Create account

replied 2285d
Sk8eM dUb
Everything is speculative. Even if the transaction value was higher, it would still be speculative. Nothing has been adopted yet.
2 / 25 1
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2285d
It's much easier to manipulate the price up than to keep it down. This could have a lot to do with the hash battle. BTC/BCH flippy miners default to proof-of-dev & proof-of-troll
replied 2285d
I believe this is just a speculative increase as adoption continues. The same way BTC did before it was declared broken. I really don't believe this is manipulation.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2285d
Do you think the big BTC bubble was manipulated?
replied 2285d
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
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.
En Fri Mand
replied 2285d
yea often when price is volatile it seems there are more txs
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2285d
It's def a chicken and egg question. Which came first, the price or the adoption? They definitely feed into each other.
1
En Fri Mand
replied 2285d
The price I would say because it's temporary when it happens
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2285d
Yeah it goes something like price pump, hype/adoption, bubble, crash/innovation.
2
888
replied 2285d
Price is first because of speculation of the adoption. If adoption never happens, the price will tank. It if does, it will continue to go up. BTC didn't get to 20,000 because of adopt
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2285d
I think adoption is a very gradual steady curve up(BTC has stagnated, probably reversed). The price returns to this mean after getting over bought.
replied 2285d
That's what a trader says. Traders totally ignore the fundamentals that create why there is value in the first place and what affects the value.
1
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2285d
BCH utility increases with adoption. Obviously that's going to be a much more gradual curve than the Wild price swings.
1
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2285d
The definition of overbought is when the price is higher than the current utility(and therefore demand). That has nothing to do with trading.
replied 2285d
BTC's utility crashed. Therefore the market crashed. If it didn't there wouldn't even be BCH. It crashed because the utility crashed, not because it was overbought.
1


About Privacy Terms Stats