This is a follow on from many related discussions but it is one that needs it's own thread. With SegWit2x locked in and seemingly crisis averted in the near term, the latest surprise development is that a group of miners (headed by ViaBTC) is going to go ahead with the UAHF which was originally devised as only a contingency plan against the threat of BIP 148 causing a "wipe out" attack. What this means is that a coin split is back on the cards. We will have Bitcoin BTC running SegWit2x (and maybe BIP 148) which will still be due to implement it's own hardfork to 2MB block sizes in November, and we will have Bitcoin Cash BCC which will have a consensus driven block size and NO SegWit - basically the solution which was previously being championed as Bitcoin Unlimited. Here is Bitmains commentary on it :- https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-bitcoin-cash-viabtc-bitcoin-abc/ Two quotes from it which seem somewhat contradictory :- So what does all this mean? Make sure you have control of your own private keys on August 1 and be aware that you will have both BTC and BCC to trade/sell after August 1. The market seems to have been holding up reasonably well in the face of this development, up until the last couple hours. BCC is already trading on ViaBTC at around 3000 CNY or around 420 USD and is looking like the weaker coin so far from a support perspective. It's getting a bit late in the game and I am not one to panic sell so might just have to ride this out from here.
This is what I was getting at in the other thread about Jihan Wu creating an insurance policy if the Core team try to screw him over with the 2 MB upgrade.
Yeh, it doesn't sound much like an insurance policy any more. I think this move dramatically weakens the 2MB hard fork prospects of BTC in November if the "big blockers" are going to defect to BCC in advance. This seems like more of an anti-SegWit move to me.
Fun to watch though, to me it seems like they are intent on (at this stage anyway) ripping the rug out from beneath themselves out of pure spite, and its an example of what happens when you get too much centralized control in this system as well. At best there will be a winner takes all outcome and hard fork, at worst (for BTC at least) BTC will be relegated further down the ladder of dominant Crypto's as a result.
Indeed. I am no longer optimistic about hitting a new all time high in the medium term. Firstly because this may dent sentiment leading up to Aug 1st...and secondly because the market cap will effectively split along with the coins after Aug 1st. Maybe we'll get BTC at $2500 and BCC at $500 or something that would add up to an all time high, but not actually qualify as one on the charts....
I'm contemplating all in on LTC for a bit. I find it interesting at times like these how a lot of people scramble back to Fiat instead of another crypto alternative. What happens when we get a major Fiat currency collapse ?
On OP it's not segwit2x that is locked in it's Segwit which is a softfork. The 2x denotes the hardfork that we avoided. Though I am not surprised, the group of miners want to centralize BTC for own means. The timeframe they gave to implement 2mb blocks was far to long, and comments were made that sort of left you thinking that between consensus and activation we could end up with 10 MB blocks
A lot of misunderstanding about this, Segwit= Segregated Witness, (or basically removing some data from transactions so that more transactions can be fit into each block and said transactions are cheaper). x2 is the doubling of the block size for transactions (and fees stay the same (for miners) ). Most think if the first part passes the second automatically does but that is not the case at all. Signaling on the network for Segwit is one thing, but it does not mean that everyone agrees about the x2 block size increase. Changes or proposal's like BIP's (Bitcoin Improvement Proposals ) 91, 148 while supposedly discussed in private by the big players and settled are still a bone of contention amongst them all, IE: Core and Miners. Miners are not nesserarily opposed to Segwit as it increases their profit from mining and confirming transactions, they are also not opposed to increasing the block size as it would also increase or ensure that they still earn a steady income. But both together all at once would cost them a little bit short term. It's not that they wouldn't survive, It's just that the miners will be forced into it instead of controlling it all. The UASF ( User Activated Soft Fork) is the bit they ( the miners) don't like as it takes away the control they have as miners of the network, along with eating into a bit of their profit as well. Confused yet ? It is basically a fight between Central control and User control, except in this instance it is neither but is a fight between Developers and Miners and is as close as you can get to a current political battle or to a civil war on the net. Miners want to control and preserve profits, Core wants to introduce changes that threaten profits. At the moment all I can see is a buying opportunity for anyone interested in crypto's as BTC or whatever the outcome the Genie is already out of the bottle and the paradigm shift will continue with or without Bitcoin at this stage.
at Yeah I would agree with that for now, but my question was more aimed at why people already in Crypto flee to Fiat instead of another Crypto and what will happen in the future when we get an inevitable Fiat crash. Do you think it is the result of an immature market, the speculative nature of current investors, or an inbuilt conditioning that Fiat is safer for their wealth than any other sector when things get shaky ? I personally just went on a buying spree and spent 5 to 6 K buying up heavily discounted Crypto's . The overall market just dropped about 7 Billion dollars in the last 24 hrs and I still have some ETH and BTC set aside to snap up some more bargains as well if it keeps dropping. For what it's worth, My opinion is that it will bounce back stronger than ever. The current fear is all Bitcoin related, but Bitcoin is no longer the be all and end all of Crypto's any more really. If anything it is a bit like the U.S Fiat currency for the Crypto world (fair enough without the attached derivatives though) and if anything the current issues with BTC are harming the overall adoption of Crypto's by the mainstream when most of the issues are all BTC related when you drill down on it all. No spike in Gold or Silver as a result, no spike in the US dollar either as of now. But then Crypto's for now play a minimal part in the overall scheme of things, wait till they gain just a single percentage of the global $ value of world commerce.... Coming to a reality near you soon
I wonder how long it took to pop up in general market so late. this article is already 7 days old and now out of nothing i has a effect to the market. its in german so i did not post it before. https://bitcoinblog.de/2017/07/18/f...rd-am-1-august-zu-groesseren-bloecken-forken/ there are 75 comments which is hugh for this german moderated blog
It's a Bitcoin problem, but I think Bitcoin is affecting the alts so heavily because it is the primary trading pair for just about everything. So it's like a gateway. If you've got assets on the other side of a gateway and the gateway is having issues....well you want to get out and smaller market caps are more prone to big price moves. So people sell the alts through Bitcoin and out to some safe haven. I made a thread about those haven options and I'm still looking to build the list. I'm using Tether, bitUSD and Steem Dollars at the moment. Really hoping to add Corion as an option once it's ICO finishes too. https://www.silverstackers.com/forums/index.php?threads/when-the-mania-has-run-its-course.84667/
