What is it that we have not had unusually large block transactions during the first years of Bitcoin? It is not because there was a limit tough, written in stone by an inflexible God (1 MB was a thousand times more than what was in the average block 2010), or the miners regularly met to vote in assembly, but to produce an inordinate block was contrary to the interests of the miners themselves.
-more produce a big too big block of what was acceptable to the rest of the nodos- involved (and still involves, and always involve) take the risk of wasting resources on an orphan block, a risk directly proportional to the excess size. That and no other is the natural limit to the size of the blocks: the index pointing with the invisible hand of the market, which was replaced by the limit imposed by beating steel fist Blockstream / Core .
Although the cryptoleninistas find it inconceivable, offensive, scandalous even consider the free market regulates itself exquisitely without your constant interference . They believe , or want creamos- that free market space blocks will lead inexorably to the centralization of mining, although the historical evidence shows the exact opposite: when the blocks were much smaller, computing power was much more concentrated.
Was unrestricted competition in a free market which expanded the number of actors and led mining all over the world, the provisions of a council of technocrats with various autism spectrum disorders.
Also, the availability of thin clients, secure online portfolios and tangible portfolios made Bitcoin available to anyone with internet access, expanding the user base (previously limited to operators complete nodes) and bringing the price of bitcoin levels unlikely for pessimists of Bitcoinlandia, prompting the virtuous circle which successively increased the usefulness, value, computing power, security, re - usability and, ultimately, also the decentralization (more nodes economically interested and therefore sustainable, more geographical dispersion of the miners, more sharing sites, most software implementations, etc.).
What drove Satoshi Nakamoto was not the fear of the productive forces unleashed, but rather the search for their full utilization. It is hard to imagine the potential creation of Bitcoin could trigger the level of cooperation could facilitate once completed the process of hiperbitcoinización ... We are talking about one of those events historical that catapult us to new paradigms, of one of those events that divide times every few thousand years .
If an organization funded by financial elites fiat world come today to tell you what Satoshi is fine but it is now necessary to replace it with another system ; that tariffs that encourage miners to adequately protect the network is fine but it will not be necessary from now because [insert nonsense]; that nobody cares that transactions in the chain of blocks are economical and free of friction because Bitcoin is intended to function as settlement system ... should pay the same attention it deserves a charlatan.
That organization has usurped the repository founded by Satoshi Nakamoto no longer a problem, but it is precisely the kind of problem that Bitcoin is designed to solve.
The assault on Bitcoin could lead to a golden opportunity for those who understand all that the members of Blockstream / Core, and their thousands of diehard fans have never understood ...
Bitcoin Bitcoin Cash & Segwit Guide Investor
Por Stein Håvard Ludvigsen
Adelanto : the value of Bitcoin Cash can not fall to zero, but if the Bitcoin SegWit.
To understand how to bet on Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin SegWit, I will analyze extreme situations that may occur and explain the basics of the two chains, and why Bitcoin converge on a chain.
I believe that "Bitcoin" is the string backed more computing power, either with the rules of Bitcoin Cash (BC) or Bitcoin SegWit (BS). Currently, this chain is BS. But it could become BC.
I will not delve into the differences between the movements supporting each chain, which is mining, etc. I will try to shed some light on questions that many people interested in Bitcoin might not have noticed, and provide tools for trading with a long - term perspective in the context of strand separation . This is not a course of Bitcoin 101.
Therefore, I will assume you know how the difficulty setting (AD) in Bitcoin works. BC also has a difficulty setting emergency (ADE). The ADE works as follows: if a 12-hour period have not been found over 6 blocks, the difficulty is reduced by 20%. The conditions for the ADE each block are determined, which means that it could happen that the difficulty is reduced by 20% after each successive blocks. The ADE enables a very rapid reduction in difficulty.
The determining factor
The ADE is the determining factor and its implications are crucial. If the ADE had not been implemented in BC, I think today would probably be on life support but died. The ADE is what makes the difference between a dead string and able to survive.
