/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.23943968]

Bitcoin CASH

40 minutes until the hard fork.

[Anonymous No.23943973]

>>23943968
0 miners signal ABC.
its OVER. maybe i should buy?

[Anonymous No.23943976]

BCH is a mess. Just give it up it’s sad

[Anonymous No.23944081]

>>23943973
It's not surprising, 8% tax was too much. I also hear it was too easy to spend the collected crypto, it basically just goes to some multi-signature address? If the security of that address is compromised then what?

I mean at a certain point you have to ask what the developers would even work on to earn that large cat. Look at BTC, it has remained unchanged throughout 95% of its existence and the main full client is basically 99% the same as it always have been.

BTC devs mainly worked on their sideproject, lightning network, which was a complete waste of time. Imagine BTC miners paying 8% for them to work on lightning a couple of weeks per year...

[Anonymous No.23944206]

Less than 15 minutes, where's the hype guys?

[Anonymous No.23944222]

>>23944081
How is lightning network a complete waste of time, I use it almost everyday.

[Anonymous No.23944223]

>>23943973
>>23944206
kek thats funny. any website like coin.dance where we can watch the fork happen?

[Anonymous No.23944239]

>>23944222
genuine question, for what?

[Anonymous No.23944287]

>>23944222
First of all they still haven't solved the routing problem as far as I know. The more people that use it the more it will break.

Second of all, bullshit.

>>23944223
I don't really know except for cash.coin.dance, there's probably something on /r/btc

[Anonymous No.23944332]

>>23944206
>where's the hype guys?

'hype' for a hardfork of a fork of bitcoin... fucking lmao. BCH is a fucking dead shitcoin that no-one cares about.

[Anonymous No.23944360]

>>23944239
k2s membership for porn piracy
steam games
pizza
vpn time
vps hosting
domain name
non-custodial exchanges like fixed float
bought some precious metals recently on bitgild
the list goes on...

[Anonymous No.23944361]

>>23944239
Did you ever hear of Bitrefill ?

[Anonymous No.23944364]

>>23944360
also bitfinex uses it now so that's go I get my PNK when it dips

[Anonymous No.23944370]

>>23944361
Oh yeah bitrefill too, I use it for groceries to buy gift cards and shit.

[Anonymous No.23944373]

>>23944360
Cool, didin't know those were mature use cases. Do you generally connect to a hub, do you run a watcher etc?

[Anonymous No.23944385]

>>23944360
>>23944364
>>23944370
still call bullshit. nobody uses lightning network and you certainly don't use it for all of those, lmfao

[Anonymous No.23944405]

>>23944373
Nah, just use phoenix wallet all that shit with channels and hubs is all done under the hood. It's exactly the same as a normal bitcoin wallet now you just have a send and receive address everything is now handled by the software.

[Anonymous No.23944414]

6 blocks to go until the hard fork!

[Anonymous No.23944423]

lmao it's just dumped to 238 from 258 in a couple of minutes

[Anonymous No.23944433]

>>23944405
https://www.captiongenerator.com/1019862/Hilter-Reacts-to-Lightning-Network

[Anonymous No.23944440]

>>23944414
where do you see it?
coin dance only shows 843/1000 for bch

[Anonymous No.23944464]

>>23944440
i'm looking at https://cash.coin.dance/

[Anonymous No.23944548]

>>23944423
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/
i see 242 right now.

fork still hasn't actually happened and a lot of exchanges have frozen bitcoin cash for a couple of days so it will probably dump the most later if it will dump.

[Anonymous No.23944566]

>>23944423
Yea people got their snapshot and dumped. I took extra demage to ensure my snapshot. The chinks better deliver.

[Anonymous No.23944591]

>>23944405
Very nice, I will check out lighting again since it's been two years or so. There is talk of anonymous opening/closing of channels, do you have any idea how routing will work once that's implemented? It sounds like network topology would become privileged leading to some centralization risks.

[Anonymous No.23944635]

Wonder if something has gone wrong, it's been an hour since the last block.

https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch

Or if the occasional hour long wait between blocks just happened to happen now.

Oh wait, now a block was made just as I was about to submit.

[Anonymous No.23944647]

>>23944591
beware, looking at it doesn't reveal how broken it is

[Anonymous No.23944662]

>>23944591
I think schnorr signatures soft fork is supposed to fix the anonymous channels and also add taproot. It's much easier to run a lightning node than a full node so it will be at least as decentralized as bitcoin nodes. I actually don't really care that much as I just want the cheap fees to buy shit I need as I live off crypto at the moment.

[Anonymous No.23944673]

>>23944662
I don't think you understood the point about routing. If only big hubs know significant info about the topology, and they start sharing this only with one another, there's a very real censorship and centralization issue.

[Anonymous No.23944679]

>>23944662
>lightning network
>decentralized
you gotta be kidding me

[Anonymous No.23944687]

>>23944635
yeah looks like it froze

[Anonymous No.23944706]

>>23944635
https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch says one block eight minutes ago

[Anonymous No.23944717]

>>23944673
Like I said I don't really care that much I just want the low fees. If another L2 is better I'll switch to that.

[Anonymous No.23944732]

>>23944717
BTC is full of nonbelievers so that doesn't surprise me.

[Anonymous No.23944739]

>>23944717
>I don't really care that much I just want the low fees
Sad, but reality is that people are like this. Centralization will probably not affect you but in the long run it will really damage the value prop of bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.23944746]

>>23944732
It took a really long time for the block to show up at cash.coin.dance, is there a block propagation issue in BCH?

[Anonymous No.23944753]

https://reddit.com/r/btc/comments/jug1zr/well_be_tracking_todays_bitcoin_cash_network/
almost no activity, god damn what a nothingburger.
the abc chain must have died as soon as it was born, i'd be surprised if any market will support it.

[Anonymous No.23944756]

>>23944287
>First of all they still haven't solved the routing problem as far as I know
the routing problem only exists on the mesh layout. craigs beloved mandala layout for example has zero problems routing lightning

[Anonymous No.23944761]

>>23944222
>I use it almost everyday
where? because my problem with lightning boils down to acceptance/support. which is almost nonexistent even on exchanges let alone online shops.

[Anonymous No.23944781]

>>23944746
there's no such issue as far as i know, i just think that site is either overloaded or something must have bugged out

>>23944756
lightning transactions works as such as when you send a payment a snapshot is taken of the network. then your client calculates the path and sends the payment on its way.

if it's only 1 or 2 users using the network everything is often fine. but the more that uses lightning the bigger chance it is that your payment arrives at a path which has run out of funding in the time since the snapshot was taken, and then the payment fails.

that is the routing problem and why lightning performs worse the more people that use it.

[Anonymous No.23944786]

>>23944753
that's actually bullish for bch interesting.

[Anonymous No.23944807]

>>23944781
>lightning transactions works as such as when you send a payment a snapshot is taken of the network. then your client calculates the path and sends the payment on its way.
you don't need to do that for it to work.
>the more that uses lightning the bigger chance it is that your payment arrives at a path
that's the key point if the path is short and predefined by convention and well funded (at an adopted state all these will be true) you have almost no chance you have to try a payment again sans someone having network issues.

[Anonymous No.23944820]

>>23944781
The issues you mentioned really depend on network topology a lot.

[Anonymous No.23944833]

>>23944781
also what will fundamentally change the lightning networks nature and this is the most important factor is multi-path taproot payment channels.

much less liquidity has to be locked up by the network much less number of channels can serve more throughput. and taproot allows for non-custodial shared liquidity pools. which means even big hubs can be somewhat decentralized in nature.

[Anonymous No.23944856]

>>23944820
indeed i have wrote a few network software in my life i been programming for 30 years. the mesh topology is a nightmare for routing as is and we are not even talking about stateful routing at the lowest network level.
but if you want a completely decentralized piece of software you have to deal with that. there are algorithms... they scale like shit.

any level of centralization or organization greatly reduces this problem set. and centralization on the lightning network for efficiency while it has a trustless smart contract exit to layer 1 is probably not an immediate concern.

[Anonymous No.23944874]

>>23944786
yeah consensus was immediately reached, good for the network. though a little early to call it just yet. but i can't imagine many miners are okay with earning less when i can't even imagine what the developers do all day to earn that amount.

>>23944807
with a centralized backbone of bank nodes lightning network may have a slim chance of scaling. but it is still inherently flawed since you are discouraged to openly share your channels with vendors, since they can run out of funding at your end of the path, meaning you won't be able to use your own path with the vendor.

>>23944833
taproot must be something new in the last 2 years since i don't know what it is. i still don't think anything can save the idea of transacting on LN when you could just do that on the main chain (if blockstream stopped artificially limiting the blocksize).

my main gripe has always been that you have 2 options:
1. increase blocksize by 1 MB every year, built into the protocol.
2. keep limiting the blocksize for no reason and build a super complicated side network that takes a lot longer to get going with and has a chance to fail.

blockstream picked #2???

[Anonymous No.23944882]

>>23944856
one more thing to consider: a more centralized more star topology network is immensely harder to be clogged up by an attacker with low funds. it would require serious funds and would be easily routed around by liquid central hubs who's business is purely to let the most possible transactions through.

[Anonymous No.23944894]

>>23944833
>multi-path taproot payment channels
Interesting. Do you have a link to a lighting information repository? I'd like to dig deep with routing, multipath (hadn't heard about that) etc. Is there some protection in lightning against, say, ethereum based clients joining the network pretending to be BTC channels? It would probably make the network more efficient but I imagine maxis wouldn't like that.

I also find it odd that exchanges haven't embraced lighting channels so they can offer instant transactions between one another. It would help their volume by attracting arbitragers and bots that don't have to deal with really complicated latency calculations. User facing channels would also allow users to have custody of funds almost 100% of the time, also attracting HFT whales. Lots of potential imo.

[Anonymous No.23944919]

>>23944874
>with a centralized backbone of bank nodes lightning network may have a slim chance of scaling.
no it's a done deal we know it will work that way the question always was if it can do a mesh topology if it needs to. banks in this case will be the big exchanges of course... our payment path would be for example
me -> coinbase -> kraken -> you
this doesn't require much routing too bad it doesn't yet work because exchanges are lazy ass bitches.
>but it is still inherently flawed since you are discouraged to openly share your channels with vendors
no that will always work. but only makes sense with big vendors like amazon, and for this amazon has to support ln. so again this will take time.
>taproot must be something new in the last 2 years since i don't know what it is.
read up on it it's a crazy capability multiplier on bitcoin layer 1 and 2.

bitcoin with taproot can do more with 1mb blocks than all the shitforks of bitcoin together.

[Anonymous No.23944936]

wtf are you guys talking about?
I just want to know if we break up or not?

[Anonymous No.23944949]

>>23944936
It's a lighting network with a side of cash fork thread now. As usual BCH will crab.

[Anonymous No.23944973]

>>23944949
seems like it cant crab for much longer

[Anonymous No.23944997]

cion.dance says 3 more blocks to see the deal

[Anonymous No.23944998]

ITS
FUCKING
CRASHING
KEK

[Anonymous No.23945002]

>>23943968
RIP

[Anonymous No.23945015]

>>23944973
well technically their choosen use-case is cash and cash is better if it's stable in purchasing power.
i just don't get the retarded cucks that want to invest in cash...

[Anonymous No.23945044]

>>23945015
I was just talking about the chart
No doubt leverage traders are going to make volatility happen once it goes up or down from the meme triangle. Some move bound to happen by EOY. Hoping this fork will be a catalyst

[Anonymous No.23945083]

>>23945044
dunno, i don't care about the price of bch at all. sold all of mine for btc at 0.05
i was planning on buying this dip before the entire dev tax thing was seriously debated then i realized the cash community is a bunch of retards that will never reach consensus even amongst themselves.
the only way i may buy some to sell again at 0.05 if this fork doesn't happen.
but i don' really feel the urge to dabble in shitcoins anymore. back then i started holding bch as a hedge in case the block stream gambit blows up in our face. i don't see that a threat for now.

[Anonymous No.23945141]

last block mined 32 minutes ago i know this is not an exact science but an average but maybe the hashrate did split.

[Anonymous No.23945158]

>>23945141
nah block just came in no split

[Anonymous No.23945197]

I have a few BCH still from years ago. Am I expected to do anything like migrate to new wallet software, or are my funds SAFU?

[Anonymous No.23945220]

>>23945197
i think there was some talk about bch pos not including old coins that did not move in a year.
but i'm not sure if viabtc serious about bch pos anymore.

[Anonymous No.23945228]

>>23944673
>complains hysterically about theoretical centralization issues
>meanwhile he uses eth
have you considered kys today?

[Anonymous No.23945241]

>>23945228
I'm not holding eth because I believe in it long term.

[Anonymous No.23945254]

>>23945228
>>23945241
and, if topology gets really bad, then the centralization issue is way beyond ETH or even BTC mining levels.

[Anonymous No.23945282]

>>23945254
the best thing about bitcoin is no matter how centralized the current stat of the network gets on either layer 1 or 2 entry for new players is always permissionless.
which means if the old lightning players get big fat and comfy and start abusing their power new players will scoop up their business.
it's capitalism at it's finest.

[Anonymous No.23945345]

>>23945282
With lighting in particular, I foresee an in-out group/banning peers/legal problem that doesn't exist on L1. Sure miners could orphan one another but there are several large thresholds social/economic/etc to doing that. On lighting I think this could be more gradual causing a sort of decentralization rot. We'll see, I genuinely hope it plays out in a good way.

[Anonymous No.23945534]

Exchanges dropping BCHN name already

[Anonymous No.23945590]

>>23945345
i think there could be multiple separate lightning networks in the end. there will be a fully kyc-d legalized us government sanctioned network which will have the biggest liquidity. and there will be many smaller and larger separate networks some of them invite only others forming to be naturally closed by shared interest.

[Anonymous No.23945629]

>>23945590
i don't really know how they will enforce the network integrity tho because by the nature of lightning it's trivial to proxy payments and thus merge networks on demand.

[Anonymous No.23945676]

>>23945534

[Anonymous No.23945788]

>>23945629
and then you add the schnorr signatures to lightning and basically it becomes impossible to tell if a tx originated form a non-kyc wallet.
it's almost like btc devs are years before regulators as usual.

[Anonymous No.23945790]

>>23945676
N

[Anonymous No.23945815]

and we have block zero, next block will be interesting will abc stall?

[Anonymous No.23945833]

>>23945815
yep antpool block is not accepted because no dev tax.

[Anonymous No.23946190]

Looks like ABC will stall. Will there be even one block if they quickly realize it's going to take months(?) to have a difficulty adjustment? Will they hardfork one in?

[Anonymous No.23946300]

>>23946190
won't take months on bch 2 hours tops and aggressive adjustment of hashrate comes.

[Anonymous No.23946311]

>>23946300
i mean difficulty daa or what they call it

[Anonymous No.23946340]

>>23946311
had forgotten about that mechanic

[Anonymous No.23946859]

>>23944919
even if all what you're saying is true, that LN can work but it will "take time", it doesn't make it better than just keeping things simple and doing all BTC transactions on chain like was always intended for it as a global money system. arguing for segwit, the concept of "block weight" and locking btc in a secondary off-chain that will "take time" to even work takes some incredible mental gymnastics compared to just increasing the block size limit and then everything's golden. maybe restoring some opcodes for functionality as well.

>>23946190
i don't think the ABC chain will survive, seems like it has zero support. the BCHN chain is 10 blocks ahead already.

[Anonymous No.23946888]

i mean even if the ABC chain somehow continues with 1% hashpower, what market/exchange will bother to add it? it'll have zero value.

[Anonymous No.23947008]

Wonder if Amaury Séchet will abandon BCH now?

[Anonymous No.23947124]

>>23945083
>back then i started holding bch as a hedge in case the block stream gambit blows up in our face. i don't see that a threat for now.
same
i've still got some as a small hedge but i got rid of the hundreds that i had a while ago

[Anonymous No.23947169]

>>23946859
>it doesn't make it better than just keeping things simple and doing all BTC transactions on chain
of course it's better
instant (but trustless unlike 0-conf)
scales exponentially with blocksize not linearily
it can already do billions of tx/sec with 1mb blocks
offers more privacy optionally than on-chain where analysis right now is pretty straightforward
it's much much better

[Anonymous No.23947182]

>>23946859
>restoring some opcodes for functionality
yeah what functionality exactly? string concatenation? fuck off... meaningful smartcontracts don't need those opcodes. which is why they were disabled made unit testing a nightmare.

[Anonymous No.23947194]

within an hour we should see if anyone tries to mine abc.

[Anonymous No.23947316]

>>23947169
i'll give you instant, 0-conf is flawed if someone wants to scam their coffee purchase. it could be solved by nodes freezing out miners that violates the first seen rule but i don't think that will happen. it is possible to implement a system similar to lightning on chain however: on-chain micropayments. i don't have the url with me for that though. i think it will require some opcodes that blockstream has disabled.

"scales" assumes that it will stop being worse and worse the more that use LN at the same time. it haven't happened yet and i'm not betting that it ever will.

optional privacy can be done on-chain with coinmixing or coinmerging or whatever it was called, i saw that electroncash now offer that funtionality build-in. haven't tried it yet but seems very neat.

all in all i don't think all the added complexity was worth it just compared to increasing the blocksizes. and that's not even accounted for the lost adoption (steam supported BTC but dropped it for the high fees), lost programmers and the split community. blockstream sacrificed so much for LN.

>>23947182
i'm not on my home computer so i cant give a full answer, sorry.

>>23947194
i read that ABC devs are scrambling to set up GPU mining, don't know if true

[Anonymous No.23947403]

>>23947316
>it could be solved by nodes freezing out miners that violates the first seen rule
so you want to break the nakamoto consensus again and again not just once?
come on...might as well go pos at that point makes more sense.
>on-chain micropayments
it's possible of course it is, just block validation time is a bitch when you go shopping.
irl retail can use lightning instead of a cedit card and no trust is involved. you can make a sidechain solution for this with faster validation but lightning channel itself is just a sidechain which is a chain of valid on-chain transactions not yet submitted to mempool which makes it technically superior to an actual separate blockchain.

the thing is lightning is miles ahead of the curve as far as blockchain development is considered. and it's made possible by segwit. lot's of misconceptions about segwit that went viral make some people see it as something insidious unnecessary complication. which is not true. it's very simple and straightforward: separate the business transaction from the sigscript (witness) because once the tx is validated by being included into a confirmed block nobody even has to check the witness so long the nakamoto consensus is intact.

[Anonymous No.23947433]

>>23947316
>"scales" assumes that it will stop being worse and worse the more that use LN at the same time
there is a difference between lighting payment channel in itself and the lightning network. the payment channel itself allows fro insane scaling compared to onchain. and it works already. the lightning network built on top of it is still shaky and small absolutely in beta testing phase. it will naturally find it's optimal shape and form like all free forming networks tho. in that i believe.

[Anonymous No.23947535]

>>23947403
>it's possible of course it is, just block validation time is a bitch when you go shopping.
it's not needed with the thing i'm talking about

i don't remember exactly but it involves you sending crypto to an address that nobody can withdraw from (same as loading a channel in lightning network) but the address has a timelock, after which you can take back the crypto

when you pay for something you give a transaction to the vendor that HE signs and MAY broadcast to the network, the transaction sends crypto back to yourself and to the vendor.

that way the transaction is instant and trustless, the vendor knows that only he can move the crypto from the address and you know that if he doesn't broadcast the transaction before the deadline you get a full refund.

i forget the details (or what it's called) but it's possible on-chain without lightning network.

>it's very simple and straightforward
segwit and the concept of block weight was not worth it compared to just increasing the block size. also introduces the risk of everybody scrapping the segregated data, which makes it impossible to verify the full chain of transaction back to when it was mined. the hashes will be right but you don't know if the data that made those hashes are right. it's been 2 years since i thought about these things so i may not remember exactly and i don't have my saved reference links with me

[Anonymous No.23947618]

>>23947535
man that sounds exactly like a lightning payment channel

[Anonymous No.23947645]

>>23947618
pretty much, i think it needs some opcode that is disabled on btc

[Anonymous No.23947673]

https://www.coinex.com/activity/bch-fork

i'm surprised that the ABC chain has some value, especially since the chain is frozen...

[Anonymous No.23947694]

>>23947535
>also introduces the risk of everybody scrapping the segregated data, which makes it impossible to verify the full chain of transaction back to when it was mined
well first of all you don't need to on bitcoin at least. because the nakamoto consensus ensures that the utxo set (ledger) built by the longest chain is valid.
second we should not only scrap the old segwit data which is absolutely useless (and i'm not saying archiving nodes can't keep it for legal purposes or for research) but also the old transactions themselves.

the utxo set is the true value on bitcoin the blockchain is just a means to an end towards a byzantine fault tolerant distributed consensus. the blockchain data itself has 0 value especially on long confirmed spent or provably unspendable utxos.

so i think it's gonna be that the entire bitcoin blockchain will weight a few gigabytes for full nodes in the future. a smart watch will be able to run a bitcoin full node.

[Anonymous No.23947713]

>>23947645
that would be weird. see if you can find the url...

[Anonymous No.23947774]

>>23947713
i'm trying to find it but no luck, if the thread is still up when i get home i'll post the url. you'd think it would be easy to find but btc people tend to bury these things from being discussed.

[Anonymous No.23948048]

>>23947673
well it's got 1 block so far, so it's not 100% dead yet

[Anonymous No.23948279]

>>23948048
hah, by "Unknown". maybe it really is the developers with their GPU

[Anonymous No.23948387]

>>23948279
when the fork happened, did both chains have the same difficulty?
if so idk how they could even stand a chance against ASICs with just GPUs

[Anonymous No.23948416]

hmm abc made 2 blocks already, someone is definitely mining it.

[Anonymous No.23948433]

>>23948387
it's the daa after 2 hours the difficulty adjusts down this makes bch very resilient against catastrophic hashrate drops.

[Anonymous No.23948462]

of course because of the other feature bch has that broke the nakamoto consensus the not updated nodes will not roll back further than 10 blocks if they find a longer chain, so not updated nodes are now set on the bchn network.

