• Breaking News

    Sunday, August 12, 2018

    Home Unlabelled BTC Bitcoin Cash already has 179 different tokens built on top of it!

    BTC Bitcoin Cash already has 179 different tokens built on top of it!

    August 12, 2018

    BTC Bitcoin Cash already has 179 different tokens built on top of it!

    Bitcoin Cash already has 179 different tokens built on top of it!

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 06:47 PM PDT

    Bullish! BITMAIN alnost all in BCH, that is 1.02 million with continuous increasing

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 06:46 PM PDT

    Bitcoin’s Return to Innovation: Changing the World Through Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 11:53 PM PDT

    Vitalik Buterin Proposes a Consensus Algorithm That Requires Only 1% to Be Honest

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 03:24 PM PDT

    r/https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/08/10/vitalik-buterin-proposes-consensus-algorithm-requires-1-honest

    Yes, I know it sounds off topic for here but

    Interesting development because....

    "That sounds like fraud proofs, a mythical creature that some Bitcoin Core devs say don't exist. Nakamoto's paper, however, mentions such fraud proofs to explain why certain data needs not be kept or why light nodes can be very safe."

    submitted by /u/fookingroovin
    [link] [comments]

    jratcliff63367 years ago before BCH existed: "If you don't like how bitcoin works then create an alt-coin. If they want to preserve their value, then they can premine the alt with the UTXO set from the current bitcoin network. Nothing is stopping them." Yet now he constantly says BCH is a scam.

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 06:24 PM PDT

    some from r/Bitcoin hating on BCH charity because....identity politics.

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 09:32 PM PDT

    Bitmain betting big on Bitcoin Cash! Owns over 10% of total supply! #bullish

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 06:45 PM PDT

    (Mathematically provable) Lightning Network needs 124 years to open channels on BTC.

    Posted: 12 Aug 2018 01:27 AM PDT

    (Mathematically provable) Lightning Network needs 124 years to open channels on Bitcoin.

    This post is a clone of the same post in r/Bitcoin.
    The other one might get censored but this one should be alright.

    ————-

    1 MB blocks are not enough for the Lightning Network.

    125 years are needed just to open the channels.

    ————-

    The first time I wrote this post, I made a pretty big calculation mistake.
    Big thanks to u/pwuille who noticed it and explained it to me.
    I deleted my previous post by myself, because the error was simply too big.
    Now I have calculated the duration properly and... it is still an enormous number.
    The post is once again here.

    ————-

    The size of a transaction opening a Lightning channel is :

    weight = 500 + 172 * num-outputs + 224

    The smallest possible size is ~900 B.

    A single 1MB block can handle ~1165 of these transactions.

    In a single day, the channels that can be opened are:

    TX-Per-Day = 1165 * 6 * 24
    TX-Per-Day = 167760

    167760 looks like a big number, but…

    At the moment there are 7.6 BLN people in the world. How many days are needed for each one of them to open a channel?

    people / channels-per-day
    7600000000 / 167760

    The needed days are

    45302 days

    Converted to years:
    124 years are needed for every person on earth to open 1 lightning channel once.

    124 YEARS
    More than 1 century !!

    And that is only if Bitcoin is Not used for Anything else other than opening channels. Only Openings !
    For these 124 years, closing channels, sending bitcoin or doing anything else whatsoever is halted.

    What if people want to close these channels too?
    What if people want to add more BTC to their Lightning Nodes?

    124 years for opening.
    124 years for putting more BTC on the Lightning Nodes.
    124 years for closing.

    ///////

    Even if you say that Bitcoin is a luxury good and only the richest 1% of the world should use it, people would still need over 1 year to open their channels.
    Why would rich people of the west choose to wait 1 year, when there are alts that can be used right now?

    ///////

    Second layer solutions only work if what they are based on works too.
    Lightning Network can not fix Bitcoin Scaling, if Bitcoin can't even scale enough for lightning.

