Bitcoin cash mining profits jump
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
This is all show to try and prop up the coin. Both the pump and the "profitability" of mining it.
%98 of the blocks of this coin are mined by an unknown entity-- in other words, it's not decentralized. It's trivial for that entity to manipulate the difficulty retargeting mechanism in his favor.
Stay away. This is not "bitcoin" in any sense.
BTW, not even the one actual use case for bitcoin is interested in bcash: https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/6s30ss/have...
The "market cap" for BCH has to be way overestimated. It assumes there's a BCH for every BTC. But there isn't. Not everybody got their converted asset out.
People thinking about bitcoin like a company's stock or the stock market contribute to why they can't comprehend the train wreck to all time high prices.
Hopefully there will be good ways to go bearish by the time Coinbase enables Bitcoin Cash.
You can short it on Bitfinex...
Depending on your wallet there are mechanisms to separate out your BCH and BTC (Because it's a fork you need to be careful about this, as replay attacks might be possible.)
See your wallet maker for specific advice
BCH added at the eleventh hour a replay protection mechanism, so that's not the biggest issue. The risks are mostly sending BCH to an address which expects only BTC (or vice versa), and allowing less tested wallet software access to your private keys (which is why the recommendation is usually to first send everything to a new BTC wallet, before importing the now spent private keys into the BCH wallet).
The whole thing is just amazing and absurd and absurdly amazing.
Cryptocurrencies are brand new, so they're incredibly volatile, sure. But it can be "real money" just as much as money, because really what is money?
An idea.
The fact that both BTC and BCH exist now means that there is ${BTC + BCH} market cap now, right?
If you put $3k into BCH and $3k into BTC, your investments will grow or fall independently of each other, depending on how BTC or BCH does. But if BCH reaches parity with BTC, that means the world now has ${2xBTC} of value in it, right? I mean yes, set aside the question of what "value" means, but that's what the numbers are showing?
In other words, BCH was one of the biggest things anyone could have done to grow the Cryptocoin ecosystem as a whole, then? Coinmarketcap shows $68B for BTC and $13B for BCH. Ethereum is $27B, and that took like four years to get to this point.
So, true or false: BCH just created half the total value of ETH within the last month or so?
What justifies this? Is everything going to explode? I need a mathematical or investment framework to think rationally about the implications of this.
Are we in danger of any kind of "pop"? The 2008 housing crash affected the world. Anyone know how big these babies need to grow before a pop would cause problems for the world economy?
I'm not even convinced it will pop. But I've also read Madness of Crowds, and the temperament here reads identical to the worldwide investment craze portrayed in it. It didn't last forever. (I guess once all the naysayers stop naysaying about BTC, then it's time to worry. Till then, though...)
We are going to have a massive crypto bubble-- this is fundamentally new technology so its going thru the technology adoption life cycle and pops every time it gets to a wider audience--- and it hasn't yet gone mainstream. Everyone knows about it, but nobody trusts it yet.
We're at the point like in the 1990s when the idea of using your credit card on the internet seemed foolish and just asking to lose your money.
Once people become comfortable with it we will have a massive bubble, fortunes will be made and lost and it will make 2001 and 2008 look positively sedate.
I don't think BCH will still be around by the time that happens, though.
Any number that makes out that tokens whose entire real-life pricing is based entirely on speculation is bigger in some sense than all real world economic activity may not be a good measure.
The thing about national fiat currencies like your $100 bill is that millions of people are forced by the state to transact in that currency and none other, and it is backed by the promises and threats of the state. When the confidence in that backing evaporates (as happened with Assignats for example in post-revolutionary France, originally backed by property, later backed by thin air), bad things happen and what seemed valuable can overnight lose its value. All that is solid melts into air.
What I didn't see was that the use case of getting money out of China was enough to propel Bitcoin to thousands of dollars. When that started, it looked like the People's Bank of China was going to ease up on exchange controls and crack down on Bitcoin. The PBC did neither.
"The mountains are high and the Emperor is far away."
