Bitcoin CASH

[Anonymous No.9629781]

[Anonymous No.9629788]

BASED BIG DICK CRAIG

[Anonymous No.9629802]

>>9629781
is simply just one of about sixty cryptos I'm trading

sorry

[Anonymous No.9629808]

Bitcoin Cash is dumping hard atm.

Glad I'm tethered atm.

[Anonymous No.9629812]

I'm a bitcoin cash supporter, but Craig definitely is not Satoshi and is an arrogant douchebag

[Anonymous No.9629816]

Bitcoin....cash?

[Anonymous No.9629824]

>>9629781
This never really sunk in until recently with the bitcoin gold double spend attack.

It currently takes 11.17% of the Bitcoin network hashrate to acquire 50% of the Bitcoin Cash hashrate, allowing a large miner to conduct a double spend on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. There are three bitcoin pools in bitcoin who could do this on their own.

Bitcoin does not have this problem as it holds the majority of the SHA256 hashing power in the world. Bitcoin cash does have this problem, since its in the same race, but 9 laps behind.

That's not fud. It's not propaganda. It's math.

The numbers don't lie.

Bitcoin Network Hashrate: 37681 TH

Bitcoin Cash Network Hashrate: 4209 TH

4209/37681= 11.17%

[Anonymous No.9629827]

>>9629812
If you don't like Craig why do you support his coin?

[Anonymous No.9629839]

>TFW I CREATED BITCOIN

[Anonymous No.9629885]

>>9629824

And if someone attempts to attack the BCH network bitmain steps in and starts mining BCH, resulting in massive financial losses for the unsuccessful attacker.

It ain't going to work, kike.

[Anonymous No.9629906]

>>9629824

Miners love bitcoin cash. I know you're a coretard who doesn't understand economics but please try to get this simple concept

[Anonymous No.9629908]

>>9629824
It's all relative. Your argument broken down is also against btc.

[Anonymous No.9629920]

>>9629885
Wait so BCH's security DEPENDS on a single organisation (Bitmain) and you think this is fine?

[Anonymous No.9629926]

>>9629920

Viapool too and I'm sure there are more

Give up your weak FUD you pathetic corecuck

[Anonymous No.9629975]

>>9629885
>>9629906
>>9629908
Is this seriously all you cashcucks have?

>>9629885
bitmain would not be able to respond in time to counteract a double spend attack. they can be pulled of within less then an hour for moderate sums. it would be enough to damage the reputation of BCH, in any case if this were to occur.

the fact that this has occurred on other blockchains, and can occur on BCH should be of concern to you at the very least from a neutral perspective.

>>9629906
>Miners love bitcoin cash. I know you're a coretard who doesn't understand economics but please try to get this simple concept.
at the moment Miners love BTC more then BCH by a factor of 10 (or 1000%) as evidenced by the hashrates of BCH and BTC compared. It's like saying your mother loves you 1/10 the amount she loves your brother. Miner love BCH, is not an argument when math proves otherwise.

see for yourself
https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin%20cash-hashrate.html

>>9629908
>its all relative
literal numbers and fact are relative to bitcoin cash shills. got it.

[Anonymous No.9629978]

>>9629926
Bitcoin cash? More like Bitcoin shit. Get over your shit coin maggot.

[Anonymous No.9629988]

>>9629920
it's like they can't keep their stories straight. house of cards man.

[Anonymous No.9630019]

>>9629975
>at the moment Miners love BTC more then BCH by a factor of 10 (or 1000%) as evidenced by the hashrates of BCH and BTC compared. It's like saying your mother loves you 1/10 the amount she loves your brother. Miner love BCH, is not an argument when math proves otherwise.

Nah, miners mine btc because they need money, not because they like the chain

[Anonymous No.9630044]

>>9630019
evidence for that assertion is minimal

this is business. liking has nothing to do with making profit. and right now the incentives are saying, mine bitcoin, forget about bitcoin cash, and oh by the way you can double spend bitcoin cash at any time if you feel like it as a result.

