Create account

replied 2285d
Sk8eM dUb
No. Too much volume. BTC tanked because fees went sky high. The proof is how much people were using BTC to purchase things, and then the 80% drop after 50.00 per transaction fees.
1 / 11 1
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2285d
I think it was pumped up to avoid a flippening. The only evidence I have is price action and history of miners moving back and forth but it's pretty intriguing if you look closely.
replied 2285d
Looking back, EDA should have been removed as soon as the difficulty stabilized, its implementation had game-changing economic consequences
replied 2285d
I have been thinking the same thing, though no proof as you allude to. tether printing ramped up at the same time as well. also i think EDA was an economics disaster
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2285d
That's another reason why I'm suspicious of ABC being a Trojan horse. CTOR looks real segwitty
replied 2285d
https://memo.cash/post/eec92e8316d06ab3764d584784e7230da4811e7ad082728f8ef4000fccf779b5 - check this out, a consequence of CTOR is socializing the block reward
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2285d
It should be even Stephan across the board. Pools won't 51% attack because miners will ditch it the second they pull any shady buisiness. Demonizing miners doesn't win hash wars.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2285d
Not to mention the obvious (and very cheap)DoS attack vector. Am I the only one who thinks this?
replied 2285d
I'm curious about the DoS attack, could you explain?
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2285d
Half the planet gets it in one order, the other half in the other order. If a miner finds a block before getting the order correct they get orphaned by ~half of the other miners.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2285d
Rappidly broadcast two of the same transactions in opposite order from relay nodes on opposite sides of the planet, rinse repeat. Nodes have to constantly reorder wasting bandwidth.
replied 2285d
There was an article that came out on how much BTC was being used to buy goods and then spending dropped 80% because of the fees.


About Privacy Terms Stats