Congress takes a step toward a de minimis exemption for everyday cryptocurrency transactions

submitted by /u/AstarJoe
[link] [comments]

Great news!! Number of Bitcoin Addresses with One or More Coins Records Remarkable Increment

submitted by /u/spiffyXD [link] [comments]

Literally the worst Bitcoin TA channel ever!

submitted by /u/Obermarschall [link] [comments]

Vitalik: "BCH, a chain that was born as a reaction to an ideology that claims that soft forks are the only legitimate way to make changes because they are "voluntary" is.... making a controversial soft fork and insinuating that it's voluntary"

submitted by /u/koscash [link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/esl5fn/vitalik_bch_a_chain_that_was_born_as_a_reaction/

Bitcoin Cash commands 96% of Australian retail yet Bitcoin Cash is just 4% of BTC marketcap - when will BCH utility be priced-in?

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?

submitted by /u/where-is-satoshi
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/esld8n/bitcoin_cash_commands_96_of_australian_retail_yet/

Nothing has changed - what's all the fuss about?

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!

submitted by /u/TheFireKnight
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/eslrie/nothing_has_changed_whats_all_the_fuss_about/

BTC fees endgame: $40+

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.

submitted by /u/readcash
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/eska86/btc_fees_endgame_40/