[Anonymous No.9630076]

>>9630044
>and right now the incentives are saying, mine bitcoin, forget about bitcoin cash, and oh by the way you can double spend

BCH has more long term profit potential than BTC. Again miners have already signaled for BCH and Jihan himself says they mine the chain simply because they need the cashflow.

Miners will switch to BCH when the time is right. Why stick with the turd that is bcore?

[Anonymous No.9630088]

>>9629808
suck my fucking dick atm teen

[Anonymous No.9630095]

>>9630076
In what way does BCH have more long term profit potential? How does this even make sense?

[Anonymous No.9630112]

>>9630095
it doesn't, and they still conveniently are not addressing the point.

one BTC pool can double spend on BCH.

[Anonymous No.9630116]

>>9629975
>literal numbers and facts
The idea itself is relative. The hashrate on the networks now could be drastically higher later, an attack now could be done for all we know. But the entire argument is bullshit anyways since it's a gross misunderstanding of how the networks are incentivized.

[Anonymous No.9630125]

>>9630076
What exactly do you mean by miners have signaled for BCH?

[Anonymous No.9630141]

>>9630116
>it's a gross misunderstanding of how the networks are incentivized.
please enlighten me on how this is the case

[Anonymous No.9630165]

>>9630095
Well it's actually very simple so I'll lay it out for you. Assume somehow bch gains more value than btc over the long term. So you mine btc and swap it for bch netting you more profit.
>>9630141
The pools themselves would need to coordinate the attacks in order to gain the hashrate required. They would need to mine at a loss for a long period of time to successfully perform the attack meanwhile the difficulty would rapidly be adjusting to make it even more difficult to mine blocks. These types of attacks only ever happen on complete shitcoins with overinflated value relative to mining power.

[Anonymous No.9630181]

>>9630165
To put it even simpler. They lose a shit ton of money to perform an attack that might not even work and will lower the value of the thing their attacking. Which requires a ton of time and effort to even attempt.

[Anonymous No.9630185]

>>9630125
by literally mining bch

[Anonymous No.9630196]

For evidence of this you can look at the S2X fork failure and how the miners didn't want to fork the network and potentially be mining a chain that will die. The time and effort required and with a high risk of loss just isn't worth it over guaranteed returns. Not to mention they would be lowering the value of the very thing they are dependent upon and hold the largest stakes in.

[Anonymous No.9630210]

>>9630141
It takes resources to 51% attack a sha256 algo blockchain. If a pool wants to double spend on BCH, they have to REALLOCATE THEIR RESOURCES. That means that they are out of the game in regards to the BTC blockchain.

Also, Bitmain has majority hashpower on BOTH chains. On BTC they control over 60% hashpower lmao. They'd control BCH in relation to a spike in hashpower as well. Mining is a competition and the resources you spend will be relative to the resources of your adversaries.

It's like pitting a championship fighter against someone considerably less skilled and expecting them to expend all of their energy when they can facilitate the same outcome with less than ~20% of the energy necessary.

Now you might want to let the thread conveniently die so that people don't see this response. Either that or head to deflection. Maybe spout lies and make them look technical to the average retarded know-it-all investor on this board? Your call, retard!

[Anonymous No.9630217]

>>9629812
"I have more money than your whole country"

[Anonymous No.9630230]

>>9630165
Won't the difficulty increasing cause more and more legit miners to auto switch off BCH?

>>9630185
By that logic they have signaled for BTC 10x more...

[Anonymous No.9630270]

>>9630230
Assuming the value of bch stays the same, yes. But that would take longer and longer amounts of time. The entire argument only makes logical sense if it is some outside source not driven by economics for example some big bank wanting to destroy it. It boils down to an argument against the pow model itself, which I predicted months ago btc shills would start campaigning to get off of.

[Anonymous No.9630296]

>>9630019
>Nah, miners mine btc because they need money, not because they like the chain
The absolute state of btrash delusional.
If the most of the miner, hodler here not for the money than wtf give a shitcoins it value ?

