231–240 of 429 posts
For all the people saying this is totally fine and they warned people and they shouldn't have to support every single fork that comes along, I'd like to pose a hypothetical. All forks are basically equivalent. If I fork Bitcoin today, my fork is just as legitimate as Segwit or Bitcoin Cash. The only differentiation is community buy-in and hashing power and similar fuzzy metrics. Rather than sticking with Segwit and i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's irrelevant if Coinbase supports trading of the coin. What they should do is allow the customers to withdraw their Bitcoin Cash coins. What other cryptocurrencies have been forked of another coin gaining such a large value, placing the exchanges in the same spot? I can think of only one: Ethereum and Ethereum Classic. The same thing happened there. Coinbase was forced to allow the customers to withdraw their Ethe…
The fork has literally existed for 36 hours only. It is easily too soon to say whether it will survive. You may have read or done technical analysis that came back supporting the conclusion that it will survive, but if Coinbase is taking the position that it won't survive, IMHO it is much too soon to say whether or not the same thing is happening here. As a matter of fact, this can't be the same thing... Ethereum Cla…
I agree. That's why Coinbase should have said that they will wait and see if the fork will survive or not. If Bitcoin Cash continues to have a non trivial value and the fork survives Coinbase will either have to give in and give the customers their Bitcoin Cash or they will get sued and loose.
> Ethereum Classic was the original chain. Ethereum(') is what the developers answered with, after the famed failure of the DAO, before 28 days had passed and the damage would become irreversible.
It doesn't really matter which chain was the original. After the fork Ethereum(') became Ethereum and only after the fact did the Ethereum Classic movement begin (as you say).
> If anything, your comparison is reversed
Majority hash power and the market decides the "real" coin. Ethereum and Bitcoin are the real chains and Ethereum Classic and Bitcoin Cash are the spinoffs/altcoins.
The fact is Coinbase weren't going to credit the customers their Ethereum Classic, but had to give in. I see history repeating itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you could if there was any practical way to sell the bitcoin cash version at the moment. I personally think it likely that once you can, you'll be lucky to get $7 for one.
I sold for $740 on Kraken exchange, which is pretty big. They credited all BTC accounts with equal amount of BCH and allowed trading right away.
To be fair, as long as you do not have the private key to your wallet, you do not have complete control. Whoever kept their bitcoin in a Coinbase wallet and wanted to use Bitcoin Cash, it was their responsibility to move them to a wallet they fully control in advance to the fork.
Coinbase is in a bad situation here. If they set a precedent that all BTC forks will be available to their users, then they open themselves to some pretty obvious DOS attacks. 10 new "bitcoins" could fork every day. Are we really going to expect coinbase to support them all? That's absurd. I think it's pretty obvious that they're going to just issue the BCH to people eventually. Here's another thought experiment: I a…
For all the people saying this is totally fine and they warned people and they shouldn't have to support every single fork that comes along, I'd like to pose a hypothetical. All forks are basically equivalent. If I fork Bitcoin today, my fork is just as legitimate as Segwit or Bitcoin Cash. The only differentiation is community buy-in and hashing power and similar fuzzy metrics. Rather than sticking with Segwit and i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should quit representing themselves as bank holding your coins/private keys, which is not what they are doing. They are issuing IOUs for a certain amount on a particular blockchain. It would be more honest to be explicit about this in their marketing and website copy, and would avoid this problem, but that's not sexy and doesn't get VC funding. I have no sympathy for their plight.
When you put your fiat currency into a traditional bank, the bank doesn't hold it for you either. They also issue IOUs. Coinbase is more similar to a bank than it is to a wallet.
Let's say that JimBob came along offering a lollipop to everyone for every $1000 they could prove they held in a US bank on a particular day. (The BCH network is offering credits to everyone on the BTC network in proportion to how much BTC they can prove they had on a particular day.)
You, as a customer, tell your bank, "yes, confirm to JimBob that I had $30,000 in my account on that day!" (You provide notarized authorization, etc.) The bank says no. Would that fly? Maybe.
Instead, they call up JimBob and say, "Look, we have $3 million in our bank vault. Give us our 3,000 lollipops."
Would that fly? I don't think so. (Though Coinbase hasn't done that last part ... yet.)
Coinbase is in a bad situation here. If they set a precedent that all BTC forks will be available to their users, then they open themselves to some pretty obvious DOS attacks. 10 new "bitcoins" could fork every day. Are we really going to expect coinbase to support them all? That's absurd. I think it's pretty obvious that they're going to just issue the BCH to people eventually. Here's another thought experiment: I a…
Public companies have complicated stock actions like spinoffs (i.e. "Forking" the company), rights offerings, scrip offerings, stock dividends, etc. Do you think ETrade gets to not give their users the results of such actions because it would be complex to implement?
They had the opportunity to move their funds and plenty of notice.