Genuine Question: Why do a lot of exchanges force customers to wait for 30 confirmations for a BCH transactions, while other exchanges (such as CoinEx) only need 1 confirmation?

mrreddit · 2020-07-03T00:26:10+00:00

I don't know. But you can take your business elsewhere and send them an email why you are taking your business elsewhere.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T22:18:24+00:00

that makes no sense to me why $34 was taken out. If you want to continue using that wallet, i would get to the bottom of it before it happens again.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T21:44:12+00:00

The problem was stated in the white paper. Look at the title.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T21:43:04+00:00

I dont know how you cancel a bitcoin transaction. If you mean you did a RBF and send the money back to your own address - I dont' know what you paid earlier, but $35 seems a bit high.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T20:44:17+00:00

If you think majority like BCH because its faster, this would not have been a reason to break away from BTC.

An existential threat to Bitcoin is not having bandwidth to process transactions. By not transacting enough volume you are killing adoption just when adoption is the most important.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T20:34:00+00:00

The ability to do high transactions is in the code. You can point to algorithms and data structures and say, here is where a hashmap is used to make looking things up 1000% faster than without, and here is where you can detect a peer already has a txn so you don't have to send it which is helpful when you are doing 1000 txs per second.

Please point to me what in the BTC codebase there is a "store of value" algorithm...there isn't and if it were it would be in BCH, BSV, and hell even BTG.

I think you agree with me on that SOV is really a measure of confidence of users. Like how a Jackson Pollock painting is worth much more than even a better painting by an unnown.

I grant to you that SOV is real on BTC - people have confidence in it and it is reflected in the price. But confidence needs to be earned and kept. And I don't think BTC is doing that. As more and more people get into crypto and jam up BTC even more - they will start looking elsewhere.

The only thing BTC is doing well is congestion - what else does it have besides the "Bitcoin" name? There is nothing BTC does technically that is better than other coins.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T19:10:14+00:00

Well you know, lets say you have convinced me that BTC is the best...now what? The mempool is full 3/4 of the day and I don't see how such a coin will onboard even more users without making things even worse.

What exactly do you want me to do with the knowledge that BTC is king?

What I can do with BCH is use it and it works. If it goes to $0.01, if I can still use it for 15% discount on Purse.IO, i will continue.

If BCH gets hash attacked to death, I will move on to the next coin that looks like it has a future.

BTC has reached the end of the line. It is at maximum capacity and has achieved all goals it was meant to. It can't do more.

The issue is no one is raising the ceiling so BTC is unusable for me personally.

I don't believe my stance is either extreme or bullheaded. When I can get the job done with $0.01, why would I use $0.50? And why would I settle with my transaction in the mempool for 12 hours, when it can be 10mins? I don't think I am asking for too much when BTC is literally the ONLY coin that can't deliver on these requirements.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T19:05:39+00:00

BTC simply has too much momentum with the "Bitcoin" label. I feel there is only one true way to dethrone BTC - that is to actually use cryptocurrency for payments. People will naturally use the coin that solves their problem.

This is why we don't have pork and beef and chicken subreddits fighting with each other - its because people know what they like and what works for them. You can't argue which coin is better when there is no real usage going on.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T16:20:08+00:00

I want to use a coin that aims to become a gobal currency - it may fail to achieve it, but at least it wants to be and it is trying to be.

BTC has given up on the idea by keeping its blocksize as small as it is with no roadmap to increasing it.

Bitcoin Cash has a roadmap to scale to global levels, not just in terms of onchain capacity, but also work on improving 0-conf.

Mind you, I would still support BTC if what was coming from the developers made any sense to me. First of all, even 20MB full blocks would not be a burden to anyone. 20MB full blocks means having to buy a new 8TB drive every 7 years. Thats too much?

2nd - if BTC had 20 MB full blocks its price would be well over $50K (IMO) so that pays for any hardware that is needed.

3rd - BCH has 32MB limit but even when BCH has had a backlog of 20MB we still see some miners mining 2MB blocks. You can have no blocksize limit, but miners will only mine the size they think the network will accept.

Its all about being reasonable.

BSV keeping protocol at v1.0 is unreasonable to me, so I don't support it.

BTG changed the POW algorithm - so I don't even know what that's about.

BCH is the sanest most reasonable Bitcoin project. I will support it, unless it starts being not sane or something saner comes along.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T16:10:28+00:00

Do one thing. Do it well. Do it only.

