Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[juan]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:12:02 -0800
Steven Schear  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-miner/



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  wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:27 -0600
> > Steven Schear  wrote:
> >
> > >The Flippening, BTC to BCH
> >
> > so what's your 'libertarian' take on bitmain and their ASICs
> > and patents?
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

"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-miner/

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:08 PM, juan  wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:27 -0600
> Steven Schear  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 :)

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[juan]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:27 -0600
Steven Schear  wrote:

>The Flippening, BTC to BCH

so what's your 'libertarian' take on bitmain and their ASICs
and patents? 

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

The Flippening, BTC to BCH The Last Mile
Upgraded #BCH 
#EDA . 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-last-mile.html)
bitcoinandtheblockchain.blogspot.ch/2017/11/the-f


On Nov 13, 2017 9:51 AM, "Lee Clagett"  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  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Lee Clagett 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500
> > > Steven Schear  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
> > > > 
> > > > 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 

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Lee Clagett]

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  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Lee Clagett 
> wrote:
>   
> > On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500
> > Steven Schear  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
> > > 
> > > 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
> >
> 
> 
>   

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[James A. Donald]

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

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[grarpamp]

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.

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[grarpamp]

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

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Lee Clagett  wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500
> Steven Schear  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
> > 
> > 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/

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 :)

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Georgi Guninski]

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.

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Lee Clagett]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500
Steven Schear  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
> 
> 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

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

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-over-900-heres-why

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Steven Schear 
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   TOTBTC BCH
>   BTC   BCH BTC
>( Hash Power )   ( Difficulty)
>   ( Block Time )(mempool)
>
> 11 August6600  338   6938 923115
> 10.00 2155
> 12 August6199  416   6615 923115
> 10.66 2015
> 13 August6808  440   7248 923115
>   9.73 18.46   27
> 14 August5951  522   6473 923115
>  11.0715.82   47
> 15 August6966  647   7591 923115
>9.4712.85   53
> 16 August5984  484   6468 923115
>  11.0717.14   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
> *.  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  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 

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 05:04:46PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> > A currency can't just be used for gambling and have any lasting
> > value. Fees are so high on BTC as preclude any use BUT gambling
> > whereas BCCs are back where BTC was 2 years+ ago. Imagine if USD
> > could only be used for bank wires and SWIFT settlement. How useful
> > would it be to most people?
> 
> 
>   Yes, limiting bitcoin to high value transactions, digital gold
>   style, would limit its utility as 'currency'.  So the second
>   layer approach can make sense after all...
> 
>   Disclaimer : I don't necessarily trust blockstream either...

Fundamentally, the only sane position to take when greed is most
likely at play.

With this BTC fork, DCs seem to be able lubricate the "maximising
collective (miners in this instance) self interest" motive (for now
at least), as compared to the "resignedly accept the status quo (on
existing fiat pyramids), thereby maximizing the self interest (wealth
transfer towards) a much smaller few".

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Zenaan Harkness]

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.

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[juan]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:40:20 -0500
Steven Schear  wrote:

> Agreed. Atm its almost all gambling. I'm hoping BTC crashes because L2
> scaling is not tested and ready but L2 8MB blocks seem to be solid.

well, I don't know how far development of the lightning network
has gone, but there's no reason why it can't be further
developed to make it "production ready" I would assume.

On the other hand, it seem kinda obvious that bitcoin can't
handle a lot of small transactions. And it's true that the
bigger the blocks get, the more hardware you need to run a
validating node and the more centralized the network becomes.
Centralization is already pretty bad as far as miners and
exchanges are concerned.

 
> A currency can't just be used for gambling and have any lasting
> value. Fees are so high on BTC as preclude any use BUT gambling
> whereas BCCs are back where BTC was 2 years+ ago. Imagine if USD
> could only be used for bank wires and SWIFT settlement. How useful
> would it be to most people?


Yes, limiting bitcoin to high value transactions, digital gold
style, would limit its utility as 'currency'.  So the second
layer approach can make sense after all...

Disclaimer : I don't necessarily trust blockstream either...



> 
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:21 PM, juan  wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:40:24 -0500
> > Steven Schear  wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, juan  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:29:54 -0500
> > > > Steven Schear  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 daysbut I don't think that means much
> > since a lot of what's going on in cryptocurrency 'markets'
> > is just gambling.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> >
> 
> 
> 

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[juan]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:40:24 -0500
Steven Schear  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, juan  wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:29:54 -0500
> > Steven Schear  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 daysbut I don't think that means much
since a lot of what's going on in cryptocurrency 'markets' is
just gambling.






> 
> 
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > >

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

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

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
.

*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 :)

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Mirimir]

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  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.
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

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 
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  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 :)

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

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  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 :)

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, juan  wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:29:54 -0500
> Steven Schear  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   TOTBTC BCH
> > BTC   BCH BTC
> >( Hash Power )
> > ( Difficulty) ( Block Time )(mempool)
> >
> > 11 August6600  338   6938 923115
> > 10.00 2155
> > 12 August6199  416   6615 923115
> > 10.66 2015
> > 13 August6808  440   7248 923115
> >   9.73 18.46   27
> > 14 August5951  522   6473 923115
> >  11.0715.82   47
> > 15 August6966  647   7591 923115
> >9.4712.85   53
> > 16 August5984  484   6468 923115
> >  11.0717.14   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
> > *.  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  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 

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Razer]

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

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[juan]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:55:10 +0300
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? 


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''.
> 

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[juan]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:29:54 -0500
Steven Schear  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   TOTBTC BCH
> BTC   BCH BTC
>( Hash Power )
> ( Difficulty) ( Block Time )(mempool)
> 
> 11 August6600  338   6938 923115
> 10.00 2155
> 12 August6199  416   6615 923115
> 10.66 2015
> 13 August6808  440   7248 923115
>   9.73 18.46   27
> 14 August5951  522   6473 923115
>  11.0715.82   47
> 15 August6966  647   7591 923115
>9.4712.85   53
> 16 August5984  484   6468 923115
>  11.0717.14   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
> *.  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  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

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Georgi Guninski]

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''.

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

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  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 :)
>
>

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Mirimir]

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  wrote:
> 
>> On 08/18/2017 03:29 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

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  wrote:

> On 08/18/2017 03:29 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
>
> 
>
> > 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.
>
> 
>



-- 
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 :)

Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

[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   TOTBTC BCH
BTC   BCH BTC
   ( Hash Power )   ( Difficulty)
( Block Time )(mempool)

11 August6600  338   6938 923115
10.00 2155
12 August6199  416   6615 923115
10.66 2015
13 August6808  440   7248 923115
  9.73 18.46   27
14 August5951  522   6473 923115
 11.0715.82   47
15 August6966  647   7591 923115
   9.4712.85   53
16 August5984  484   6468 923115
 11.0717.14   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
*.  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  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