Running a Casa node. Feel free to connect to my LN channel >> [024012b82d6e54a5e3a936cbdf366be74e649637bb7b201a4e5ef385298b1c1233@141.226.18.9:9735](mailto:024012b82d6e54a5e3a936cbdf366be74e649637bb7b201a4e5ef385298b1c1233@umm6sbu5soqhmawxv5fsdkksj67hejkt7dpcnhco7exvlleag64xh2ad.onion)
This used to be a common question in the old days of r/bitcoin, when people who understood the dangers of centralized inflation tried to understand Bitcoin.
The answer was always: "well, the miners could do that but Bitcoin would lose all value to a competing currency which was not inflationary, since nobody wants inflation in their own wallet".
Regarding this horrendous idea of a centralized entity with no accountability pocketing 12% of the mining reward, I see lots of comments arguing it doesn't matter what we think, the miners have decided what is good for us. "It doesnt matter what you think, you are not a miner","Get hash power or stfu" etc.
This is so wrong.
It is us the users and the great community of BCH which give it value, not the miners. We have the ultimate power. And the great power of BCH community is the moral high ground based on freedom and the belief in a better world, free from centralized money creation fueling corruption and power abuse.
What's to stop this cartel from changing the 21M limit, the mining reward etc when they have grabbed enough power of the community? Sure, these might be trusted people now but what about in ten years when the 12% are worth the average of a average country BNP?
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No I am not a miner and will probably never be. But I can vote with my feet and sell my BCH. As a matter of fact, many other cryptos already has a much more transparent and decentralized way of funding development. Why should I go for a lousy version of Dash? What happened to those of you who always bash Dash, where are you now?
If developers need money, ask for donations. It works for Monero and it works here. You can develop BCH all the way to perfection but I won't care if it's on the road to becoming The Fed 2.0. Bitcoin must follow the Whitepaper or I'm out.
Please tell me how are "BTC miners paying" or any miner at all. The money are from the block reward, thus from inflating the coin. This inflation used to pay for security, now it will pay for a little less security and a bit more development. That's it.
As explained, less security means miners will mine less, so no, they are not paying us any money. They just mine what's most profitable, as always.
"But this will make 0.3% of the hash power unneeded, thus mining at a loss paying for the fund". No. All crypto prices collapsed 5% last weak, did miners care? 0.3% is nothing.
All of the fund money are coming solely from inflation and some will now go towards devs, instead of security.
I support the funding proposal... Of course I have my personal doubts, see potential red flags, and still need to fully comprehend how this can all play out...
But I believe it's time for BCH to start fulfilling its potential. And the strong commitment indicated by 4 of the biggest names in BCH, will bring great benefit to Bitcoin Cash imo...
It can go wrong of course but I believe the potential upside is factors greater than the worst case doomsday thinking I see everywhere now...
It's funny how suddenly the ''Evil Chinese Miners'' talking point is back...Which brings me to my following point:
I am for this proposal, many of you are against it...
It makes it hard for me to read correctly into all of your worries, as effectively you are standing shoulder to shoulder, screaming with Corebois, SVtards and other BCH haters, who are just here to create as much sabotage, distrust, chaos as possible...
The commitment signaling from Bitcoin.com and the Chinese is obvious; they will go ahead and commit 110% to making the fund happen...
So at this point if you are truly not able to digest what is coming; it might be time for you to drop your support for BCH..
It's ok... I understand the fanatic positions to rather see BCH dwindle into oblivion (and feel proud still), then to make a single trade off that is needed to guarantee long term survival and thriving of the chain... It's an emotional battle we are all having to an extend...
But the simple truth is that everyone here had 2.5 years of undisturbed momentum to build up BCH in its most perfect and puritan form, engage in community building, write up proposals etc etc etc... And to be clear, many community members have done amazing things since aug 2017...
But sadly fact is, the tragedy of the commons did hit BCH, and certain problems are just not going to solve itself... and without action and a solution, this project can easily end in an irreversible and definitive failure...
If I have the choice between being a moral knight and turning my back on BCH, or accept the trade off... I will stand with the proven track record of Roger's, Jihan's and Haipo's integrity and love for BCH.
The Bitcoin Cash train is moving on, onto world domination, globally mass adopted as P2P cash... And Im not gonna leave myself behind...
So make up your mind..
P.S. We can all complain about everything not being picture perfect, but in the end the hashing machines decide... And they have announced their decision...
If I had to post one suggestion; I would like to see a Pledge from the 4 gents, to not proceed directly after these 6months, with a second 6 month term... Lets keep this TRIAL AND ERROR, as a first attempt
Let's use the nov20-may21 season to evaluate the 6 month period; examine and analyze usage of the funds... address the % in case BCH price goes up substantially... and eventually agree if we should do this again may21-nov21, do it in an amended version, or stop doing it at all...
Look at all these FRESH accounts being used in /r/btc
Either:
This is just a reminder that often users from other subs will come here and try and push an agenda in a direction so as to begin infighting and distract from the real issue of P2P Digital Cash. Read what they have to say, but also realize what is going on and then you can weight up how much is real and faked for yourself.
Stop, people who does not agree with the BCH fund plan likes Bitcoin Cash as much as anyone else here.
Some major voices are against it and they were giving more than some in this space. It’ll be good if instead of replying the same stuff everytime you start considering other people opinions. As far as I understand that’s why r/btc was created.
Once's the large miners are in control of this privileged account which has the ability to extract money from the protocol, mark my word, it will never go away.
"But the developers do good work and deserve to be paid"
If the devs want to be paid, they should set up a donation system. It's works for Monero. The devs submit a proposal, people donate, the devs are paid for 3-6 months of work then do it all again.
If they don't want to rely on donations and want to be paid via the block reward, then their should be a properly decentralized DAO, much like Dash. In which the dev team can submit a proposal for funding, people vote on the proposal and if it passes, then the devs get the money they've requested. If people vote against it, no money is paid.
There are many ways to fund a dev team, but creating a special, privileged account that allows for the individual with the key to skim money from the block reward, regardless of whether or not they contribute anything of value is *not* the way to do it.
"But the miners can dissolve the special account"
Have you ever considered that once this funded, privileged account exists, it will be far too valuable to ever remove? What's to stop miners and/or devs from spiting the profits from this privileged account? It's a win-win for them.
What happens if the large miners say "Give me a cut of the 12% or we will remove it entirely"?
What happens when large miners profit from mining rewards + a cut of the 12%? Small miners who don't receive a cut of these extra funds can't compete and leave. Then the only miners left are those in control of the privileged account and they gain full control of the chain.
This is one possible outcome. There is a large number of possible outcomes, and almost all of them are bad. While at the same time there is 1 possible positive outcome - it works as expected. I doubt it.
"but they are in it for the good of Bitcoin Cash, they wouldn't take advantage of the system"
Are you asking me to trust them?
This proposal is absolutely ludicrous and I'd go so far as to question the motives or intelligence of anybody who supports such a proposal. The odds of this being good for the chain are slim.
Starting today I will be providing a service to you. I will be wishing you good luck and perfect health 3 times a day.
The service fee is just 1 BCH per day, a tiny tiny fraction of your wealth.
Oh, and it's of course mandatory, since I'm providing this service for you.
The fee collection address is bitcoincash:qpwln0ly7w27ghhpgzww5cd3yn928ujqmsrxzlpedk
Please don't be late with the payments.
Hi everyone,
Who do I write to if I want to obtain a few BCH Point of sale systems?
Thank you.
As many of you know, I’m an original Bitcoin’er from 2012 and a Bitcoin Cash’er since the upgrade. I converted all of my BTC to BCH and continue to use, buy and hold Bitcoin Cash. I’ve been to conferences around the world and have donated time, money and development skills to the project. Most importantly, I’m a true believer that decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash can free us from the centralized banking plague that keeps humanity in shackles.
First things first: Amaury Sechet’s actions have continually pushed for complete control over the Bitcoin Cash protocol. His attacks have shown that he doesn't care about keeping Bitcoin Cash development decentralized - a measure of health for any cryptocurrency project. I've distrusted him ever since he started attacking other wallet implementations, mainly Bitcoin Unlimited. He comes across as greedy when you compare his actions with that of Gavin Andresen, who gave countless hours to the project freely and made Bitcoin Cash what it is today.