[Anonymous No.9630351]

>>9630210
Bitmain is so invested in the currency itself they gain huge profits from it being successful and gaining value. So much so they are even trying to give parts of the block reward to devs. It's seriously the best incentive model I've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.9630397]

>>9630210
here's the thing though. we both don't know what COULD happen. We only know what's possible. And right now it's possible for one BTC pool to double spend on BCH. There's no way around that.

Furthermore, you don't need 60%, 50%, 40% 30%, or even 30% of the BTC hashrate to switch over to the BCH chain to double spend for a couple of hours.

ALL YOU NEED IS 11.17%

Bitmain may not be able to react in time to this attack. and all that needs to be done, is one double spend to completely damage BCH's reputation.

So to take your championship fighter analogy and correct it for it's simplicitic error.

you have a 2 cage fights happening at the same time. they are both one block away. In each fight there are twenty fighters, for a total of forty fighters across all fights(2).

This fight is on going and never ends because each fighter is equally matched and powerful. In fight one, all twenty fighters are titans standing 7 feet tall. In fight two, all the fighters are midgets.

So both fights are happening at the same time, and the fighters from fight one on team blue hear about the fight across town where there is a good crowd (not as large as theres) attending.

The titan fights naturally wants a bigger crowd, so they send one of their twenty fighters over to the midget fight to fuck destroy ever last one of those bcashcucking retarded manlets.

Now you might want to let the thread conveniently die so that people don't see this response. Either that or head to deflection. Maybe spout lies and make them look technical to the average retarded know-it-all investor on this board? Your call, retard!

[Anonymous No.9630410]

>>9630351
I don't care. I'm talking about the double spend possibility with just 11.7%of the BTC hashrate switching over to BCH for a couple of hours to fuck with your shitchain.

[Anonymous No.9630419]

>>9630397
>>9630410
>yeah it's possible for them to switch and lose money if they coordinate well enough
>yeah mining pools are only one person
Your purposely ignoring the main bulk of our arguments now

[Anonymous No.9630420]

>>9630410
And they've had the opportunity to do it nearly the last 10 months. Maybe they don't because hey know BCH has the miners long term interests in mind.

[Anonymous No.9630447]

>>9630397

>>9630397

>simplicitic

pajeet, i...

>the rest of yoir hot-garbage, overcomplicated post

How the fuck do you even post something like this and not feel embarrassed? Because we're anonymous? Have some fucking dignity lmao. Trap-posters, bronies, furries - all of them have more ground to stand on than you. You are pathetic and every sentient, objective spectator in this thread is laughing at you.

Also, your post is seriously a conglomerate of the three generic choices I gave you. Is this an RPG game? Try to think for yourself and maybe come up with something clever at least.

Regardless, thank you for the spectacle, Jester.

[Anonymous No.9630455]

>>9630210

I've seen so many threads like this, probably every day between here and /r/BTC. Literally noone can actually defend the game theoretics of Bitcoin. Jihan has this shit on lock.

[Anonymous No.9630459]

>>9630420
so because they haven't done it within the first year it won;t ever happen. buddy, I'm so sorry for you.

because here's the situation. BTC regards BCH shills as pesky flies. you havn't motivated us enough to even regard you as a real threat.

>>9630419
your argument is suggesting that its not practical, so it won't happen. And I agree it's not practical to happen. BUT IT IS FUCKING POSSIBLE.

Which makes your coins shit from a security standpoint.

[Anonymous No.9630479]

>>9630459
see
>>9630165
>>9630181
>>9630196
>>9630270

[Anonymous No.9630486]

>>9630447
>>9630455
circlejerking an ad hominem post, you must be a basedboy.

[Anonymous No.9630489]

>>9630459
>you havn't motivated us enough to even regard you as a real threat.
And i'd like to keep it that way as long as possible.

[Anonymous No.9630493]

>>9630479
I did see all that shit, nothing in the world can disprove the following claim at this point.

>It's possible for 11.7% of the BTC hashrate to switch to the BCH blockchain and double spend on the BCH blockchain.