So what exactly is the death of a string? It is the situation where there is not enough computing power to undermine the blocks needed to reach the next AD. It's too expensive, not profitable, and therefore makes no sense to do so. The entire chain stops. It is no longer possible to make a transaction within that chain. In this case, the value of the currency falls to zero because you can not use it.
BC can not die because it has ADE. BS can die because it has ADE. The value of BC can not fall to zero. BS value may drop to zero.
Death dumping is impossible
You can not "dump" (vander mass) to death a functional cryptocurrency. Some "whales" BS supporters in the debate over the limit on the size of the blocks have suggested that BC can kill through dumping over a long period of time. But that's impossible, and it is impossible for the IMF buy all the bitcoins world. The " dumpers" will be out to sell BC, after which there will be a change in price. While the chain is maintained by the miners and keep it running, you can not buy all the bitcoins or bring the price down to zero.
Convergence in a chain
Separation of chains Bitcoin is very different from ethereum. In ethereum adjusting the difficulty occurs after each block (like the steroid ADE). This makes ETH and ETC can coexist; one with a higher value, the other with a low value. A miner earns about the same if mine ETC or ETH. If prices change, miners rerouted computing power, the difficulty is immediately set to both chains, and everything is rebalanced. It's like the elephant in the image is above had its four legs on the ground, while the wind (price) blows. Wind can only make the elephant swaying slightly.
Bitcoin case is very different. Under normal conditions, the difficulty is adjusted approximately every 2 weeks (2016 blocks, 10 minutes per block).
At this time, a group of miners is undermining BC loss in the chain. They are resisting with all her strength the weight of the elephant are coming. They do it because they want a change for Bitcoin and because they have a long-term perspective.
I call charitable mining. Not because they are greedy (they have to be greedy), but because they are making a long term investment that could ultimately benefit all miners, not just themselves. They believe the 1MB limit the size of the blocks is ridiculous and that puts a damper on the adoption of Bitcoin.
Its goal is to "sustain the elephant" until next AD, for which they have the help of ADE. The heaviest work, the first 6 blocks is done.
Some believe that mining supporters are undermining BC BS to keep the computing power above 8% and avoid the ADE. However, an attack like this will only postpone the AD 2 or 3 months. The attacker will be doing a favor to their enemies, when you could just relax and profit sapping BS as his enemy holds elephant.
But the elephant can not be sustained indefinitely. Costs a lot of money. Why the chains converge into a single string, unlike ethereum. The elephant eventually fall heads or tails. And so it will remain. Nobody can move it once it has fallen. This is good for Bitcoin as a whole.
BS is very vulnerable in this asymmetric game because BS does not have the ADE. When BS mining less profitable than undermine BC, BS constantly be under threat. All they have to do to support the miners is undermining BC BS to the difficulty of BC down enough to make it profitable.
Fundamental differences between BC and BS
To summarize, I believe that fundamental differences between the chains are as follows:
♦ More people using Bitcoin in the long term: yes BC / BS no
♦ less expensive Transactions: BC yes / no BS
♦ Fast transactions: yes BC / BS no
♦ predictable Transactions: BC yes / no BS
♦ Privacy: yes BC / BS no (for rates related to "mixers" used to anonymize transactions)
♦ fungibility: yes BC / BS no (for rates related to "mixers" used to anonymize transactions)
♦ Vulnerability centralization of development: BC no (several teams of developers) / BS itself (one team)
♦ support transactions 2nd level (mounted on the block chain): BC itself (with time) / BS itself (over time)
It's up to you.
At this time, BS 1 can buy more than 10 BC.
Gentlemen, place your bets!
If you're an early adopter who still ignores the source of value and strength of Bitcoin, you owe an offering to the goddess Fortuna. But beware: Satoshi filter never stops. If you do not study for upcoming tests, you could reprove.
PS: it should be remembered that although the señaladas- -for reasons Bitcoin Cash can be better than Bitcoin SegWit, the best does not always win. And those who owned bitcoins before the fork (1 August 2017) are already invested in both chains. Example: If you had one bitcoin before 1 August and have not yet spent, now you have 1 bitcoin bitcoin cash and segwit, each of which is an independent chain of the other.
0 Comments