    ///////

    Is this the future of money?
    Is this what you call revolution?

    submitted by /u/siko1991
    [link] [comments]

    Have friends that still think Lightning on BTC is the future? Cheap, instant payments are already possible with Bitcoin Cash.

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 04:08 PM PDT

    People discovered this random coreon blocked BCH supporters who never interacted with him. Reason? Guys is lying and doesn't want replies, check this out.

    Posted: 12 Aug 2018 12:00 AM PDT

    Market Analysis, Historical Cryptocurrency Price Cycles. When will the next bull run be? What will the price of BCH be? I think it will be higher than BTC, growth-percentage-wise. (Video Part 2 of 2)

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 08:31 PM PDT

    Double standards: we mustn't call it Bitcoin Cash but we have no issue with Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Clashic and now Bitcoin Core (which would be the most confusing name to new people).

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 11:40 PM PDT

    Introducing the BCH Roller Coaster Guy!

    Posted: 12 Aug 2018 12:52 AM PDT

    I thought the world needed one, so I made (an incomplete) one in 30 minutes.

    Here it is: https://bchcoasterguy.github.io/

    TODO:

    1. Bitstamp API doesn't seem to work
    2. Find a current fee API and average TX fee API
    3. Find an unconfirmed transactions API
    4. Turn all the orange Bitcoin logos into green BCH logos (cue the flame war)
    5. Change the angles; it used to be for the Blockstream Token and if BTC went up 1%, it would be 60 USD, but if BCH went up 1%, it would be 6 USD, so need to fix that

    Any other advice is welcome as well.

    Donations are greatly appreciated:

    13N3ZgeptERmiyQSPupQcZjt63zLk8dyJN for Blockstream Token (BTC)

    qqv7kgrdu9rnd0cacemd2lfkxtzsaat62s83jnw3t9 for Bitcoin Cash

    I hope it's useful.

    submitted by /u/antimatter5
    [link] [comments]

    OP codes, false choices.

    Posted: 12 Aug 2018 01:32 AM PDT

    https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/96fxvy/op_checkdatasig_is_copying_blockstream_and_is/

    This recent post is frusterating because it is presenting a black/white choice between two different OP_CODES that perform two different functions entirely. What is up with this? To compare these as mutually exclusive is simply wrong.

    OP_CHECKDATASIG

    signature, message hash, pubkey

    OP_CHECKDATASIG verifies the message hash (not pre-image) with the raw pubkey. OP_CHECKDATASIG would be used when the message should be hidden from the blockchain and be passed between a service and the user.

    OP_DATASIGVERIFY

    signature, message, pubkey hash

    OP_DATASIGVERIFY verifies the raw message with the pubkey address. These functions would be used for entirely different purposes. OP_DATASIGVERIFY would be used when the message contents are not sensitive, but the pubkey is desired to be hidden.

    Formatting edited

    submitted by /u/-sagas
    [link] [comments]

    Samsung Board of Directors Create Project Skynet to Bring Global Adoption to BCH

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 07:41 PM PDT

    CoinGeek is World’s Largest Bitcoin Cash Hash Power Miner at 22.4%

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 02:41 PM PDT

    Which Would Halve First? BCH or BTC? And What Would Possibly Happen?

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 10:00 PM PDT

    Due to EDA when BCH come out, block time dropped and thousands of blocks were mined at a faster pace, which makes BCH chain 6665 blocks ahead of the Bitcoin (BTC) chain now as I just checked from https://cash.coin.dance/blocks

    However, BTC hash rates still keep going up, which will slightly make average block time a bit less than 10 minutes (usually around 8~9).

    When the halving happens, it is expected that miner would switch to the more profitable chain, leaving the other one dried of hashrates and easier to attack.

    Currently from https://btc.com/ the expected halving time is 2020-04-13.

