Reddit User Account Overview


Redditor Since March 5, 2011 (3,446 days old)
Karma Posts: 1,112 Comments: 28,994 Combined: 30,106
Active in

I liken solving the scaling problem with big blocks to peeing in bed when you are cold. It is nice and warm for a little bit but it gets cold and nasty fast and you can’t easily undo it. Here’s some documentation about how BTC will scale. [“For a group of 20 users with 100 intra-group channels, the cost of the blockchain transactions is reduced by 90% compared to 100 regular micropayment channels opened on the blockchain. This can be increased further to 96% if Bitcoin introduces Schnorr signatures with signature aggregation.”]( [Why Schnorr is disproportionally beneficial to Lightning: Multi-signature adoption is growing rapidly, as the below chart indicates. While at the same time new systems like the lightning network require multi-signature adoption and with Schnorr signature making multi-signature systems more powerful, adoption is likely to increase]( [Here’s a little about MAST which helps with scaling in general]( [Here you can read about Submarine swaps which also makes things easier]( [Here you can read about how to rebalance channels]( [There are also the concepts of splicing in and splicing out which helps when the channel capacity isn’t enough]( [And then there is AMP (Atomic Multi Path) or more recently known as MPP (Multi Path Payment). This helps use the existing channel capacity better.]( Since a common critique of LN is that centralizes I’ll touch on that. LN is open source software and an individual can run an LN node. So in case of some kind of abuse or censorship is is easy for individuals to create a competing network. Normal people don’t have to run LN nodes, but the point is that if big operators are abusing the system in some way they can be replaced. This is not possible with banks. Also, if the full nodes grow to big then that is a centralization in itself. This is more of a problem for BSV than BCH but it is a gradient where it is a bigger problem the bigger the block size. The block size is a particularly big problem for BTC because it is protected by the most hash power by far. So anyone that wants to protect their data is going to store it on the BTC block chain. This is why the block size problem is different for BTC versus BSV versus BCH because the BTC blocks will always be full. If we make the BTC blocks 1GB they will still become full. BSV and BCH does not have this pressure. This is why BTC needs to control the amount of data by a market prices that only happens when the blocks are full. And note that in all of this, I don’t mind the increase of the BTC blocks. LN is a multiplier which gives the BTC network an increased capacity by some number. So whatever the block size is needed for BTC it should be as little as possible. If the block size for BTC will have to be 140MB then so be it. But let’s do that when we have exhausted other scaling options and we are obviously just scraping the surface of what is possible at the moment. But what I do mind is that if we make the blocks bigger than they need now, let’s say 32 MB. They will be perpetually full and we will very quickly grow out of any chances of running full nodes on regular systems. At this very moment it would be possible to run a full node on my iPad. That is very decentralized. It is a bit more costly per transaction, but it is more censor ship resistant compared to BCH and BSV for a user in for instance China or let’s say North Korea. So regarding censorship resistance BTC and BCH has different properties. For some BCH is better, for other BTC is better. BSV with its massive OP_RETURNS are particularly problematic.

posted by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/u_N0tMyRealAcct on December 25, 2019 07:47:41

I think it is a progression. I think so far it has been the developers. With BTC/BCH it was a close call and it was almost the miners. And that made me think who will be the key group to decide on the real fork. My reasoning is that the role of BTC will change over time and for each era a different group will be the most influential in picking which fork to call Bitcoin. First the developers stood unchallenged but I believe we are leaving the era of developer kingship. They will still be incredibly influential, but they will need the support of one specific king maker depending on the time of the hard fork. We had the era of the miners but I think they missed their shot. I don’t think they will get much of a say next time. Then we will be in the era of the exchanges, like Binance, Coinbase and Gemini. Whichever fork they decide to call BTC will come out on top. Next comes adoption and usage. It will be heavily influenced by layer two actors such as LN and side chains as they will be new and be the major force of the technologies needed for adoption. It isn’t so much that they wield a lot of power but because they are already wielding the power of the next king, point of sale systems. Then comes the points of sale like cash app and registers in stores and Amazon will pick the king. Meaning, the day after, what fork will pay for your milk? And finally, maybe 50 years from now the stakes will be so high that countries will work together to ensure stability and a hard fork will happen only with very clear consensus and many meetings by high level officials from the whole world. Fortunately I believe they can’t go against the interest of the coin very much because I also think they will have significant holdings in BTC as a reserve currency so they definitely don’t want to rock that particular boat. They will work hard until all the previously listed influencers and their pets agree. And so begins the era of stability. The user fits in here somewhere but I’m not sure where. Thoughts?

posted by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/Bitcoin on August 6, 2019 22:32:17

Paying for everything under $600 becomes a great deal over night. In fact, buying with BTC is a good deal as long as the transaction cost is less than what you would have to pay in taxes otherwise. Let's say you'd have to pay $150 in taxes if you sold $600 worth of BTC. A transaction cost of $100 is a good deal then. You can replenish your BTC stash with the $600 you otherwise would spent. On that newly bought BTC you owe no taxes if you turn around and sell it and if you don't you only have to pay for the gains above $600. ​ The transaction cost is going to explode and the mem pools will overflow. ​ This will have several effects. The pressure on merchants to accept BTC will explode. I for one will ask every store I go to if they will accept BTC, either on-chain or over lightning. ​ With the high transactions costs the lightning network will overnight become an even more attractive proposition. People will want to fund their lightning wallet with several thousand dollars worth of BTC. It'll be a shock to the system. The lightning fees will go up as well. And node operators will fund their channels with higher amounts to maximize their profits. ​ The technologies needed to re-balance lightning channels without an on-chain transaction will explode. ​ Bitrefill's volume will explode because it is a portal to all those other vendors that don't support crypto yet. But taking a detour to get a gift card will be totally worth it. ​ Then there's companies like veriblock who puts non BTC data on the blockchain to secure other blockchains. Can they carry the cost of BTC transactions at $100? I read somewhere that they are about a third of each block. Sorry, I have no source for that so this is a hypothetical. Let's say that to reliably get into the next block, a transaction would cost $100 as per my example above. That then works out to a cost of $130K for 333KB in a block. One block per ten minutes... Can Veriblock's business model carry $18.8 Million dollars a day? Probably not. They'd have to migrate to a cheaper less safe chain. They probably already have an emergency plan for that. ​ Speaking of other chains. There are other chains with more capacity. For some of them there might not be very much tax gains to cancel out so the bill might not affect them as much. But let's say there is, then those chains would handle the load better. But they still have a very limited capacity. And for them there is no alternative like lightning. The only solution is to continue to grow their blocks because whatever their capacities is today, it isn't enough. It will further centralize their solutions. Full nodes will become unwieldy for individuals to run. ​ I want that bill badly but suddenly I don't mind waiting for it for a year or two. We need polished lightning wallets, atomic multipath, eltoo, Schnorr, MAST and Taproot badly.

posted by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/Bitcoin on April 23, 2019 20:26:55

I have not misunderstood. If you would get a market of millions of new users putting buy pressure on any stores using BCH, would you welcome it? The answer has to be yes no matter how it happened and even if it is un-pure because it doesn’t matter to the vendor. Vendors are then well motivated to support BCH. Credit cards are skimming quite a bit from the system so the vendor saves a lot of money that they can either save or pass on to the buyer to increase market share. This will build the vendor infrastructure so that users like you and me can use solutions that are crypto through and through.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 10, 2020 11:06:01

It was not working as p2p cash at that moment. But it does now with Strike and it also fixes the tax implications of using BTC. It isn’t ideal because it isn’t BTC from start to finish but one step at a time we are getting there. Strike creates the market so that vendors can build the infrastructure so that you can I can I have seen no BCH solution that solves the capital gains issues when you use it. For mass adoption I think that is the biggest blocker now. Not a technical one. At least it is for me. I’m not going to sit and calculate my capital gains for everyone I went to dinner.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 10, 2020 10:34:36

People tell me this as if it is a check mate gotcha but it is clearly and openly not possible for everyone to make on chain transactions with BTC. Personally I think the biggest obstacle for me to use any crypto is the tax implications. I need that problem to be solved before I start using crypto directly on a daily basis. Now there is the strike app which links to your bank account on the front end but uses lightning as infrastructure and on the vendor end. So that opens the floodgates for me. I can now use crypto with any vendor that supports it without tax implications. That’s important to me. And it does not flood the chain with small transactions. One might think it is not ideal because it isn’t crypto from end to end. But crypto has a catch 22 problem. Main stream vendors will not use crypto until there are buyers and main stream buyers will not use crypto until there are vendors. Credit cards (backed by BTC) and Strike solves that problem of making it easy to on board users. I saw that someone bought an AutoZone card with a 4% rebate because they paid with Lightning and they are also getting some “sats back”. This is now a good reason for main stream users to use Strike and it is a low threshhold to mainstream users because setting it up is as simple as setting up Venmo (I’m guessing a bit here. I’ve never used Venmo). No hassle and save 4% and some sats back? Sign me up. Even if you don’t like BTC, you might want to set that up. Supposedly that goes out of beta and into the app store(s) today. That wallet alone is about doing thousands of transactions daily compared to BCH which is about 30+k and that is before it left beta.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 10, 2020 09:51:14

I know that people that don’t like BTC say that BTC thought leaders have said that. I don’t know whether that did or not, but I don’t think anyone thinks that would be the long term goal and I think we are getting to a point with L2 where it isn’t needed anymore.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 10, 2020 00:50:47

Ok, agreed. The best is if he stays but is removed from a position of power. It can either be that he no longer manages ABC or it could be that ABC very clearly no longer is the reference implementation.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 10, 2020 00:34:07

If you want DeFi then a split threat is particularly bad. BCH is uniquely infertile ground for DeFi and tokens until November unless this fork threat gets resolved. As this thread points out, this is a golden opportunity and BCH is in a terrible situation to capitalize. I don’t know what to suggest. On the one hand I think that this fork must be avoided at almost any cost. But I also think that Amaury has to go at almost any cost. They BCH community cannot thrive as long as he is around.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 23:31:34

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 23:12:06

I have looked and it looks good now. They have been deceptive in the past. I didn’t look just before I posted that, I apologize for that. But there is a history of intentional deception.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 22:57:58

I don’t go there often. I just looked at it on someones suggestion and it looked reasonable now. But over the years they have been deceptive and the community has pointed it out. During those times I have looked. I have seen these issues as they happened. They have been deceptive.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 22:43:42

No, but with lightning it is very cheap. This gets released to the app stores tomorrow: Per that tweet it come out of beta and becomes available in the app stores tomorrow, which i assume means apple and google. That wallet alone does “thousands” of transactions per day. Roughly speaking that is about 10% of BCH transactions in a day, which is roughly 30k transactions. Lightning has been 18 months out for years now, but not anymore. It is now sliding into production use. BCH has a closing window of opportunity and BCH is focused on this fork nonsense. It is in no way a done deal though. Lightning has its own issues. This release is really kicking the tires and finding limits.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 22:17:41

I’ll comment on a few things you said. > Better Security – BTC has a vulnerability called RBF which increases the risk of double spending. Bitcoin Cash developers aim to make 0-confirmation transactions safe again so that anyone accepting Bitcoin Cash is much safer accepting payments without having to wait for multiple confirmations. Only if it is turned on and only if you don’t wait til the first confirmation. Categorically stating this is not true. Also you said better security as a blanket statement but then you only mentioned RBF. One a transaction has confirmed a BTC transaction is around 50 times more secure bases on hash power. > Improved Scalability – BTC is limited to 1MB block size and even with Segwit activated, the capacity increase is only around 1.7x whereas the upgraded Bitcoin Cash blocks capacity is currently at 32x with no limitations. This means Bitcoin Cash can handle PayPal transactions volume today and be global money after a few more upgrades. BTC choses to not scale on-chain at this point. The solution chosen is Lightning for small transactions. Lightning transactions are small, fast and secured by cryptography. 0-conf is not secured by the Bitcoin protocol but only through trust in the miners, however it is a much simpler solution so bugs are unlikely. That can not be said about Lightning. So in theory Lightning is safer but it is complex and there are risks associated with that complexity, such as bugs or downtime. For scaling, one Lightning Wallet, probably the biggest one to be fair are making thousads of transactions per day currently. It is still in beta but as of tomorrow it gets release in the app stores. We’ll see how it performs then. This is a tweet from just now:

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 21:54:08

> BTC community believes Bitcoin is not meant to be spent, that its a store of value, that it is digital gold. So paying $100 fees per transactions is actually a good thing and a sign of a healthy chain. I don’t think the BTC community believes that at all. They believe Bitcoin is to be spent but for small purchases we should rely on layer 2 solutions such as Lightning. You know this Roger. Stick with the truth.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 21:25:29

Apparently it has to be talked about more because people in this sub are misinformed about SegWit, RBF and 0-conf.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 20:44:45

It is a bad sign for the technology when technical posts get answered with insults and downvotes. Look, I’m not against BCH. In fact I hold BCH. I just don’t like when people have misconceptions on how BCH and BTC works differently. Barring any mistakes I believe everything I said in my post is factual except what I said on price which is just my personal speculation.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 20:29:06

> Simply, SegWit removed the ability for a Bitcoin transaction to go through instantly. After Segwit, Bitcoin users have to wait time to make sure the payment is valid. Segwit broke Bitcoin's ability to be used by the world as free as in freedom, personally secured, cash. I think you are talking about 0-conf and SegWit does not affect that at all because it is optional. Typically people claim that it was Replace By Fee that ruined the capability of Bitcoin to do 0-conf but that is also not true because that is optional. If a transaction is not using SegWit and if it isn’t marked with RBF then it works the same as with BCH. What makes 0-conf not work with BTC is that it doesn’t have over capacity and a transaction might have to be queued. A transaction with a sufficiently high fee would but it just isn’t practical because a high fee would not work for the use case it is suitable for, which are small transactions. It should only be used for small transactions because it is inherently unsafe. It is fact not secured by the Bitcoin protocol at all. It is only secured by the cooperation of the miners. So, in short, 0-conf is not secured by the Bitcoin protocol and is only secured by trust in the full nodes, therefor it should only be used for small transactions and that doesn’t work for BTC because there is a fee market. It would work the same as for BCH but only if you pay a high enough price that it ruins the use case which is small transactions. BCH has the same problem unless it has over-capacity. If a fee market develops on BCH 0-conf will stop working for its main use case, cheap fast transactions. > An average of a 10 minute payment time made it unuseable as a currency. Limiting the blocksize to increase transaction fees makes it unuseaable as a currency, specifically for micro and smaller transactions. For fast transactions there is Lightning. The Lightning protocol is complex and stateful outside Bitcoin and has to stay online. That is its greatest weakness. But the protocol itself is shown to be secure. It is in fact as secure as the blockchain protocol that secures it, which in this case is BTC. This is fast and much more secure than 0-conf. The software to run it is complex and it is hard to make it user friendly but there’s a lot of development going on. > What gives BTC it's value. Why is a unit of Bitcoin valued at nearly 40x a Bitcoin Cash? > I'm not looking for "because the market thinks so". I'm looking for why you think the market thinks so.. You are asking me to answer without saying without saying “the market thinks so” but that is why. I think maybe the interesting question is, why does the market think so and that I can only speculate on. So this will be opinions. 1) Lightning is more secure than 0-conf and has way more transaction capacity and the transactions are much cheaper. This is to some extent a future promise because it is still in development but that is probably priced in. The project is going well and showing promise. 2) More decentralized. Smaller blocks which means that users can run a full node at home and maybe even their cell phone. That gives better privacy and better security. You can truly have a swiss bank in your pocket. 3) More development and fundamental research. 4) Momentum, the price is high because it is secure because of the hash power which can be high because the price is high, and again in a feedback loop. There are probably more reasons but that’s what I came up with off the bat and this post is already long enough. Please point out if I said something in error. If you believe it works otherwise we can talk about it and sort it out. Or point me towards something to read that states something that shows it works differently.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 20:01:53

