PSA: potential btc halt

>>2992775
I'm going 50/50.
At 1/10th the price its seems like a good bet.

This doesn't sound very net neutral, I demand government intervention!

>>2992775
Why is it still crashing then...

>>2992865
Banking intervention?

>>2992865
what's crashing?

in 14 hours segwit gets achieved. this will make the chinks stop mining the way they are. in 1 month the difficult will drop off 50 percent. chinck will not be able to cheat anymore. also no more empty blocks mined

sounds like a good time for ltc to go up no trol
i'd reccomend buying into ltc boys

File: IMG_0192.jpg (50KB, 696x392px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 696x392px

>>2992775

>>2992908
what do you mean make the chinks stop mining the way they are?

>>2992918
nah

>>2992775
Holy shit how many times are you going to post the exact same thing you fucking faggot?
Nobody in their right mind would abandon the original chain(and greatly harm themselves in the process) just because "more profitable mining lmao" when it's worth 10x and is not a chink FUD coin.
There are infinitely "more profitable" mining coins, they're called PoS. They could've abandoned BTC's PoW years ago if mining efficiency was the issue...

>>2992894
BCC chink faggot coin

>>2992926
yes?
with lightening swap coming in the next who fucking cares what the miners do, the only way to move btc will be through ltc unless you like waiting for 10 years

File: IMG_0191.jpg (28KB, 400x300px)

28KB, 400x300px

>>2992908
+ core said no 2x

>>2992925
they can mine a block 40 percent faster and 40 percent less power cost. they also mine empty blocks to making the back log of people waiting increase. hints why they are forcing the block increase. do you live under a rock? segwit will stop all of this

>chink miners ditch bitcoin
>core finally crushes the PoW bias
>BCC crashes again
>all those asics wasted

>>2992908
>>2992925
yes plox eplan

>>2992930
that's false, I know miners personally who are going to switch once the profitability changes.
There's a lot of miners who prefer big blocks, but they haven't switched yet, cause they are not rich enough or stupid enough, to mine at a loss of tens of thousands of dollars a day just to prove a point. That's why so far pretty much only the hong kong miner has been mining it.
Once the profitability changes, those miners will switch over.
Bitcoin unlimited had at least 40% miner support, remember? But most of those miners are still not gonna mine at a loss, they'd only switch over if its profitable.

>>2993008
>>2993008
It's profitable by just keeping the network alive. Less than a month ago BTC was worth $1800.
It might not be profitable on a daily basis, but long term it sure as hell is. Those miners have a shitton of BTC anyway.
Devaluing their own fortune makes no sense. Besides, nobody really cares about BCC.

>miners who prefer big blocks, but they haven't switched yet
>cause they are not rich enough
Everyone says big blocks are only attractive to rich chink miners? So how could the "poor" miners survive?
And that it would make Bitcoin even more centralized than it already is?

>>2993151
>Those miners have a shitton of BTC anyway.
yea but they have just as much BCC... much easier to make 10x gains on a coin worth a couple hundred $ than on one worth 3500.
Plus, when it's not profitable on a daily basis, then they can just buy instead of mining, and they would make the same return, with less cost, so that's not really the point.

>Everyone says big blocks are only attractive to rich chink miners? So how could the "poor" miners survive?
that's false though, the miners i know are medium to small size, and they still prefer big blocks. The rethoric that only big miners want big blocks is just Core propaganda. Storage space is inexpensive as fuck, plus, almost no one solo mines, people mine in pools, so they don't even need to download the blockchain on each miner.

>>2993151
>Those miners have a shitton of BTC anyway

Why did the coin dip to 1900 ???

>>2993204
good point...

>>2993204
Right, transaction delays were a major cause behind the last major dip. Bitcoin needed to change one way or the other, the hardfork was the end result of the related community contention.

This has always been the position for BCH. The second miners start fleeing from BTC is the second it all comes tumbling down very rapidly.

The network is already slow enough as is, losing miners will just exacerbate that and cause a runaway train effect. BCH price will rise and more miners will flee which will cause slower transactions which will lower BTC price which will cause more miners to flee, so on and so forth. Meanwhile BCH will chug along with 8 times the transactions per second.

>>2992775
If a bunch of people mine BCC, won't the difficulty go back up? And if enough people stop mining BTC, won't the difficulty of BTC adjust?

>>2993365
Bitcoin difficulty only adjusts every 2016 blocks, (about 14 days). This is why this is a strategic moment for the bcc fork.
In 13 hours, btc difficulty will be adjusted based on how much it was mined in the past 2016 blocks (it should go up by about 8%).
Now, the problem is, if miners leave btc, blocks will be slower, so even the difficulty adjustment will be slower. It's all a vicious cycle. If 50% of miners switch, blocks will take 20 minutes on average, and the next difficulty adjustment will be in a month. Some say that this situation would keep worsening, as people see the very slow transactions and higher fees, btc price goes down will more people buy into bch which would be faster and have lower fees instead.
In an extreme case, let's say 95% of miners switch to mining bcc cause it's more profitable, it would take almost a year to get to the next btc difficulty adjustment. This would mean that those miners would hypothetically have to mine at a loss for a year.

