Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?
[Disclosure: I am a strong supporter of L1 (Blockchain scaling) occurring before any L2 (e.g., Segwit, Blockstream, Lightening Network, etc.) is attempted. And even then all L2 must be thoroughly examined not only for technical flaws but for possible misuses that affects the value and utility of the underlying blockchain assets.] Due to the economic and technical nature of Bitcoin and its blockchain its more than possible that the new fork, widely being called Bitcoin Cash, BCH or BCC, will overtake its rival fork now commonly called Bitcoin Core. The effect of this "flippening" could be nothing short of disastrous for those holding Bitcoin Core. Since the recent Bitcoin hard fork we now have two Bitcoins: Core (the 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 their BTC in their wallets, preferring instead to keep them in online exchange accounts. As a result, even though the exchanges warned people they needed to withdraw their BTC to claim the BCC, most of those people will never get that BCC. Instead it became a windfall for the exchanges. When the fork occurred the Cash chain inherited the then current difficulty factor of the original. When operating nominally both chains should have new blocks discovered by miners about every 10 minutes. Because at the outset the mining effort for Cash was only a small fraction of the Core's. the rate new blocks were found (and therefore the transaction capacity) initially was hobbled. This was anticipated and the developers included a means to detect when the hashing power on this Cash chain was too low and to quickly adjust, in 20% increments, the difficulty factor. By far the main driver for miners is revenue. In general they will go to whatever blockchain they earn the most. Analysis of the hash power being expended on both chains versus the difficulties and value of each coin showed that the two were converging insofar as mining profitability. There is also an anomalous aspect to the sources of the BCC mining power. Unlike that of BTC, where most of the hashing power is associated with known large mining cartels, the majority of BCC mining is by unknown parties.There has been significant variation of mining power over relatively short intervals on both blockchains. The timing of this variation very much indicates that the miners were attempting to beneficially manipulate both the value of BCC vs. BTC and quickly decrease the mining effort for BCC. BTC BCH TOT BTC BCH BTC BCH BTC ( Hash Power ) ( Difficulty) ( Block Time ) (mempool) 11 August 6600 338 6938 923 115 10.00 21 55 12 August 6199 416 6615 923 115 10.66 20 15 13 August 6808 440 7248 923 115 9.73 18.46 27 14 August 5951 522 6473 923 115 11.07 15.82 47 15 August 6966 647 7591 923 115 9.47 12.85 53 16 August 5984 484 6468 923 115 11.07 17.14 50 - Since 11 August Hash Power on the BCH chain has increased daily. - Hash power on BTC chain on the other hand fluctuates from day to day, by up to 1000 PH and the mempool continues to grow. The table above are snapshots taken at a point in time each day. Their individual states can be monitored in real time here <https://bitinfocharts.com/>*. Scroll down to the hash rate. BTC hash rate is down to 4853 PH. This is more than 2000 PH below the table above and the mempool <https://blockchain.info/charts> has now exceeded 65MB. A Death Chain Spiral may have set in but is being "managed". This large fluctuation of BTC hash rate could be the miners preventing difficulty from adjusting downwards, and at the same time growing the mempool. It is also possible that with over 1000 blocks to the next difficulty recalculation, we may not see another difficulty adjustment on BTC anytime soon. It is uncanny that we see very little discussion and debate at the very top. It is as though the NYA agreement have settled everything. However make no mistake. What seem calm belies what is happening in the background. Like a duck on the water paddling furiously underneath. Over at r/bitcoin talk seems to center around price and technology. Nothing about any negativity, usability or the growing mempool. Censorship of robust discussions is just downright deceitful. Especially if it is the de facto forum. It must quit being a propaganda organ. There will be consequences. The people around Segwit may be frantically on the phone, fax and email arguing and pleading with the miners. They can see the writing on the wall. Only 124 blocks were found in the last 24 hours. Block time have increased to 11 minutes and the mempool is in excess of 70MB. It is "too little too late". For many of the miners "Revenge is a dish best eaten cold". Steve
On 08/18/2017 03:29 AM, Steven Schear wrote: <SNIP>
Due to the economic and technical nature of Bitcoin and its blockchain its more than possible that the new fork, widely being called Bitcoin Cash, BCH or BCC, will overtake its rival fork now commonly called Bitcoin Core. The effect of this "flippening" could be nothing short of disastrous for those holding Bitcoin Core.
Since the recent Bitcoin hard fork we now have two Bitcoins: Core (the 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).
There's no need to claim BCH. It's there, and will be there until spent. Me, I won't until the price goes up. It's "flippening" insurance. <SNIP>
Right, as long as you either exported your Bitcoin to your own wallet or your Bitcoin was deposited in an exchange that assured its customers that they would not claim the BCC themselves but hold it for users, then you are fine. If, OTOH, your Bitcoin was deposited in an exchange that alerted its users to withdraw their Bitcoin to their own wallets of they wanted it, and you did not withdraw in before the fork then you are probably SoL. On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 08/18/2017 03:29 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
<SNIP>
Due to the economic and technical nature of Bitcoin and its blockchain its more than possible that the new fork, widely being called Bitcoin Cash, BCH or BCC, will overtake its rival fork now commonly called Bitcoin Core. The effect of this "flippening" could be nothing short of disastrous for those holding Bitcoin Core.