[Anonymous No.9630501]

>>9630459

0-conf is for buying coffee or a bowl
of noodles or a burger. Not for a large purchase. Literally no proponents of 0-conf will tell you otherwise.

If hashpower enters the network, Bitmain and other independent pools will turn on more hashpower to compete and maintain a steady profit margin.

You have no clue what your talking about and your argument makes no sense. I guarantee you're some stubborn 30+ year old boomer cuck who lives an awful life due to the dogheaded attitude you put on display for us here. I'm glad to know that it will more than likely result in your suicide when BTC dies to the coin you so desperately try (which is so sad, to know this is you trying your hardest...) to attack.

[Anonymous No.9630510]

>>9630270
It would be pretty interesting to watch for sure.

>>9630420
Right, mining 100k extra coins on "accident" is definitely pro-miner.

[Anonymous No.9630513]

>>9629781
>1+1=3

[Anonymous No.9630523]

>>9630217
Did he say that?
link?

[Anonymous No.9630526]

>>9630493
Then you also saw how your entire argument is actually against the pow model entirely. Which is exactly what I started with. >>9629908

[Anonymous No.9630527]

>>9630501
see
>>9630493

[Anonymous No.9630539]

>>9630526
you're marxist looping nonspecific rhetoric is getting tiring.

>>9630493
acknowledge this is true or false

[Anonymous No.9630555]

>>9630539
Really odd because that's exactly what your doing.
>get absolutely btfo
>stay rigid to impractical facts devoid of logic and reasoning
>get btfo again
>repeat the same impractical fact over and over
I gain nothing from talking with you

[Anonymous No.9630572]

>>9630527
>>9630539

Which fucking one is it, cunt?

I just explained 10 times. If hashrate enters the BCH network, Bitmain and other majority mining pools will allocate MORE HASHPOWER TO SECURE A STEADY PROFIT. MEANING THAT THE MINING POOL ADDING 11% WOULD BANKRUPT THEMSELVES. The double spend would not result in anything more than, let's say, starbucks losing profit for a cup of coffee. Which will still be astronomically less than the amount they lose on fraudulent charges with debit/credit cards.

THE MINING POOL WOULD BANKRUPT THEMSELVES. 11% ADDED MEANS ALL OTHER MINING POOLS ADD MORE HASHPOWER TO COMPETE ACCORDINGLY.

[Anonymous No.9630576]

>>9630555
the feelings mutual

>>9630493
you can't even acknowledge this fact. sad!

[Anonymous No.9630588]

Alright to sum this up. Stay away from pow coins because someone who doesn't care about losing shit loads of money can theoretically attack it.

[Anonymous No.9630596]

>>9630588
its more like

>stay away from pow coins that are using the same hashing algorithm as a larger/more hasing powerful blockchain. stick with the top dogs. second and third place are vulnerable.

[Anonymous No.9630605]

>>9630572

AND you leave out the fact that a 10% loss of hashrate on BTC would be DEVASTATING to the network, in comparison to the BCH blockchain, which is dynamic and basically fucking invincible at this point. Miners who are more vested in BCH would have more free hashpower to allocate from BTC toward BCH, causing further chaos to your awful AIDS-banker-wannabe-blockchain. Get rekt, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.9630619]

>>9630596
Yeah but theoretically private entities could attack the network with superior technology or just simply more. If you think this is impossible than you need to realize these private entities might actually be economically driven to do something like this. Where as the btc and bch miners are created and strengthened within and by the game itself and not do not have economic incentives to cheat the system.

[Anonymous No.9630624]

>>9630605
>devastating

ad hominen

blocks would take 12 minutes to confirm on average instead of 10.

in any case it doesn't change this fact>>9630493

true or false cashy?

[Anonymous No.9630627]

Holy shit this guy is beyond dense. Peace.

[Anonymous No.9630628]

>>9630572
Goddamn mate you really are popping a vessel aren't ya?
You are assuming a lot aren't ya?

>>9630605
You're fucking retarded too apparently.
BTC hashrate varies a lot more than 10% all the time lmao.