If we strip out your opinions on BCH versus BTC it seems that you agree that it is important that there should be no confusion what you buy. If that is the case we are in agreement.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 18:27:11

> Despite the significant increase in usage, this is not reflected in price. Partly because ABC has added uncertainty and instability to BCH (and made it like Game of Thrones), and also because there is a lot of misinformation spread about it. This is so incredibly sad and I don’t know Amaury’s contributions to BCH but at this point no matter what it was he has set BCH back more. The BSV/BCH fork might not have happened and there has been a lot of drama since then with the current situation being incredibly damaging. There is no way Tether is going to mint more on BCH in todays climate. If BCH cares about the Tether business then I think that no matter what happens there either needs to be a very convincing and one-sided fork or Amaury has to go. BCH is not stable as long as he is in a position of power. Until then, I’m guessin, that Tether and any initiative like that just won’t happen. As for usage, I just saw this tweet: There are really only two chains with any kind of motivated usage. Motivated in the sense that someone is prepared to pay money for it, and that is BTC and ETH. > What use is there for Liquid if Ethereum has instant transactions for Proof of Stake, and has more infrastructure surrounding tokens and smart contracts, on top of being less centralized and federated? Liquid just can't compete with Ethereum because it's slower, more centralized, and does not have nearly as much infrastructure or liquidity. Liquid has tokens too, but you are right Ethereum has a far more mature infrastructure. Personally at this stage I think the main reason to use Liquid is that you don’t have to leave BTC. Of course you could wrap BTC on Ethereum but at this point I’d feel more comfortable using Liquid if I had to use either. The second point is regarding the federation. If you trust the federation then Liquid is safer than ETH but on the other hand if you don’t, then the BTC security through mining doesn’t matter at all. Personally I don’t know how much to trust or not trust this federation.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 18:14:12

> Well they are openly hostile towards Bitcoin Cash, and they evidently have a hatred towards it. When Bitcoin Cash was finally available on Bitfinex, they intentionally mislabelled it as "BCash" to strip away the Bitcoin name from it, and then changed the ticker from "BCC" or "BCH" to "BAB" to try and take away any possible association with Bitcoin. You might be right that exchanges don’t like the idea of a coin and will work against. Many exchanges aren’t even listing BSV. My guess is that the idea of there being a finite number of Bitcoins don’t work out if there is no limit on how many forks there are. If BCH were to organically grow though and some saw the writing on the wall then it would eventually break through that resistance and after it did the growth would likely be violent when at some point some actor switches side and start pushing instead of resisting. For instance, an exchange could buy a BCH development team for pennies on the dollar right now if they thought that Blockstream was a dead end. As for Liquid versus Ethereum, they are competing technologies. I think there is room for both. I’m a fan of both BTC and ETH. My only interest in Liquid is that it offloads the chain from some traffic. As such I welcome Liquid. I’d welcome aliens with crypto lasers if that helped too. > Tether is pretty much owned by Bitfinex, who is openly hostile towards BCH, and probably ETH too. But it can be used for either BTC or BCH right? Once a user has Tether he can buy either no matter what Bitfinex thinks of BTC.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 17:21:39

> When people think of Bitcoin they think of the original Bitcoin. Before it was hijacked and crippled. Most people don’t know the difference and most people that do prefer BTC. Bitcoin price and community activity are clearly pointing in that direction. If you have data that point in the other direction then present it. I can’t take you seriously until you present that data. And I have done my research. I don’t know everything but I know a lot. Is there anything i particular you want to talk about? Let’s talk about this, in what way did SegWit make Bitcoin unusable as a currency? Please use precise language, not large sweeping generalizations.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 17:09:21

That would be me. I’m one of those people. So no, “WE” don’t. The easiest is to say Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. If there is any risk of confusion I use BTC and BCH. It is the most respectful and clear way to get the meaning across. Note, saying bcash would be even easier but the BCH community doesn’t like that so I don’t use it. it is unproductive for discussions. I would appreciate if this sub would be as polite and refrain from saying Bitcoin core to refer to anything other than the implementation.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 16:55:50

The amount of needed context differs for different people. We are here in this sub so obviously the price context is enough for us. But what about a friend who has $100 to spend and goes to The less context needed the better.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 16:35:13

If you criteria is how close you are to the white paper then you can’t disregard a coin as an attack vector because they are closer to the white paper. In fact you should probably find something else to hang your hat on because the best argument you can make is that it is the exact right amount like the white paper. But nevertheless, even if all you say is true, when people say Bitcoin they mean BTC. You can’t fight that. That fight is over. When you do say that you confuse matters. Move on.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 16:04:00

[If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike]( Watch that. It’s one minute and it’s worth it. :) I don’t mean to be that snide but when i started to think of an answer I thought of that clip. My real answer is: there is largely a 1 to 1 relationship between the two but one is a currency and one is an implementation (as I think you know). When we are specifically talking about the currency then it is confusing to conflate it with the implmentation. It clearly isn’t a correct conflation but because of this almost 1 to 1 relation people don’t bother to pick that fight. The downside of when someone makes that conflation is that I lose respect for them. It is a very clear signal to me that they aren’t really interested in a respectful and productive discussion. For the same reason I won’t use the term bcash. If I’m discussing with someone I’m interested in sharing my thoughts with them and for the two of us inch towards a common understanding. Either I convince them of something or they convince me of something. Edit: I’ll add. What makes this a problem in particular is that they are using the name of an implementation when the context specifically expects the name of a currency. If it was used in the context of a specifying set of consensus rules, for instance, it would make more sense.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 15:43:07

Thank your for well reasoned discourse. > mostly because people are just more focused on Bitcoin Cash, and Egon has stopped posting for a while (which in some ways I think is a relief). There has been a whole lot less crypto checker lately, hasn’t it? And less anti-BTC posts. If BCH would eventually overtake BTC then the forward looking exchanges and investors would get ahead of that and make a killing. I don’t see a reason why it would benefit them to remain in a worldwide conspiracy if it is in their power to break that conspiracy and make a killing. What is unique about the BTC/Tether relationship that isn’t there for BCH or ETH also?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 15:26:00

So stupid people deserve to be tricked? If 10 years from now an elderly relative tells you that his retirement is all set because he bought 100 Bitcoin in 2020. Would you ask him which Bitcoin before he goes and dooks on his bosses desk?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 15:08:02

Ok, I looked at how it looks now and at a quick glance it looks good what I saw. But it’ll take some time for me to trust the intent of Roger and what’s in his sphere of influence. I’m warming up to this sub. It is less focus on how BCH is the real bitcoin than it used to be but it still pops up now and again and that makes me take 3 steps back every time. The next step for me to warm up to this sub is when it becomes more about how BCH rocks and less about how BTC sucks.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 14:56:37

If you send me $11000 I’ll send you a Bitcoin. Deal? Language matters.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 14:32:14

Yes they do. Example of deceptive behavior: Note, the name is not Bitcoin Core, it is Bitcoin. There is no crypto currency called Bitcoin Core just as there isn’t a crypto called Bitcoin ABC. At least not until November. And by listing Bitcoin Cash before Bitcoin Core which doesn’t even sound like money it is clearly an attempt to trick people. Also, by the very name of the web-site the default coin should be Bitcoin, not Bitcoin Cash and if they do want Bitcoin Cash to be the default rather than BTC they should be very clear about that. And if you for a minute disregard how much you wish that BCH was _the_ Bitcoin think about this without bias. Imagine that the shoe was on the other foot and BCH was _the_ Bitcoin and BTC was really Bitcoin core and owned the website and tried the same shenanigans. What would you think of that?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 14:18:49

Careful guys. No matter how much sense one of the sides make, probably the ASERT side, you are taking a risk. If the discrepancy becomes to large whales will step in and wreck you all. Compare with how whales make money off of wrecking those making long or short margin trading. And it only has to be at the moment that the call happens. Price can be around $27 and then at the right moment for one second it pumps up to $400 and then drops again. And now you are wrecked my friend. Even though you made the right bet except at that one second.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 13:53:31

That was interesting. I learned something. I had always felt that the Golden rule was as as always cooperate but here they say that the Golden rule was Copycat. I’ve been wrong about the golden rule all my life.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 13:36:02
/r/btc/comments/i6k9dy/a_bitcoin_maxi_feels_threatned_by_bitcoincom_for/g0wnwij/ has one problem. It is purposefully trying to confuse BTC and BCH. If they did the exact same thing as now but started to distinguish between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin then nobody would have a problem with it. But Bitcoin cash is Bitcoin you say? No it isn’t. Everyone that isn’t a Bitcoin Cash supporter thinks that BTC is Bitcoin. Even as a BCH supporter you must admit that if you see ‘Bitcoin” in the main stream press you assume it means BTC. You can say that Bitcoin Cash is better than Bitcoin. Or that Bitcoin Cash is the best coin in the Bitcoin family. I own Bitcoin Cash but this aspect of Bitcoin Cash propaganda is despicable to me.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 13:01:48

Shut up and kiss me you big brute!

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/sex on August 8, 2020 23:43:44

Be careful with this guys. You know how whales wreck leveraged traders by pushing the price up and down until they are liquidated? This could be the same situation. You’ll bet BCH ABC to be $22 and someone with capacity to push that price up, maybe a large miner or a whale would wreck you if you had made that bet. You might feel so confident that ASERT will win based on common sense. And that would be true without manipulation in the same way that whiles drive prices up and down violently to profit from those that are margin traders. If they are able to drive the price up to $300 then they’ll make a 15 times return and that might be more money than it takes to drive the price up. Or maybe they were going to do that anyway for some other reason and this just helps them finance what they are going to do anyway. Aaah, here is a better analogy. Imagine Tyson in his prime fighting some local brute. Betting shows Tyson winning at odds 100 to 1, but one guy knows that Tyson is going to take a dive. Imagine the profits he can make.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 23:40:45

Where is the money going? You can’t possibly be this blind so therefor I believe you are agitating this issue on purpose. What is your goal? What are you trying to do?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 23:19:40

No, BSV has less hash power than BCH. Both BCH and BSV are subject to switch mining so their hash power looks like two sine forms out of sync, with BSV being the smaller one, but because of this BSV sometimes has more hash power. Scroll down on that page and you can see this sine form.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 22:22:34

What kinds of pills are you eating? This is a terrible event. The only advantage is that this community could eventually become cooperative, but it is so dysfunctional that it has to happen this way.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 22:11:14

Thanks. Yes I’m aware but I guess I forgot to think of them as forks even though they are. I should have qualified and said “contentious forks”.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 21:57:25

Ok, thank you. I wasn’t aware of that. Was that a long time ago?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 21:44:28

Yeah I’ve thought of that. The safest way to sabotage a minority chain is to create chaos during the split. Not a 51% attack. Let’s say someone well funded wants to get rid of BCH then consider this scenario: 1) ABC is organically 28%. 100% - 72% = 28%. 2) BCHN is winning right? Now imagine that attacking hash power that doesn’t normally mine BCH adds 10 times more hash power to ABC for a week. Now ABC is the majority hash power. 3) ABC being the majority hash power becomes the logical choice for the main chain. 4) Now lets also assume that this hash power that is hostile to BCH will refrain from selling. 5) Now ABC is majority hash and supply is low because they aren’t selling and it looks as if they are the best choice of majority chain. 6) ABC retains the BCH ticker and the vendor software will go with the majority chain even if BCHN was their first choice. They have no alternative. 7) Now BCHN is the defeated minority power. 8) And now the final coup the grace. This hostile mining power pulls away. ABC did a hat trick and became the majority fork but ends up with the minority hash power. End result, BCH is divided and badly wounded.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 21:33:49

Could be. If a large BTC loyal miner wanted to attack a minority chain one of the best ways would be to hold the minority chain alive at around 50% for a while. That would hamper the community supported chain that organically should have won. Or maybe even for a short while prop up the non community chain, ABC, to a large majority so it seems to have won and it’ll get the ticker. And then slowly pull away all support. If this happens every time there is a contentious fork then the minority chains will split in two equal halves until they become irrelevant. If they aren’t completely blatant about about their goal being sabotage it would probably be legal and they’d get away with it.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 16:04:58

51% attacks don’t happen in the sha256 world. Probably because it is illegal and would be traceable. If that was a thing BTC would already have 51% attacked BCH and BSV.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 13:55:55

I think I do. It is a sarcastic statement to point out how a fork is a problem for tokens. And that will push Tether away. If forking is going to be a threat, then you can forget Tether. But I’m open to that I have missed something, so please explain.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 13:24:09

Aah, fun idea. RemindMe! 5 years

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 12:34:35

Aaah, there’s that bravado.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 12:31:30

Aaah, thank you. So then those who are repeating this is either ignorant or willfully deceitful in order to discredit ETH.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/ethereum on August 8, 2020 12:27:09

You are right. It isn’t a trivial problem. But it seems as if it is working so far at this scale. And the teams are well funded and they are working relentlessly to make it better. Even if it is impossible to do per the current spec it becomes trivial with some concessions that might give up a little privacy that is currently above and beyond on-chain transactions today. So, how will it work in five years? I can’t ensure that it’ll be great. But on the other hand people that state that it won’t work is also making an unknowable leap. So this unshakable belief that LN will be and even already is a failure is just bravado. I hate how good technical discussions get ruined by people banging the drum for the technology they favor, which typically is the technology on which they hold coin.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 12:22:32

I guess sometimes people with crazy opinions are employees with great integrity towards their employer and their bat shit ideas.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 12:07:44

What are you saying he is backing down from? The 8%? His position as lead developer?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 11:57:18

I believe that they are locked for 6 or 12 months or some such thing.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/Bitcoin on August 8, 2020 11:44:40

Ok, sure. But I still don’t know anything about it. Is there are disagreement in the cap between two clients or something?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/ethereum on August 8, 2020 01:21:17

What is this? This is the second time someone alluded to the existing supply.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/ethereum on August 7, 2020 22:42:05

Like any cabinet member under Trump. I understand. Edit: More seriously, yes. But maybe they are fed up working for chicken scratch. I mean, I think that is a stretch but who knows.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 22:13:33

Who was that guy that gave a great testimony in front of congress or the senate. I think he was the guy that used the word HODL and said his daughter or someone had explained that it meant Hold On for Dear Life, which was wrong but fitting. And then for a short while we called him crypto dad or something. Anyone remember what I’m talking about?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/ethtrader on August 7, 2020 21:56:17

Aaah, ok. I get it. How poetic.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/bsv on August 7, 2020 21:43:42

Hmm... That could be abused. It is much quicker to fund an account in dollars than it is to get ETC onto the book. Someone that wanted to could manipulate the price now. Let’s say that they are well motivated then they can quickly buy up all ETC and eventually it would be very cheap to drive up the price. Because there aren’t any ETC left to sell. Imagine an actor that stepped in, spent $50k to drive the price up by 5% per day for these two weeks. Other buyers will start buying and once the ETC becomes available the sellers have changed their mind. The coin is rocketing, so why should they sell so the coin has momentum. The clever buyer can now start selling, trying to time it such that he can sell it all before it peaks. This is in fact what I think the whales do when they manipulate the market. Any thoughts on this? And I think they do it both up and down, creating a chain reaction.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/ethfinance on August 7, 2020 21:41:03

