[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 300 KB, 1920x1536, 865486768.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11304284 No.11304284 [Reply] [Original]

bitcoin BTC is the most valuable coin because it has the highest sha-256 hashrate and costs the most to attack via proof of work. this is enhanced by its long track record and the team surrounding it. BCH on the other hand has 5% of the sha-256 hashrate at any given time and would appear to be open to a devastating 51% attack at any moment. but it has not been 51% attacked for over a year now that it has existed. does this mean that it will never get 51% attacked? if there is no realistic chance that it will ever get 51% attacked, shouldn't the price and hashrate of BTC and BCH eventually become the same over time?

>> No.11304775

>>11304284
I'll just leave this here

https://twitter.com/DHLGlobal/status/1048234020667117579

>> No.11304803

>>11304284
oh and also, you got it wrong. hashrate is higher because higher price, not the other way around.

>> No.11305202

It's most valuable because it's considered a store of value

>> No.11305279
File: 213 KB, 500x600, smith-chan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305279

>>11304284
More and more people realize that BCH is bitcoin every day. You can't stop it. The flip is inevitable.

>> No.11305382
File: 44 KB, 807x659, tiresome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305382

>>11304775
Africa is en route to becoming a Chink colony.
If Bcash succeeds there, it won't go anywhere
You might be correct on this one.
BTC will however stay no.1.

>> No.11305439
File: 351 KB, 1920x1620, blockchain reloaded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305439

>>11305382
china just pays african countries for votes in the UN. bitcoin CASH won't be stopped.

>> No.11305475

>>11305439
Chink worker makes $1-1.5 k per month, few years ago it was 100 bucks.
They need cheap workforce and resources, votes in UN are not bad either.

>> No.11305496

>>11305202
wouldn't it make sense to have all in one store of value and currency? suits more to sci fi future

>> No.11305543

>>11304284
Too many miners driven by self interest rather than their hatred of Roger and Jian. This doesn't mean a 51% attack can't happen, it's just, why would anyone do it? Why would that mean that the hashrate and price of BTC and BCH would equal out?

>> No.11305558

>>11304284
Someone who can 51% attack BCH would earn more by just mining Bitcoin

>> No.11305585
File: 569 KB, 640x636, 1536790879398.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305585

>>11305382
Anything that pretends to save the world will never succeed because saving poor is not profitable. Coin has to go along with the Jews and financial elite to become worth anything.

>> No.11305607

>>11304284
>costs the most to attack via PoW
Wrong. I don't know how many times I have to spoon feed you dPoW before you retards understand. To 51% attack KMD or any of the chains than use notary nodes to notarise to the BTC blockchain, you would have to attack 51% attack BOTH BTC and the dPoW coin simultaneously

x+y > x where y >0

x is BTC hashrate, y is your dPoW hashrate

>> No.11305608

>>11305558
they could also earn a lot by massively shorting bcash and then 51% attacking it, not to mention it would eliminate bcash and demonstrate that bitcoin is good because the same could not be done to it. you think that 6% of the current bitcoin hashrate could make more from just mining btc than by shorting bcash and 51% attacking it? really what I'm getting at is why hasn't that happened yet, and looking at how it would play out and the players involved as an answer to why

>> No.11305659

>>11305607
ok that's great but it still depends on a strong bitcoin. it' could be great for specialized applications. but as a store of value I don't see why more value would accumulate on those layers when they're dependent on bitcoin's security

>> No.11305700

>>11305496
It is that

>> No.11305739

if both coins tend toward having equal hashrates and prices over the long run they will both become less secure and will have a lower total value than if one were to die via 51% attack from the competing chain. agree or disagree?

>> No.11305765

>>11305608
Not enough scummy miners, I guess. An act like that would damage the legitimatecy of crypto in general so there's that disincentive.

>> No.11305824

>>11305765
the way I see it nothing has hurt the legitimacy of BTC more than the continued existence of BCH at such a low hashrate. could it be due to uncertainty over legal ramifications? would courts prosecute a group that 51% attacked a large crypto? if that is not the concern it's pretty questionable that there hasn't been any real attempts, it makes mining look very centralized and cartel-like. or maybe everyone is just really nice.

>> No.11305956

>>11305824
It's probably just too risky. Like other miners could switch over to defend BCH to take advantage of the short somehow.

>> No.11306489

>>11305585
>saving poor is not profitable
exploting them is
agree on jews, it has to be (((theircoin))) to make it