Second: the miners who want this change are planning a 51% attack to force it through. This attack will guarantee them control over ALL protocol development FOREVER. Whoever controls these funds controls the protocol. These so called “concerned” miners can donate to ABC or any other implementation any time they want right now and on a continual basis if they really think Bitcoin Cash development is in trouble. It’s not. This isn’t about funding, this is about them having control.
The proposed 12.5% coinbase theft amount is based on the current (low) price. What about when Bitcoin Cash hits $20,000/BCH or $1,000,000/BCH in a few years? This theft fund will remain in place. BCH developers don’t need that much money - and they probably won’t even get it. This Hong Kong based entity will get it.
This plan isn’t about supporting developers, this plan is about stealing from from other future miners, wrapped in a fake cloak of concern. Whoever controls these development funds will be all powerful. This entity will be able to force changes they want and exclude those they don’t want from protocol development. Remind you of anyone? Blockstream.
This will also ensure their future control when they might not have 51%+ of the hashrate. They are future-proofing mining profits.
Back to Amaury and Bitcoin ABC. Bitcoin Unlimited, and other wallet implementations provide decentralization of development so that when Bitcoin ABC crashes (it has in the past) the protocol continues without issue.
My friends, this change is poison. Amaury Sechet is a good developer, and sure, he should be paid for his time if he gets donations by listening to what the community actually wants. But donations are opt-in and should never be forced by some centralized entity. It’s also odd that Amaury's writing that "everything's fine, nothing to see here" while he makes these changes himself, to enrich himself.
If this hostile attack/takeover goes through, Bitcoin Cash will no longer have decentralized development. It will be forever tainted with the disease of centralized corruption and control. BCH will be a dead coin.
A message directly to Amaury: Your greed and quest for power doesn’t outweigh the need to keep Bitcoin Cash's development decentralized. This community would be better off without power-seeking individuals like you. Any intelligence you've provided is vastly offset by the harm you will cause by introducing this centralization.
So there's a project where people who have a good chunk of coins and run a node can vote. They can vote to fund one set of developers. If the developers end up not doing the right thing they can be fired by changing votes. It also could happen that the voters decide that they want to fund a second set of developers. Funding two sets at once can reduce the impact of firing the first set.
These nodes also will sign off on transactions as first seen transactions. Consensus rules are such that if a block includes a transaction that conflicts with one that was signed, then the whole block is considered invalid by the network.
This project is already live and is called Dash, digital cash.
A soft fork seems to be a much bigger hassle than letting dominant pools voluntarily donate by sending a large transaction of their earnings to fund development. There's a much bigger risk of instability in BCH if a soft fork for this is conducted, which can potentially cause a chain split.
IMHO the 12% donation is not coming out of the miner's pockets - its coming out of the hashrate. BCH will suffer a 12% hashrate drop and if the price stays relatively the same, the miners are now getting paid the same reward, but with 12% less effort - so a 12% increase in profit...here comes the donation and boom, they are back to their original profit.
We have 4 months of discussion before it is (?) implemented in may. I hear people saying "we need time to debate it". Isn't 4 months enough time?
I used to use robinhood to trade (which I know is a bad platform, which is why I want to leave it). What is really easy to use and free? Is coinbase the place? Don't they charge transaction fees? Thanks much
Finally up and running!
Shout out to: https://stadicus.github.io/RaspiBolt/ REALLY helpful guide. Thank you.
To test things out, I will give ~$1.00 (12,500 satoshi) to the first 25 people who respond to this message with an LN invoice. May it be worth $10.00 by this time next year!
Helping spread adoption... 1 satoshi at a time. :)
If anybody would like to contribute to the cause: 3P6BSWb9cPyB9rxNJPZELVH8btu6VMMxH2
:)
UPDATE 22:12 GMT: 3 invoices paid. 22 to go! Who wants some sats?
UPDATE 22:23 GMT: 5 invoices paid.
UPDATE 22:29 GMT: 10 invoices paid.
UPDATE 22:32 GMT: 12 invoices paid.
UPDATE 22:43 GMT: 16 invoices paid.
UPDATE 22:56 GMT: 17 invoices paid. 8 to go. Who wants some sats?
UPDATE 23:07 GMT: 21 invoices paid. 4 to go.
UPDATE 23:28 GMT: 23 invoices paid. 2 to go!
UPDATE 23:32 GMT: 24 invoices paid. LAST ONE!!! WHO WANTS IT?
UPDATE 23:33 GMT: 26 invoices paid. CLOSED!
Thanks for playing everybody! SUPER FUN! THE FUTURE IS NOW!
If you had been buying $X worth of bitcoin weekly for the past X years here's how much you'd be up:
Dollar cost averaging since 1.1.2016: +500.02%
Dollar cost averaging since 1.1.2017: +136.12%
Dollar cost averaging since 1.1.2018: +31.30%
Dollar cost averaging since 1.1.2019: +37.61%
I don't think another assets exists that gives 30%+ gains in a year... year after year...
trying to time the market is risky. day trading will get you rekt. slow and steady wins the race. just dca and hodl:
I AM HODLING
I type d that tyitle twice because I knew it was wrong the first time. Still wrong. w/e. GF's out at a lesbian bar, BTC crashing WHY AM I HOLDING? I'LL TELL YOU WHY. It's because I'm a bad trader and I KNOW I'M A BAD TRADER. Yeah you good traders can spot the highs and the lows pit pat piffy wing wong wang just like that and make a millino bucks sure no problem bro. Likewise the weak hands are like OH NO IT'S GOING DOWN I'M GONNA SELL he he he and then they're like OH GOD MY ASSHOLE when the SMART traders who KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE DOING buy back in but you know what? I'm not part of that group. When the traders buy back in I'm already part of the market capital so GUESS WHO YOU'RE CHEATING day traders NOT ME~! Those taunt threads saying "OHH YOU SHOULD HAVE SOLD" YEAH NO SHIT. NO SHIT I SHOULD HAVE SOLD. I SHOULD HAVE SOLD MOMENTS BEFORE EVERY SELL AND BOUGHT MOMENTS BEFORE EVERY BUY BUT YOU KNOW WHAT NOT EVERYBODY IS AS COOL AS YOU. You only sell in a bear market if you are a good day trader or an illusioned noob. The people inbetween hold. In a zero-sum game such as this, traders can only take your money if you sell.
To me the proper way to do this would be to impose this on the BTC chain. This would have two positive side effects:
A sell-off of BTC funds in order to fund BCH development. If the devs take BCH for payment this results in net value transfer from BTC to BCH.
Instead of perturbing or own system we perturb theirs and imposes a hash war on BTC. If other btc miner don't fund BCH development, their blocks get rejected.
sigh I get so tired of having to stop working to put out a post explaining issues. If anyone else wants to join in I could use help. (actually I've seen Jonald F. do this before too, so thanks JF!)
Things are bad when even developers don't understand what's going on. So I'll try to clearly explain an important point on the Dev Funding Plan (DFP from now on) for the community: it's completely free. Yet we still get panicked posts saying Please Save Us from the TAX!!! Somebody Help!
You may be for or against the DFP, but either way please at least understand what you're forming an opinion on.
Let's start from the beginning. We know Bitcoin works on blocks and block coin rewards. The block reward, which started at 50 coins per block, and cuts in half approximately every 4 years, serves two purposes: it's a fair way to bring coins into circulation, but more importantly it provides security for the network.
For simplicity, please think of "security" as being measured in power bars. When the network first started, with just Satoshi and Hal Finney, there was 1 power bar. This power bar was made up of the electricity their combined computer hardware used to find blocks. They were the first miners. Bitcoin uses a difficulty level to adjust how hard or easy it is to find blocks. This level is important for a key reason: we want the inflation rate of coins (how fast they come into circulation) to stay about the same, regardless how many miners (computing power) suddenly comes online. If the difficulty is set at super easy, but suddenly a super computer comes online that computer can gobble up thousands of coins in minutes if not seconds, creating massive rapid inflation. So the first thing to understand is that due to the Difficulty Level Adjustment the rate of coins coming into circulation will always stay about the same, regardless how many miners join or leave the network.