Since the recent Bitcoin hard fork we now have two Bitcoins: Core (the 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).
There's no need to claim BCH. It's there, and will be there until spent. Me, I won't until the price goes up. It's "flippening" insurance.
<SNIP>
-- 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 :)
On 08/18/2017 03:55 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
Right, as long as you either exported your Bitcoin to your own wallet or your Bitcoin was deposited in an exchange that assured its customers that they would not claim the BCC themselves but hold it for users, then you are fine. If, OTOH, your Bitcoin was deposited in an exchange that alerted its users to withdraw their Bitcoin to their own wallets of they wanted it, and you did not withdraw in before the fork then you are probably SoL.
Right. I neglected to mention that I use Electrum wallets. To use BCH, I'll need to get a suitable wallet, and import the keys. The BCH price crashed before I got around to it. I guess that I'll do it soon :)
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 08/18/2017 03:29 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
<SNIP>
Due to the economic and technical nature of Bitcoin and its blockchain its more than possible that the new fork, widely being called Bitcoin Cash, BCH or BCC, will overtake its rival fork now commonly called Bitcoin Core. The effect of this "flippening" could be nothing short of disastrous for those holding Bitcoin Core.
Since the recent Bitcoin hard fork we now have two Bitcoins: Core (the 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).
There's no need to claim BCH. It's there, and will be there until spent. Me, I won't until the price goes up. It's "flippening" insurance.
<SNIP>
A few of the interesting sites to monitor in real-time BTC/BCC blockchain activities in this space: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/uahf/#8h http://bch.xbt.it/?interval=0 https://cash.coin.dance/blocks (although somewhat delayed form real-time, its "mining profitability" reading is probably a good predictor of an approaching "flippening") https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/blocks On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 08/18/2017 03:55 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
Right, as long as you either exported your Bitcoin to your own wallet or your Bitcoin was deposited in an exchange that assured its customers that they would not claim the BCC themselves but hold it for users, then you are fine. If, OTOH, your Bitcoin was deposited in an exchange that alerted its users to withdraw their Bitcoin to their own wallets of they wanted it, and you did not withdraw in before the fork then you are probably SoL.
Right. I neglected to mention that I use Electrum wallets. To use BCH, I'll need to get a suitable wallet, and import the keys. The BCH price crashed before I got around to it. I guess that I'll do it soon :)
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''.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:55:10 +0300 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> 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?
bch isn't the first bitcoin clone out there, you know...(or maybe you don't?)
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.
the maximum amount of btc is still known and fixed...
Now they are violating this by creating "derivatives"
No 'they' aren't, whoever 'they' are.
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''.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
bch isn't the first bitcoin clone out there, you know...(or maybe you don't?)
There are lots of forked code "clones" of BTC the *software*, with their own new genesis blocks and empty blockchains, thus starting their mining at their own new block 1. However, can you list any or all other coins that actually copied and started their mining operations using any block level of the preexisting BTC *blockchain* and genesis block??? An unrelated side project is to list all the coins / services that ride their functions on top of the existing BTC blockchain via embedding comments in BTC transactions. They could be said to be of overlay type since they necessarily run the BTC blockchain in parallel, for which forking it is moot, "2 for 1" does not happen there either, and if BTC tx dies they die, or necessarily become a two chain mining operation.
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.
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 <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 :)
A snapshot from a few minutes ago. Notice how pricing became a hockey stick when BCC approached 0.153 BTC. [image: Inline image 2] On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steven Schear <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 <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 :)
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:05:31PM -0500, Steven Schear wrote:
A snapshot from a few minutes ago. Notice how pricing became a hockey stick when BCC approached 0.153 BTC.
[image: Inline image 2]
Well done with your reclaim, lads! Exciting show to watch :) That's the Flippening - a certainty for the rest of the community to follow in short to medium order, and undoubtedly a Hollywood blockbuster announcement in 3 weeks .. 2 weeks .. Damn things are moving fast these days.
[image: Inline image 1] On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Steven Schear <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.
[image: Inline image 2]
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steven Schear <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 <mirimir@riseup.net> 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
On 08/18/2017 05:55 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote: 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 :)
[image: Inline image 1] On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
[image: Inline image 1]
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Steven Schear <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.
[image: Inline image 2]
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steven Schear <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 <mirimir@riseup.net> 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
On 08/18/2017 05:55 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote: 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 :)
-- 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 :)
[image: Inline image 1]
From fork.lol
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
[image: Inline image 1]
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
[image: Inline image 1]
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Steven Schear <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.
[image: Inline image 2]
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steven Schear <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 <mirimir@riseup.net> 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
> 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
On 08/18/2017 05:55 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote: their own 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 :)
-- 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 :)
On 08/18/2017 07:52 AM, Steven Schear 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.
