Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

trustnodes.com

91–93 of 93 posts

Re: Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For running a full node, a VPS costing $12 - $15 USD So your solution to centralization pressures is to use a centralized service for decentralization? > You are talking about bandwidth and the numbers are simple to calculate and come out to trivial amounts. I provided more evidence on the bandwidth requirements than your incomplete understanding of how bitcoin works multiplied by your flawed opinion. > 2. Bitcoin…

> I provided more evidence on the bandwidth requirements than your incomplete understanding of how bitcoin works multiplied by your flawed opinion. No, you didn't. You didn't confront my numbers for syncing, you for some reason think the option to pay for a cheap VPS to run a node is centralization. You also seem to that a single node is uploading to 8 people at all times, no more, no less not to mention that your as…

> No, you didn't.

Yeah. I did. It's still there. Perhaps you should take the time to figure out what it means.

> Kids are running around streaming live video from their phones, how can you cling to such nonsense and why won't you confront it directly?

Kids are uploading their videos to a centralized service where they are being downloaded from. But because you have no concept of what decentralization means, you have no ability to even integrate that information.

> So anyone who can do simple math and questions bizarre statements should 'go somewhere else' ?

People who don't have any concept of what decentralization means shouldn't make comment on the requirements of a service that requires decentralization. And if they can't figure out why they can't get what they 'want', yes, they should use another service that better meets their use-case. Paypal and venmo might better suit your needs?

It's not often you run into someone with a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of a subject, and still feels the need to comment, but here we are. The only thing that makes sense is that you're young. Like really young. There's a significant gap in your understanding of how a block-chain works, and for some reason you seem completely resistant to overcoming that hurdle. But you really should work on it.

Re: Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To you, I'm sure that's the case. Good thing the people who actually maintain the network through the validation of full nodes have a better understanding than you. I said it depends on how many people are connected and that it is such a trivial amount that it barely matters. Do you want to confront that? > So your solution to pressures of centralization is to use a centralized service for decentralization? How is…

> I said it depends on how many people are connected and that it is such a trivial amount that it barely matters. And I provided evidence that contradicts that unfounded belief. > How is -one option- to running a full node by paying for a cheap VPS centralization in any respect? If you have to explain that, you don't even have a concept of what decentralization means. > why don't you explain how there is so much torr…

This all boils down to you trying hard not to say anything so you don't have to confront the hard numbers I gave you. You keep saying 'you don't understand' but that rings pretty hollow when you can't give any evidence that anything I've said is wrong.

Re: Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

#93
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently it is 1 way protection. So the answer is that if you spend a transaction on Core, yes, it can be stolen on the BCC chain. Your core chain coins aren't stolen, though. But it is safe on the BCC chain. The only people who get screwed are the main chain people, and NOT the BCC chain supporters/users. So it is actually the opposite of what the original comment was claiming. It is MORE safe to be on the BCC cha…

> The only people who get screwed are the main chain people, and NOT the BCC chain supporters/users. Sounds like definitely adversarial behavior to me, not "borderline". They have the opportunity to write secure opt-out (on-by-default) replay protection-- like by choosing a new address prefix (etc)--, and they choose not to. Your "steal segwit coins" scenario wont work when the transaction tree is tainted by post-for…

> Sounds like definitely adversarial behavior to me, not "borderline". They have the opportunity to write secure opt-out (on-by-default) replay protection-- like by choosing a new address prefix (etc)--, and they choose not to.

looks like a change got merged, https://github.com/Bitcoin-UAHF/spec/pull/17#issuecomment-31...

Post reply on HN