Getting back to power bars. So the point of Bitcoin is there is no center, no fixed authority. The problem is we still need a decision made about which chain is valid. This is where proof-of-work comes in. Satoshi's fairly brilliant solution to a consensus decision, with no leader, was to simply look for the longest chain (technically the chain with most hashing work). The reasoning was: as there are far more ordinary people than there are governments and dictators a Bitcoin supported by the all the world's people should always be able to muster more hashrate than even rich governments.
So Bitcoin began and people saw the brilliance: even with a weak power bar level of 1 (a couple computers), Bitcoin was safe from 51% attacks and attacking govs competing for control of the chain because a super low hashrate meant Bitcoin wasn't popular and govs wouldn't bother paying attention. By the time Bitcoin was big enough for govs to worry about attacking it should also have so many participants the power bar level would be far higher, providing strong defense.
Let's say the ideal power bar level is 50,000. At this level no government on earth has enough resources to beat the grassroots network. We hear people brag about how much security BTC has. However, the marketcap for all of BTC is about $160B. Countries like the U.S. and China have GDP measured in many trillions; a trillion is 1,000 billion. Does 160B really seem untouchable? For numeric comparison the main U.S. federal food assistance program cost the government $70B in 2016, representing about 2% of the budget. So the entirety of the BTC market cap is about twice the size of one welfare program, representing 2% of the overall budget. Where should we place the current security power bars if we want guaranteed safety from a determined U.S. gov? If 50,000 is guaranteed safe we're far from it. I'd say BTC is more like 5,000. That's still pretty decent.
Of course, BCH split from BTC... and didn't carry over all the miners and accompanying security. That's not an immediate concern because if BTC isn't on government's radar yet BCH sure isn't. However, that doesn't mean BCH doesn't need security from hostile forces. It's still a valuable network and needs defenses. Where would we put power bars for BCH? If BTC is 5,000 and BCH only has 3% of that hashrate then BCH has just 150. That's it.
How the Developer Funding Plan Works
Back to the DFP. What this says is as a community we agree to break off a piece of the block reward and instead of giving 100% to miners we give a small percent to developers. If each block is 10 coins and the price is $300 then winning a block means winning $3,000. Of course that's not all profit because miners have electricity and other expenses to pay before calculating profit. So if we reduce the portion of the miner reward by 10% so they get just 9 coins per block yet the price stays the same what happens? It means miners receive $2,700 for the same effort. We've just made it more expensive to mine BCH from the point of view of miners. What would any miner then rationally do? Seek profitability elsewhere if available. Suddenly BTC SHA256 hashing looks slightly more attractive so they'll go there. Hashrate leaves BCH and goes to BTC, but the key important point is BOTH chains have a difficulty adjustment algorithm which adjusts to account for rising or lowering miners overall, which keeps the coin inflation rate steady. This means BTC total hashrate rises (more miners compete for BTC) and its Difficulty Level rises accordingly, so the same rate of BTC pumps out; on BCH total hashrate falls (less miners compete for BCH) and its Difficulty falls, so the same rate of BCH pumps out. Inflation remains about the same on both coins so the price of both coins doesn't change any, beyond what it normally does based on news/events etc.
So what difference is there? The difference is total network security. Hashrate totals have changed. BTC gains more miner securing hashrate while BCH loses it. So BTC goes from 5,000 to say 5,100 power bars. BCH goes from about 150 to 140.
Does any of that matter in the grand scheme of things? Not in the slightest. Part of the reason is due to our emergency circumstances with BCH we had to rework our security model. Our primary defense is an idea I came up with, which BitcoinABC implemented, saying it's not sheer hashpower that dictates what chain we follow. We won't replace a chain we're working on if a new one suddenly appears if it means changing more than 10 blocks deep of history. This prevents all the threatening hashrate hanging over our heads from mining a secret chain and creating havoc unleashing it causing 10+ confimed txs to be undone, while exchanges, gambling sites etc. have long since paid out real world money.
