
Bitcoin Cash Skyrockets, Bitcoin Price Drops As Civil War Continues - Cwwm
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2017/11/12/bitcoin-cash-skyrockets-bitcoin-price-drops-as-civil-war-continues/
======
mcintyre1994
It's a shame there's so much money, probably the difference between some
people being equal to their colleagues and being paper millionaires, that
there doesn't seem to be anywhere to read about this stuff any more as an
interested observer. I remember a few years ago /r/bitcoin was somewhere you
could read about news and stuff, today it's just people attacking BCH and
going insane. I get it, this is like politics except it moves way faster and
the result impacts these people immediately and directly - but I wish there
was a way to understand the fascinating cryptocurrency world without all the
passion. /r/btc seems to be the same on the BCH side.

~~~
g09980
/r/ethereum (and the Ethereum community in general) is a much more friendly
place. More technical discussion, more collaboration, less "everyone else must
lose" politics

~~~
tfha
On the other hand the technical quality of the discorse tends to be really
low. Things are priased, encouraged, and even rewarded monetarily when they
have gaping vulnerabilities or incentive systems that weren't even halfway
thought through.

It's a big circle jerk that ends up promoting broken technology. Yes, great to
be away from the politics, but no, not a good place to learn cryptocurrency
design.

------
cocktailpeanuts
I believe in both BTC and BCH in principle, and think it's good that the two
factions are going separate ways because honestly speaking I've been disgusted
with how the entire bitcoin community is relying on a bunch of people who do
nothing more than tweeting all day spreading propaganda.

These developers really would have made much more progress if Twitter didn't
exist.

That said, after the fork I thought things would cool down but I was wrong, it
only intensified the propaganda and now I see so many people spreading false
information and things taken out of context just for their own profit.

And these people even shit on people who think bigger and say the two should
coexist. The only reason people say the two shouldn't coexist in my opinion is
either because of their ego or their greed (probably because they sold all
their BCH and put it into BTC, and yes I only mostly see this behavior now on
BTC people side)

I think it's good for the future of cryptocurrency that two coexist because
there's no saying one of the two may fail or go corrupt one day, and not
having a strong enough alternative would mean we will have ended up with a
compromised future.

But to be honest, I'm getting sick of many of BTC core developers attacking
BCH people as well as those [NO2x] and [NOBCH] idiots who just bitch on anyone
who:

1\. either sees any future in BCH

2\. thinks it may be a good thing if the two can coexist.

I think it is an important factor because nowadays whenever I think about
building a piece of technology that will help the BTC community as a whole,
the first thing that comes to my mind is, "By doing this all I'm going to do
is make these assholes--who by the way do nothing but tweet around all day
while I'm working on these things--richer, at a faster pace than myself". I
hope other cryptocurrency developers learn from this and try to be "nice" so
that the community actually thinks that these "early adopters" deserve their
worth, which will help with contribution.

~~~
cesarb
> That said, after the fork I thought things would cool down but I was wrong

The issue is that both chains compete directly for hash power, since their
hash mechanism is identical. If every miner is "rational" (for a simplified
definition of "rational"), they would all mine on the most profitable chain,
and the least profitable chain would instantly stop working. That is, the
continued existence of BTC is an existential threat to BCH, and the continued
existence of BCH is an existential threat to BTC. Therefore, those who have a
stake on either of those chains feel threatened by the other chain.

~~~
sliverstorm
You really don't need much hash power to make the network work. Remember in
the very early days it ran on a couple CPU miners.

~~~
nosuchthing
That's not how it works.

When computational hash power leaves the network, the difficulty won't
readjust and transactions will slow down and clog for at least 2 weeks unless
computational hash power returns.

------
fosap
It seems there is currently more hashpower behind BCH than BTC. [1] Because of
the current price surge mining bch became way more profitable, but this will
change with the next adjustment.

If more hashpower sticks with BCH, I would consider it to be the winner.

[1] [https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate](https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate)

~~~
nosuchthing
Mining pool operators are in a position to manipulate the markets.

Given the extremely low liquidity of all the exchanges (large holders often
move their funds off-line), the markets rates are trivially manipulated. This
in turn manipulates miner incentives.

