When r/Bitcoin moderators began censoring content and banning users they disagreed with, r/btc became a community for free and open crypto discussion. This happened long before the creation of Bitcoin Cash. Over the years /r/btc became community of historians & torchbearers, preservers of Satoshi's Bitcoin for future generations.
Bitcoin.com: Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
In the post it claims that SegWit removes signature data but according to Investopedia, the signature data is segregated from the transactions data (not removed entirely). Is someone able to clarify this for me?
Btw I'm all for bigger blocks and love Bitcoin Cash, I would just like some more info!
Signature data is still part of the transaction.
https://imgur.com/a/15ipE
See the last image, the orange parts are the signature data [it used to be the light-blue parts as seen in the other images].
The signature data is no longer committed to by sticking them in the transactions at each branch of the merkle tree along with the corresponding transaction, but are instead committed to in the coinbase transaction (first transaction in the block).
That data corresponding to each segwit transaction in the block, and the pair being valid, is validated by every segwit node, and every miner [that wants to be able to sell their hashrate to the network]. For this reason, the witnesses/transaction data is part of the transaction.
PSA for this blasted subreddit:
IT IS SEGREGATED WITNESS, NOT ELIMINATED WITNESS.
Thank you for the in-depth explanation. I think I have a good grasp on how it works now. The wording from certain parties may confuse people in regards to SegWit and it's very hard to get any real info with the amount of bias in both subreddits.
One bias is science, the other bias is hatred.
Without you telling me which community you are talking about I'm not sure who's science or hatred - which in itself is a problem.
What it sounds like you are implying here is that every signature in the entire block is put into the first transaction in the block. Is that the case?
I was under the impression that the signatures are stored in a separate data structure altogether, not in the block itself. Does this first transaction just reference the Segwit section of the data, perhaps?
This sounds like it's based on the assumption that it will never be advantageous to ignore segwit data. Do you have a response to the potential attack vector outlined by Peter Rizun in this video
Here's the coinbase transaction of the latest block:
http://srv1.yogh.io/#tx:id:CB77E2B0DE606340F31FE0861CC7D24A92CEB368FC332B613CE804E88232DC58
Note the second output there, a 0BTC OP_RETURN output with the following data:
AA21A9ED43E264F01F0320DF241A777F8D236700B3926F209621DEE30EDEC531D3943E2DThat's the root of a merkle tree to each and every witness in that block.
The data structure is similar to the root of the merkle tree committed to in the block headers (the one which contains the block's transactions), and it is inexplicably part of the block in the same way.
It is very advantageous to start ignoring segwit cases in limited situations, namely, after you've validated the data, you can prune it away from your local node forever.
Give me a minute to watch this garbage.
Right, but the lower branches of a merkle tree can't be derived from the merkle root, can they?
It sounds like you are confirming what I suggested above: using the coinbase transaction, a miner references the Segwit data, identifying it with the root of the merkle tree of that data. But the witness data itself isn't actually in the block still, right?
I'd appreciate if you didn't call it garbage until you debunked it, thank you.
Video linked by u/AD1AD:
^Info | /u/AD1AD can ^delete | v2.0.0
The point is: You don't need to check signatures to validate a transaction. There is a way round.
There is a way around validating a transaction without the data required to determine validity?
Do tell.
Use a pre-SegWit node to validate a SW-transaction. You can validate it without checking signatures.
Still not a Bitcoin transaction
The signature data is removed from the blockchain but not removed completely. It's now the nodes' responsibility to store that as well.
The argument is that Bitcoin is defined by a chain of signatures, but with SegWit the chain no longer contains them.
You can still follow the chain of signatures perfectly fine.
Utter nonsense.
missing the problem part when they confused pruning with removal of transaction signatures
they claim nobody will ever need to verify the chain of ownership as designed once they initially verify, so they say everyone can remove (delete) those signatures after they download them since they take up much more space than a regular Bitcoin transaction
yet another "encouragement" to break network security, just like the "encouragement" of using sw with 3x less fees than a regular Bitcoin transaction even thought it used more space
To my knowledge, SegWit moves it to another part of the block, which means that older nodes that are not SegWit-enabled still understand and can still validate the block, while nodes with current software understand it completely. It is one of the most important scaling solutions developed for Bitcoin, allowing up to a hypothetical 4Mb block size, though 2.7Mb will probably be more realistic.
