/biz/ - Business & Finance

Imagine paying money for BCH when 90% of holders got it for free 6 months ago.

>>9119212
ok intellectual discussion time.

his last bits are the most important takeaways here. he's making the flawed argument that no pos chains have been deployed. he knows about steem, bitshares and soon eos. pos has been proven long-term secure by larimer's dpos and is very likely eos will flip bitcoin for more reasons than 4chan posts allow me to write. eos brings the enterprise scalability and decentralized democracy governance the entire world has been waiting for. eos and dpos are drastically evolved bitcoin and pow systems. if you're skeptical of eos, wait for the mainnet to prove the blockchain can't be ddosed as bitshares and steem have done. do you remember the famous satoshi quote "If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, o don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry."? he was talking to larimer, the developer of eos. do you know what satoshi was defending in a flawed manner? scalability. larimer as a single person is better than satoshi as a collective. the world is going to change and it will be because of eos. it is the new decentralized layer to internet 3.0 and will mesh wonderfully with webassembly, the second biggest deal on the internet after eos.

>>9119325
That's great, I have a lot of faith in PoS coins, but he's simply right at the present point in time that POW coins are dominant, what I really want to know is; is he right about BCH literally destroying the BTC chain if the price flips the other way?

INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSION THREAD

BUMP FOR RARITY

>>9119212
bla bla bla, institutional money is investing in btc don't be stupid

>>9119420
why u posting pics of Val Pac you raggy

OP here, I'm right. Any questions?

>>9119438
How is it possible that such an immense amount of money would pour into the space without having addressed this issue?

>>9119451
eos

>>9119451
I'm technical, from my observation the finance people have no clue about this side and are using different metrics to evaluate the worth of projects. The simple fact is though that a blockchain with no hash power emits no blocks, and if there are no blocks, there are no transactions, and miners follow price. It really is the inescapable natural conclusion that in the event BCH steals BTC's hash power, it's dead.
Now you can argue all day about "will that ever happen", but if it does, it's over.

>>9119212
Ah yes indeed, I must admit that I concur with whatever that picture is trying to say.

>>9119479
This can't be fucking right.
Anyone?

>>9119212
XBY is SHA-512

the whole post is centred around a single argument:
> BTC has a difficulty adjustment algorithm that means that if hash power starts abandoning it at large scale within a period smaller than 2016 blocks, it will die
while this is technically true, 2016 blocks is about 2 weeks
the "large scale" he talks about would have to be REALLY large
it needs to be an almost vertical drop
that's not gonna happen
if it does drop, it will drop more gradually than that, even if it still drops fast
but as long as it's not vertical, those 2016 blocks will get mined in a reasonable amount of time
maybe 2 months instead of 2 weeks
it will not be a pleasant time
but once the 2016th block is mined, the adjustment happens, and we're back to 10-minute blocks again

i don't know enough about what BCH changed except the block size
but i wouldn't buy the statement of "BCH does not have this vulnerability" at face value
i would want some more evidence to back that statement
(not saying it's wrong though)

>>9119499
I mean, what he's saying is flawed, but fundamentally he's not wrong. So as it stands, there is a real case of BCH taking the hash power and BTC grinding to a stop. The miners are fully aware of the possibility of this happening, but it will be difficult to say how probable the chances are. Quite a lot of the hash power and miners are very pro-BCH, so I would take precaution. This is a very possible scenario and it won't be pretty.

>>9119645
> the "large scale" he talks about would have to be REALLY large
Not that large, and it's compounded by the fact that for the purposes of this analysis, a drop in BTC is equal to a drop in BCH, meaning the actual variable is BCH gain + BTC drop at any given time.
This isn't theoretical, by the way, look what happened on November 12th last year. This was a shorter term version of the longer term fate that will befall the BTC chain if the price action turns against it.
Now just how great does the aggregate jump have to be? Well, a 15% change on both sides of the coin, which is really nothing to write home about in this space, would result in a 30% equilibrium bump on the mining profitability side, which would thus result in a 30% throughput drop on the BTC chain.
Now, BTC being as terrible as it is with it's 1mb blocks, a 30% throughput drop also means it's only processing 700kb blocks, which will result in a fee explosion, which will make people angry and value the chain less, which will make them stop using it / seek alternatives as has been extensively demonstrated. When people stop using it, the value drops, when the value drops, it snowballs the effect. So you're at your 30% weaker equilibrium from a single day 15% drop on both sides, and it happens again, well now the throughput is 30% lower once more for 490kb, and so on, and so forth, until the chain freezes completely.
At full speed, the chain only adjusts once every week, and each day that this fairly normal price activity happens, the chain pushes the readjustment period out by another 30%, and becomes 30% shittier.
So we go;
Day 1 700kb blocks and a 18.2 day difficulty adjustment
Day 2 490kb blocks and a 23.66 day difficulty adjustment
Day 3 343kb blocks and a 30.758 day difficulty adjustment
Day 4 240kb blocks and a 39.9854 difficulty adjustment
And this is assuming no more than a 15% drop / gain on both sides on any given day, you see time elapsed never reaches next DA.

>>9119645
> but i wouldn't buy the statement of "BCH does not have this vulnerability" at face value
BCH adjusts difficulty every block, and that's why it is not vulnerable to this, that's all really.

>>9119895
Why haven't you written a paper or gone public with this information?

>>9120005
Not interested in painting a target on my back, I value my anonymity, and I don't need the attention.

b-but reddit and sz-zabo said BCH was a scam hur dur

w-what about blockstream oy veyyy

>>9120082
you have to understand it from the perspective of people in our shoes, we've lived lives of reasonably quiet isolation with little attention paid to us by anyone, we have laboured towards a dream that seemed impossible to reach until Bitcoin, and all of a sudden we are the centre of the world's attention.
How would you react if you were ignored and sidelined all your life, and never adequately valued, and then along came the banks and investment industry and saw they could make use of your little creation, as long as you'd play some ball with them, and if you don't, well, they'll just create their own and the ball won't be so soft.
So you compromise a little bit, ends justifies the means and whatnot right, tell a little lie here, bend the truth a little there, say something that has a kernel of fact in it to defend a promontory that perhaps is unwarranted by said kernel, because that is what your benefactors demand, and without that support, you're back to toiling in obscurity.
Most of the space sold out when the big money rolled in, and those of us who didn't, we're hiding in the shadows.

>>9119325
>eos
I'm impressed by the fortitude of EOS shills.

Even the truth that your coin is a piece of shit run by a cave troll won't sway you. Impressive.