Social media is a shit show of shills and propaganda from all angles. So
really only time will tell.

~~~
shanusmagnus
The truth of this statement cannot be emphasized enough. I think one of the
real weaknesses of the crypto world is the complete absence of a community
where people whose mouths are not connected directly to their brainstems can
talk and discuss issues related to crypto -- and I mean not just about
investment (I'm not very interested in that) but about relevant technological
and social issues. There is literally no place to have a sane discussion on
any of this that I've found -- would _love_ to be corrected if someone knows
better.

~~~
saalweachter
I think the larger problem is that most anyone talking about cryptocurrencies
has a financial interest in them, and indeed, people without a financial
interest are considered biased against them and not worth listening to.

------
unabridged
Bitcoin core needs to raise the blocksize, the transaction fees are too high
and the delays are way too long. If eventually the lightning network works as
good as they claim it will they can always lower it later. I don't believe a
majority of the holders or users want transactions costing $5. But the core
developers are holding the bitcoin's github hostage, along with many of the
websites and forums.

~~~
keypusher
I used to believe this too, but not anymore. High transactions fees and slow
times are a problem, but increasing the blocksize is not the answer. BTC can
currently process 7 tx/second with 1mb blocks. If you double the block size,
you get to 14 tx/s, it scales linearly. PayPal processes ~150 tx/s, Visa
processes ~5000 tx/s, and can burst up to 50k tx/s. This is orders of
magnitude off, and would require scaling blocks up to 1GB. By setting the
precedent that increasing blocksize is the answer to slow transactions, you
open the door to a future where only a very limited number of powerful
entities can afford to run a full node, which brings you right back to a
centralized currency. In order to scale BTC, it basically needs to move to
off-chain transactions or some other new tech. The devs know this, they want
fast transactions too, but they don't want to risk centralization to get
there.

> they can always lower it later

I don't think this is true. Once you have blocks on the chain greater than
1mb, those blocks must be valid forever. That means protocol must support new
blocksize forever.

~~~
colordrops
One problem is that the proposed offchain solutions are centralized.

Also, it's misleading to say that large blocks make bitcoin centralized. Even
with large blocks, there will still be enough players that the ledger is still
protected through proof of work. In any case the hashing power remains
centralized regardless of block size.

You are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "decentralized" when it comes
to blockchains. It doesn't mean "available to be run by the masses". It refers
to the solving of the Byzantine General problem through proof of work to
prevent tampering and double spend, which would still function fine even if
only a few thousand nodes existed around the world.

~~~
hackinthebochs
>One problem is that the proposed offchain solutions are centralized.

Centralized off-chain solutions are much less of a problem. Consider paypal.
Everyone hates it but they're the only game in town because its network is
self-contained; network effects prevent any legitimate competition. With
centralized transactions through bitcoin, there are no network effects to
prevent an upstart from competing in this space.

~~~
colordrops
Sure but there is no threat of centralization of bitcoin itself.

~~~
wmf
If Bitcoin fees are so high that you _have_ to use Lightning, then effectively
Lightning _is_ Bitcoin and you're potentially trapped in a centralized system.

~~~
colordrops
Neither cost or ability of the everyman to use bitcoin define whether it's
centralized or not. It is a decentralized algorithm by design, and will remain
so no matter what changes in block size or how many people use it or who uses
it or how much it costs to use it.

You are talking about concentration and consolidation at the human and social
level, which does not change anything about how the blockchain is designed or
functions, and is orthogonal. And nothing is going to change that. The
government could shut off all electricity and the blockchain is dead.

------
ktta
The amazing part about this is the blocktime is now 1.5~ mins and going down.

[https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin%20cash-
confirma...](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin%20cash-
confirmationtime.html)

------
empath75
The hard forks _should_ have destroyed the notion that bitcoin is a
deflationary currency. Anybody can double the number of coins on the market
with enough support from miners. It seems like the price hasn’t taken notice
of the fact that bitcoin isn’t a scarce commodity.

~~~
jstanley
If I give you a jstanleytoken to go with every dollar you own, that has not
increased the amount of dollars.

A Bitcoin split doesn't create more Bitcoin, it just creates another currency.

~~~
Lazare
There is certainly an argument to be made that, for many of the uses that
people have for "bitcoins", BTC and BCH are close substitutes. Conversely, a
"jstanleytoken" is probably not a close substitute for either BTC or BCH, and
is certainly not a close substitute for dollars.

