoasters are fun.
Last edited:
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@VeritasSapere
I agree that BTCC has to prove it's worth on an even playing field. But I think we, the few people hiding in an obsure thread sheltered from trolls and brainwashed fanbois are actually sharing the opinions that the majority of users would have. If they had an opinion
I agree that BTCC has to prove it's worth on an even playing field. But I think we, the few people hiding in an obsure thread sheltered from trolls and brainwashed fanbois are actually sharing the opinions that the majority of users would have. If they had an opinion
adamstgbit
Well-Known Member
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,206
- 2,650
i'm waiting and watching this BCC market, think'n about it. I think its kinda high right now.... i want to buy, but i also want a ridiculously good price, I figure once there's a few exchanges trading it after the first, there will be a very large amount of small blockers tripping over themselves to dump. thats when ill make my move.
Bagatell
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 728
- 1,191
@adamstgbit
likewise. I'm over exposed on exchanges as it is and I already have one Chinese exchange that wont give me my coins.
likewise. I'm over exposed on exchanges as it is and I already have one Chinese exchange that wont give me my coins.
lol, this quote by Paul was particularly striking. Dunning-Kruger in full force, big mouth, but doesn't know highschool calculus. Maybe a basic math class for small blockers should be started with BU funds. Could start with "Derivatives, integration, logarithm and polynomials"; should help to understand basic stuff.
Greg Maxwell could run circles around me in the field of cryptography and I really just barely know basic math, but the stupid mistakes coming from these guys are hair raising.
Apart from that, CSW paper is definitely not written by a mathematician (or maybe that's my poor education)
P => M*V
P implies M*V?
flipperfish
New Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 7
- 11
Regarding the last paper from CSW: Can someone explain to me, why he thinks, that Sidechains will result in fractional reserve? I know this has been discussed in this thread already, but I still don't get it. If I lock up one bitcoin to get x sidecoins, then these x sidecoins will have together the same value as one bitcoin. Even if I decide to create new sidecoins out of thin air, all these sidecoins are only backed by this single bitcoin and should together have a corresponding value.
Ok folks, to be honest, I had a WTF moment when looking at the ViaBTC BCC price.
I was personally expecting something like 3% of Bitcoin's market cap and was going to consider 5% as high, 10% as very high.
That it now shot to 20% is impressive, to say the least.
I am still not convinced BCC is going to make it long term and there's a side in me that also definitely wants to protect a single chain ... (though would certainly be glad if that would become BCC. As a conservative in this space, I must also say that I dislike the incoming flurry of ideas about changing the 600s block time and similar, but that's a different issue).
But neither I am anymore convinced that BCC won't cause the real flippening. Crazy times.
It feels like a high stakes gamble, and betting on the self-fulfilling prophecy can go from anywhere of total loss to multiplying your own coins.
I will wait this out as hodling has served me well in the past, but I obviously wish the ones who are on my side the best of luck!
In any case, even reaching 20% (and I saw on reddit someone mentioning $900, which would be about a crazy third of Bitcoin's market cap) is one heck of a statement already. If it fails, it will still have shown the last clueless miners that there is a very strong demand for on-chain scaling.
Add @solex observation of the SegWit gobbling, and even if BCC stays at just a 10% fraction or so of the the 'mainchain' price, it means that anyone wanting to do SegWit txn on the mainchain will have a very strong interest to go on the BCC chain to replay protect his coins and value there. Meaning awareness, transaction fees and an automatic push for BCC to become BTC with anything that gets done in SegWit.
I must say that my prediction horizon became very short now with recent events. I have no fucking clue how this will turn out.
Something is to be said about Pandora's box here.
If BCC trashes, replaces and becomes the new BTC, this will certainly be one heck of a ''scandal'' in the 'scandal-rich' Bitcoin world. But along with it will come this 'we're going to fucking take over the world' dynamic again, from the early days in Bitcoin.
But only if.
Crazy times. Crazy times.
I was personally expecting something like 3% of Bitcoin's market cap and was going to consider 5% as high, 10% as very high.
That it now shot to 20% is impressive, to say the least.
I am still not convinced BCC is going to make it long term and there's a side in me that also definitely wants to protect a single chain ... (though would certainly be glad if that would become BCC. As a conservative in this space, I must also say that I dislike the incoming flurry of ideas about changing the 600s block time and similar, but that's a different issue).
But neither I am anymore convinced that BCC won't cause the real flippening. Crazy times.
It feels like a high stakes gamble, and betting on the self-fulfilling prophecy can go from anywhere of total loss to multiplying your own coins.
I will wait this out as hodling has served me well in the past, but I obviously wish the ones who are on my side the best of luck!