[Anonymous No.23948469]

>>23948433
ah nice i didn't know that
i'm not the most well read but i would have assumed i would have learned something like that
does OG bitcoin have that as well? (i would hope so)

[Anonymous No.23948526]

>>23948469
Yep

[Anonymous No.23948550]

>>23948526
cool, thank you
how the fuck did i not know this was a thing?
people would fud BTC constantly by saying "when the china dam collapses the hash rate will drop to zero and we'll have 2 week block times"
idk how i was so misinformed

[Anonymous No.23948592]

>>23943968

Tether is about to cause the most catastrophic rug-pull in human history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVK9SxKR5c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzDjJ-SrojY

New information on tether lawsuit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/jrr3ny/recent_fillings_exit_the_ponzi_playground_at_all/

More information on Bitcoin:

https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7?gi=63d0d0ef554a

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfcvX0P1b5g

As of today, seven-day printing-rate of tether is $38 billion per annum.

I suspect that the CFTC knows that tether is a scam, but they won't audit it for the same reason that they won't audit the COMEX. Crypto is an Adam Back/Blockstream-created ponzi to split the anti-fiat community. The COMEX already would have gone bankrupt if our efforts had been fully concentrated on physical silver during these past ten years. Once fiat collapses, BTC becomes priced in gold, and all crypto (as being the fruit of the poisoned tree) immediately goes to zero.

"To overturn the history of gold is wishful thinking. Fully backed Gold and silver substitutes and circulating coins are practical and acceptable for 7bn transacting individuals. BTC will then have no role and sink to zero priced in gold." - Alasdair Macleod, 8 November 2020

BTC requires $100-fees and 3-day transaction times when even 0.1% of the world population attempts to use it as a currency; the only solution is to go through Blockstream’s second-layer solutions which track and trace everything you do. Blockstream is controlled by the banks and the Bilderberg Group. Projects like BCH are not the answer, since they are just as liable to human corruption as BTC was.

Not only is BTC worthless as a currency, but gold-backed crypto already exists. We don't need BTC for anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q9aYYluRA0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjqzyqRz_Mc

Also, gold-backed yuan and rubles will soon be used in the banking system.

[Anonymous No.23948622]

>>23943968
I wonder how many more days bch will have a higher mcap than NEC

[Anonymous No.23948663]

>>23948469
>does OG bitcoin have that as well?
no bitcoin still has the original nakamoto consensus continued. which takes 2 weeks to adjust difficulty down and thus it would not take well if 90% of the hashrate disappeared.

[Anonymous No.23948697]

>>23947713
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Payment_channels

It's not the URL I was thinking of but I think I was thinking of "Nakamoto high-frequency transactions", though it would require miners to freeze out miners that put non-final transactions in blocks. The problem is that there's no way to know if that miner actually broke the rules or if he simply didn't have the final transaction seen in his mempool.

Nontheless there are several suggestions to achieve payment channels on-chain without lightning network and exploring them would make more sense than trying to get people to use LN.

>>23948462
bitcoin unlimited still respect nakamoto consensus, they will roll back further than 10 blocks, so if more miners use that client bch respects nakamoto consensus

i was kinda pissed when ABC implemented the 10 block limit in 2018

>>23948550
the change of difficulty adjustment also kind of goes against how bitcoin was supposed to work. weak chains were supposed to die off from long block times.

but it's at least not as bad as the 10 block checkpoints (which makes it so that new nodes must check with authority to know which chain is valid, can't just look at proof of work)

[Anonymous No.23948702]

>>23948592
>gold-backed yuan
yeah i will trust the chinks on their pinky swear that all those yuans are backed by gold... sounds fun. what could go wrong?

[Anonymous No.23948731]

>>23948697
>bitcoin unlimited still respect nakamoto consensus, they will roll back further than 10 blocks
are you sure? that's not what i heard, but i know peter todd so sounds believable.

[Anonymous No.23948783]

>>23948697
>which makes it so that new nodes must check with authority to know which chain is valid, can't just look at proof of work
yeah but it's probably gonna be which client you download determines which chain you will download in case of an actual contentious hardfork. in this regard the source of the client software was always an authority.

[Anonymous No.23948796]

>>23948592
I can't understand how Tether is still a thing when it has said in their terms of service, clear as day for at least 3 years, that no US persons may own Tether. They can also reject exchange for real USD for arbitrary reasons. Exchanges that know their customer is a US person doesn't even prevent their account from using Tether even though it's 100% clear that they are not allowed to. It's such an obvious bullshit token backed by nothing.

[Anonymous No.23948821]

>>23948783
what i mean by is unintended chainsplits will be resolved by an emergency update. as they had been in the past. and if the miners agree on the implementation the client nodes will see a longer chain emerge naturally.

[Anonymous No.23948834]

>>23948550
It's always been this way, probably like 99.9% of people invested in crypto still haven't even read the whitepaper, let alone understand even 1% of how the protocol works or the game theory around it

It's the same thing with "muh quantum" where people just don't understand what error-corrected qubits are or BTC's public key transmission mechanism with a double-hash that isn't subject to the discrete logarithm problem in the first place. Not to mention ever stopping to question why if a nation-state had the overwhelming resources to break asymmetric elliptic curve encryption why would they waste their one-shot on trying to double-spend some internet money in a tiny $300bil market when a bomb like that could be deployed somewhere more relevant like the global eurodollar bond market or SWIFT. It's like when they broke the enigma machine, and then couldn't just use it to compromise everything right away because then the Nazis would realize it and change communication methods. If some nation-state successfully performed a double spend, the guy who gets screwed over would immediately know about it, the entire crypto community would know about it because it's a public fucking ledger, and the entire community would come together and switch algorithms to something of higher bits or quantum-resistant, of which plenty of algorithms already exist and are always improving. Why would you blow your load like that on Bitcoin rather than use it to secretly monitor encrypted traffic all over the world

[Anonymous No.23948836]

>>23948731
go to https://cash.coin.dance/ and CTRL+F this:
BCH Unlimited will follow the longest chain.

>BCH Unlimited 1.9.0.1
>BCH Unlimited will follow the longest chain.

to the right of (for a different client) it it says
>Bitcoin Cash Node will follow the longest chain unless the 10-block re-org protection is violated.

[Anonymous No.23948867]

>>23948836
well bitcoin cash node will follow unlimited now. that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.23948943]

>>23948526
>>23948834
m8 you are fucking wrong and that's all i'm gonna say on this matter. bitcoin still from day 1 has 2 week adjustment periods but those 2 weeks are approximation (from block height) not real time, so if the hashrate collapses it would indeed take months for difficulty to adjust down.

[Anonymous No.23949185]

>>23948836
peter todd is the only cashie i have genuine respect for. i just don't understand how he is a cashie in the first place. he is a man of principles and he understand bitcoin pretty damn well. he has shed light to many vulnerabilities behind new concepts. so if anyone he should know why bch is not bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.23949193]

>>23944591
The only way to scale a blockchain is to centralize in some way. For lightning the idea is that you trade in a bit of decentralization for speed but you still preserve ability to have full custody of your funds. This is why you only put spending amounts in there, a few hundred bucks at most.
The alternative is to try and make payments possible on the base layer which trades in decentralization at the foundation of your chain which is unacceptable. The lie of the big blockers is that they don't acknowledge the tradeoff. Just look at ethereum where 90% of the ecosystem uses infura because nobody can easily run a node. "Sharding" is just way of adding more centralization for scaling but they hide it behind techno babble

[Anonymous No.23949226]

>>23949185
Peter todd is absolutely not a cashie

[Anonymous No.23949283]

>>23949193
sharding is just partitioning the network because the tx capacity limitations inherent in a single blockchain with eths script complexity no matter the size.
the centralized part comes at most when you try to jump chains. which is necessary to share a common coin with common valuation. since that is the hard part that is yet to be solved trivially.

bitcoin will sidestep this issue with sidechains having their own tokens that represent btc on them and having btc in escrow with trustless layer 1 exit.

[Anonymous No.23949293]

>>23949185
bch may not be bitcoin but it's what btc should have been

[Anonymous No.23949302]

>>23949226
well that's an interesting and new argument, care to expand?

[Anonymous No.23949344]

>>23948592
amazing pasta
every word you just typed is wrong

[Anonymous No.23949548]

>>23949193
>"Sharding" is just way of adding more centralization for scaling but they hide it behind techno babble
Look up 1% attacks. It isn't.

[Anonymous No.23949776]

>>23949283
We already know blockchains scale worth dogshit. Sharding is just breaking the network up and adding more of them, which also scale like dogshit. Less people will validate each individual shard, so overall the network validators will get further spaced out and centralized around exchanges and infrastructure providers

[Anonymous No.23949809]

>125 sincere replies about bcash and lightning
I accidentally woke up in 2017

[Anonymous No.23949983]

>>23949776
also sharding is not really possible on a pow chain so that's the main reason eth has to go pos.
what they could do is that there is a master chain that remains pow and also does the new coin minting, and there are pos validated shards where rewards are only tx fees (but energy consumption is also negligible)

can't wait how eth2 will turn out. it's like watching a trainwreck same for bch forks.