Another way of looking at this is to observe the market cap of both currencies
after a fork; in theory you'd expect the total market cap to remain unchanged,
since the newly forked currency is presumably either worthless _OR_ has worth
only to the extent that it removes value from the original currency. In
practice, this doesn't seem to be occurring.

~~~
ryanlol
>for many of the uses that people have for "bitcoins", BTC and BCH are close
substitutes

Sounds like nonsense to me. Practically nobody accepts BCH.

~~~
Lazare
Really? In my personal life I find that BCH and BTC are just as widely
accepted. :)

(...which is to say, precisely 0 vendors accept either, of course. Most people
are not picking a crypto currency based on their ability to conveniently buy a
coffee with it just yet.)

------
kown223
hmm.. what's happening is a bit of bitcoin weakness, a lot of hash power came
in, raised difficulty and then left, 40% or so, tomorrow the difficult should
adjust, the dangers of centralized mining, although these shenanigans may lead
to a proof of work change.

~~~
paulmd
aka the "frisbee on the roof" attack, it's been a known danger for years. The
danger is that the difficulty recalibration time is measured in _blocks_ , not
in actual time - so if taken to extreme levels such that miners drop out,
there is no guarantee that recalibration will ever occur. And profit is
inextricably linked to block time here.

(and note that "attack" in this sense is not necessarily deliberate in the
sense of an _attacker_ , if Bitcoin Cash or another coin suddenly becomes
drastically more profitable for some reason it can occur naturally. It's more
of a _vulnerability_ than an actual attack. It's a state-machine state that is
potentially non-recoverable without a coordinated fix.)

Bitcoin Cash actually includes a specific fix for this attack, which is why
hashrate has been seesawing so badly between the two networks - BTH becomes
unprofitable, the power moves back to the BTC network, then the frisbee fixer
kicks in and reduces difficulty, which spikes profitability back up.

------
kapuru
By the time this submission gets to the front page, Bitcoin Cash will be
crashing again.

~~~
dogruck
It’s funny that the crypto coins are so volatile that it’s almost impossible
to write a standard article about them.

------
plusfour
pump and dump

------
DonHopkins
I hope nobody feels it's inappropriate to name a sexual harasser leading the
Bitcoin community, but is there any chance the recent coverage of sexual
harassment and rape in Hollywood, SAG AFTRA, and other industries will open
more people's eyes about Brock Pierce, the Director of the Bitcoin Foundation?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brock_Pierce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brock_Pierce)

"In 2000, three young actors filed a civil lawsuit claiming Pierce sexually
abused them, also naming fellow Digital Entertainment Network executives Chad
Shackley and Marc Collins-Rector. He was an Executive VP at Digital
Entertainment Network when he was arrested with other company executives by
Interpol in Spain in May 2002."

Here's a brief South Park style documentary on the DEN scandal that Fucked
Company posted contemporaneously: "Dot Com Boom & Bust - Digital Entertainment
Network":
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14674632](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14674632)

It's like Pizzagate, but true! (But you should still ignore anything Alex
Jones has to say about it.)

If you think it's just a joke or conspiracy theory, then watch the film "An
Open Secret" which goes into much more lurid detail with lots of first person
testimony and evidence, that shows what's been uncovered in the time since
Fucked Company's much shorter, less serious but largely accurate documentary.
Not surprisingly they've had a lot of trouble distributing that film.

An Open Secret Trailer 2015:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjQvFgkI0R4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjQvFgkI0R4)

"An Open Secret":
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5icPtmLsTy4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5icPtmLsTy4)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Secret](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Secret)

"According to Gabe Hoffman who financed the film: "We got zero Hollywood
offers to distribute the film. Not even one. Literally no offers for any price
whatsoever." On 12 October 2017, Hoffman and Valentinas released the film for
nine days on Vimeo "to commemorate serial predator Harvey Weinstein finally
being exposed." It went viral, and free viewing was then extended for a longer
period due to the interest shown in the film, with over 3 million viewings
garnered on various social media platforms in the first two weeks."

[http://deadline.com/2015/06/sag-aftra-threatening-sue-an-
ope...](http://deadline.com/2015/06/sag-aftra-threatening-sue-an-open-secret-
director-amy-berg-1201438339/)

"Leaders of SAG-AFTRA tried to sanitize director Amy Berg’s explosive
documentary about the sexual abuse of child actors in Hollywood, threatening
to sue her if she didn’t remove all references to the union from An Open
Secret, which opens in a platform release in three cities beginning today. It
may be the first time a Hollywood union has ever threatened to take legal
action against a filmmaker over the content of a film."

Here's the money shot where they show the pills, the gun safe, the receipts
and emails from Brock Pierce to Chad Shackley and Marc Collins Rector, in
which Brock Pierce is sending Chad Shackley email with photos of scantily
dressed young boys for him cherry pick for recruiting and grooming.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5icPtmLsTy4&t=1h8m8s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5icPtmLsTy4&t=1h8m8s)

"It's an email from Brock to Chad. And it says 'What do you think?' and then
there's a picture of a young boy. This one says from Brock to Chad, 'another
interesting one from MI'. Chad's response on that one was 'That's a yummy one
:)' And Brock writes to him 'Would you like me to contact either of them?'
Chad writes 'They both look cute, but what's their deal?'"

There was some discussion of these facts with more links to evidence in the
thread about "Silicon Valley Women, in Cultural Shift, Frankly Describe Sexual
Harassment (nytimes.com)".

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14674632](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14674632)

And here is photo of Brock Pierce chilling at Trump's inaugural lounge with
his "MAKE BITCOIN GREAT AGAIN" cap.

[https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155736654012782&se...](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155736654012782&set=a.112810102781.118888.749357781&type=3&theater)

And then of course there's the Steve Bannon connection:

[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/stephen-
bannon-w...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/stephen-bannon-world-
warcraft-gold-farming-donald-trump/)

[https://www.wired.com/2008/11/ff-ige/](https://www.wired.com/2008/11/ff-ige/)

[https://www.wired.com/2016/09/trumps-campaign-ceos-little-
kn...](https://www.wired.com/2016/09/trumps-campaign-ceos-little-known-world-
warcraft-career/)

Now what was that about draining the swamp?

------
oldpond
Why invest in something that is clearly being driving up and down by bots?
Virtual currency will never work so long as there is speculation. Fools gold.

~~~
ojr
High Frequency Trading is in the regular stock market and has a larger barrier
to enter

~~~
gooseus
Right, but stocks weren't invented and sold to the digital community as a
currency.

Is that no longer a thing? Does the crypto __currency __community acknowledge
that their product is just a big gambling machine requiring the energy a
medium country?

I recently was listening to a podcast (Sam Harris maybe?) where they were
talking about the possibility of super intelligent AI being set to a complex
task... but then finds itself spending some huge amount of resources churning
out paperclips because of some erroneous assumptions about their value to
solution.

If we're the super intelligent AI designed by some other "real" intelligence
for a purpose, I'd say cryptocurrency is our paperclip moment.

~~~
yorwba
The paperclip story is usually about an AI whose purpose is in fact to make
paperclips, but it realizes that it can only create maximum paperclips if it
prevents anyone from ever shutting it off. Then it solves the problem of
subjugating humanity as an auxiliary task for the much more important goal of
creating more paperclips.

To stay with the analogy, cryptocurrency may be such an auxiliary task for the
actual goal (whatever that is, I'm not really convinced that Coherent
Extrapolated Volition can be made to work).

There's an interesting game about the paperclip optimizer that was submitted
to HN recently:
[http://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/index2.html](http://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/index2.html)

------
digitalshankar
Bitcoin Cash to the Mars!

------
NicoJuicy
BTC is back, trying to get momentum by posting this article is already over.
BCH down 20% in the last hour. BTC up 5%

Nice try though

------
chatman
It is back down now. Roger Ver is artificially pumping up the price of BCH.
BCH is a trash coin.

------
heimatau
I think the people are underestimating the power of what RPOW does. The
tech/math behind the blockchain.

If interested, I have a shameless plug for an article that might give added
context to this crypto world, but I'm willing to pay you (in BCH) for it. If
you have a twitter account mention me and ask for it.

[https://twitter.com/SureReno/status/929773694645239808](https://twitter.com/SureReno/status/929773694645239808)