Sure, they're related in that sense. But let's accept that the current BTC/BCC situation is a form of double spending. In order to prevent that, something would need to look at both BTC and BCC blockchains, and perform cross adustments. I can't imagine how one would do that.
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.
OK, interesting.
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).
Thanks for the heads up. I'll fire up those BCC wallets, and load those keys. I wonder if shapeshift.io could convert fast enough.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Mirimir <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.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 06:56:41AM -1100, Mirimir wrote:
On 08/18/2017 05:55 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
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.
Looks like I wrote some pretty wrong stuff in this thread, apologies.
On 08/18/2017 09:55 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''.
What? And ruin the potential to GAMBLE and SPECULATE? HAHAHAHA! Bark at the MOON! Get this... TimMay's anarchic ideations about btc is dead and buried by the hordes of people who just want to get 'rich' on mythical money. That's the problem with dreamers you know? They aren't basing their dreams on reality and the reality of the human condition where money is god, is greed. Rr
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:29:54 -0500 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
[Disclosure: I am a strong supporter of L1 (Blockchain scaling) occurring before any L2 (e.g., Segwit, Blockstream, Lightening Network, etc.) is attempted. And even then all L2 must be thoroughly examined not only for technical flaws but for possible misuses
misuses such as? And who is going to do the examination? ....
By far the main driver for miners is revenue. In general they will go to whatever blockchain they earn the most. Analysis of the hash power being expended on both chains versus the difficulties and value of each coin showed that the two were converging insofar as mining profitability. There is also an anomalous aspect to the sources of the BCC mining power. Unlike that of BTC, where most of the hashing power is associated with known large mining cartels, the majority of BCC mining is by unknown parties.
lol - there's a different version of that story : BCH was created by the monopolistic producer of bitcoin asics - bitmain - in order to keep using a patented algo. You should know as much...
There has been significant variation of mining power over relatively short intervals on both blockchains. The timing of this variation very much indicates that the miners were attempting to beneficially manipulate both the value of BCC vs. BTC and quickly decrease the mining effort for BCC.
BTC BCH TOT BTC BCH BTC BCH BTC ( Hash Power ) ( Difficulty) ( Block Time ) (mempool)
11 August 6600 338 6938 923 115 10.00 21 55 12 August 6199 416 6615 923 115 10.66 20 15 13 August 6808 440 7248 923 115 9.73 18.46 27 14 August 5951 522 6473 923 115 11.07 15.82 47 15 August 6966 647 7591 923 115 9.47 12.85 53 16 August 5984 484 6468 923 115 11.07 17.14 50
- Since 11 August Hash Power on the BCH chain has increased daily. - Hash power on BTC chain on the other hand fluctuates from day to day, by up to 1000 PH and the mempool continues to grow.
The table above are snapshots taken at a point in time each day. Their individual states can be monitored in real time here <https://bitinfocharts.com/>*. Scroll down to the hash rate. BTC hash rate is down to 4853 PH. This is more than 2000 PH below the table above and the mempool <https://blockchain.info/charts> has now exceeded 65MB. A Death Chain Spiral may have set in but is being "managed".
This large fluctuation of BTC hash rate could be the miners preventing difficulty from adjusting downwards, and at the same time growing the mempool. It is also possible that with over 1000 blocks to the next difficulty recalculation, we may not see another difficulty adjustment on BTC anytime soon.
It is uncanny that we see very little discussion and debate at the very top. It is as though the NYA agreement have settled everything. However make no mistake. What seem calm belies what is happening in the background. Like a duck on the water paddling furiously underneath.
Over at r/bitcoin talk seems to center around price and technology. Nothing about any negativity, usability or the growing mempool. Censorship of robust discussions is just downright deceitful. Especially if it is the de facto forum. It must quit being a propaganda organ. There will be consequences.
The people around Segwit may be frantically on the phone, fax and email arguing and pleading with the miners. They can see the writing on the wall. Only 124 blocks were found in the last 24 hours. Block time have increased to 11 minutes and the mempool is in excess of 70MB. It is "too little too late". For many of the miners "Revenge is a dish best eaten cold".
Steve
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:29:54 -0500 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
[Disclosure: I am a strong supporter of L1 (Blockchain scaling) occurring before any L2 (e.g., Segwit, Blockstream, Lightening Network, etc.) is attempted. And even then all L2 must be thoroughly examined not only for technical flaws but for possible misuses
misuses such as? And who is going to do the examination?
For example, Lightning Networks, due to the methods of "channel" controls, can enable fractional reserve of the blockchain assets. Members of the community with the technical chops do the exams. However, politics and self-interest being what they are I have little doubt the debates will be 'lively' and degenerate into the usual ad hominem as occurred in the lead up to the current fork.
....
By far the main driver for miners is revenue. In general they will go to whatever blockchain they earn the most. Analysis of the hash power being expended on both chains versus the difficulties and value of each coin showed that the two were converging insofar as mining profitability. There is also an anomalous aspect to the sources of the BCC mining power. Unlike that of BTC, where most of the hashing power is associated with known large mining cartels, the majority of BCC mining is by unknown parties.
lol - there's a different version of that story :
BCH was created by the monopolistic producer of bitcoin asics - bitmain - in order to keep using a patented algo. You should know as much...