The asymmetry here is that BCC has a faster difficulty adjustment mechanism (which has already kicked in a few times), that lowers the difficulty if blocks are mined very slowly. Btc doesn't have this, so if a lot of miners switch over, the difficulty will still stay high.
Core may implement a hard fork to fix this, but it would deifnitely be a dire situation.

On a theoretical level, it is possible that the btc chain could come to a complete halt (while that's not possible with bcc cause the difficulty would go down). But that's an extreme of course

>>2993443
The reality is, transaction fees will increase to compensate which will keep some miners in the market long enough for most people to dump and flee. So the chain won't grind to a complete halt until everyone who cares gets out of it, though it will certainly collapse in value until it's worth so little miners don't bother, transaction fees be damned.

>>2992922
Yep, BTC will be the asteroid that kills off the dinosaur traders.

>>2993514
*BCC

>>2992925
>>2992908
>>2992968
Empty blocks are a meme and do nothing to decrease power usage and in fact increase it and mine it only marginally faster. Putting more transactions in a block does not increase how much power it takes to compute it in any significant way, that is an asinine assumption. RAM uses power whether there is data in it or not and all that is blown away by the sheer power usage of the asic anyway, which has no bearing on the number of transactions in the block its hashing.

There's an amount of time in between someone finding a block on the network and other miners downloading and validating that block. That time is normally downtime for a miner. Instead, they optimize that time by mining a block with a transaction they know will take place, the block reward. Then as it goes on, new transactions finally begin to come in and the miner takes those in and adds it to the block.

Even today empty blocks are few and far between because mining and blockchain optimizations has decreased that downtime/time without transactions to a negligible amount. Just last December people were raving about the lack of empty blocks on the chain because the algorithms have improved so much.

The empty blocks meme is simply more BlockStream propaganda to push SegWit.

>>2993443
Is there a possibility that so much mining power moves over to BCH that it causes the difficulty to skyrocket before the market has a chance to follow? In this case, BCC would become immediately unprofitable again, and the mining power would quickly move back to BTC before BCC has a chance to rise. This would lead to an unstable equilibrium where BCC blocks will alternate between phases of rapid mining and phases of deadlock. A coin with such an unstable block chain would quickly become undesirable in the market.and the miners who are mining at a loss during the "deadlock" phases would abandon it.

>>2993703
Can you shill any harder?

>>2994140
Can you provide any actual source for your claims or are you just gonna REEEE about muh China miners?

>>2994101
Miners will probably prevent this from happening but if... The legacy chain will sustain much more damage (and miners probably dont want to chrash this chain before the new chain is the main chain)

Bitcoin Cash had an upgrade to prevent sustained periods of unproffitability due to variation is haspower allocation.

File: 0HheNlT.jpg (52KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 800x599px

>>2992775
it's gonna be wild op.

https://globalhalo.com/2017/08/08/the-flippening-a-case-for-the-viability-of-bitcoin-cash/

This is a really good thread. I am surprised.

>>2994203
A long read but its great ( at least in my echo chaimber)

For the rest: it doesn't hurt to think a bit out of the box and explore some different perspectives.

Isn't supposed to dump when normiebase releases their BCC for trading?
Why should I buy now?

>>2994287
It was supposed to dump several times before

Tfw i took profits at 2650euro, do i go back in now bois? I know im stupid

>>2994294
Well it did, didn't it?

File: 1426565050471.jpg (42KB, 399x388px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 399x388px

>Roger is astroturfing /biz/ this fucking hard

You r/btc niggers are wasting your time, this place is full of poor NEETs. All you are doing is making the misfits here lose all their money on this shitty pump and dump,
Do not say I did not warn you anons.

>>2994304
no anon! btc drop in price soon!
quick decision make yuo .
serr one hundreds thousands!

>>2994309
Well the money has to come from somewhere anon :(

File: LN6HayFM_400x400.png (231KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 400x400px

Hey guys, forget about me?

..p..please don't leave me
please respond

>>2994381
leave my NEET bros alone you disgusting pajeets:
http://fortune.com/2017/08/07/bitcoin-cash-bch-hard-fork-blockchain-usd-coinbase/

>>2992775
>>2992941
>>2993008


You are aware that it's going to be about the same difficulty no matter what happens and that it doesn't matter right?

File: you have to go back.jpg (149KB, 800x820px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 800x820px

>>2992775

The price is not dependent on the fucking mining profitably of a coin. If it was, BCH would be worth 0.

>>2992775
Also if too many miners switch and the price stays the same it would increase the difficulty and would not be profitable again.
MY GOD, WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? YOU REALLY HAVE TO GO BACK!

>>2994398
charlie lee is Bro-tier and any twats who poast FUD against him/LTC fails to recognize that LTC transfers go through fucking fast compared to BTC.

Also, LTC has not had a major red day since hitting $36-$38 range while everything else has been a crazy rollercoaster ride the past 30 days.

LTC is stable as hell and that's valuable for people who don't want to deal with trading in and out of various positions.

>>2994517
>>2994559
Don't try to argue with those retards, just let them lose money. It's thank to them if smart people can make a profit after all.

>>2994574
>>2994559
herro mister
bitcoin die soon
buy bitcoin cash fast

File: apple-live-0254-1382462154.jpg (54KB, 618x413px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 618x413px

>it's about scaling """debate""" episode

Kys you dumb shills, nobody is going to convince anybody else on an indian street shitting forum