Bitcoin Cash Fork Nov 2018 – What You Need To Know



Bitcoin Cash Fork Nov 2018 – What You Need To Know In this video I clearly explain what you need to know for the upcoming November 2018 Bitcoin Cash hard …

20 Comments

  1. Just wanted to say this is the first time I’ve seen one of your videos and I’m glad I found you. That is the best video I’ve seen in years! You really know your stuff. A lot of substance 👍 not just reading the news like many others. Great work 🙂

  2. Thanks for the good information. In my estimation, Bitcoin Chash is dead in the water. I'm testing the Lightning Labs Lightning-App on Bitcoin testnet right now, and it rather gracefully eradicates any use case that Bcash may have had. Lightning Network provides a transaction throughput that Bcash couldnt begin to dream of. It does it in such a way as to maintain decentralisation by keeping the base layer block size low. If you havn't experienced it I urge you to go check it out.

  3. Thanks for the info. Just a question, would you recoomend to put any BCH on an exchange that supports the fork, like coinbase or binance? or just leave it on ledger and wait till the smoke clears? TIA

  4. Its cool to be unbiased in a fair situation – but bcash is an ATTACK on Bitcoin. They have pulled hashrate at difficulty adjustments to feed a false narrative that Bitcoin was failing. They have used Covery AsicBoost for an unfair advantage over regular miners, even using the same hardware. Even calling bcash Bitcoin Cash just creates confusion in the space. Roger, Jihan, Craig, Calvin will all go down in history as crooks. UASF proved that they are crooked and do not have the backing – and they have even tried re-writing the history around that historic event in Bitcoins History – do these guys deserve an unbiased view. Fuck no. Alot of the commenters are paid and or fake accounts – just click on them to see for yourself, I think they have done their best, but unfortunately bitcoin was designed to ward off these sorts of attacks, and it has done… Nugg – you should be calling these crooks out, dont even entertain them

  5. after al this debate i still don,t get it. Will there be a new coin or not? Some say yes and other no. There,s an exchange already announced both coin when fork comes.

  6. is Bitcoin Cash their own worst enemy or are the hijackers of BTC now targeting BCH? One or even both sides could have ulterior motives.. CSW making threats without even trying to garner support for SV's proposal as if he always wanted a war. Amaury calling BCH bcash in rBitcoin and being ok with it being considered an altcoin rather than the original as most supporters do.. It's all pretty sus.

  7. I think you're wrong. Do you really expect the man on the street to mine Bitcoin from his laptop in the future? LOL. Bitcoin was never designed to be that way, it is a capitalistic system that is very different from the way you want to describe it in the second half of your video. CSW is often a —- but he understands how Bitcoin works inside out and this is why he might get an advantage. It is not a nice and gentle system that was designed, but a rather ferocious one where PoW / hashpower is king. Miners will follow what makes sense for them. and BCH can very well be decentralized, permissionless etc. with on-chain scalling. I could go on and on, but let's say that I politely disagree with the second part of your video. Let's see what happens! Cheers

  8. You're not considering that this is decentralisation as it should be. If you don't like proposed changes you fork off and see if the majority follows you. It's a majority vote. With BTC/LN/LBTC this is the exact opposite, as in centralised development on future IOU second layers. You're still looking at this as if this is a bad thing, but it can also be the opposite. Eventually we'll get cryptocurrencies that shook off all the proposals/prominent-figures the majority doesn't want and you're left with what the majority wants, or you're left with a multiple of cryptos(and forks) the majority wants. You're entitled to your opinion, but to me it sounds like you didn't consider all the POVs.

  9. Just to be very clear, it is not that some small group of people were not happy with direction of Bitcoin, it was that vast majority of Bitcoin supporters, especially all the early supporters and promoters, were not happy with Bitcoin Core & Blockstream's plan to stop using Bitcoin system (on-chain scaling) for mass adoption, these people were always openly hostile to Bitcoin system and even said it doesn't work, and their idea is to go with a completely different system (Lightning & Liquid) both of which have nothing in common with Bitcoin system, they are not even blockchains. It was then that Core & Blockstream started propaganda campaign against miners, against ASICs, against Bitmain and many others, all of whom were for mass adoption of Bitcoin using Bitcoin system, only Blockstream and their employers in Core team were against it… then using censorship and banning of thousands of people from Reddit r/bitcoin, they eliminated all opposition and they fabricated this user-consensus, which is not even how Bitcoin consensus works.

    This is why Bitcoin Cash was created, it was created out of necessity. It then became a problem to try to counter attack the Blockstream's propaganda, which I know you fell for yourself, and educate people about what is really going on, to counter all the lies creeated by Core & Blockstream… Bitcoin Cash is continuation of Bitcoin system, BTC has since been changed into an altcoin with SegWit, because once signatures were removed from transactions, BTC ceased to exist as chain of digital signatures, which is one of the important rules/features of the Bitcoin system. BTC with SegWit is no longer working as Bitcoin system, and only because of it having more hashing power during the split, it managed to keep the Bitcoin name and BTC ticker, but its working principles have changed.

    This time round, the hard fork in 15th Nov is not likely to result in permanent chain split, because neither client is adding replay protection, meaning either one side will have to stop mining their client, because they are in minority, or they will have to add replay protection to become a new chain (and will need to get new name and exchange symbol). Keeping up with minority chain will be very costly as majority chain will be able to reject the blocks mined by minority chain as invalid, and every block being mined by minority chain, will get costly (because they won't be able to sustain mining invalid blocks, their rewards will stop). This is why I think BCH won't split, instead it will get an planed upgrade, only the upgrade client will be determined by majority hashing power, ie the miners… which is how real Bitcoin's consensus is done, not that user or non-mining node voting crap Blockstream talk about.

    My personal preference for the upgrade is ABC client, but I don't like the addition of these new op-codes as they will do change incentives that are meant to go to the miners, that has potential (not proven though as we haven't reached that stage yet to see first hand effect it will have) to take away transaction fees (portion of it) from miners, because this op-code would reduce the block space needed for such smart contract transaction on BCH blockchain. From the SV client I don't like that they don't have any actual code optimisation, they plan on just increasing the block size limit to 128MB and re-adding remainder of original op-codes that Bitcoin Core removed from BTC (and BCH "inherited" lack of these op-codes also), and I think also increasing script size limit.

    I don't like the SV client because just increasing block size limit doesn't fix transaction throughput, some optimizations need to be done on the code, and they don't seem to have any (at least in this release), and I don't like the ides of them wanting to lock-on the code (which is again what Bitcoin Core did with BTC, which his why it became useless, or I should say, with extremely limited usability which can now never allow mass adoption of BTC for anything) because code should be only locked on after the code has been optimised so that it can scale for massive blocks, 1GB at least, so that BCH can handle 3x the Visa capacity and be solid platform for global peer-to-peer money system, which is what Bitcoin was created to be.

    I'm not fan of Wormhole either… so there is good and bad on both sides… we'll find out on 15th what miner's have decided and what the outcome will be.

    PS: You should know that Lighting (and Liquid) are not working on top of BTC, they run outside of it. L2 protocol is when data of the L2 is embeded and carried by L1 protocol, and this is not the case with Lightning or Liquid. They are not L2 solutions, they are not scaling of Bitcoin, they are completely different systems, and Blockstream using Bitcoin name in both of these ("Bitcoin Lightning" & "Liquid Bitcoin"), is literally a scam because Blockstream is misleading people by using Bitcoin name in their advertising… while both these systems have nothing to do with Bitcoin system in any shape or form.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*