That's one story that has made the rounds. I fully expect that major cartels and mining rig/ASIV mfg.s are playing every card and pulling out all the stops in their efforts to maximize profits short- and long-term and influence the future of cryptocurrencies.
There has been significant variation of mining power over relatively short intervals on both blockchains. The timing of this variation very much indicates that the miners were attempting to beneficially manipulate both the value of BCC vs. BTC and quickly decrease the mining effort for BCC.
BTC BCH TOT BTC BCH BTC BCH BTC ( Hash Power ) ( Difficulty) ( Block Time ) (mempool)
11 August 6600 338 6938 923 115 10.00 21 55 12 August 6199 416 6615 923 115 10.66 20 15 13 August 6808 440 7248 923 115 9.73 18.46 27 14 August 5951 522 6473 923 115 11.07 15.82 47 15 August 6966 647 7591 923 115 9.47 12.85 53 16 August 5984 484 6468 923 115 11.07 17.14 50
- Since 11 August Hash Power on the BCH chain has increased daily. - Hash power on BTC chain on the other hand fluctuates from day to day, by up to 1000 PH and the mempool continues to grow.
The table above are snapshots taken at a point in time each day. Their individual states can be monitored in real time here <https://bitinfocharts.com/>*. Scroll down to the hash rate. BTC hash rate is down to 4853 PH. This is more than 2000 PH below the table above and the mempool <https://blockchain.info/charts> has now exceeded 65MB. A Death Chain Spiral may have set in but is being "managed".
This large fluctuation of BTC hash rate could be the miners preventing difficulty from adjusting downwards, and at the same time growing the mempool. It is also possible that with over 1000 blocks to the next difficulty recalculation, we may not see another difficulty adjustment on BTC anytime soon.
It is uncanny that we see very little discussion and debate at the very top. It is as though the NYA agreement have settled everything. However make no mistake. What seem calm belies what is happening in the background. Like a duck on the water paddling furiously underneath.
Over at r/bitcoin talk seems to center around price and technology. Nothing about any negativity, usability or the growing mempool. Censorship of robust discussions is just downright deceitful. Especially if it is the de facto forum. It must quit being a propaganda organ. There will be consequences.
The people around Segwit may be frantically on the phone, fax and email arguing and pleading with the miners. They can see the writing on the wall. Only 124 blocks were found in the last 24 hours. Block time have increased to 11 minutes and the mempool is in excess of 70MB. It is "too little too late". For many of the miners "Revenge is a dish best eaten cold".
Steve
-- 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 :)
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:40:24 -0500 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:29:54 -0500 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
[Disclosure: I am a strong supporter of L1 (Blockchain scaling) occurring before any L2 (e.g., Segwit, Blockstream, Lightening Network, etc.) is attempted. And even then all L2 must be thoroughly examined not only for technical flaws but for possible misuses
misuses such as? And who is going to do the examination?
For example, Lightning Networks, due to the methods of "channel" controls, can enable fractional reserve of the blockchain assets.
As far as I know payment channels only allow you to use the amount of btc you transferred to the channel. OK, maybe it's possible to explicitly create a 'fractional' system but that's not how the lightning network protocol is supposed to operate.
Members of the community with the technical chops do the exams. However, politics and self-interest being what they are I have little doubt the debates will be 'lively' and degenerate into the usual ad hominem as occurred in the lead up to the current fork.
I guess it's a matter of "wait and see". Oh, so BCH price has doubled in a couple of days....but I don't think that means much since a lot of what's going on in cryptocurrency 'markets' is just gambling.
....
And now some politics... *Here is why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Is The Real Bitcoin* *It is the original bitcoin* It was hijacked from Gavin Andresen very surreptitiously by Adam Back (back in the day, Adam and I worked on hashcash and digital cash-related projects) with his Sidechain <http://www.satoshisdeposition.com/podcast/BTCK-169-2015-09-11.mp3> proposal. It was a "Trojan Horse" and together with the help of Blockstream, Theymos and the Core developers the process was completed. We, the original community, have finally regained control of the Bitcoin project, except that we have lost control of the name. This position is about to be redressed. *It does not have Segwit.* If you look at a Bitcoin file as AD. A being the address and D being the data, Segwit removes the address portion A, It is reduced to a hash and the original signature is discarded after it is verified. So if your "fingerprint" is the hash of all your signatures, the signatures are discarded after being checked, and only the "fingerprint" is kept. This is in effect what Segwit does. The signatures are stored on another chain, but not the main chain. Some nodes will keep signatures, some only keep partial records, some will discard them entirely. If you ever need to refer back to the transaction to check on the signatures all you have is the hash. "The fingerprint". Satoshi's original design of bitcoin being an unbroken record of signatures is violated. *It allows for unlimited on-chain scaling*. A clear example of the disastrous effect of limiting the blocksize is the state of BTC now. The mempool is huge and getting bigger, fees are "over the top". Their intention is to push low fee transactions to side chains and the lightning network. These solutions don't exist yet. The Core developers bought themselves over 2 years delaying and obfuscating on chain scaling, and yet have no working solutions. Meanwhile the user experience gets so bad that many users have sought other alternatives to transact. BCH in the meantime have mined an 8MB block <https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/block/479469>. *It has more client implementations* BCH will have Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin ABC and more. Each with their own development team but all operating on the same chain. This diversity increases security, innovation and development of the whole ecosystem. Steve -- 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 :)
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
And now some politics...
*Here is why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Is The Real Bitcoin*
*It is the original bitcoin* It was hijacked from Gavin Andresen very surreptitiously by Adam Back (back in the day, Adam and I worked on hashcash and digital cash-related projects) with his Sidechain <http://www.satoshisdeposition.com/podcast/BTCK-169-2015-09-11.mp3> proposal. It was a "Trojan Horse" and together with the help of Blockstream, Theymos and the Core developers the process was completed. We, the original community, have finally regained control of the Bitcoin project, except that we have lost control of the name. This position is about to be redressed.
*It does not have Segwit.* If you look at a Bitcoin file as AD. A being the address and D being the data, Segwit removes the address portion A, It is reduced to a hash and the original signature is discarded after it is verified. So if your "fingerprint" is the hash of all your signatures, the signatures are discarded after being checked, and only the "fingerprint" is kept. This is in effect what Segwit does.
The signatures are stored on another chain, but not the main chain. Some nodes will keep signatures, some only keep partial records, some will discard them entirely. If you ever need to refer back to the transaction to check on the signatures all you have is the hash. "The fingerprint". Satoshi's original design of bitcoin being an unbroken record of signatures is violated.
It has been possible to "prune" old transactions from a local copy of the blockchain with Bitcoin Core for some time before Segwit was ever merged. You cannot realistically force someone to store the entire blockchain for you. The ability to prune old signatures while keeping the core transaction is actually a benefit - every transaction is necessary to verify that no double-spending has occurred or that miners did not create more coins than allowed. So even if the entire network dumped all segwit information, some critical checks of the system can be done by newcomers (but only if at least one person stores the entirety of the transaction information).
[...]
Steve
Lee
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Lee Clagett <forum@leeclagett.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
And now some politics...
*Here is why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Is The Real Bitcoin*
*It is the original bitcoin* It was hijacked from Gavin Andresen very surreptitiously by Adam Back (back in the day, Adam and I worked on hashcash and digital cash-related projects) with his Sidechain <http://www.satoshisdeposition.com/podcast/BTCK-169-2015-09-11.mp3> proposal. It was a "Trojan Horse" and together with the help of Blockstream, Theymos and the Core developers the process was completed. We, the original community, have finally regained control of the Bitcoin project, except that we have lost control of the name. This position is about to be redressed.
*It does not have Segwit.* If you look at a Bitcoin file as AD. A being the address and D being the data, Segwit removes the address portion A, It is reduced to a hash and the original signature is discarded after it is verified. So if your "fingerprint" is the hash of all your signatures, the signatures are discarded after being checked, and only the "fingerprint" is kept. This is in effect what Segwit does.
The signatures are stored on another chain, but not the main chain. Some nodes will keep signatures, some only keep partial records, some will discard them entirely. If you ever need to refer back to the transaction to check on the signatures all you have is the hash. "The fingerprint". Satoshi's original design of bitcoin being an unbroken record of signatures is violated.
It has been possible to "prune" old transactions from a local copy of the blockchain with Bitcoin Core for some time before Segwit was ever merged. You cannot realistically force someone to store the entire blockchain for you. The ability to prune old signatures while keeping the core transaction is actually a benefit - every transaction is necessary to verify that no double-spending has occurred or that miners did not create more coins than allowed. So even if the entire network dumped all segwit information, some critical checks of the system can be done by newcomers (but only if at least one person stores the entirety of the transaction information).
Accessing information from another's blockchain db is a privacy issue. That's why running your own full, private, node is such a good idea. Its not practical to do so in your mobile so an appliance is good solution. A few years back some cypherpunks write a paper with controversial suggestions on improving the Bitcoin blockchain. I think its still worth a read. Here's the coverage article. There's a link inside to the paper on scribd.: https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-activists-suggest-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-to-k... Key suggestions: 1. Use forced mixing (like ZeroCoin/ZCash) to improve transaction privacy 2. Enforce a limited, regular-sized, block chain 3. Ability to choose miners of payments Steve
[...]
Steve
Lee
-- 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 :)
Sorry for reviving this old thread. Just noticed I replied directly to Steven instead of the list, there might be something in here people find interesting ... replies inline. On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:26:43 -0700 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Lee Clagett <forum@leeclagett.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
And now some politics...