Thanks for the reply! So why is this a security issue as I've seen many claim? Wouldn't it be good to have both SegWit and bigger blocks?
The main point is that signatures are no longer part of the transaction. This means the transaction is valid without them, that is, once the transaction is included in a block (a miner validated the signatures), the signatures could be removed.
If signatures are removed then you are not able to fully validate a blockchain because the validity of a block depends on the assumption that a miner executed software without bugs when the block was found, for example. Otherwise it could have allowed a segwit transaction to be spent with no signatures or even invalid signatures.
Obviously if signatures are not removed we can still validate everything.
In that case the only issue is that you cannot simply transmit a serialized segwit transaction. It would miss the signatures.(edit: as pointed bellow, the serialization of segwit transaction should include signatures)Regarding segwit and big blocks, Segwit2X tries to have both. Bitcoin Cash "tries" not to have segwit because it is not needed. It's a complicated upgrade done like this to be backwards compatible. It changes many things at the same time.
Awesome explanation - thank you!
This is a misleading part. Older nodes process SegWit blocks but cannot validate SegWit transactions, they just assume them valid by default. Miners may even have an incentive to skip the validation of transactions.
Also, SegWit makes future scaling more difficult because the "block weight" creates a discrepancy between the average block size (also after full adoption) and the maximum block size: everyone needs their systems to be over-dimensioned to process the maximum, but under normal conditions it will rarely be used.
So that's two reasons why bigger blocks without SegWit are better than bigger blocks with SegWit.
Even if you dismiss the above as unimportant, SegWit is certainly not the most important scaling solution. Moving signatures to a different part of the block is a technical trick (with a lot of added technical complexity) that only yields a limited one-time gain. Block size increases on the other hand can be applied repeatedly and can thus scale multiple orders of magnitude.
Fully agree with you. The beauty of this tech is that we can see both implementations play out and decide for ourselves!
You actually just got fed a bunch of bullcrap. Do your own research. Segwit is garbage.
I have done my own research but I'm trying to get other people's opinions too.
Non-segwit nodes can still validate the block because segwit transactions are essentially created without an owner - the segwit coins are up for grabs to the first person to claim them as far as the old nodes are concerned.
The original Bitcoin rules require the owner to be tied to the coins with every block so you can see the coins full transaction history ('chain of signatures'). Since segwit was implemented as a soft fork they needed to trick all the old nodes to go along with their new rules, which are incompatible with Bitcoins base rules, hence stripping out the owner and moving it to within the new segwit rules. Now to ensure you have the full ownership history you need to run a segwit full node, and never prune any of the signatures. Old nodes, and segwit pruning nodes, cannot be fully trusted as they're missing the full ownership history, and the history they do have you can't confirm is authentic just because blocks were built on top of it.
This also means that as the number of coins stored in segwit addresses grows, the more value could in theory be taken by malicious miners and/or exchanges by suddenly forking the chain by not enforcing segwit - leaving the new chain with all the segwit coins in 'anyone can grab me' addresses. This wouldn't impact businesses running full nodes, but it's now requiring trust from multiple groups (miners, exchanges) to not act selfishly for short-term gain.
Those blocks would be orphaned by the rest of the miners and all users running SW-aware software.
The realistic size is 1.7MB if everyone uses SegWit. Also it's not about the size it's about the number of transactions.
SegWit is the most oversold and inefficient scaling solution developed for Bitcoin.
Obvious vote manipulation going on here.
I really hate to jump to conclusions, but it seems that way.
I don't think that this is the case. It sends it in a different data structure entirely (which non-Segwit nodes don't even know to listen for).
that's 1.7MB, not 2.7MB. With SW2X we're looking at a realistic max of 3.4 MB / ~11 tps.
But allows an attack that requires much less hashing power then 51% to be made... Not a great idea if you ask me...
As I understand it: Segwit does remove signature data from the block, and then sends the info via another data structure entirely. Any node that doesn't know about the Segwit data structure will not receive the witness data. (They'll still accept blocks without witness data because apparently they'll by default treat them as "anyone can spend" addresses. The actual custody of the coins in question is stored in the segwit data structure.)
A node could, even if it knows about the Segwit data, choose to ignore it. That's dangerous because it creates a vulnerability: if the miners were to stop enforcing segwit, money in segwit addresses would then just be in "anyone can spend" wallets. An attack vector where one malicious miner could potentially convince the rest of the network to ignore segwit data, just by the nature of miners being profit maximizing agents, is described here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY
It doesn't. The signature data is committed to in the coinbase transaction and as such is part of the block.
Segwit doesn't commit the signature data in each branch of the merkle tree, opting instead to commit it in the coinbase transaction, but it does not remove the data from the block nor the transaction.
That is true.
This would be a node that is choosing not to fully validate. It is of course free to do so, just as SPV/lite nodes are free to trust a third party.
That is indeed what happens when a node stops validating. It is not an attack vector though.
Peter Rizun does not understand the nature of nodes and miners in this network; he believes miners are non-rational economic entities [ironically, because he explicitly claims otherwise], and he believes nodes are powerless, performing a futile function for their operators. With fundamental misunderstandings like these, fundamentally flawed ramblings are bound to result.
Thanks for your reply, I think everything we're talking about here we're already talking about in another thread. Here for anyone following along...
Read this https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY
bot ^info
So, first Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin, then S2X is Bitcoin, now Bitcoin Cash is bitcoin again??
I'm getting whiplash.
Says average time to confirm is 15 minutes, meanwhile there hasn't been a block for over 3.5 hours.
Maybe it does indeed average 15 mins once the 50 blocks/hour kicks in, needs some standard deviation in there.
I have sent legacy bitcoins with a high fee and still waited up to 7 days for the first confirmation.
[Edit: Several fake accounts are in denial about this. They have no idea just how full the blocks were in recent months. Only after Bitcoin Cash was created did it take the pressure off legacy bitcoin. They think that downvoting will somehow make bitcoin transactions confirm faster. Note that the default mempool timeout in legacy bitcoin used to be 72 hours in the old days. It's now 14 days. There's a reason why it is so long now, and the reason appears to be beyond the grasp of these fake accounts.]
I don't mind waiting 3.5 hours for Bitcoin Cash. These are just growing pains. You're expecting too much too soon. Wait a little longer before complaining about Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin has been around for about 9 years now. I'm sure Bitcoin Cash will stabilize much sooner than 9 years from now.
As an unbiased third party who read your comment, then the responses, no one is in denial and several people merely asked for... confirmation (pun intended).
It is reasonable for you to not want to share TX IDs but downvoting people asking in a reasonable manner for them is suspect and suggests a lie and cover up. Not saying that's what happened but come on man. No need to be paranoid. Just respond with some discussion.
If it isn't true they should not claim it to be so.
It's a simple, if rather laborious, piece of arithmetic. If you have reason to challenge you could do the sums yourself.
Also, remember 0conf (i.e. no RBF), which ameliorates the issue, and focus on the issue that the entire fork and variable hashrate symptoms has a root cause in Core's unwillingness to let Bitcoin be Bitcoin.
This situation is temporary.
He's using a double standard. For the block times/confirmation times, he uses the theoretical ideal but for the transaction fees, he uses the current, in fiat.
We don't actually know what the fees would be if BCH were the dominant coin and had the current value of Bitcoin.
Pretty powerful stuff. I'm guessing this means Bitcoin.com is throwing its full weight behind bitcoin cash?
Comment deleted by user
Pretend Segwit1x is Bitcoin and hope people fall for it.
What's the difference?
deleted 0.2471 What is ^^^this?
Too bad BTCs price isn't a feature of BTC
Cost per unit is a pretty poor measure of performance. Market cap is a much better comparison
And unusable as a currency, that's the point.
It won't be a last ditch - no currency will survive if it is unusable as a currency. Maybe bitcoin be the future. Maybe an altcoin instead.
This is just a huge shitpost in itself, if Roger would believe this he would have gone all-in on Bitcoin Cash already (if he trully believes in the one Bitcoin). As he didn't do this, he is simply doing all this shitposting and pushing propaganda to make OTHERS buy it.
Comment deleted by user
I've lost more so far. :(
Comment deleted by user
I lost 2 BTC on BitMex leveraging shit 25x or more...
Learn something from it and move on.
That's a bummer. Please don't forget not to risk what you can't afford to lose! With any luck BCH will be a winner in the long term.
You'll need more than luck.
Everybody who was involved in bitcoin in 2013 lost more and lost it for longer...
deleted 0.0642 What is ^^^this?
rogered
Learned your lesson to do your research next time not fall for the trap?
Sorry to hear about your bad luck. It's a long term investment, however, so I'm hopeful Bitcoin cash will do just fine, if not exceptionally well. We'll see!
I bought back when it was at 200 no loss so far. You just have to buy at lows not when it's at highs.
Why anyone has to be a maximalist? We all believe Bitcoin is better than dollar, right? Absolute majority of us just can't switch overnight. It's a battle of ideas. If A > B and if there's nothing unacceptable about B, u can support both and slowly move from one to another for as long as u like
Looks like there are some whales buying it now...
102 upvotes and 2 gilds...
Astroturfing trolls are getting stronger by the day.
So supposedly he is pushing propaganda to make others buy something he does not have. Why the hell would he do that then? This is the shittiest conspiracy theory I've heard for some time.
Nice brigading
Core brigade going margin with the payroll
What is the current plan on fixing the EDA? I find it difficult to take Bitcoin Cash seriously until there is a long term proven solution to it.
Multiple different options are being investigated and tested on the BCH mailing lists. There's been multiple posts on it in this subreddit as well. The current thinking seems to be to continue testing while taking a wait-and-see approach to what the S2X fork will do. The current EDA will still ensure the survival of BCH - a safety net BTC doesnt have.
Tested on mailing lists?? Shouldn't that be testnet?
Comment deleted by user
Yup, kind of hard to coordinate a global market though. :) I would have preferred more downtrend just for more accumulation time
I like Bitcoin Cash and I even understand the EDA but I don't think that Bitcoin Cash can claim to be Bitcoin while the EDA is in place. Bitcoin's difficulty adjustment mechanism is there to ensure that accidental minority forks can't survive and is a defining feature IMO. Its subversion, while necessary, places the code outside. Its eventual removal would restore the potential claim though.
wassat?
EDA: Emergency Difficulty Adjustment
Created to reduce the difficulty target of the blocks in the Bitcoin Cash chain so that when it forked from bitcoin, they didn't need to wait 2016 blocks for a lowering. Instead, it is being abused by miners, who wait until the difficulty is low enough that they can generate blocks every 2-3 minutes, then abandon the chain to mine bitcoin again.
So long as the EDA is in bitcoin cash, the chain will be gamed by the miners, leading to long stretches with 1 block every 3 hours, alternated by shorter stretches of 100s of blocks every 3 hours. In short: a mess.
edit: happy cakeday!
EDA is Satoshi's vision, and we're always been at war against Eastasia.
Agree fully.
There's just one mistake in it. It claims segwit transactions use the ANYONE_CAN_SPEND opcode. It does not. It is less clean than that and much more of a hack / abuse of undocumented and unintended functionality.
According to the BIP
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#transaction-id
So it is considered anyone can spend without actually being anyone can spend.
An important difference that shows how much of a hack this is, as implemented now.
Except there is no such thing as an ANYONE_CAN_SPEND opcode to begin with.
A transaction is valid, if nothing in the combined script triggers a failure and the top stack item is non-zero. Scripts are considered as "anyone-can-spend", if there is no condition to be fulfilled for the script execution. In it's most simple form this is given with an empty
scriptPubKeyand pushing one element such asOP_TRUEwith thescriptSig.Segregated Witness uses empty
scriptSigs(when not using P2SH) andscriptPubKeysthat consists of a 1-byte push opcode (for 0 to 16) followed by a data push between 2 and 40 bytes (for the witness program). The witness program is then interpreted, executed and enforced by SW-aware software.For more specifics about the witness programs, check out the BIP 141 specification.
Thanks for the response. You are right. I should have been clearer. I know there is no anyone can spend opcode. However there is a documented way of doing this, ie just an op_true in the script sig. Or an undocumented way of doing it (adding an unsupported version field for tricking old clients).
The documented way was deliberately disallowed as non standard. Yes you can mine them. But they won't be relayed. At least they didn't used to be. Maybe they are now.
Thus it is very much a clever trick. In my terminology using an undocumented feature like that is a hack.
Hopefully that makes my post clearer.
SegWit scripts and programs are considered as non-standard by old nodes, and unknown SegWit programs are considered as non-standard by current nodes as well. :)
I'm just waiting for my money to come in so that I can buy more Bitcoin Cash.
A fool and their money....
I don't like this average statistics on time either. Because it can vary really. And sometimes waiting for 7 days for payment verification is like a slow death.
You mean how my BTC transaction can take either 10 minutes or 14 days?
grabs popcorn...
I am getting pretty confused by this comment section, i was planning to buy Bitcoin Cash, but many people now saying it is a scam?
Before buying into anything you should always inform yourself about what Bitcoin and Bitcoin cash is. Then decide for yourself what you think will be the best coin for you.
Here's a good place to start reading
https://bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf
Edit: downvoted for posting a link to the white paper... this thread has lost its mind
For one it's probably because it's on bitcoin.com, I agree the whitepaper shouldn't be downvoted. But when will people realize things progress and while amazing you don't have to stick to the original paper word for word. If that were the case we would have no progress in almost all technology or most things really.
There are a lot of vocal people on both sides trying to influence the outcomes of certain things. I don't think any of the big cryptocurrencies can be classified as "scams," because they do what they say on the box. I'll save the scam label for things like OneCoin and Paycoin, which have pyramid scheme/ponzi models.
Me telling you it's not a scam doesn't mean much, though. Do your own research and draw your own conclusions. Watch out for emotional arguments like "It's Roger's centralized PayPal2.0 Chinacoin!" (That seems to be the bulk of the arguments made against Bitcoin Cash).
An awful lot of trolls coming out of the woodwork.
Comment removed by moderator
So if i wanted honest opinions without censorship should i go to bitcointalk forum or somewhere else? It is hard to tell who is troll and who is being honest here.
I've yet to find an unbiased place for information. I'm clearly biased myself towards this community and I oppose the Core team, whatever coin they are working on.
I still recognise that there's not many places to go for unbiased information, that's a huge problem. Unless you're an expert on Crypto yourself and can weigh up the technological pros and cons, I'm afraid you might just have to pick a side and go with it... I believe bitcointalk is owned by the people who run r/bitcoin but don't quote me on that one. I don't use it.
If I ever find somewhere that isn't biased and just looks at the facts and the tech, I'll let you know... All I know for now is that this sub is the one where both sides can post and take part.
You are in the right place to avoid censorship. r/btc
See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/noncensored_bitcoin/comments/7414nf/september_2017_stats_post/?st=j8ksv3ib&sh=c9b16fde
Also, I found this article a pretty good summary of the pros and cons Bitcoin Cash has going for it: https://www.yours.org/content/bitcoin--cash---investment-thesis-f3923f5e7c75/
It's worth reading past the paywall, use this: u/tippr $2
u/JaraCimrman, you've received
0.00570325 BCC ($2 USD)!^^How to use | ^^What is Bitcoin Cash? | ^^Who accepts it? | Powered by Rocketr | r/tippr
Bitcoin Cash is what Bitcoin should be. Ask about it on r/btc
Well if you read this very thread carefully you should understand that one of the major sponsor of Bitcoin Cash have published an article full of factual errors (lies?) to advertise it.
Are these people you want to associate or invest in?
Are you unable or unwilling to address those 'factual errors?
When your node spend segregated signatures to my node.
Then you could have a point. But for now I'm being sent block that have transactions that are not signed.
I haven't changed my node a brunch of idiots follow a centralised authority added segwit.
u/tippr gild
u/tippr gild
You can talk technical en politics all you want. But I think it's up to the market to decide which chain is the real Bitcoin. And ATM it certainly isn't Bitcoin Cash.
I think this article opens the discussion "which chain after which split (or future split)" is the most entitled to call itself Bitcoin. Depending on the outcome of that, you'd get a different valuation. Looking at valuation is at the moment silly imho, because crypto valuations are 90% speculative/hype and 10% usercase. Long term the latter will be dominant.
Great read. Nailed it. This is why we're here.
I think the piece is stupid honestly.
Can we just admit...which we have always done, that the chain with most PoW is bitcoin? This is playing into Core's nonsensical bullshit attempt to impose their own subjective definition onto bitcoin.
As the top comment states, the claim of the piece is tenuous at best.
The chain with the most PoW has the best security, I'll give you that.
Each individual can decide for himself what constitutes validity. If a consensus of miners got together and decided to raise inflation, for whatever misguided reason, would you accept that as "Bitcoin" because it had majority hashpower? Or would you instead mine / follow an alternate chain that maintained the properties you believed were intrinsic to the value of the coin, and call that "Bitcoin?"
I admit the answer isn't necessarily straightforward.
Alternatively, it is exposing those that don't call Bitcoin the max-cumulative-POW from the other side as well.
In other words: I disagree strongly with the premise of the article, but I still like the small blockers fighting it :-)
No, the paper defined this very succinctly:
"We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures"
SegWit is not a chain of signatures, it is a chain of hashes related to a signature. This is a vastly different system.
So, we have the electronic coin (not electronic settlement system) with the longest chain that is formed using a chain of digital signatures as the true Bitcoin, there is only one of these.
It is Bitcoin Cash.
The problem with taking this definition too literal is that it ignores both the flexibility of the scripting system and the immutability of the chain.
If I claim an output which doesn't require a signature, and my claiming transaction gets buried in the chain, aren't these bitcoins mine? Or aren't they bitcoins?
Regardless of the bad design of SegWit, I would say that I own bitcoins if I own the private keys that can sign an output buried under enough proof-of-work. This isn't necessarily a chain of signatures, even without SegWit.
No, you have your keys, but those keys are also the same for may other things if you like (not recommending this here).
You own keys that allow access to validate an entry on a ledger.
That system is Bitcoin IFF it fulfils the requirements to be Bitcoin.
I also said much more than that single line. To quote myself, So, we have the electronic coin (not electronic settlement system) with the longest chain that is formed using a chain of digital signatures as the true Bitcoin, there is only one of these.
Now, that does not mean it si not also other things. Saying a Cat is a mammal does not state more than what is required for it to be a mammal. It does state a set of defined baselines that are not able to be breached. If the female of the species in general does not produce milk, it is not a member of the class mammal. There are other parts to any class, but for bitcoin, that is a base state.
The keys alone mean little. These are what secures your coins, but they also could simply be a set of SSH keys that would in the end also map to a Bitcoin address.
Please just anonymously post a signed message that says this, you don't even need to affirm it was you. Plausible deniability. Get it over with already! At some point you are an accomplice to the crime that is happening currently. I cannot fathom how if I were in your shoes I would let what is happening go on if you truly are who you say you are.
In 12 months this will be over one way or another and no signing will change what is to be. If I did or did not, nothing would end differently for the better. Some things could be worse.
Do ideas mean more than the messenger or is the truth what is delivered by a charismatic speaker?
Is this what it has all come to?
What now makes a difference is a cult of the individual. Not ideas. Not code and not what will be coming in the following months, but who.
If this is the world that must be, I have to state that I do not want to be a part of it. I do not see that this is. I see that ideas can still sway people, that others will look past petty rivalries and to maths and science and code.
This will end for better or for worse based on ideas. This can be attacked now. We have not shown even 1% of what we are building yet and only a few have even seen the start of what nChain is doing and those parties are not talking publicly.
Standing up for what you believe in is not being an accomplice to a crime. Folding and caving to the whims of others is.
Peter Rizun explains A segwitcoin is NOT a Bitcoin.
Sorry you can't see the real value behind this project.
Thanks for clarifying things.
So does this mean 2X will fork off Bitcoin Cash in November?
It's called SegWit2x. Bitcoin Cash doesn't have SegWit. Therefore Segwit2x will fork off BTC (which has SegWit).
NO
Yes. Lol.
This is an awesome article.
I'm calling you out Roger. Put your money where your mouth is. I demand that all hashrate in bitcoin.com's pool be moved to Bitcoin cash immediately, forever.
Edit: Your pool has shit luck anyways, might as well man.
I am still not sure that all the recent Cash action isn't simply putting a guardrail in place to make sure that people stick with 2X.
There is an interesting symmetry here: If Cash is not Bitcoin, then so is S1X ...
Cmon Roger, Do it...........Dooooooittttttt
LOL! Nice consistency.
DOUBLE LOL! Two blocks in the past four hours, ... as I write this. https://cash.coin.dance/blocks#blockDetails
Misinformation.
Zeroconf is not safe. Not on Bitcoin. Nor on Bitcoin Cash either.
Which means Bitcoin Cash has not implemented a solution to solve transaction malleability.
Seriously, people. Use your friggin brains and stay away from bogus altcoins and their promoters.
Oh, you mean like how Bitcoin is XBT on some exchanges and BTC on others?
Better? 0-conf isn't what's meant here.
Yet. There are other and better ways to solve it.
Also beware of core shills. Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin as referenced in the whitepaper but not via social consensus. But it's not bogus.
Could you point me to a website where i can find information about those different ways of solving transaction malleability ?
The tragedy here is that the community didn't seriously contemplate hard-forking to fix this issue.
