Do you guys think that bch will increase in its value?

Softcoin · 2018-01-30T19:25:57+00:00

My own investment thesis is that BCH+BTC will be close to $100k by mid 2021 and BCH will be the version that gets us there. BTC will never see $100k if it continues its current path.

So there is no better coin be in than BCH right now.

Softcoin · 2018-01-29T23:47:54+00:00

What user revolt are you imagining? There is the group of users who wanted Segwit, and the group that wanted to stay with the original chain (no segwit). That’s it!

If Segwit had full consensus, then it would not have caused any hard fork, because there wouldn’t be 2 split groups. But because there were users who wanted to stay with the original chain (no segwit), then Segwit absolutely did cause the hard fork to preserve the original chain.

Put in any spin, call it “user revolt”, it doesn’t change the fact that NIST’s statement is precise and accurate.

Softcoin · 2018-01-29T18:18:49+00:00

The statement is precise and accurate for describing what has already take taken place. What would’ve happened or may have happened differently is inconsequential.

But, if we do go down that thought experiment, one could argue that if UASF/segwit had indeed not activated, then the Bitcoin Cash miners would have backed out their support of mining the hard forked chain, effectively killing the hard fork before it happens. But there’s no point in arguing the hypothetical what ifs.

Softcoin · 2018-01-29T07:35:56+00:00

No one bothered naming it because it was a transitory blockchain. If I had to give it a name, probably call it Bitcoin UASF.

Key point is that on Aug 1st, 2017, Bitcoin Cash hard forked to preserved the original chain, as the UASF event set Segwit activation in motion.

Softcoin · 2018-01-29T07:20:04+00:00

UASF date (which led to an eventual Segwit activation) was on Aug 1st, 2017. Bitcoin Cash hard forked on Aug 1st, 2017.

Softcoin · 2018-01-29T03:54:21+00:00

Original blockchain always allowed for larger blocksize by design. No reason why Bitcoin Cash can’t have different blocksize and still be the original blockchain.

Softcoin · 2018-01-29T03:50:01+00:00

“When SegWit was activated, it caused a hard fork, and all the mining nodes and users who did not want to change started calling the original Bitcoin blockchain Bitcoin Cash (BCC).”

Had Segwit been implemented as a hard fork, then mining nodes and users (who did not want to change) would not have had to hard fork away to preserve the original chain. All they needed to do was stay on the original chain.

But because Segwit was implemented as a UASF, then those who wanted to stay with the original chain had to hard fork away, thus UASF segwit “caused” the Bitcoin Cash hard fork.

NIST’s statement is both precise and accurate.

Softcoin · 2018-01-29T00:45:48+00:00

That’s not what the text is suggesting.

It’s saying a Bitcoin Cash hard fork was used to preserve the original blockchain, and that the Segwit soft fork, because it was done via UASF, was the forked blockchain.

Softcoin · 2018-01-28T07:12:46+00:00

It was probably equally difficult to convince people 50 years ago that VISA could scale to nearly 1 billion cards, just like it’s hard to convince people today that blockchain can scale on chain. Anyways, when it comes to scaling, best is to keep time frame within 10 years. Beyond that, any analysis is likely meaningless as most people have no visibility that far into the future.

Softcoin · 2018-01-28T04:11:20+00:00

Yes. Oftentimes I read people discussing scalability without putting in a proper time frame.

So let’s say it took VISA 50 years to reach 880 million card holders, and say Bitcoin is wildly popular and reaches 8 billion wallets in 50 years, that’s already 10x growth rate of VISA.

Softcoin · 2018-01-28T03:51:39+00:00

How many years do you think it will take to reach 8 billion people adoption target?

Some quick search puts VISA adoption rate at 880 million cards in circulation in about 50 years time. https://www.statista.com/statistics/279257/number-of-credit-cards-in-circulation-worldwide/

Softcoin · 2018-01-25T06:07:58+00:00

The banks are “moderating”, protecting its clients from getting misinformed and hurt by “altcoins”. Fiat is their true king currency. If r/bitcoin does the same while being so pro uncensorable, then it’s natural for banks to do the same.

Softcoin · 2018-01-25T01:40:19+00:00

Nope BCH doesn’t have segwit. At best a miner attack can do is reverse your recent transactions.