*Here is why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Is The Real Bitcoin*
*It is the original bitcoin* It was hijacked from Gavin Andresen very surreptitiously by Adam Back (back in the day, Adam and I worked on hashcash and digital cash-related projects) with his Sidechain <http://www.satoshisdeposition.com/podcast/BTCK-169-2015-09-11.mp3> proposal. It was a "Trojan Horse" and together with the help of Blockstream, Theymos and the Core developers the process was completed. We, the original community, have finally regained control of the Bitcoin project, except that we have lost control of the name. This position is about to be redressed.
*It does not have Segwit.* If you look at a Bitcoin file as AD. A being the address and D being the data, Segwit removes the address portion A, It is reduced to a hash and the original signature is discarded after it is verified. So if your "fingerprint" is the hash of all your signatures, the signatures are discarded after being checked, and only the "fingerprint" is kept. This is in effect what Segwit does.
The signatures are stored on another chain, but not the main chain. Some nodes will keep signatures, some only keep partial records, some will discard them entirely. If you ever need to refer back to the transaction to check on the signatures all you have is the hash. "The fingerprint". Satoshi's original design of bitcoin being an unbroken record of signatures is violated.
It has been possible to "prune" old transactions from a local copy of the blockchain with Bitcoin Core for some time before Segwit was ever merged. You cannot realistically force someone to store the entire blockchain for you. The ability to prune old signatures while keeping the core transaction is actually a benefit - every transaction is necessary to verify that no double-spending has occurred or that miners did not create more coins than allowed. So even if the entire network dumped all segwit information, some critical checks of the system can be done by newcomers (but only if at least one person stores the entirety of the transaction information).
Accessing information from another's blockchain db is a privacy issue. That's why running your own full, private, node is such a good idea. Its not practical to do so in your mobile so an appliance is good solution.
A few years back some cypherpunks write a paper with controversial suggestions on improving the Bitcoin blockchain. I think its still worth a read. Here's the coverage article. There's a link inside to the paper on scribd.:
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-activists-suggest-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-to-k...
What did this have to do with my post? You seem to be addressing a tangential part - yes pruning transaction information in your local blockchain may cause information leakage - but my focus was refuting the argument against separating the signatures from the transactions. Bitcoin is not a cryptonote like design where the signatures are intricately linked to double spending and the inflation schedule. So the impact/negatives are in more of a "gray" area.
Key suggestions:
1. Use forced mixing (like ZeroCoin/ZCash) to improve transaction privacy 2. Enforce a limited, regular-sized, block chain 3. Ability to choose miners of payments
Steve
1. Privacy transactions are optional in ZCash, which reduces its cloaking set. I am not sure about the Zcoin variant, but privacy transactions are also unlikely to be mandatory due to the costs of computing such transactions. And most likely Bitcoin would switch to something closer to Dash than the ZeroCoin protocol (not that its necessarily a better privacy option, just that its a smaller less risky transition). 3. I do not see how this is desirable based on the information provided in that Bitcoin 2.0 paper. The "winner" of the next block is still based on hashing power and therefore this does not appear to be a solution that prevents mining centralization. No reasonable person would select a miner with low probability of mining the next block. I suppose if magically nearly everyone agreed to ban one miner it could work, but only until the miner generated another alias.
[...]
Steve
Lee
Lee
The Flippening, BTC to BCH The Last Mile Upgraded #BCH <https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/BCH?src=hashtag_click> #EDA <https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/EDA?src=hashtag_click>. This time, once the BTC chain come into the orbit, of the death grip, of the Chain Death Spiral, they will not be "rescued" by a BCH difficulty adjustment. http://bitcoinandtheblockchain.blogspot.ch/2017/11/the-flippening-btc-to-bch...) bitcoinandtheblockchain.blogspot.ch/2017/11/the-f <https://t.co/h0ke3Z8BXK?amp=1> On Nov 13, 2017 9:51 AM, "Lee Clagett" <forum@leeclagett.com> wrote:
Sorry for reviving this old thread. Just noticed I replied directly to Steven instead of the list, there might be something in here people find interesting ... replies inline.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:26:43 -0700 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Lee Clagett <forum@leeclagett.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
And now some politics...
*Here is why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Is The Real Bitcoin*
*It is the original bitcoin* It was hijacked from Gavin Andresen very surreptitiously by Adam Back (back in the day, Adam and I worked on hashcash and digital cash-related projects) with his Sidechain <http://www.satoshisdeposition.com/podcast/BTCK-169-2015-09-11.mp3> proposal. It was a "Trojan Horse" and together with the help of Blockstream, Theymos and the Core developers the process was completed. We, the original community, have finally regained control of the Bitcoin project, except that we have lost control of the name. This position is about to be redressed.
*It does not have Segwit.* If you look at a Bitcoin file as AD. A being the address and D being the data, Segwit removes the address portion A, It is reduced to a hash and the original signature is discarded after it is verified. So if your "fingerprint" is the hash of all your signatures, the signatures are discarded after being checked, and only the "fingerprint" is kept. This is in effect what Segwit does.