In any case, even reaching 20% (and I saw on reddit someone mentioning $900, which would be about a crazy third of Bitcoin's market cap) is one heck of a statement already. If it fails, it will still have shown the last clueless miners that there is a very strong demand for on-chain scaling.
Add @solex observation of the SegWit gobbling, and even if BCC stays at just a 10% fraction or so of the the 'mainchain' price, it means that anyone wanting to do SegWit txn on the mainchain will have a very strong interest to go on the BCC chain to replay protect his coins and value there. Meaning awareness, transaction fees and an automatic push for BCC to become BTC with anything that gets done in SegWit.
I must say that my prediction horizon became very short now with recent events. I have no fucking clue how this will turn out.
Something is to be said about Pandora's box here.
If BCC trashes, replaces and becomes the new BTC, this will certainly be one heck of a ''scandal'' in the 'scandal-rich' Bitcoin world. But along with it will come this 'we're going to fucking take over the world' dynamic again, from the early days in Bitcoin.
But only if.
Crazy times. Crazy times.
Last edited:
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
It could take months or years for a "flippening" to happen.
The scenario I'm envisioning is that segwit quickly reaches capacity, btc1 gets reneged on the 2x, the second-layer stuff that's available by that time has minimal impact, and your new user adoption has to go to BCC. If we had BCC for the last six months to a year already, I guarantee you the lion's share of the dark market utility for example would've gone to BCC instead of diversifying into alts.
The current users who stick with only assets on the cripplechain don't mean a damn thing as far as network effect, because in exponential adoption of user growth, they are a total of nobody. A very analogous phenomenon was an exchange I vaguely remember having in 2014 when the price temporarily spiked, where somebody on Bitcoinmarkets was making the claim that hashrate was going up because old equipment was suddenly profitable again. I calculated what generation of equipment was now marginally profitable, and it was approximately BFL 65nm. All the mining equipment in existence at the time those were produced was ~1% of hashrate by that time, akin to how if BCC utility blows up exponentially, all the cripplecoin holders in existence now might represent 1% or less of total meaningful economic activity at some point in the future.
The scenario I'm envisioning is that segwit quickly reaches capacity, btc1 gets reneged on the 2x, the second-layer stuff that's available by that time has minimal impact, and your new user adoption has to go to BCC. If we had BCC for the last six months to a year already, I guarantee you the lion's share of the dark market utility for example would've gone to BCC instead of diversifying into alts.
The current users who stick with only assets on the cripplechain don't mean a damn thing as far as network effect, because in exponential adoption of user growth, they are a total of nobody. A very analogous phenomenon was an exchange I vaguely remember having in 2014 when the price temporarily spiked, where somebody on Bitcoinmarkets was making the claim that hashrate was going up because old equipment was suddenly profitable again. I calculated what generation of equipment was now marginally profitable, and it was approximately BFL 65nm. All the mining equipment in existence at the time those were produced was ~1% of hashrate by that time, akin to how if BCC utility blows up exponentially, all the cripplecoin holders in existence now might represent 1% or less of total meaningful economic activity at some point in the future.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Encouraging news from China ...
@lunar @VeritasSapere
it seems that the surviving odds of BCC to the first 24hrs are increasing significantly
it seems that the surviving odds of BCC to the first 24hrs are increasing significantly
Last edited:
BldSwtTrs
Active Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 196
- 583
Did exchanges such as Bistamp, Kraken, Bitfine, Poloniex... make any public announcement regarding their attitude and policy towards Bitcoin Cash?
@BldSwtTrs
as fair as I know ViaBTC exchange and OkCoin will support BCC.
Last word from the exchanges above is this one:
https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am
The exchanges that signed the letter of intent above stated their detailed plans of listing both token assets originated from an HF if a blockchain split will take place.
So if they did not change their mind I guess they will list both.
as fair as I know ViaBTC exchange and OkCoin will support BCC.
Last word from the exchanges above is this one:
https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am
The exchanges that signed the letter of intent above stated their detailed plans of listing both token assets originated from an HF if a blockchain split will take place.
So if they did not change their mind I guess they will list both.
Last edited:
adamstgbit
Well-Known Member
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,206
- 2,650
right me too i was expecting <10%
maybe chinese bitcoiners are generally more big blockers?
I feel there is a gr8 deal of Emotion put in BTC/BCC's current price. big blockers are feeling good showing there support and buying, while the small blockers dont really care to much and can't be bothered to sell and have their btcFROZEN.
the real initial price will be discovered the week following the split, i would expect a lot of dumping because in the eyes of small blockers, this fork will be short lived and eventually be worthless.
I'll be buying the "hate selling", but i won't really "lock-in" and fully commit to BCC untill it becomes clear the "2x" is going to be avoided.
its going to be very interesting to keep up with the two chain. i expect much drama and insane price movements on both chains. my guess would be that BTC keeps making new ATH, while BCC "crashes" from its current "stable" 500. BCC will be declared dead by the news, and then everything changes.
this is going to be the trade of a lifetime, a huge coinportunity.
[doublepost=1500830414][/doublepost]one thing that would make me very bullish on BCC's future is if it can solve TX malleability early on.
this would be a huge selling point, as it would be hard to argue that BCC is technology inferior to BTC.
@adamstgbit :
And so I guess I agree, it might be a good selling point, given that core prepared the ground, so to say, for marketing this. "Look here, all the sweetness of SegWit with just a minor fix."
Even though I don't think it isn't critical now.
Extending a bit on my worry about "hey great, let's change this and that as well in Bitcoin", I think it would be prudent by others to be very conservative about changes as well.
I think a very major selling point of BCC is going to be that this is closest to no change to the original Bitcoin. And, arguably, putting Bitcoin back on track (eventual VISA-level on-chain) as per the original whitepaper and thus Bitcoin's constitution, undoing past ill-intended changes.
Because no one sane can argue that complex SegWit is a smaller change than just removing the damn maxblocksize limit.
If BCC would indeed take over (yes, from the current POV still unlikely, but let's assume for a moment), I think the environment will be much saner again for slow and incremental but steady improvements to the protocol. HFs and SFs, depending on the scope of change.
Although I don't think we need many anymore to reach the moon.
Yes, makes sense, ViaBTC is a 'big blocker' so I guess there might be some (irrational, to add!) avoidance by small blockers. How much is to be seen, however.
What do you mean by 'everything changes'?
I certainly wouldn't be worried anymore about having a mallfix in BCC as it will have a clear, definite on-chain scaling future. I wonder what others such as @AdrianX , @hodl think about this.
And so I guess I agree, it might be a good selling point, given that core prepared the ground, so to say, for marketing this. "Look here, all the sweetness of SegWit with just a minor fix."
Even though I don't think it isn't critical now.
Extending a bit on my worry about "hey great, let's change this and that as well in Bitcoin", I think it would be prudent by others to be very conservative about changes as well.
I think a very major selling point of BCC is going to be that this is closest to no change to the original Bitcoin. And, arguably, putting Bitcoin back on track (eventual VISA-level on-chain) as per the original whitepaper and thus Bitcoin's constitution, undoing past ill-intended changes.
Because no one sane can argue that complex SegWit is a smaller change than just removing the damn maxblocksize limit.
If BCC would indeed take over (yes, from the current POV still unlikely, but let's assume for a moment), I think the environment will be much saner again for slow and incremental but steady improvements to the protocol. HFs and SFs, depending on the scope of change.
Although I don't think we need many anymore to reach the moon.
adamstgbit
Well-Known Member
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,206
- 2,650
@awemany
the BTC network will be more congested then ever and segwit will have provided 1.6MB blocks that feel like 4MB. the promises of LN becoming "user-friendly" are never Really going to be fulfilled, AND as user try to use LN some will report having funds stolen some how, ofcoure the nerds will say that LN is working perfectly its just that some users are not using it properly....
Meanwhile in BCC land the blocks are getting bigger and bigger slowly as adoption takes place, and no the network isn't crashing and burning because of that, the TX fees are very reasonable. many BTC services switch to BCC to either Stand out and capture more market share, or simply because there businesses case was dropped by BTC. AND WE HAVE A SECOND LAYER TOO! lol
the markets will flip.
[doublepost=1500833348][/doublepost]and about mallfix...
its unavoidable, it opens up alot of good things, things we need to stay competitive with BTC.
if we dont do this, we're always going to be " the original / first gen bitcoin " and become more of a collectible item rather then "the future of money"
at first it will feel like BTC won and BCC is dead, then everything changes as reality sets in.
the BTC network will be more congested then ever and segwit will have provided 1.6MB blocks that feel like 4MB. the promises of LN becoming "user-friendly" are never Really going to be fulfilled, AND as user try to use LN some will report having funds stolen some how, ofcoure the nerds will say that LN is working perfectly its just that some users are not using it properly....
Meanwhile in BCC land the blocks are getting bigger and bigger slowly as adoption takes place, and no the network isn't crashing and burning because of that, the TX fees are very reasonable. many BTC services switch to BCC to either Stand out and capture more market share, or simply because there businesses case was dropped by BTC. AND WE HAVE A SECOND LAYER TOO! lol
the markets will flip.
[doublepost=1500833348][/doublepost]and about mallfix...
its unavoidable, it opens up alot of good things, things we need to stay competitive with BTC.
if we dont do this, we're always going to be " the original / first gen bitcoin " and become more of a collectible item rather then "the future of money"
Last edited: