31–40 of 93 posts
I don't think this is a joke, but it should be. Forking a chain will never result in value-added.
Litecoin is the oldest fork of Bitcoin, and arguably it adds value (with shorter confirmation times)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once there are multiple viable forks of Bitcoin proper, the idea that bitcoins are rare assets worth investing in will collapse.
Aren't most alts a fork of a fork? How many of them have truly original codebases? (obviously operative word in your comment was "viable", but at a minimum, Litecoin is one viable fork)
A fork like Bitcoin Cash will be a boon for the blockchain community. There is a pretty big subset of the community that believe Bitcoin is a panacea that will replace currencies, payment networks and so on, regardless of how technically inferior the blockchain is to other more mature distributed databases and networks. They believe one day, the blockchain will be just as efficient or even more so. This subset is voc…
It was a flaw in the Bitcoin specification that there was a conflict of interest between miners and users that when more blocks are filled, the more fee the miners get, thus miners have no incentive to make the blocks less congested.
Not sure how doubling the block size suddenly disallows users from validating the blocks, besides, as the entire data is already around 160GB or so, none of the mobile wallets contain the full data and are delegating much of the credibility of the chain to others' full nodes.
Bitcoin Cash is mostly built around the Chinese mining community who have been rejecting to activate segwit for a while since their asicboost that helps their mining speed by 20-30% was about to become unusable, though they claim it's not used.
And with 8MB for Bitcoin Cash it would make the chain data so large after several years, if block spaces get filled you will be able to barely host a node on a desktop with TBs of storage not to mention hosting on clouds would be pretty expensive leading to centralization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
....Just to double-check, you're serious right?
Yes, I am. There's also a lot of scam out there, almost every ICO feels like scam, but still. The more serious stuff catches such a huge attention, just the ecosystem around ETH got so big and mature (despite some recent exploits) that it's hard to ignore this space. Just compare: not just few projects raised funds within days a startup would take months. If this is the future? IDK. But I know it's 10x better than ho…
More like people flock onto immature projects with large sum of money hoping for a quick 5x making the projects look far larger than they should be and when they fail to deliver, depression is as large as their investment leading to feel they got scammed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FYI, a network with 1000x more on-chain transactions, that everyone uses, is much more difficult to censor, than one that requires bank-like organisation with IOUs to the main chain.
Two problems with your argument: 1- You imply that only one camp wants to scale. Actually, both camps want to scale. The only difference is that the "big blocks" camp do not think a user's ability to validate the blockchain is worth keeping. 2- The size of the network is irrelevant to the government's ability to censor transactions. The only thing that stops them from having power over the network is decentralization…
That's only true if
1) >50% of the miners are in said county (currently China)
2) >50% of the miners agree to this censorship
3) They actually know the meaning of transactions in order to filter them. Most transactions are anonymous, even the big ones. We know identities of a tiny percentage of the addresses, and most of them are not hiding. For instance, we can't figure out where Mt Gox money went - I've seen some attempts of tracing them, but it went nowhere.
That sounds like a massive scam, in it's pumping stage.
Is there a crypto voting ring? I understand why most crypto articles reach the top 10 posts but this one has nothing going for it. * Niche website linked / breaking the news * Non-mainstream crypto-fork * No novel interest / features There's nothing to suggest why this would be upvoted, even among this crypto-friendly crowd.
The dangers of tx replay mean that HF's like this can never be safe. Beware those that would tell you that these forks are safe, they are not. This is another scam from those that would try to usurp the blockchain. You will be able to replay original bitcoin and abc tx's on each chain, unless you opt-in to some funny new untesed hash. This will hugely disrupt the minority chain ABC, as the mempools on cash chain fill…
There are a multitude of ways to split your coins, so that they are separate, and you don't risk selling the other chain when you don't mean to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FYI, a network with 1000x more on-chain transactions, that everyone uses, is much more difficult to censor, than one that requires bank-like organisation with IOUs to the main chain.
Two problems with your argument: 1- You imply that only one camp wants to scale. Actually, both camps want to scale. The only difference is that the "big blocks" camp do not think a user's ability to validate the blockchain is worth keeping. 2- The size of the network is irrelevant to the government's ability to censor transactions. The only thing that stops them from having power over the network is decentralization…
No. Go read what official Core developers like Luke-jr and Blue Hair Matt are saying.
They think that the blocksize might ALREADY be too large, and actually want to DECREASE the blocksize.
They also explicitly do not want to scale, because that would mean that transaction prices go down. They literally want block fees to be high so as to create a "fee market".
A fork like Bitcoin Cash will be a boon for the blockchain community. There is a pretty big subset of the community that believe Bitcoin is a panacea that will replace currencies, payment networks and so on, regardless of how technically inferior the blockchain is to other more mature distributed databases and networks. They believe one day, the blockchain will be just as efficient or even more so. This subset is voc…
The reason is not because of the vision. Also if anyone thinks about it as a replacement of paypal/visa, they know scaling via increased block size is not going to cut it. 7tx/s doen't do much good if scaled linearly. It was a flaw in the Bitcoin specification that there was a conflict of interest between miners and users that when more blocks are filled, the more fee the miners get, thus miners have no incentive to…
Why not? Bitcoin Cash may be more vocal in the Chinese miner community but there are plenty of Americans who believe in it too. The storage issue both chains will have to deal with if they are used in any big capacity