Hacker News Reader

Comment by wbazant | Hacker News Reader

Exchanges trade both in Bitcoin and BitcoinCash, and I've just learned from the paper that they form a tree with a common origin. Does it mean that if I owned Bitcoin before the Bitcoin-BitcoinCash split, I can now spend it on both chains?

View on HN

Yes, your private key will give access to the same amount of bitcoin, bitcoin cash and bitcoin SV

They will give access to the same amount held in those addresses before the date they forked. Coins sent after the time of the fork exist in separate chains except in somewhat bizarre cases where "replay protection" was not used.

yes, but be aware, bcash is plagued with scammers, so as a precaution you should move your coins on bitcoin to another wallet before attempting to use a bcash wallet which could steal your bitcoin private keys.

The "bcash" term is used to attack BCH. It makes many of the attackers (that are everywhere on social media) pretty easy to recognize. Dishonesty and personal attacks are their "bread and butter". They attack BCH because it is the only Bitcoin still working to allow massive scaling.

Dark forces captured BTC to stop it from becoming a real peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. BCH is keeping that dream alive and the dark forces opposed to financial freedom have been attacking BCH since before it existed.

I am sure there are BTC and BCH wallets that can steal your private keys. Don't use a wallet from an unreliable source for any crypto.

"Dark forces" like people commenting here with anonymous brand new created accounts, slandering people who were tirelessly supporting Bitcoin long before they ever heard of it?

Come on.

> people commenting here with anonymous brand new created accounts

I don't think those kinds of comments are warranted here. I don't see any increase in the number of green usernames in this thread compared to any other post. What kind of evidence do you have to support these claims?

This thread:

$ egrep 'class="hnuser">' 21978475 | wc -l

21977147 (top thread right now):

$ egrep 'class="hnuser">' 21977147 | wc -l

21974514 (second from top):

$ egrep 'class="hnuser">' 21974514 | wc -l

21974117 (third from top):

$ egrep 'class="hnuser">' 21974117 | wc -l

These threads have similar numbers of comments to this one.

21971545 (Next one down with a lot of comments, 2.5x this one):

$ egrep 'class="hnuser">' 21971545 | wc -l

Plus, there is a thread on reddit directing: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/el5qqf/bitcoin_core_hav... But hey, maybe I'm paranoid.

Seems this thread is bizarro land. I guess you're going to just ignore the abusive conspiracy theory in the post that I was responding to and instead wag your finger at me for turning it around with a pretty obvious observation?

I browse both sites daily and see links between the two quite often. What is strange about one site linking to another?

Also I don't know if it's HN formatting but the commands you posted don't work. I think you're trying to point out there are N number of new users in this thread?

It's saying at the time I commented there were 35 posts in this thread with green names (36 now), while there were 0, 1, 1, and 1 in the other threads respectively.

If you want to go by the ratio of unique green names instead of posts this thread has 13 times more than those threads that had any at all.

There does seem to be a lot of variance in that though. The top post on HN right now is from a green user name. Also the number of comments in the two threads is vastly different.

So what. Most of us take the same username here so you know exactly who we all are.

Do I have to verify with 1Niak6WPi1NDYquYGBc6TYVerheyEGeXM7 or is my very fimilair style good enough for you?

Attacking my account age is so off-point. Greg's specialty is using true facts to try to claim or imply false information. I am new to this forum. He knows I am not as new to standing up to his form of dishonest distractions used to derail conversations he knows are bad for his house-of-cards.

> supporting

Come on indeed.

If I remember right, you came to destroy P2P cash later than I began following it. Regardless, your "tireless support" has been a pox on the real bitcoin and the real bitcoin community you and your army pretend you represent.

My understanding is that "bcash" is used as a slanderous term between the two camps struggling for power. This comment seems to be attempting to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. As far as I am aware there is no evidence that shows Bitcoin Cash clients are attempting to "steal your bitcoin private keys".

when the fork happened there were indeed scam sites that asked you to "paste your private key to see if you have BCH"

There were also replay attacks possible, so that if you paid some BCH to someone they could replay the transaction to get the corresponding BTC as well

Neither of these are a concern anymore AFAIK (the first one never really was, never give away your private key)

And yes, "bcash" has a negative connotation.

You confuse it with other forks, for example in Bitcoin Gold key stealing was very prevalent. It wasn't a big problem for Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash also had replay protection from the start.

We mainly use the Bitcoin.com wallet on our phones and Electron Cash on our computers. Both are open source with many eyes looking at the code. We try to teach our user to verify hashes on upgrades and to have copies of dev pub keys on their computer to verify on a fairly regular basis (but not every upgrade).

We also try to keep scammers out our community and I think we are doing a fairly good job, better than most crypto communities.

This is idiotic fear mongering from one of the many parasitic BTC investors who lost all interest in building sovereign money the second their pockets started filling up with fiat.

They perceive BCH to be a threat to their pocketbook and they should. If BCH succeeds at building p2p electronic cash, there will be no need for BTC to exist.

Do you have any proof of any scams other then calling their coin Bitcoin Cash and the original Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core?

The MIT license gives the right to rename.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

End license text.

Yes, they share a blockchain history until a certain point. If your Bitcoins were sent in a transaction belonging to a block prior to the split, you own both BCash and Bitcoin.

Why do people call it BCash?

Because it's part of a social engineering campaign to discredit Bitcoin Cash and to prevent people from learning about the idiocy of what Bitcoin is doing.

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/why-some-people-call-bit...

The "bcash" term is used to attack BCH. It makes many of the attackers (that are everywhere on social media) pretty easy to recognize. They attack BCH because it is the only Bitcoin still working to allow massive scaling. Dark forces captured BTC to stop it from becoming a real peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. BCH is keeping that dream alive and the dark forces have been attacking BCH since before it existed.

Amount of trolls/fake comments from BCash community is insane. BCash is just a shorthand for a pretty shady coin that it is.

You got fooled by a slick marketing campaign.

Around fork time, there was a coordinated push, including websites, subreddits, youtube videos (title of video by jimmy Song interviewing Roger Ver was first known use), and the censored 'bitcoin' forums all calling the fork 'bcash'. One week later, Samson Mow even did a guest column for Forbes magazine[a] mentioning the term. Adam Back later Chastised Cobra for not calling it bcash.

The goal appeared to be two-fold:

1. Strip Bitcoin Cash of the name 2. Frame it as a scam, especially if we take back the name.

a. https://fortune.com/2017/08/07/bitcoin-cash-bch-hard-fork-bl...

"The newly created Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a rushed spinoff of Bitcoin (BTC), a clonecoin of which there have been many in Bitcoin’s past. Because the name is confusing, many have taken to calling it “Bcash” to avoid buyer confusion."

Because it's deceptive to call it "Bitcoin" Cash, because it's not Bitcoin. It's confusing to people who want to buy real bitcoins.

Yes. See: https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/01/technology/business/bitcoin...

Yep. The split was also a taxable event (income) according to the IRS.

Selling coins from the fork is the taxable event, not the folk itself.

The IRS guidance appears to contradict you.

https://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-profes...

If that is really their position, it's absurd and untenable... so I'm sure we'll see further clarifications in the future. Like how are you supposed to deal with forks that you do not know about or perhaps could not possibly have had any way of knowing about?

You can avoid uncertainty, however, by selling right away.

Are you not American? Have you notified the IRS of every single Bitcoin fork and every fork of every fork?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com