I could care less if ABC and SV go to zero. Bitcoin started at zero. I'm not afraid, are you?
I am not afraid, but if it is possible to undermine BCH (or BSV) because of two ignorant blown up egos owning a patent trolling company, it was doomed to fail anyway.
BitcoinSV is what Satoshi wanted. No discussions. So far, this product is breaking records others struggled with and still struggle with (realize ABC failed to manage high tx volumes)
Failed? Besides, achieving a 64 MB block that takes 40 mins to propagate and NO increase on sustained throughput is not really that impressive. Watch when CTOR comes into effect ;-)
CoinGeek offers end to hash war in exchange for renaming BCH -> BAB:
CoinGeek is the owner of the largest sustained hash on BCH for months leading up to the November upgrade and therefore the leader of efforts to make
F*ck coingeek. The whole war was about the name in the first place as I mentioned days ago the only reason BSV did not add Replay protection. let coingeek keep losing money unitil D.
If the mempools stay consistent across nodes, then any bloom filter based lookup would still work, but orphan rates might be worse than if we have graphene **with** CTOR.
6months ago,we were all singing together, we were around $700.
Now with all the fighting,fud and bch splitting, abc and sv will be worth alot less.
Smart people are selling pre fork
These are shorts. People are borrowing money to bet that the price will go down. A well hung whale could easily make a million dollars by popping stops and liquidating them.
mined so far right before the fork to try and lower the BCH price to more hashrate will flow from BCH to BTC, giving them a higher percentage of the total.
Is it relevant to my point:
Businesses voiced their need to see higher block sizes before starting years long software development on the BCH chain.
Yes, and they will get that with ABC along with the neccesseary optimizations to achieve gigabyte blocks. SV offers no concrete info on how they will fix the bottlenecks.
Businesses disagreeing with you at this Bangkok meet https://ambcrypto.com/bitcoin-btc-jesus-says-bitcoin-cash-bch-miner-meeting-coming-up-will-resolve-chain-splitting-issues/ &mp3
How do you think those businesses will react when the blocks start crapping out anytime they reach 22mb? Bad experience=bad business. Issues need to be resolved while there is less tx.
If the system craps out at 22mb because of bottleneck issues then increasing to 128 doesn’t resolve that. Fix the bottleneck then increase to 128 in 6 months is logical & safe.
Actually it would only be 4 months because the next upgrade would be March.
Because there are businesses out there that could use 1GB blocks at a hefty fee, and won't even start developing their apps.
If the system craps out at 22mb because of bottleneck issues then increasing to 128 doesn’t resolve that. Fix the bottleneck then increase to 128 in 6 months is logical & safe.
After three or four attempts at propogating a block, most miners will ignore that pools blocks and keep mining the previous one until they verify the garbage block. Orphan rate moons.
“Orphan rate moons” You don’t see this as being a priority issue that should be resolved before increasing the blocksize well beyond what is needed right now?
“Jihan and Bitcoin ABC believe that increasing the blocksize limit will centralize the mining activity because only larger-scale miners will be able to process larger blocks.” Article states. Is it true?
No, that is certainly NOT true at all. Both ABC and BU has larger blocksize (up to 1 Terabyte) as a goal. But first the software must be able to handle it.