    Which do you think would halve first? What would the result be for BCH and BTC if either halves first?

    submitted by /u/imcoddy
    [link] [comments]

    Roger Ver's latest Weekly show - Tokens Have Arrived on Bitcoin Cash! ��Alex Jones Censored & Gun Control Discussed �� ��

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 01:47 PM PDT

    Just another reminder that /r/Bitcoin is completely censored and thus filled with lies.

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 06:36 AM PDT

    If it wasn't completely censored they would make their mod logs open to the public. Instead they have to keep them secret because the public would be shocked if they knew about the manipulation going on there.

    submitted by /u/MemoryDealers
    [link] [comments]

    Bitmain IPO could be good for BCH

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 11:02 AM PDT

    Bitmain IPO could be good for BCH

    Was reading this Coindesk article and saw the clip below about their plans for BCH.

    https://i.redd.it/wlvugg477if11.png

    I wonder as they talk to investors for their reasons for supporting BCH, if BCH starts to become more interesting to more people.

    submitted by /u/ericreid9
    [link] [comments]

    OP_CHECKDATASIG is copying Blockstream, and is inferior to OP_DATASIGVERIFY

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 04:38 AM PDT

    Hi all,

    Bitcoin-ABC's implementation of Bitcoin Cash is set to hard fork on November 18th, activating a bunch of features aimed at enhencing the usability of the currency.

    One of the proposed improvements is OP_CHECKDATASIG, which can be used to run a verify operation on a (signature, message hash, pubkey) triplet. By itself, this is an extremely useful opcode to have. It allows one to embed an arbitrary message to the transaction, and these messages can then be used in applications external to the chain, or as an way to allow delegated signatures on top of the script itself that is being verified. Pretty cool.

    OP_CHECKDATASIG is also exceptional for a different reason. In particular, it is an almost exact line-by-line copy of a little-known, yet fairly mature opcode called OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK, implemented here :
    https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements/commit/c35693257ca59b80659cfc4a965311f028c2d751#diff-be2905e2f5218ecdbe4e55637dac75f3R1328

    For those who haven't been following, Elements is a project created by Blockstream, and elements alpha is a sidechain where experimental features can be added and tested. This commit from October 2016 shows (among other things) the addition of OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK to the elements alpha chain. Compared to the recent addition of OP_CHECKDATASIG to the bitcoin-abc client, the similarity is obvious :
    https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/source/bitcoin-abc/change/master/src/script/interpreter.cpp;9ba4bfca513d6386ee3d313b15bdd4584da7633d

    On the other hand, consider Bitcoin Unlimited's OP_DATASIGVERIFY :
    https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/commit/1bf53307cab5d96076721ef5a238a63b03aca07d#diff-be2905e2f5218ecdbe4e55637dac75f3R970

    This looks more like an independent development. It allows the same functionality as OP_CHECKDATASIG, but it does so in a way which is more transparent and also accessible for normal users.
    What I mean by that is, recall the verification parameters passed to OP_CHECKDATASIG, these were (signature, message hash, pubkey). For OP_DATASIGVERIFY, the parameters are slightly different: (signature, message, pubkey hash).
    The difference is subtle, but important. OP_DATASIGVERIFY follows the same design pattern as the widely known signmessage and verifymessage features that are implemented by various wallets (and in use by services like https://vote.bitcoin.com/ ). That is, a raw message is signed for and published by the user to the world, and independent verifiers are able to match the published signature and message to a specific pubkey hash - the data that makes up the user's on-chain address.
    If you've ever used this message signing and verifying feature of your wallet, you probably know how useful it can be.
    In contrast, OP_CHECKDATASIG verifies a message hash, not a plaintext message, against a pubkey, not a public address. This means that for a verifymessage-like operation, the script used in the transaction would become quite cumbersome:

    <signature> <plaintext_message> OP_HASH256[1] <pubkey> OP_DUP OP_TOALTSTACK[2] OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY[3] OP_FROMALTSTACK OP_HASH160[4] <pubkey_hash> OP_EQUALVERIFY

    1. We want to publish a plaintext message, but we have to "feed" its hash to OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY, so we have to use an OP_HASH256
    2. The pubkey we provide for verification will be "used up" by OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY, so we must both duplicate it and keep the copy in altstack
    3. OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY behaves exactly like OP_CHECKDATASIG, except that it fails the entire script immediately if the signature fails to verify
    4. We have the pubkey, but we still have to check that its hash matches the address, so we use OP_HASH160 and test for equality. Note that this means that we have to publis both public key /and/ its hash in the same transaction. Almost too wasteful.