Switching $6M worth of block rewards from mining to devs just means we lose a bit of hashrate security, while we gain those funds for development. Nothing more. Nobody holding BCH pays in the form of inflation or any other way. It costs literally NOTHING BECAUSE The block reward is ALREADY ALLOCATED. It will EITHER go 100% to mining security if we do nothing, or go to both miners and devs if the plan is put into effect. Hopefully this helps.
:)
TL;DR: we switch security which we don't really need, for developer funding which we do.
Excellent news, not only will developers have a stable source of income, but BCH is developing its governance model of consensus-based decision making. It is important that all key stakeholders and influencers are included to avoid unnecessary community splits.
Eventually we would like to see more formalised protocols and mechanisms for effective governance. And, we would like to see the permanent removal of the block-reward halving.
I spoke with Jiang and he has agreed to come here to answer questions regarding his post from today.
The post: https://medium.com/@jiangzhuoer/infrastructure-funding-plan-for-bitcoin-cash-131fdcd2412e
It's daytime in Asia right now so he should be able to answer questions for the next several hours.
A tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue. If you do not comply, government agents will lock you in a cage.
With the new funding proposal, if you choose not to participate, nobody is going to lock you in a cage.
If you choose to play checkers instead of paying taxes, you will get locked in a cage.
If you choose to play checkers instead of mining Bitcoin Cash, nobody is going to lock you in a cage.
This funding plan is an experiment where the miners are attempting to defend the future of peer-to-peer electronic cash.
The miners failed to defend peer-to-peer electronic cash when Blockstream crippled their BTC-fork. It looks like miners may have learned their lesson and are now wielding their hash-votes to protect the system.
Let’s give it a try.
The website isn't ready yet but I've been asked by the organizers to put this info out there. The old website is bitcoincashcity.com. I was at the last one in Townsville and it's really quite an experience. The real world adoption and BCH community will inspire you.
We pinky promise to use this money for “development” or the greater good or whatever and anyone without even a passing comprehension of human history will totally believe us and trust us.
Before you complain please remember that we have 51% of hash so we are MATHEMATICALLY incapable of making the wrong decision or doing anything that might harm bitcoin.
This could not possibly be another majority hash cluster fuck akin to the majority hash that chose to choke bitcoin adoption and growth by allowing blockstream to cripple transaction capacity, because MATH.
I don't want to make this a long post, i just want to touch on a couple of things.
1) The miners have always had the power to do this, and they will (to some extent at least) always have this power.
Nothing's fundamentally changed here. The miners control the protocol, this is how governance on bitcoin works. There is various pros and cons between POW and POS, but we're all here, and we all signed up for POW.
Let me ask you, even if this was immoral for the miners to do, what can be done about it? You can't control the miners. You'd have to create a new system besides bitcoin, if you're scared of what the miners do.
2) The miners have the right to do this.
Its detailed in the whitepaper as a philosophically important point. "By this (POW via miners) mechanism, any new rules and incentives can be enforced."
3) This is the first time in a long time that the miners are being proactive. Let's not discourage them.
Miner apathy led to the BTC-BCH split and the S2X fiasco. This is the first time in a long time that miners are realizing their role and being proactive. Let's encourage them and make them feel good.
4) The risk of dev corruption doesn't make sense because this is the miners' decision.
The miners are acting proactively to implement this intelligently and temporarily, the dev groups are not doing it themselves. Because the dev groups are not seeking to enrich themselves, the infra fund is therefore not telling of corruption. It matters a lot that the miners are the ones deciding to do this.
5) This is not a tax, this is not theft. The miners are not stealing.
The blockchain itself, to a degree of interpretation , is the private property of the miners, distributed by their continual hashpower. The system was designed and intended this way. Winning blocks can be thought of as homesteading, so its not stealing to attach a fee to them prior to them being distributed. This is more like a rent than a tax. We might all hate rent, but rent isn't immoral.
I just hope we can all continue to work together and not feel discouraged. Let's take this as positive news and hope for the best. Nothing bad has happened yet, and i don't think anything will.
Lets assume that:
- the proposal continues as stated in the article and the coinbase reward donations are NOT added to the bch block validation consensus rules. Miners will instead forcibly orphan a block that doesnt support the donations every time one is mined.
- BSV hashrate is static because NChain is the only people mining that chain.
Basic rational economics dictates that if btc or bch is more profitable to mine at any given time then hashrate will flow to that coin until the profitability between the two hits equilibrium (again after difficulty adjustment adjusts mining profitability). Otherwise the miners are mining for less profit than they could be.
The bch hashrate probably wont drop by the full 12.5% but it is safe to say that it will drop. Wouldnt a combination of a lower hashrate and some verbal agreement to spend mining power to orphan non donating blocks make it easy for some malicious entity (doesnt matter who) to point a portion of their mining power at BCH (since it is a minority sha256 coin) to generate non donating blocks with the intended goal to be to waste BCH mining time by forcing the donation supporting pools to now have to work to orphan them?
Additionally ABC has implemented an additional work requirement for reorgs. If i understand how that works correctly... if the malicious miners do come in and mine non reward blocks, get lucky and get multiple in a row. then it would be very difficult to rewind the chain and orphan those blocks.
What happens then? just continue and accept some lost coinbase rewards? halt the chain until they can reorg? extend the donation time limit that number of blocks?
This seems to be a fairly large flaw with this funding plan.
Either the donation is actually optional (no attempt to orphan the non donating blocks) or this needs to be a hard fork (consensus enforced). a miner soft fork does not work here
edit: clarity/grammar
edit: it would seem /u/markblundeberg also wrote about this problem here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffapqej/ credit to him for beating me to post
Hey guys,
some months ago I met a guy who told me that he had 1.7 BTC on an old blockchain.com wallet where he had no access to. He got the blockchain.com-wallet-id and a password, but the password isnt working. He had no email access either because it was n old throwaway account.
Today he came over to my house and I tried to help him gain access again, I found his seed-phrase in his documents and so we regained the access to the wallet. But the wallet was emptied. There was no transaction in the history, just straight up empty.
Is there anyway to check if coins have been moved from his wallet? Is there anything else we can do?
We already contacted blockchain.com support. I already told him that the coins are 99% gone, but maybe theres still a chance. Maybe you guys can help us :)
Sorry for my bad english, Im not a native.
It is difficult to garner physical retail spending data as Bitcoin Cash is a P2P electronic cash system. Hayden Otto's reports are the first real attempt to gauge the relative coin utility as seen by coal-face physical merchants.
If merchants are finding Bitcoin Cash as the best electronic cash system where the rubber hits the road, Bitcoin Cash by definition is the best candidate for a global electronic cash system. This is what Hayden is telling us.
Merchants using Bitcoin Cash are also recording 15% gains against the best fiat systems month-to-month in a first world country.
If Bitcoin Cash is out-spending BTC 166 to 1 at the coal-face, and pulling marketshare from the best fiat systems, when will this superior utility be recognized by the market and priced in?
To those BCH holders who see a problem with this development fund - what is so concerning about this that wasn't already true of Bitcoin Cash, the consensus mechanisms it has, and the power of miners? Others have said this before, but if you don't like what 51% hash power is doing, it's an attack. If you do, it's an upgrade. 51% of hash power has always been able to do things like this. This is not new. 51% of the mining power could always censor any transaction. But they won't, because game theory and their economic incentives directs them not to do this. It's the same thing here.
This is basically just a more free market and anarchic way of funding development than what DASH has, where it's built into the rewards system. It's essentially miners donating their rewards to make the ecosystem and coin better, except doing it in a game theoretic fair way that makes sure everyone contributes. And if people in these mining pools don't like it, they can stop offering their hash power, and offer it to someone that opposes it. If there's backlash from the community like that, most likely this proposal won't go through. But I hope it does, and I expect it will, because miners donating millions to BCH is not a good thing. It's a very very good thing.