Check out FlexTrans:
https://zander.github.io/posts/Flexible_Transactions/
https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/FlexTrans-vs-SegWit.html
So much cleaner than segwit but requires a hard fork.
I totally agree. In a lot of It project, we usually don't get the best solution (for political or technical reason) and i hoped that "Bitcoin" would have been different. Unfortunately, the price rising and the competition with other crytpo, stressed the community to hark fork.
thank you for the links
Honestly, Bitcoin Cash has such a pathetic hash rate that it is susceptible to a hostile hard fork. That might be an option.
There are bad actors on both sides of this debate. And we have already seen signs that they are working together to prevent Bitcoin from attaining the optimal solution.
The whitepaper defines Bitcoin as the chain with the most work valid chain.
How does BCash fits in this?
What is bcash? https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/why-some-people-call-bitcoin-cash-bcash-this-will-be-shocking-to-new-readers-956558da12fb
Does that mean you will acknowledge S2X as Bitcoin?
Read the white paper again.
Bitcoin Cash of course follows the valid chain with the most proof of work.
So glad to see the stand against Core. Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin! Restricting capacity was not the plan, was never the plan. Gregonomics was not the plan. Segwit was not the plan. Core "btc" has become an altcoin.
Like I said in my other comment, this gives me whiplash.
First Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin, then Bitcoin.com says they're going to have S2X as BTC, now bitcoin.com stopped signalling S2X and Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin again.
So which is it? To me it's an incredibly irresponsible attitude from community leaders to promote one coin, then change their minds, over and over again.
How many people are losing money over and over again because of advice they've received here?
Your choice which advice you follow.
There's been a very consistent thread on r/btc since the beginning: On chain transactions, low fees, reliable confirmation times - that's bitcoin. Was at the start and will be at the end.
It really isn't that hard to follow the bouncing ball.
The only uncertainty has always been who has more economic power: People capable of thinking for themselves vs. people who can be manipulated.
506 comments, so much shills here, it's ridiculous
I 100% agree with this. Out of Fiat for the moment. Next Fiat I'm getting for the next years will go to Bitcoin Cash. I don't care if I'm the only one buying it.
Bring on the 1GB blocks for Bitcoin Cash
500 posts trying to explain segwit, without success - does it not tell you something?
Who's the author of that misleading, blasphemous article?
So deceptive.
Actually its TRUTH, unlike all the lies that Core have put out.
https://i.imgur.com/kFQghMk.png
This chart says it all.
This chart says everything this echo-chamber of BitcoinCash wants to make you believe. Current Bitcoin average fees aren't 3$, confirmation time is 10-15 minutes, transactions are irreversible and signature data is obviously included in the blocks, because otherwise the software would not function. I wonder who you are trying to deceive most, other posters, or yourself.
I think any user who uses bitcoin once or twice can clearly check these facts for themselves.
But then, blocksize is still 1MB, or not, depending on who you ask and the political affiliation of who posts that ... and if it is 1MB, the signature data is not included "in the blocks", or is it?
IOW: This is a confusing mess. And I'd argue: Deliberately so.
Don't get me wrong, I only think SegWit is an ugly wart, not the end of Bitcoin.
Looking forward to the mines eventually dropping that 1:4 bullshit.
I took the average confirmation time data of the last 60 days off of blockchain.info and got 88 minutes. There is no description of how they measured this data though.
Yes, there are at least two lies in there, one a very blatant one, so it says it all really about the honesty of the people who created it.
What kind of insane doublethink do you need to use to even be able to pretend that "Segwit1x" has both 1MB Max Block Size & 4MB "Data used for Max" at the same time? You can't have it fucking both ways, either 1MB is its max blocksize, or 4 MB is its max blocksize, it can't be fucking both.
Whoever made that chart, whoever promotes it or cheers it on, automatically prove themselves either utter idiots or alternately completely dishonest frauds.
But we know Roger Ver's lying already -- he reposted that utterly fake diagram about transaction fees too, and wouldn't retract it no matter how much it was proven to be an obvious fake.
Damn right it does. Core shills need glasses with very high optics as they can't see anything ;-)
Truth.
Videos in this thread:
Watch Playlist â–¶
Play All | Info | Get me on Chrome / Firefox
Regardless of whether you agree with the title, this is an excellent article in the sense that the illustrations are very well done.
So many blatant lies, so much deception. Bitcoin.com has become an enemy of Bitcoin.
What is the lie? Please enlighten us.