    Using OP_DATASIGVERIFY instead, the script is simply:

    <plaintext_message> <signature> <pubkey_hash> OP_DATASIGVERIFY

    Hashing of the plaintext message is done internally by the OP_DATASIGVERIFY operation, and the same is also true for the hashing of the resulting public key against the provided pubkey hash (the data that makes up the address).
    A second not-so-obvious difference is the actual content of <plaintext_message> in the two scripts.
    For the OP_DATASIGVERIFY script, this message is actually parsed and verified using the exact same format as verifymessage in the wallet. This means that services like blockchain explorers can then simply decode the data in such a transaction and present it to users in a manner that enables them to run local verification of the message using their own wallet, simply by copy+pasting the information!
    Using OP_CHECKDATASIG instead, the <plaintext_message> does not follow the same semantics and format as the one in verifymessage, and no wallet exists today which support such a verifying operation in the UI. It is also hard to expect something like verifydatasigmessage to be implemented on absolutely all wallets.

    I think it benefits of OP_DATASIGVERIFY when measured against OP_CHECKDATASIG are obvious, and am curious to hear your opinions.

    submitted by /u/moosapor
    [link] [comments]

    What will bring back enthusiasm to BCH price action in the short run?

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 03:05 PM PDT

    Stress Test results and hype at the beginning of September?

    This all feels like manipulation currently and 0.09 or less feels grossly undervalued. Hard to feel confident with btc dominance rising and btc price losing usd value regularly, but I feel like BCH should be 0.13 to 0.20 range regardless of usd value. Thoughts? Where's the pump!?

    submitted by /u/slaxaphonic
    [link] [comments]

    The fact that a Core dev helped fix a bug in BCH shows that Core devs are also BCH devs, and the the Core community's arguments about github commits are weakened if not completely null and void. As Bitcoin Cash gains dominance, more and more Bitcoin devs will be coming over to work on it.

    Posted: 12 Aug 2018 01:03 AM PDT

    I would also like to point out that chain splitting bugs have been common on Bitcoin throughout its history, with a 51 block chain split in 2010 and a 24 block chain splot in 2013. So don't believe the FUD that BCH was going to die unless Core saved us.

    submitted by /u/cryptorebel
    [link] [comments]

    How to Store Bitcoin Cash in a Paper Wallet video shows the whole process from creating the wallet offline to purchasing on coinbase, bitcoin.com wallet and funding and sweeping the paperwallet.

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 06:20 AM PDT

    Wallet software that queries multiple SPV nodes at once, and detects/alerts on double-spend attempts?

    Posted: 11 Aug 2018 12:09 PM PDT

    Does anyone know which if any wallet supports connecting to multiple SPV nodes to form consensus of honest nodes, and also has the ability to check for double-spend attempts before a confirmation is received?

    I've always thought the best way to implement SPV wallets was to query, for example 20 nodes. Half of which are pre-determined well known nodes of miners, exchanges, payment providers, block explorers etc. The other half of nodes being a random selection of geographically-diverse nodes on the network. After which a consensus is formed on which nodes are honest by comparing the data returned of the majority (for example 80% of) nodes to ensure integrity.

    Further, since Bitcoin Unlimited is merging double-spend relaying - are there any wallets which are able to alert on detection of double-spend attempts within a certain configurable time-frame, for example 30 seconds, automatically triggered after upon receiving a transaction?

    Thanks!

    submitted by /u/abcbtc
    [link] [comments]
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment