Didn't have time to really check, but looks like BCC is a success so far. A > 1MB block on the bitcoin chain. I'm speechless 
Congrats to everyone involved!
Congrats to everyone involved!
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
does anyone know the best place to get BCC block height?
I've seen:
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/blocks (showing 8 blocks)
https://cash.coin.dance/blocks (showing 7 blocks)
Coin.dance seems to be ahead why is that?
also what is being signaled with BIP9 ?
And WTF who is signaling segwit on this chain. that's a low probability attack vector I hadn't considered!
I've seen:
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/blocks (showing 8 blocks)
https://cash.coin.dance/blocks (showing 7 blocks)
Coin.dance seems to be ahead why is that?
also what is being signaled with BIP9 ?
And WTF who is signaling segwit on this chain. that's a low probability attack vector I hadn't considered!
Last edited:
Dusty
Active Member
- Mar 14, 2016
- 362
- 1,172
There is also http://blockdozer.com/insight/blocks
My bitcoin ABC node is having trouble finding non-core connections... does anyone know a public node I can seed it with?
Edit: found a list here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinABC/comments/6qtuta/bitcoinabc_nodes_listupdated/
Edit: found a list here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinABC/comments/6qtuta/bitcoinabc_nodes_listupdated/
Last edited:
Wholy shit BCC trading at 0.14 on trex. Supply from non-supporting exchanges and cold wallets not present for trading.
ETC/ETH reached 0.45 in its early days, I see some crazy days ahead of us!
ETC/ETH reached 0.45 in its early days, I see some crazy days ahead of us!
I'm thinking this is crazy already look at BCC market Cap = #4 (I'm rich ) I'd like to see gold do a split like this! GCBU!
https://coinmarketcap.com/
http://www.coincap.io/
Oh, not counting chickens, It can't be traded but this is good news for miners, I wonder what the BCC ROI on energy input will be in relation to Mining the BTC chain.
I'm thinking this will be a key long term indicator, I expect mining to be profitable on both, however I expect a bigger return on energy input on one chain than the other, the one with a lower mining ROI could indicate a long term investment return by miners.
It'll have an interesting dynamic, incentivizing ASIC investment in infrastructure and making the long horizon mining investment just marginally profitable, allowing dumping on the short term chain. I think this is very bullish. Bitcoin is going to grow up and it's accelerating, and BCC being dumped gives a new generation of investors a ground flour entry point.
I also imagine this will reduce the risk in investing in mining equipment, increasing demand so I'm predicting a new ASIC race (multiple announcements from an Industry leaders in chip fabrication) with intent to enter the market and deliver a more energy efficient chip.
) I'd like to see gold do a split like this! GCBU!https://coinmarketcap.com/
http://www.coincap.io/
Oh, not counting chickens, It can't be traded
but this is good news for miners, I wonder what the BCC ROI on energy input will be in relation to Mining the BTC chain. I'm thinking this will be a key long term indicator, I expect mining to be profitable on both, however I expect a bigger return on energy input on one chain than the other, the one with a lower mining ROI could indicate a long term investment return by miners.
It'll have an interesting dynamic, incentivizing ASIC investment in infrastructure and making the long horizon mining investment just marginally profitable, allowing dumping on the short term chain. I think this is very bullish. Bitcoin is going to grow up and it's accelerating, and BCC being dumped gives a new generation of investors a ground flour entry point.
I also imagine this will reduce the risk in investing in mining equipment, increasing demand so I'm predicting a new ASIC race (multiple announcements from an Industry leaders in chip fabrication) with intent to enter the market and deliver a more energy efficient chip.
this name Bitcoin Cash is important, It's both Bitcoin and electronic Cash.
If the 2X fork and future Hard forks fail in time the Bitcoin we know as the main chain today could be relegated to being a settlement layer, and Bitcoin will fade from its memory as people use Layer 2 networks. The Bitcoin Cash however won't it will be widely used and known as Bitcoin, people are going to drop the Cash.
Don't let any one undermine the name Bitcoin Cash. Already I've seed people try propagate new names to diminish Bitcoin Cash, confuse users make it sound like an altcoin, it's not.
Correct those calling it Bcash and BitCash - BHC - it's Bitcoin all the way back to the genies block, and it's described accurately in the Bitcoin white Paper: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, so it deserves the name Bitcoin Cash.
If the 2X fork and future Hard forks fail in time the Bitcoin we know as the main chain today could be relegated to being a settlement layer, and Bitcoin will fade from its memory as people use Layer 2 networks. The Bitcoin Cash however won't it will be widely used and known as Bitcoin, people are going to drop the Cash.
Don't let any one undermine the name Bitcoin Cash. Already I've seed people try propagate new names to diminish Bitcoin Cash, confuse users make it sound like an altcoin, it's not.
Correct those calling it Bcash and BitCash - BHC - it's Bitcoin all the way back to the genies block, and it's described accurately in the Bitcoin white Paper: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, so it deserves the name Bitcoin Cash.