[Anonymous No.23950040]

>>23949809
just needs more memes

[Anonymous No.23950065]

[Anonymous No.23950087]

>>23949983
oh and of course validators must do the staking on the master chain which would also coordinate how many shards are in existence. you could say eth shards could be dao like smart contracts on the master chain.

but it doesn't sound like vitalik is going there.

[Anonymous No.23950778]

https://read.cash/@TomZ/why-did-abc-lose-53bb307f
>ABC decided to reject the DAA solution and instead make something they could claim as their own.
>The thing that made ABC lose was that it turned on the people, and the people then rejected ABC and its exploitative IFP.
some insight into what actually caused people to turn on ABC, seems like it was not only about the 8% tax

[Anonymous No.23950896]

Is my math right? Given that bchabc is at 10 dollars, IFP generates $720 a day?

[Anonymous No.23951148]

>>23950896
well, theoretically. i think the abc chain will become worthless.

[Anonymous No.23951188]

i suspect the abc chain trading at https://www.coinex.com/activity/bch-fork is some kind of "futures" that is off chain, as soon as most exchanges unfreezes BCH the value of abc will tank. if the exchange even bothers to support abc.

[Anonymous No.23951201]

>>23951148
You are probably correct. The number above is under the assumption that a block is mined every 10 minutes, which I don't think is going to happen.

[Anonymous No.23951785]

The chinks are gonna run amok with the mining power, this will affect all forks, including BTC

[Anonymous No.23952565]

>>23950778
The IFP idea was floated last year and it stirred up drama and then this year they just tried to ram it through.

[Anonymous No.23952585]

>>23943968
Again?

[Anonymous No.23952833]

>>23947713
>>23947774
Here's the link I was thinking about: https://developer.bitcoin.org/devguide/contracts.html#micropayment-channel

It's called a Micropayment Channel and has been known about for many years (since well before 2014). Nothing too fancy, I can't remember what the flaw is in it, if there is one.

Note: Alice is the Vendor and Bob is the Customer in the linked example.

[Anonymous No.23952887]

>>23952833
More info:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contract#Example_7:_Rapidly-adjusted_.28micro.29payments_to_a_pre-determined_party
^- is linked to from -v
https://bitcoinj.org/working-with-micropayments

[Anonymous No.23953050]

>>23944360
K2S doesn't even list bitcoin as an accepted payment method any more. I looked just last week.

[Anonymous No.23953258]

>>23953050
strange how crypto never really took off in porn, i guess it's because mostly old people actually pay for porn and they don't know crypto.

[Anonymous No.23953286]

The fork wars will never be over, the temptation of having percentage of coins being mined given to certain developers for free means we will need to fend off multiple forking attempts.

[Anonymous No.23953747]

>>23953286
forking is how bitcoin works though (or how it's supposed to work). a change is made and the miners "vote" by working on that chain, if the chain becomes the longest the change is permanent.

if bitcoin keeps growing all miners could come together and decide that there shouldn't be 21 million BTC max, but 21 billion. then the change happens if that chain becomes the longest.

however, i said that's how it's SUPPOSED to work. in reality all markets/exchanges/wallet-service-providers would also need to be convinced, otherwise the miners would mine on the longest chain but it's not really a part of the economy (at least not yet).

the built-in deflation of bitcoin should keep miners from wanting to increase the supply though. however eventually the block rewards get so small that usage becomes very important to collect fees.

some day the miners will probably become really interested in collecting "dead coin", addresses that haven't been spent in 100 years. the protocol could be changed to release that money and distribute the satoshis as mining fee over the next 1000 blocks or so. that's a hard fork change most miners probably would want to vote yes on with their hashpower.

[Anonymous No.23953812]

>>23944360
Pedofags need to die

[Anonymous No.23954332]

Still just 3 blocks on the ABC chain from an unknown miner.

Wonder if it was someone who wanted to sell off his coins so he mined those blocks just to move them. Maybe somewhere that only required three confirmations.

[Anonymous No.23954757]

4th block spotted, guess the ABC isn't dead just yet.

[Anonymous No.23955397]

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-abc/block/661651
last block moved a total of 21721 BCH on the ABC chain. something tells me the price is about to be affected.

[Anonymous No.23956252]

>>23944781
How do I shot web?

[Anonymous No.23956685]

>>23955397
someone dumping i guess?