The signatures are stored on another chain, but not the main chain. Some nodes will keep signatures, some only keep partial records, some will discard them entirely. If you ever need to refer back to the transaction to check on the signatures all you have is the hash. "The fingerprint". Satoshi's original design of bitcoin being an unbroken record of signatures is violated.
It has been possible to "prune" old transactions from a local copy of the blockchain with Bitcoin Core for some time before Segwit was ever merged. You cannot realistically force someone to store the entire blockchain for you. The ability to prune old signatures while keeping the core transaction is actually a benefit - every transaction is necessary to verify that no double-spending has occurred or that miners did not create more coins than allowed. So even if the entire network dumped all segwit information, some critical checks of the system can be done by newcomers (but only if at least one person stores the entirety of the transaction information).
Accessing information from another's blockchain db is a privacy issue. That's why running your own full, private, node is such a good idea. Its not practical to do so in your mobile so an appliance is good solution.
A few years back some cypherpunks write a paper with controversial suggestions on improving the Bitcoin blockchain. I think its still worth a read. Here's the coverage article. There's a link inside to the paper on scribd.:
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-activists-suggest- hard-fork-to-bitcoin-to-keep-it-anonymous-and-regulation-free/
What did this have to do with my post? You seem to be addressing a tangential part - yes pruning transaction information in your local blockchain may cause information leakage - but my focus was refuting the argument against separating the signatures from the transactions. Bitcoin is not a cryptonote like design where the signatures are intricately linked to double spending and the inflation schedule. So the impact/negatives are in more of a "gray" area.
Key suggestions:
1. Use forced mixing (like ZeroCoin/ZCash) to improve transaction privacy 2. Enforce a limited, regular-sized, block chain 3. Ability to choose miners of payments
Steve
1. Privacy transactions are optional in ZCash, which reduces its cloaking set. I am not sure about the Zcoin variant, but privacy transactions are also unlikely to be mandatory due to the costs of computing such transactions. And most likely Bitcoin would switch to something closer to Dash than the ZeroCoin protocol (not that its necessarily a better privacy option, just that its a smaller less risky transition).
3. I do not see how this is desirable based on the information provided in that Bitcoin 2.0 paper. The "winner" of the next block is still based on hashing power and therefore this does not appear to be a solution that prevents mining centralization. No reasonable person would select a miner with low probability of mining the next block. I suppose if magically nearly everyone agreed to ban one miner it could work, but only until the miner generated another alias.
[...]
Steve
Lee
Lee
"Legacy Bitcoin is no longer useful as a currency and has been taken over by the banking corporations in an attempt to kill off Bitcoin as we know it." The Final Solution to Legacy Bitcoin. https://theflippening.github.io/open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-from-another-m... On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:08 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:27 -0600 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
The Flippening, BTC to BCH
so what's your 'libertarian' take on bitmain and their ASICs and patents?
-- 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 :)
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:12:02 -0800 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
"Legacy Bitcoin is no longer useful as a currency and has been taken over by the banking corporations in an attempt to kill off Bitcoin as we know it." The Final Solution to Legacy Bitcoin. https://theflippening.github.io/open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-from-another-m...
I mean to write a longer reply later, but seems that after the bitcoin cash "pump and dump" of a couple of days ago, bitcoin 'legacy' is going up and bitcoin cash is going down... and speaking of banking corporations.... https://blog.xapo.com/announcing-xapos-advisory-board/ and those xapo motherfuckers are one of the actors behind bitcoin cash, right?
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:08 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:27 -0600 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
The Flippening, BTC to BCH
so what's your 'libertarian' take on bitmain and their ASICs and patents?
Looks like the alt-media are starting to use the "F"-word in regards to Bitcoin Core vs. Bitcoin Cash http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-19/bitcoin-cash-explodes-record-highs-... On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
[Disclosure: I am a strong supporter of L1 (Blockchain scaling) occurring before any L2 (e.g., Segwit, Blockstream, Lightening Network, etc.) is attempted. And even then all L2 must be thoroughly examined not only for technical flaws but for possible misuses that affects the value and utility of the underlying blockchain assets.]
Due to the economic and technical nature of Bitcoin and its blockchain its more than possible that the new fork, widely being called Bitcoin Cash, BCH or BCC, will overtake its rival fork now commonly called Bitcoin Core. The effect of this "flippening" could be nothing short of disastrous for those holding Bitcoin Core.
Since the recent Bitcoin hard fork we now have two Bitcoins: Core (the 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 their BTC in their wallets, preferring instead to keep them in online exchange accounts. As a result, even though the exchanges warned people they needed to withdraw their BTC to claim the BCC, most of those people will never get that BCC. Instead it became a windfall for the exchanges.
When the fork occurred the Cash chain inherited the then current difficulty factor of the original. When operating nominally both chains should have new blocks discovered by miners about every 10 minutes. Because at the outset the mining effort for Cash was only a small fraction of the Core's. the rate new blocks were found (and therefore the transaction capacity) initially was hobbled. This was anticipated and the developers included a means to detect when the hashing power on this Cash chain was too low and to quickly adjust, in 20% increments, the difficulty factor.