It is interesting that the combined market caps of BCC + BTC is significantly more than the pre-split market cap a few weeks ago. Some of this could be noise, but I think there's a real effect at play and that value was actually "created" by the split.
Before the ETC/ETH split, I always thought the most important thing was network effect -- that if a coin split, the combined market cap would necessarily be smaller in "split" form than in "combined" form. Then ETC/ETH split first proved that wrong and now so far this split is demonstrating the same thing.
It will be very interesting to watch this unfold over the coming months. Great work by everyone involved in making this happen (especially @deadalnix and @freetrader)!
Before the ETC/ETH split, I always thought the most important thing was network effect -- that if a coin split, the combined market cap would necessarily be smaller in "split" form than in "combined" form. Then ETC/ETH split first proved that wrong and now so far this split is demonstrating the same thing.
It will be very interesting to watch this unfold over the coming months. Great work by everyone involved in making this happen (especially @deadalnix and @freetrader)!
NewLiberty
Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 70
- 442
No, not at all.
I think that it can be modeled, just that the Selfish Mining paper does not come close to modeling Bitcoin.
[doublepost=1501638153,1501637529][/doublepost]
There's the thing. I agree with Peter also, with respect to "the bet" and how it was worded abstracted from the discussion in which it was generated. I think everyone should agree with it, I am surprised the twitter poll was so split. If you just look at the bet image, the answer is simple.
He keeps pretending that I am disagreeing with him, or his interpretation of the bet. I am not.
However... When I saw it asked in the discussion in slack, it was about a diagram that appeared in a paper, which was a different diagram, describes a different event series, and a different (opposite) answer.
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,695
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
The first small-blocker to do some serious thinking.
The first small-blocker to do some serious thinking.
"He keeps pretending that I am disagreeing with him, or his interpretation of the bet. I am not." -- @NewLiberty
I am not pretending; I believe you really do disagree. I am sorry if I am wrong about that. Please let me ask you two question to help get to the bottom of it:
I am not pretending; I believe you really do disagree. I am sorry if I am wrong about that. Please let me ask you two question to help get to the bottom of it:
Assume a selfish miner (α=1/3) is operating along with honest miners.
- What is the probability that a selfish miner finds the next block?
- What is the probability that an honest miner finds the next block?
NewLiberty
Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 70
- 442
1 1/3
2 2/3
However, I do think your qualifications are suspect from your thinking Selfish Mining is a real threat to Bitcoin.
This is not upsetting however. I've recently learned that quite a lot of people took that seriously even if I never did. I just don't think that any of them should be developing Bitcoin.
[doublepost=1501639918,1501639199][/doublepost]
Baylor University Jackets.
May find a new market.
2 2/3
Nonsense. I'm upset at your behavior, not because of what you think of Selfish Mining.
However, I do think your qualifications are suspect from your thinking Selfish Mining is a real threat to Bitcoin.
This is not upsetting however. I've recently learned that quite a lot of people took that seriously even if I never did. I just don't think that any of them should be developing Bitcoin.
[doublepost=1501639918,1501639199][/doublepost]
Baylor University Jackets.
May find a new market.
1 1/3
2 2/3
Yes that is the correct answer. The selfish miner always finds the next block with probability 1/3 and the honest miners always find the next block with probability 2/3. It doesn't matter what happened before, or how many blocks the selfish miner has hidden, these probabilities are always constant.
But this is the question that started the entire debate that lead to "the bet," because Craig kept insisting that the question was ill-posed and one had to also consider the "negative binomial distribution." I'm sure @go1111111 can confirm.
This is the question that had people saying my simulator was questionable because I made this assumption, and that I wasn't using the right "model" because a negative binomial is involved.
This is the question that another individual got wrong when he tried to make a simulator.
This is the question that we've been debating on btcchat slack for days.
And, most importantly, the answer you just gave is the answer that Craig Wright claims is unsound in his "Selfish Mining Fallacy" paper that he removed from SSRN on Saturday:
2 2/3
Yes that is the correct answer. The selfish miner always finds the next block with probability 1/3 and the honest miners always find the next block with probability 2/3. It doesn't matter what happened before, or how many blocks the selfish miner has hidden, these probabilities are always constant.
But this is the question that started the entire debate that lead to "the bet," because Craig kept insisting that the question was ill-posed and one had to also consider the "negative binomial distribution." I'm sure @go1111111 can confirm.
This is the question that had people saying my simulator was questionable because I made this assumption, and that I wasn't using the right "model" because a negative binomial is involved.
This is the question that another individual got wrong when he tried to make a simulator.
This is the question that we've been debating on btcchat slack for days.
And, most importantly, the answer you just gave is the answer that Craig Wright claims is unsound in his "Selfish Mining Fallacy" paper that he removed from SSRN on Saturday:
Last edited:
NewLiberty
Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 70
- 442
Selfish Mining is not an area of expertise of mine. I read the paper when it came out. It appeared to be obvious nonsense and FUD, and I was curious for a short while as to why and how Cornel or whoever was backing it had any interest in doing so, but assumed it was for some market trading or something.
Recently I saw that it was DARPA and some others funding the research. Maybe there is more to it, but I leave that to the conspiracy wonks to sort out.