You are using terms I don’t understand so you are probably right.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 21:24:44

So why did CSW make that mistake with the BSV fork? That always struck me as being extraordinarily stupid. So stupid that I’m thinking I must be wrong.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 21:07:35

I just glanced at the article really fast. Like barely even speed reding it. I didn’t know Bernie Sanders said that. Wow, what a guy.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/Bitcoin on August 7, 2020 20:47:28

Not as much as 16 year old Greta Thunberg. That’s for sure. How about you?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/Bitcoin on August 7, 2020 20:44:48

Things are especially depressing if they are reality.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 20:41:32

Maybe you can explain. Why isn’t the best strategy to keep the ticker to not do the fork at the same time as ABC but instead keep the current chain alive. That would make ABC the fork. Some weeks later when the contentious fork is over, the BCH community can fork and add the new DAA and nobody would compete for the ticker. Why is this not the best strategy? I hear all the time that BTC “won” because they didn’t fork so they got the ticker by default.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 20:13:59

> With the number of signatories countering ABC’s stupid move, I highly doubt any exchange would ever award ABC the ticker and if they do, they’d be committing financial suicide. The BCH trading is a very small part of an exchanges economy. I agree that they would be stupid to award BCH to ABC. But money wise it isn’t a big deal.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 19:36:03

I think those that remain might be without a job soon. So I don’t think they are fine. Maybe they will continue to have a job, but this conflict and its risks must be taxing for them.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 19:26:16

I agree that it has a long way to go, but it is moving towards that future and eventually it might get there. This is the window that I’m referring to that BCH has. Isn’t pre-consensus a kind of trusted solution as well. You have to trust the miners but pre-consensus is not guaranteed by the mining mechanism as far as I can understand. This might be an OK risk for small transactions but I think that we need to remember this when we are comparing solutions. If my understanding on this is correct, of course. For opening channels, I did a back of the napkin calculation before. With MAST and channel factories which compresses channel openings by 96%, we can open 2.8 million channels per day. Of course, that won’t be the case, but given that opening a channel really only needs 10 bytes per channel they’d certainly be able to pay competitive prices. If a normal transaction is 250 bytes and costs $5 then at these prices opening a Lightning channel would cost 20 cents. Depending on how much money you are willing to lock up, the average transaction size you are making then you could do some number of transactions, at the price of an on chain transaction. And if you also receive payments then there is no limit to the transactions you can make if you balance your funds well.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 19:24:50

“I talked to person X and offered him a job. He said he’d think about it.” Amaury goes “X, can you come into my office?”. Imaginary conversation, but you get the idea of what I meant.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 19:09:44

I can make a fork right now but those tokens don’t mean anything. Consensus is the thing that determines which chain is the master chain with regards to which tokens are valid. AFIAK. If the hash power is massively on one side for a long time then there is no issue. If not, it gets tricky. Best to avoid those situations.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 18:57:46

Ok, but whatever the theoretical block size is, the block size could be doubled.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 18:29:01

You are factually incorrect. Phoenix is a non custodial LN wallet. There are custodial solutions now because they are simpler to make. In 5 years they will be replaced with non custodial wallets. But that’s in the future you say. That is the whole point of my post. BCH has a window of opportunity right now, but LN is prodding along. Maybe strike or strike like solutions will remain as custodial solutions because it is handy that you can use money from your bank account.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 18:13:49

> BTC can increase block size, but block weight is now 4x. A doubling of block size means segwit blocks can be up to 8MB and only perform as many transactions as would have fit in a 3.6MB sized legacy block. Please explain. I don’t believe SegWit is any less efficient than legacy blocks. And the 4.1 may be a theoretical limit. I’ve never heard of it. I think 2.1 is the max size. Also, a hardfork could replace SegWit. It is the way it is because hard forks were contentious at the time and would have caused a split. if we find ourselves with a more aligned view then this can be fixed.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 18:09:44

Ok, fair comment. I’d maybe counter that if L2 works then the requirements on the base layer becomes different because a large amount of the transactions can be offloaded. Also, witch channel factories it becomes very cheap to open channels. I believe currently opening a channel is 90% compressed and after MAST it’ll be 96% compressed, meaning 25 channels for the cost of one. As for block size, I believe that the argument regarding block size for BTC has always been to try to scale in other ways than changing the block size. I’ve never seen anywhere that BTC can’t up their block size.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 17:54:51

And there is the nail in the coffin. Amaury, good riddance. I hope that other ABC developers can land on their feet. Why? Imagine that you buy an apartment building that is tokenized on Ethereum and then the chain splits. Now you have two tokens but only one building. Only one of them can represent the ownership of the building. One chain has to die. This is the side effect of tokens. Token holders, you should make sure that trade tokens a bit such that the two chains quickly diverges. They can be symbolic trades but as long as the tokens are all unchanged the chains can be substituted for the other. Make sure that swapping the chains causes economic damage.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 17:33:20

That doesn’t make it OK for you to be petty against other people. Don’t forget that there is human being on the other side of the keyboard. Write as if you were talking in the same room. Don’t stoke conflict.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/bsv on August 7, 2020 15:16:51