By far the main driver for miners is revenue. In general they will go to whatever blockchain they earn the most. Analysis of the hash power being expended on both chains versus the difficulties and value of each coin showed that the two were converging insofar as mining profitability. There is also an anomalous aspect to the sources of the BCC mining power. Unlike that of BTC, where most of the hashing power is associated with known large mining cartels, the majority of BCC mining is by unknown parties.There has been significant variation of mining power over relatively short intervals on both blockchains. The timing of this variation very much indicates that the miners were attempting to beneficially manipulate both the value of BCC vs. BTC and quickly decrease the mining effort for BCC.
BTC BCH TOT BTC BCH BTC BCH BTC ( Hash Power ) ( Difficulty) ( Block Time ) (mempool)
11 August 6600 338 6938 923 115 10.00 21 55 12 August 6199 416 6615 923 115 10.66 20 15 13 August 6808 440 7248 923 115 9.73 18.46 27 14 August 5951 522 6473 923 115 11.07 15.82 47 15 August 6966 647 7591 923 115 9.47 12.85 53 16 August 5984 484 6468 923 115 11.07 17.14 50
- Since 11 August Hash Power on the BCH chain has increased daily. - Hash power on BTC chain on the other hand fluctuates from day to day, by up to 1000 PH and the mempool continues to grow.
The table above are snapshots taken at a point in time each day. Their individual states can be monitored in real time here <https://bitinfocharts.com/>*. Scroll down to the hash rate. BTC hash rate is down to 4853 PH. This is more than 2000 PH below the table above and the mempool <https://blockchain.info/charts> has now exceeded 65MB. A Death Chain Spiral may have set in but is being "managed".
This large fluctuation of BTC hash rate could be the miners preventing difficulty from adjusting downwards, and at the same time growing the mempool. It is also possible that with over 1000 blocks to the next difficulty recalculation, we may not see another difficulty adjustment on BTC anytime soon.
It is uncanny that we see very little discussion and debate at the very top. It is as though the NYA agreement have settled everything. However make no mistake. What seem calm belies what is happening in the background. Like a duck on the water paddling furiously underneath.
Over at r/bitcoin talk seems to center around price and technology. Nothing about any negativity, usability or the growing mempool. Censorship of robust discussions is just downright deceitful. Especially if it is the de facto forum. It must quit being a propaganda organ. There will be consequences.
The people around Segwit may be frantically on the phone, fax and email arguing and pleading with the miners. They can see the writing on the wall. Only 124 blocks were found in the last 24 hours. Block time have increased to 11 minutes and the mempool is in excess of 70MB. It is "too little too late". For many of the miners "Revenge is a dish best eaten cold".
Steve
-- 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 :)
Roger Ver BitcoinCash BCC dropping truth on Blockstream / Core / BTC... https://www.rogerver.com/slides/Pantera%20March%20%202017.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn8LN0AxzQ4
The magic number for definite de-adoption of a currency may be somewhere above $7 per tx. This is what it costs to transact in the stock markets. Or above say 10%, perhaps an expected return from the stock markets. Or above the 3% credit card take, or money wire take, or other in/out costs. Or below business ventures. Or above the petrol money to go buy in poker and beer at your mates vs satoshidice. A lot of traditional investors, retail, and users who don't get the whole crypto gold storage anarcho digital adoption entrenched thing are going to be looking at it in those terms. If it wasn't for anarcho theory, BTC might have died as soon as its mempool was foregone. BTC has high fees, internal issues, no privacy, and significant advanced competition now. If those issues aren't resolved any survival of BTC will be based purely on stupid goodwill. While BCC may address the first two of those and earn itself a flippening, the latter two remain with as of yet no roadmap out. We now see webmarkets and payment processor API's evolving to support more than one coin. This will put even more pressure on BTC / BCC from the advanced coins to the point of further leveling, or even flippening them both out long term. (They're at a combined 53% market cap now.) Keep your eyes on the strongly private coins, the feature / compute programmable / application / AI coins, the cartel coins, any coins that solve a lot of todays coin deficiencies in one coin, and whichever coins have stupid mass bling appeal. People can probably suggest and wager which coins are leading and or upcoming in each area.
The coin that will win: Needs to support the zerocoin anonymous spend protocol Needs to support a name system that is, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, resistant to name seizure. Needs to support human readable names, like Namecoin. Needs to be a communication and blogging system, like steemit. Needs to have an efficient system that is capable of scaling to Visa speeds and volumes, like steemit. Needs to be genuinely decentralized, and thus resistant to government and banking system takeover, unlike steemit and unlike ninety percent of the scam bitcoins. Such a coin will replace bitcoin, and likely replace the US dollar. Meanwhile we are seeing a lot initial coin offering that have no real existence, no real users, no real business model, often no real operating software - you are just buying shares in a white paper --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
participants (9)
-
Georgi Guninski -
grarpamp -
James A. Donald -
juan -
Lee Clagett -
Mirimir -
Razer -
Steven Schear -
Zenaan Harkness