This makes far more sense than leaving development completely unfunded, and this is more decentralized than both DASH and BTC. This is anarchy in action - development has been agreed to by mining actors rather than the top holders (or those who'm they've hired, i.e. DASH, which I like btw) or outside groups like Blockstream (BTC). Instead, this is the part of our community most invested in seeing Bitcoin Cash succeed. The miners, who have invested millions into mining equipment, probably hold millions in BCH, and are donating millions to see BCH succeed, are not nefarious actors. They're are strongest supporters and investors, and have been screwed over by Blockstream when the Segwit 2X agreement was broken. They need one of the SHA-256 coins to succeed and we all know if won't be Bitcoin BTC. My guess is a much larger portion of the mining power supports BCH than currently mines it - they're just held captive by the current prices of the two currencies.
Complaining about there being only 4 mining companies that agreed to this, and that therefore this is centralized uses the same logic as those who are against ASIC's and support shitcoins like Vertcoin because "muh decentralization." Economics dictates that there are millions of different restaurants, but not nearly as many car companies, nor nearly as many large supply stores like Walmart, Target, or Costco. Decentralization isn't an end in and of itself, but only a good in so far as it serves Bitcoin. If there were 1 million phone companies instead of like 4 or 5, then phones would suck. In fact, we probably wouldn't even have them. But competition makes those companies work for the consumer. Likewise, here the miners are steered by economic incentives to support the BCH network. It's only them that will lose if they do not.
So in short, nothing has changed. So what's all the fuss about when we're about to see an explosion of Bitcoin Cash development? Let's pop the champaign and light the cigars!
Something occured to me today.
BTC's idea is that eventually after many halvings the fees must replace block rewards.
1) We know that BTC's transaction cap is somewhere around 400 000 transactions per day
2) We know that the current level of security provided by the miners is paid for by around US$17m daily (see "Reward last 24h")
3) $17m / 400 000 = $42 -- that's the fee that on average each transaction must pay to have the current level of security that Bitcoin (BTC) has when block rewards go to zero
4) If we zoom in to December 2017 for median transaction value, we'll see that it was about $1000-5000 - that's the typical amount people moved when typical fees were at $15-30
5) There are only 2.5 million BTC addresses that have $1000+ (bitinfocharts, see "Addresses richer than 1/100/1,000/10,000 USD") ($1000 being the lower bound of median transaction value in December 2017, when fees were in fact around $15-30)
6) 2 million people at 400 000 transactions per day means each one only allowed to make 1 transaction per 5 days.
So, here the endgame for BTC:
Bitcoin (BTC) is a network with capacity for about 2 million people (approx. the population of Hawaii), each waiting at least 5 days to make one single transaction of about $1000 in value with a commission of at least $40 (which is more expensive and slower that a typical international bank transfer).
That's also the uncomfortable truth for the Lightning Network: at BTC's endgame, opening a channel would cost $40 and closing a channel would cost $40 more.
🌎🌎🌎🌎🌎🌎🌎🌎🌎🌎🌎🌎 https://crwd.in/native-bitcoin-wallet If anyone is able to help translate a handful of new strings for the wallet we’re looking for:
![[GitHub] Double Spend Proofs](https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/7NeWV0LzUqEdkHYJp6Tc376f-2-EOhanQcQGNiOsm6s.jpg "[GitHub] Double Spend Proofs")
!["I discussed [this funding model] at the time. Cartels are incredibly effective models for this type of thing. Considering that it's a 6 month program with a clear start and end dates, I wager this will be incredibly successful."](https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/FMNi-z8JKBz_tE5s1JDyQYYzUbyRD3RWBFbAxG19KTQ.jpg "\"I discussed [this funding model] at the time. Cartels are incredibly effective models for this type of thing. Considering that it's a 6 month program with a clear start and end dates, I wager this will be incredibly successful.\"")
![[link]](https://webtoolfeed.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/sc_071.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/oj1p2niomvc41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/fffzowjxhuc41.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/02e7q9aaftc41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.imgur.com/Z4Bl8ka.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/cu4qpi0apfc41.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/ui1khywq8fc41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/2mcjk85f7ba41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/ntpmeccp5ec41.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/yxgbpbqksac41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/e0ulnrv1n8c41.jpg){kind=link}