As to the questions you just asked in the previous post, and the statement in the graphic depicting Craig's paper. They are not equivalent, though I can see why they might appear to be so at a casual glance.
I believe Craig was hoping to describe the point he was making in his paper to you, which is different from the bet. I suspect this result of this difference will be an interesting one when it comes to light.
Recently I saw that it was DARPA and some others funding the research. Maybe there is more to it, but I leave that to the conspiracy wonks to sort out.
As to the questions you just asked in the previous post, and the statement in the graphic depicting Craig's paper. They are not equivalent, though I can see why they might appear to be so at a casual glance.
I believe Craig was hoping to describe the point he was making in his paper to you, which is different from the bet. I suspect this result of this difference will be an interesting one when it comes to light.
Last edited:
Alright, then it sounds like we both agree that the answer to the question as defined by the diagram and caption in "The Bet" image is t = 15 min, and that the probability a selfish miner finds the next block is always alpha.
I apologize that I believed you disagreed with both of these facts.
I apologize that I believed you disagreed with both of these facts.
BUCash is showing me a transaction I did from the segwit chain. Unconfirmed, obviously.
I'm sure it's just a cosmetic bug so I'll restore my wallet backup (made just before the fork) and send all money to myself so this never ever happens again, but it's still scary as hell because I'm currently "missing" 6 btc.
I'm sure it's just a cosmetic bug so I'll restore my wallet backup (made just before the fork) and send all money to myself so this never ever happens again, but it's still scary as hell because I'm currently "missing" 6 btc.
NewLiberty
Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 70
- 442
At the third block found on the Bitcoin Cash chain, it looked to me like there is an attack on difficulty occurring. I suspect it will persist.
Bitcoin Cash has a second difficulty adjustment method, which was intended to bring difficulty down in the early days. It is something like: If less than 6 blocks are found in 12 hours, drop difficulty 20%.
So the HK miner powered up after the first block and found 5, this prevents the fast difficulty drop. It does however hasten the normal difficulty drop.
Kudos to Freetrader and the rest of you who connived this, it co-opts the enemy resource through savvy design.
Further, loyal Bitcoin Cash miners might consider to switch to mining BTC during the attack phases, as it is more profitable and will cause more loss to the attacker.
Bitcoin Cash has a second difficulty adjustment method, which was intended to bring difficulty down in the early days. It is something like: If less than 6 blocks are found in 12 hours, drop difficulty 20%.
So the HK miner powered up after the first block and found 5, this prevents the fast difficulty drop. It does however hasten the normal difficulty drop.
Kudos to Freetrader and the rest of you who connived this, it co-opts the enemy resource through savvy design.
Further, loyal Bitcoin Cash miners might consider to switch to mining BTC during the attack phases, as it is more profitable and will cause more loss to the attacker.
NewLiberty
Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 70
- 442
It was pointed out to me that since it takes 6 blocks to start the trailing 6 block window for difficulty drops, it may be a loyal miner after all and not an attacker.
It will be interesting to see how it progresses from here.
Either the HK miner will prevent the fast difficulty changes, or not.
Either way, it is a serious effort. Almost 5% of total Bitcoin hash rate was used uneconomically to do this. Miners are spending a fortune in opportunity cost. It should be encouraging.
If HK is on our side, we could get down to 13% difficulty in 2 days, if against us, it can take months to reduce difficulty at all if block time is kept at just under 2 hours per block on average.
It is all up to the miners.
It will be interesting to see how it progresses from here.
Either the HK miner will prevent the fast difficulty changes, or not.
Either way, it is a serious effort. Almost 5% of total Bitcoin hash rate was used uneconomically to do this. Miners are spending a fortune in opportunity cost. It should be encouraging.
If HK is on our side, we could get down to 13% difficulty in 2 days, if against us, it can take months to reduce difficulty at all if block time is kept at just under 2 hours per block on average.
It is all up to the miners.
Update: restoring the backup fixed it as expected. Maybe I should create a new wallet so there are no shared addresses. But I'm lazy.
I'm thinking this bug could manifest itself in another, less annoying way. If you receive money in the segwit chain, it could appear as "phantom" forever-pending balance in BUCash.
Unrelated: here at home we've been watching Star Trek TNG sequentially from the beginning, one or two eps per day. Unbelievably, today's ep was Second Chances from season 6. Will Riker discovers a fork of himself, formed 8 years earlier during a transporter accident...
Code:
RIKER: Which one of them is real?
LAFORGE: That's the thing. Both. You were both materialised from a complete pattern.
CRUSHER: Up until that moment, you were the same person.
adamstgbit
Well-Known Member
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,206
- 2,650
bitcoin.com still hasn't mined a BCC block
Clearly we can expect to see a BCC block from bitcoin.com SOOOOON
its not like they are forever 8hours away from minning a block untill as if by magic they hit pay dirt.
Clearly we can expect to see a BCC block from bitcoin.com SOOOOON
its not like they are forever 8hours away from minning a block untill as if by magic they hit pay dirt.