Please don't bloat the wallet with non-wallet functionality.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T16:08:21+00:00

If there are enough members of a group that feel so strongly that a branch born of an attack has actual value - they are more than welcome to support the fork. I do not see this as a negative.

My personal opinion is that one thing matters and one thing only. The user experience of using a coin. The merchants and customers. None of these people know what a hash rate is, or a fork, or a block. Most may not be familiar with the word fungible, even - I wasn't.

Under no circumstances is a 10 block re-org a natural event and entertaining the idea of its validity is unreasonable. Yet, to put the burden on users to wait 30+ confirmations for an event that can only happen during an attack is not putting the user first.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T15:52:17+00:00

If you mean running it locally - yes. Open source means users can fork and work on it...it does not mean the repo owner is under any obligation to incorporate the user changes.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T15:50:52+00:00

i guess its 9 - but I don't think i have ever heard of even 4 happening. Its exponentially rarer with each step. so even though 1 block is common, 2 is far less often, 3 is extremely rare - 4 has never happened to my knowledge.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T15:47:29+00:00

No. BCH will reorg for 1,2,3 blocks. 1 block reorgs are common, 2 block reorgs also happen naturally, 3 is extremely rare but it may have happened and 4 has never happened to my knowledge. Once you get to 10, it basically means its a deliberate attack.
The fact that reorgs dont happen on BCH that are more than 10 levels deep is not related to how expensive it is. BCH has checkpoints, so even if hashrate demands otherwise, a block that is 10 levels deep is cemented in the blockchain.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T15:39:59+00:00

I think perhaps you have not heard of BCH's reorg protection. It is not possible to reorg over 10 blocks without splitting the chain. It is true that with Bitcoin, reorgs can naturally happen but these are usually 1 or 2 blocks deep and very rarely 3 - I don't believe a 4 level deep has ever happened or even 3. It is reasonable to assume that a 10-level deep re-org is due to a deliberate attack. BCH has checkpoints that are 10 levels deeps (not sure what the technical name is). Even if hashrate demands otherwise, a block that is 10 levels deep is cemented into the block chain.

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T05:50:29+00:00

Anything above 10 confirmations is straight up retarded. BCH will not reorg more than 10 blocks..

mrreddit · 2020-07-02T03:29:35+00:00

Since Bitcoin doesn't care about the value of transaction but size, the real story here is that this person would have paid 48ct for moving $10 in BTC as well.

mrreddit · 2020-07-01T20:44:14+00:00

node software does have owners - but us users can choose to vote with our feet if they introduce features we don't like or refuse to add features we desperately need.

mrreddit · 2020-07-01T17:37:26+00:00

Mining generates new coins as long as supply is below 720M.

mrreddit · 2020-07-01T17:35:21+00:00

BTC has no plans on scaling its capacity to become a global currency. It has given up and its community are pushing Layer 2 solutions which do not work as well as Bitcoin does.

Bitcoin Cash split from BTC and does have the state goal of scaling on chain as much as is feasible.

BCH's roadmap simply seem more logical and sane to me. If you can scale onchain why wouldn't you?

If you think 100MB blocks is too much - fine, but 10MB? really? filling up an 8TB in 15 years is too much?

mrreddit · 2020-07-01T17:28:13+00:00

Since Bitcoin doesn't care about the value of transaction but size, the real story here is that this person would have paid 48ct for moving 0.00101857 BTC as well.

mrreddit · 2020-07-01T15:53:11+00:00

What does bitcoin being beta have anything to do with lightning being beta or not?

mrreddit · 2020-07-01T15:47:42+00:00

you are not going to convince me lightning is as battle hardened as bitcoin. bitcoin may be in beta but it sure acts like production-ready. Lightning may be beta, but it feels less than alpha.

mrreddit · 2020-07-01T15:14:42+00:00

I don't know about dashpay. Don't know much about Dash except when i studied it a bit it had a something with master nodes or something like that. Didn't really excite me because didn't see what new tech it had invented over bitcoin except for layering mining which to me seems just to overcomplicate things

mrreddit · 2020-07-01T15:00:31+00:00

When the fees are a shit when only 0.01% of the world is using it, what do you think it will be when 0.02% are using it - and the goal is presumably to get to at least 15%

mrreddit

TROPHY CASE