[Anonymous No.9630636]

>>9630619
so proof of stake then? might be even more vulnerable

personally I'm liking proof of work AND proof of stake combocoins like Decred.

any coin suggestions from your perspective?

[Anonymous No.9630642]

>>9629812
I didn't think so either but then I read this lawsuit and now I'm not so sure...

https://www.scribd.com/document/372445546/Bitcoin-Lawsuit

>The exact number of b
itcoins belonging to Dave’s estate
will be determined at trial. That said, various documents including private emails and transcripts
from 2014 Australian Tax Office (“ATO”) meetings with Craig, his counsel,
and his accountant evidence Dave and Craig owned and controlled over 1,100,000 Bitcoins

[Anonymous No.9630652]

>>9629812
This. His false modesty alone makes me indifferent to bch

[Anonymous No.9630695]

>>9630628
oh, you conveniently forgot what happened last time BTC continuously lost hashrate and transactions on your cuckchain were literally $70+ USD? kek.

Strength in numbers doesn't apply when your grunts are incompetent. Anyone who reads this thread and takes even a moment of their time to think will see the flaws in shill1 and shill2's(you) logic.

>>9630624
If 10% of hashpower was gone? Maybe.
But miners supporting bch will have to allocate less hashpower the BTC to continue earning steady profits, and will in turn flip their switch and mine BCH with the extra hashpower. Meaning that a lot more than 10% will be lost.

I'm done explaining the same thing over and over again. You already lost. Please get in contact with a pool malicious to BCH and make it happen. We will all be waiting patiently.

[Anonymous No.9630705]

>>9630695
and just as a prevantative measure, the reason they would mine BCH with that extra hashpower is to continue earning steady profits. You will not recieve and further explanations from me. You argument is null and void. Any extra hashpower added to the BCH chain will result in relative addition of hashpower from pools supporting BCH. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.9630753]

>>9630695
>But miners supporting bch will have to allocate less hashpower the BTC to continue earning steady profits, and will in turn flip their switch and mine BCH with the extra hashpower.
This is a big assumption and the main counterpoint that's being used through out this thread. That jihan will be awake to switch all his miners over the BCH to save it from ONE double spend.

great argument. bravo sir. but it still doesn't change this: >>9630493

>>9630705
thank you for demonstrating the knowledge and intelligence of Bitcoin Cash supporters. you did a good job buddy!

[Anonymous No.9630811]

>>9630695
>>9630705
kek.
BTC has varied between 21 to 42 Eh/s this month.
Sometimes dropping almost 40% in a couple days.
You are actually retarded.

[Anonymous No.9630815]

>cash shills so desperate they are both defending and attacking Bitmain at the same time

The delusion.

[Anonymous No.9630850]

>>9629781
Someone in another thread said bitcoin cash was instant. Is that true?

[Anonymous No.9631308]

>>9630850
Yes

[Anonymous No.9631322]

Bitcoin Cash will destroy Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.9631369]

>>9629824
People already pointed out that would just provoke the miners into destroying the btc chain, but actually it's worse than that. BTC is doomed because of its DAA, pic related.

[Anonymous No.9631384]

>>9629920
It depends on every miner that is actually in support of Satoshi's vision rather than Maxwell's vision. Which is almost all of them.

[Anonymous No.9631399]

>>9630044
Evidence for that assertion is absolute. Observe November 12 when the profitability went the other way and every single miner except slush pool flipped. They will happily do so permanently when the underlying equilibrium is also permanent, and even slush can't mine unprofitably forever and will have to follow the market too.

[Anonymous No.9631405]

>>9629824
Over 65% of the BTC hashrate is controlled by Bitcoin Cash supporters. So BCH is in no trouble whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.9631408]

>>9630112
And provoke a retaliation that would kill BTC, and the miners could fairly say they were simply responding to the attack.

[Anonymous No.9631736]

People are forgetting something

Ver/Wright/Wu have like 3 million coins altogether, at least. That is major leverage. Mutually assured destruction.

[Anonymous No.9631861]

>>9630019

It's a good thing Bitcoin Cash has strategically aligned itself with political miners who would lose money to prove a point