Have some pride. Treat people with respect.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/bsv on August 7, 2020 12:18:22

It appears that Amaury is purposefully sabotaging himself. This IFP and its announcement is so brazenly bad that I struggle to understand these actions. For instance, in the lunacy of his announcement of the 8% siphoning, the wording about where this money goes is very unclear. Why is it unclear? It is either because the answer is worse than the uncertainty of the speculation. If not Amaury is taking on an unnecessary controversy. So, this is either worse than we think of Amaury is self sabotaging.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 12:15:38

Would you please stop it with the derogatory nick names.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/bsv on August 7, 2020 11:57:49

I think the question on everyones mind is, why can’t miners signal this in their blocks? By doing that this would no longer be a debate. The most logical answer is that the result would be underwhelming. I’m guessing that the reason it is underwhelming is because those that value their corporate privacy coincide with the larger and thereby more sophisticate miners such that the actual block signaling. So by your knowledge, this might be a significant amount of hash power, but the power that you can share is only a small part of that. Can you clarify?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 11:51:27

Yeah, you are surely a troll out to hurt BSV. But don’t worry, I think BSV is a fly infested bucket of dead carp. Still, you are despicable.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/bitcoincashSV on August 7, 2020 10:24:54

There’s a lot of technologies like this one that goes on to say that it scales to 2k transactions on main net. My question is regarding how they count that. Are they assuming that they are using the entirety of the chain to achieve this? Or is it additive? Meaning that this and all the other technologies can all do 2k tps at the same time?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/ethfinance on August 7, 2020 00:41:08

I’m reading about these absolutely magical technologies. I’m an Ethereum enthusiast of a few years with a master of science in computer science and I barely scratch the surface of what can be done. There is no way that big money has fully grasped how amazing this technology is.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/ethereum on August 6, 2020 23:33:18

It just finished running somewhere above 10 minutes.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/ethstaker on August 6, 2020 20:57:37

Great info. Thank you.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 16:14:46

Haha... Thanks. :) BSV wouldn’t even have had to release anything unless they also had a poison pill, but if they did that is so far away from their philosophy that it would be weird.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 15:00:05

Let me rephrase. Forget about the community version for a minute. What if miners and exchanged were forced to choose between the current chain with its current consensus rules? Or upgrading to ABC’s new lunacy. What if I release BCHN0tMyRealAcct chain tomorrow where only odd blocks have a reward or some such lunacy. I would be ignored by everyone. The community doesn’t have to accept new consensus rules. I argue that a node that keeps the current consensus rules has a better chance of keeping the BCH ticker because BCHABC _is_ the fork, technically speaking. So it is a matter of continue as usual. A new node, such as the community favorite, with new consensus rules is _also_ a fork. It would be better to do that at some other point to the BCH chain when there is no contention and thereby they get the ticker and miners by default. I’m not getting this. What if CSW had just kept the pre-CTOR consensus rules? Would he have gotten the BCH ticker then? And once he owned the ticker he could have made uncontentious forks to his hearts delight. I’m simplifying when I say “owning the ticker”. I mean the chain that has been deemed the one true BCH by miners, exchanges and community.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 14:34:55

I’m saying, delay the ASERT fork for a few months. That makes if more likely that ABC will have to pick a new ticker. After a few months ASERT can be an uncontentious fork. I understand that this is no guarantee to keep the BCH ticker, but I think it improves the chances for ASERT to get the ticker.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 14:09:56

Try strike (@ln_strike). It is an easy onramp. It is non-custodial but you link it to your bank account so the entire system isn’t non-custodial (because it includes your bank account).

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/Bitcoin on August 6, 2020 12:03:36

Are you sure it wasn’t milli-sats?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/Bitcoin on August 6, 2020 12:00:25

The fact that it is unspecified seems to be to incite uncertainty to weaken the resolve of the response. It could have stated the specific address. Or it could have said a miner configurable address. Or it could have said a miner configurable address from a white list. Now clarifying that is on purpose.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 09:33:32

No, I don’t think so. I think I’m explaining it poorly. I’m saying, the best way to reject a hostile fork is to continue the old chain, not to do a competing fork, at the same time. The ticker BCH belongs to the current chain. After a fork it needs to either go to the new chain or stay with the old chain. If the old chain stays, won’t the natural thing be for that chain to retain the BCH ticker? At least more so than a competing fork that forks at the same time. What is wrong with that?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 09:21:26

I have read the white paper. Why can’t people continue mining the old chain?

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 08:08:52

Np, talking and vetting ideas is good. I wish the Grasberg people tried it.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 5, 2020 20:45:43

What am I missing? asert blocks comes more often by about 14%

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 5, 2020 20:22:46

Don’t forget that asert miners get a block every 10 minutes but the Grasberg miners get a block every 11:25 minutes. So that means that the ABC fork must have a 14% higher price for equal reward over time.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 5, 2020 20:11:04

Sure, it isn’t looking great in that case. But things could happen.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 5, 2020 19:44:38

Yes, but not until the difficulty adjusts and that is going to be a process over a week. It’ll go from safe but long block times to unsafe and normal block times. My point is that there is some time before it moves to its least safe, during which miners can join.

Commented by /u/N0tMyRealAcct in /r/btc on August 5, 2020 19:23:43