Inline image 1

   On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Steven Schear
   <[1]schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

   A snapshot from a few minutes ago. Notice how pricing became a hockey
   stick when BCC approached 0.153 BTC.
   Inline image 2

   On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steven Schear
   <[2]schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

   They may be separate but they are not unrelated. There is only so much
   mining power and its distribution affects both (actually all) chains.
   Speaking of which BCC has reach the price (0.153 BTC), calculated on
   reddit by Jonathan Vaage, at which mining on BCC (including all costs
   and rewards) is better. This has become a rallying and resistance level
   and the battle has been joined between these armies of miners, traders,
   whales, etc.
   The next scheduled (not 20% emergency) difficulty adjustment comes in
   just a few days for BCC (could be this weekend). After that, BTC also
   adjusts in a few days. If a flippening is in the offing I think it
   would come shortly after the BTC adjustment. If the miners in a major
   cartel then flee to BCC, it will leave BTC bereft of hash power and
   block intervals could explode preventing any practical use of the
   blockchain (a Chain Death Spiral). If so, Core supporters will probably
   be forced into using similar "emergency" difficult adjustments (even
   though they tried to humiliate Cash advocates about this methodology
   before the fork).

   On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Mirimir <[3]mirimir@riseup.net>
   wrote:

   On 08/18/2017 05:55 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
   > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:29:54AM -0500, Steven Schear wrote:
   >> original) and Cash. When the fork happened those holding BTC (in
   their own
   >> wallets) were also able to claim an equal amount of BCC (for free).
   This
   >> created a huge supply of BCC. However, many or most people rarely
   keep
   >
   > Isn't this setting a very dangerous precedent of doubling bitcoin +
   > derivatives? One of the things I liked most in the btc design was its
   > resemblance of the gold standard -- the maximum amount of btc was
   known
   > and fixed. Now they are violating this by creating "derivatives" out
   of
   > nothing like the fucked up real world financial system.
   Hypothetically
   > if in the future they fork $n$ times, they will increase the amount
   of
   > btc + derivatives by factor of $2^n$.
   >
   > Currently I recommend to the btc overlords in future forks to keep
   the
   > amount of btc + derivatives fixed, possibly by choose ``old XOR new
   > btc''.

     I'm not sure how else a fork could work. I mean, it's a fork in the
     blockchain. Initially, it's an exact duplicate. And thereafter, the
     blockchains are entirely separate and unrelated. So there's no way
     to
     enforce an XOR choice.

   --
   Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
   standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache.
   Director at MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU
   Radio.
   Shameless self-promoter :)

   --
   Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
   standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache.
   Director at MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU
   Radio.
   Shameless self-promoter :)

   --
   Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
   standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache.
   Director at MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU
   Radio.
   Shameless self-promoter :)

References

   1. mailto:schear.steve@gmail.com
   2. mailto:schear.steve@gmail.com
   3. mailto:mirimir@riseup.net