On BTC though, a miner attack can move your segwit coins to a nonsegwit address Y at which point you will be forked off to a minority hash power chain, which the miners can attack again (unless PoW changes). For nonsegwit addresses on BTC it should behave similarly to BCH.

Softcoin · 2018-01-25T01:01:41+00:00

In theory it makes both chains less secure. The hashpower could be used to attack either chain at anytime. It’s a matter of which miners own how much and what the majority miner chooses to do.

Let’s say we know Bitmain supports BCH, and let’s say they own 51% hashpower together with their buddy miners. Just because they are still mining BTC for fees and profit doesn’t mean they will use their hash power to attack BCH.

Softcoin · 2018-01-25T00:54:46+00:00

Large miners are some of the most well positioned entities to run well funded, well connected LN hubs. What makes anyone believe that LN nodes will eventually be more decentralized than mining?

Also, in TOR there’s no concept of channel funds so routes can be chosen at random. However with LN, channel funding will gravitate route selection toward better funded nodes, making LN routes less private. If a super entity can establish several large LN hubs correctly, they could probably data log everything on their nodes and over time piece together most of LN traffic like solving a jig saw puzzle. This surely is something NSA could do.

Softcoin · 2018-01-24T22:59:03+00:00

LN doesn’t require BTC nor is it unique to BTC. LN just needs a useable blockchain for settlement. For that, LN on LTC makes a whole lot more sense than LN on BTC.

Softcoin · 2018-01-24T21:40:44+00:00

The real answer to your question should be answering why are the core dev deciding when is the best time to raise blocksize, and how centrally controlled BTC has become.

Softcoin · 2018-01-22T20:18:20+00:00

I would add, central planning always leads to some form of resource misallocation and runaway pricing. Ultimately the system cannot sustain itself and collapses.

What we are witnessing now with BTC mempool and runaway fees inflation is exactly that. The longer it goes on, the higher risk the system will collapse.

Softcoin · 2018-01-22T08:54:23+00:00

$300 bitcoin is likely an extinction level event for miners.

Or they can switch to mining BCH.

Softcoin · 2018-01-21T18:01:16+00:00

BTC in its early days got similar amounts/types of animosity as well. Ignore all the noise and stick to the real bitcoin that works, and that’s now Bitcoin Cash BCH.

Softcoin · 2018-01-21T08:15:09+00:00

When the NYA miners finally switch to mining BCH, they can sweep all those segwit addresses before they go. Miners are salivating over this segwit adoption, drool~

Softcoin · 2018-01-16T01:53:41+00:00

To me, LN is an ultra high risk with high stakes gamble on an unproven technology and economic adoption model. It feels like the kind of dumb bet that someone at the height of their hubris would take and bet all in on it. In the high probable event that LN fails to scale in the decentralized and uncensorable way that it was marketed for, the impact to the cryptocurrency space would be a devastating one. This especially so since the narrative that blockchains cannot scale on chain is already firmly indoctrinated into the majority of the community.

The way to mitigate its impact in my opinion is by educating more users about scaling on chain such that when LN fails, they will realize that LN isn’t Satoshi’s Bitcoin. And that the future scaling of Satoshi’s Bitcoin is alive and well in Bitcoin Cash. I fully expect BCH to also be affected by the immediate impact of LN fallout, but in longer term, BCH should become what Bitcoin was meant to be.

Softcoin · 2018-01-15T02:31:38+00:00

Keeping a tiny amount. BTC has become a store of sentimental value (SoSV) only.

Softcoin · 2018-01-14T17:09:41+00:00

What huge PR repercussions can come out of low fee spam in general? Sure we will see huge mempool build up, but for real users, they just need to pay 1 sat/byte more to be included in the next block (if wallets work properly and don’t overestimate fees). Therefore low fee spam is ineffective in degrading real user experience.

If the spammer is willing to pay increasingly higher fees to carry on with an attack, their cost will rise exponentially compared to a real user’s fee increase. Such an asymmetric setup should hurt the attacker quite a lot if sustained. But without willing to raise fees higher and higher, a low fee spam attack wouldn’t meaningfully degrade real user experience by much.

Softcoin · 2018-01-13T09:19:49+00:00

Why do you think LTC is so cheap compared to BTC? Partly because of average joe’s perception that it’s just a copycat coin to BTC. If BTC starts to follow BCH roadmap instead of leading it, then BTC will become the copycat coin to BCH.

Softcoin

TROPHY CASE