"Bitcoin Cash" is simply not Bitcoin as understood by the rest of the world. All exchanges, businesses, wallets, and the vast majority nodes consider the original chain to be "Bitcoin".
The Bitcoin.com announcement is pure deception, possibly fraud. It aims to convince newcomers into buying something they believe will be "Bitcoin", when in fact it will not.
So... How many US dollars is 1 Bitcoin worth now?
Way undervalued ;-)
Smart money buys good things cheap, stupid money buys overvalued things at high price because they get tricked by hype and experience FOMO. Reality kicks in eventually.
totally agree, bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin!
Member when everyone here used to say Bitcoin is the chain with the most proof of work, and miners decide. I'member
Holy shit...the trolls are out in full force here. I havent seen a post with this many comments before in this sub.
All my respect to Bitcoin.com for coming out and telling the truth of the situation; knowing full well the amount of backlash that will be received!
Segwit coin is doomed to fall for the basic reasons that the fees are too high and too slow.
You can tell this hit a nerve with r/bitcoin. It’s amusing...
LOL.
To anyone in this subreddit that is still on the fence, if this masterful propaganda piece doesn't cause your stink detector to flash red, you are unfortunately already lost.
What? This is just a flat out lie.
Prove it please.
I disagree. The definition of Bitcoin is, to me, the chain with the most cumulative proof of work and which starts with Bitcoin's genesis block. It's a very simple and powerful definition, and it does not require a huge, wall-of-text article.
This article, on the other hand, attempts to use a philosophical disagreement with SegWit and network conditions in order to claim that it is not "Bitcoin" anymore. Network conditions and a disagreement with SegWit may be a good reason to switch to a different chain, but you can't convince me to call it Bitcoin unless you meet the most important conditions, which I outlined above.
Comment deleted by user
I think you are mixing up two concepts.
The original idea was that when two chains using the same consensus rules exist, the longest one is valid. What we will call the chain was not part of the equation.
Today there is a new idea that we have to figure out which chain will be called "Bitcoin" regardless of which consensus rules it follows.
I think we should keep these two things distinct.
Well said. u/tippr $1
Comment deleted by user
Bitcoin Cash and Segwit both share the same history until the block that produced the fork. You can't say one is the "original chain" and the other is not, they are both branches of the same ancestor.
The Segwit chain is also a radical departure from the original Bitcoin design, while Bitcoin Cash is much more similar.
The original Bitcoin design had the funky difficulty adjustment? 8 MB blocks?
The original Bitcoin had no block size limit.
Well sorry to say Bitcoin Cash as a limit so that sounds like quite a radical departure :/
I don't get it. What happened to Roger Ver?
From the interviews I've seen he really dislikes the censorship that Blockstream & the gang has done. He owns both bitcoin and bitcoin cash, and I suppose lots of other altcoins.
Pumping that shitcoin again, Roger, eh?
So very true.
Thanks for the link.
I am planning on putting together some kind of informational article or image to help users clarify how different terms are used in different settings.
It was the first time that I'd seen several of the terms used by a business in that way.
I don't want to assume that bitcoin .com is the only business using these terms, because I may just be out of the loop. Could anyone direct me to other businesses or products that use these terms in this way:
Segwit1x
SW1
Segwit Core
Thanks in advance!
SegWitGold
LOVE IT (because its true and what better way then to use the weapons Core used against Bitcoin Cash, right back at them!?)
What goes around, comes around ;-)
BITCOIN (Cash) IS the real BITCOIN
Yes, that's because I am referring to Bitcoin Cash as BTC or just bitcoin in cryptograffiti.info. I don't even acknowledge SegWitCoin as bitcoin anymore. There is no central authority to dictate what name or ticker you can or can't use for anything here, so as an economic node and developer I vote with my code and with my wallet.
nope looks like you are confused bitcoin cash is bcash ,lame altcoin that roger and jihan pumping
Why trolls call Bitcoin Cash 'bcash': https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/why-some-people-call-bitcoin-cash-bcash-this-will-be-shocking-to-new-readers-956558da12fb
Just use Litecoin
Precise, well written! Good read for confused or new to crypto fellows.
Really? Explains to me which part of the white paper says that Bitcoin is the chain with the least proof of work?
It's pretty evident which Bitcoin is the real Bitcoin, and it's not Ver's get rich quick scheme.
Are you consistent enough to also call S2X Bitcoin in November then?
Yes it is. u/tippr gild