The absurd figures both in the growth of BTC over the 2 years (1700% gains!) and the sudden materialisation of value ex nihilo for BCH at 25% the market cap of bitcoin should be a good sign that this market is almost entirely based on speculation and could melt into thin air very soon, though it may well break new records before it does. Anyone getting in to either currency at this point is IMO going to lose their money.
https://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg730ztgMzm1g10...
Segwit is not going to activate on BCH because the BCH proponents are ideologically opposed to Segwit.
Additionally, almost no businesses are taking payment in BCH. BCH has to build its ecosystem up from scratch like any other altcoin. I think it has similar chances of "overtaking Bitcoin" as, for example, Litecoin.
EDIT: I don't know why the BCH price has gone up so much. It's almost certainly in even more of a bubble than BTC is currently in.
Bitcoin with Segwit will prioritize off-chain scaling (hence the 1MB blocksize limit and the current moves to prevent increasing it to 2mb), while Bitcoin Cash wants to enable on-chain scaling as the mainstay; but by no means are they mutually exclusive.
The Segwit activation raises new questions and concerns: the agreement to proceed with Segwit was a compromise known as Segwit2x (Segwit + 2mb blocks). Now it appears much of the Core team has no intention of honoring the 2x part (see core software 0.15 changelog: it will block any nodes signaling for segwit2x). Yet the 2x part is locked in - meaning we are currently headed towards a hard fork.
It's not a case of "not honouring" the 2x part; no members of the core team were part of the NYA.
You can't come up with an agreement and then accuse people who didn't sign it of failing to honour your agreement!
This is incorrect. There was a straightforward technical reason given in the pull request -- not enacting this change would likely partition the bitcoin network when the split happens. A network partition could be a drastic event that if exploited would result in much lost money and bankruptcy.
Rather than join a P2P network of nodes with wrong rules Core added code to not connect to nodes that give you blocks that violate consensus.
It's not controversial but the anti-core forces have nothing of substance so they make up drama.
1X(a) ----- 2X ----- 1X(b)
To prevent this from happening the Bitcoin Core team added code to 0.15 and higher that will per-emptively disconnect peers that advertise themselves as Segwit2x. Therefore a 0.15 node will only connect to peers that will relay good blocks from its perspective, and it is much less likely that such a network partition would occur. As long as there exists some nodes that don't auto-disconnect (e.g. old bitcoin nodes) then the Bitcoin Core 0.15+ and the Segwit2x networks will remain connected until the fork occurs.
It wasn't "we can forgo replay protection with this" but (among others) "we are even helping the hardforking side, during the BCH hardfork many BCH nodes connected to BTC nodes and couldn't propagate their transactions".
But as long as the hardfork hasn't happened, there is no reason to do this. This just makes signalling even less useful than it already is because nodes will be encouraged to lie about their intentions.
You can read it yourself here:
LN can work without segwit but it works much better with segwit and segwit enables a lot of other things like side chains and shorr signatures etc.
No there was no agreement called Segwit2X. The BCH people agreed segwit2x but the developers weren't even invited.
To call something a compromise or an agreement when one side was never even invited is disingenuous at best.
But this kind of misrepresentation has been going on for years and is the primary basis of attack against core-- because there are no technical arguments against core.
Then just correct me graciously. These are all things I've read from public figures in the Bitcoin community so I'm not "making claims" and this stuff is certainly not readily available information.
The only point for BCH is that transaction congestion won't force people to use layer 2 settlement layers, as there is a philosophy of an onchain scaling solution as well where transactions will remain cheap.
The block reward will still be supplanted by transaction fees in this solution, eventually. Whether with blocks being extremely large, or with a few halvings later.
Flextrans wouldn't be implemented solely for the lightning network. It would just be possible to do that as well.
edit: annnnnd a downvote without even a rebuttal, reminds me of a bitcoin reddit. a little disheartening.
Also the people creating congestion on BTC are the people who made BCH-- there is no natural congestion on BTC. Segwit quadruples capacity and lowers fees-- I expect we will quickly see segwit transactions be super cheap while the Jihan spam attack drives up non-segwit transactions making it really obvious that this is, in fact a spam attack (it's already obvious if you understand things well enough to look at the blocks yourself. Jihan is including his low fee spam transactions in his own blocks even though it otherwise wouldn't be economical to do so.)
Perhaps, but BTC is throwing its ecosystem away with a core team that is committed to congestion and high fees. Bitcoin Cash already has the customer side of the customer-vendor double-sided marketplace handled as well as Bitcoin does because they have approximately the same distribution among bitcoin owners.
It isn't the same hurdle as litecoin--half of the chicken and egg problem is already solved. Because of the fees, and the damper they will place on sales, there's an incentive to switch to boot.
It's not core that wants high fees-- why would they?
Most people don't know of BCH and since it was done in such a half assed manner most wallets don't really support it yet.
Not according to this: https://segwit.org/is-segwit-a-block-size-increase-705df6a87...
Can you address it? Thanks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6uw5kf/why_does_core_r...
Also LN does not need a malleability fix to work, it just makes the implementation easier.
%98 of BCH is mined by one entity.
They wanted their own bitcoin and they have it now and they are pumping it, but they don't have a decent development team and their motives are not good.
That changes the game significantly. What matters for a miner is not "it's more profitable with the current difficulty and price", but instead "it's more profitable with the current difficulty and the price X blocks in the future". Moreover, once they've mined a block on one chain, it's in their interest to keep that chain alive and working well for at least X blocks, so they can convert enough of their reward into fiat to pay their costs. The obvious way to do it would be to keep mining on the same chain, which generates yet more block rewards to be claimed later. All that might make the chain choice somewhat sticky for the miner: once on one chain, it's better to keep on the same chain instead of switching every time the price swings.
The only real money being spend are the transactions on the exchanges. There, it becomes hard to differentiate many 'real' buys of bitcoin cash from someone just flipping back and forth between the two.
So what's to stop continued splitting until the public figures it out and then we all crash?
As I recall, when the fork just happened, the explanation was that the price of BCH was largely meaningless, because you couldn't actually withdraw them as cash, either directly or via BTC or other coins. You could only trade within confines of exchanges where they materialized. Did that change since then?
Speculators be speculatin'.
> I mean, that value has to come from somewhere.
Demand is constrained: only miners and those who bought BCC since Aug 1 fork have any BCC to sell. Most of us struggle with "hmm how do I recover/import my BTC wallet keys into BCC? Holy crap it's worth how much?!" And finally much of the BCC is semi-orphaned by the fact that they hold pre-fork currency but have no idea that BTC exists.
If I think that Bitcoin Cash will ultimately not succeed, I should sell into this P&D, right?
Signs I'm watching:
* Merchant adoption
* bitcoin-abc doesn't have any commits in the last 21 days.
* Mining has not diversified (yet) so this doesn't appear to have gathered tons of support and it is really centralized. https://cash.coin.dance/blocks
Bitcoin cash is not closet o the "original vision"... that's a Roger Ver claim which is asinine beyond belief.
SegWit literally fixes an issue that Satoshi identified in the white paper... and Lightening Network is literally a nice rebranding and enhancement of the payment channels that Satoshi came up with.
Segwit quadruples capacity and lowers fees-- in fact Jihan said in a blog that the segwit fees were "unfair" because they are too low. Who is it you think who wants high fees again?
You've been listening to the people who want to take over bitcoin, not the engineers.
Members of core have contradicted themselves so often when asked why the block size can't be raised that there must be another agenda.
When they claimed a one-line arbitrary constant was impossible to change and then gave conflicting reasons why, they lost credibility. I've only seen this waxy-flexibility of logic when someone can't reveal the real reason behind what they want, or they are purely irrational.
Core have not been good stewards. Even in the unlikely event they were "correct," the mismanagement of the community, censorship, inability to communicate or build consensus has been atrocious.
In terms of original vision, Satoshi pretty clearly described layer 1 scaling.
source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810
--------
It would be nice to keep the blk.dat files small as long as we can.
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.
There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee. However, I haven't had time yet to add that option to the UI.
Scale or not, the test network will react in the same ways, but with much less wasted bandwidth and annoyance.
As a trader you should know not to certain, you're only trying to make educated guesses.