Quote from: hv_ on July 24, 2017, 06:51:55 AM

Quote from: jbreher on July 24, 2017, 06:08:41 AM

By any sane definition, Bitcoin Cash is exactly a hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain.

AFAIK LTC was such a HF ?

Not at all. LTC's blockchain is completely disjoint from Bitcoin's blockchain.

Quote from: fluidjax on July 24, 2017, 07:27:59 AM

I think the naming of Coins (is it an Altcoin, Bitcoin, or a Bitcoin derivative) is a tricky thing.
My gut reaction is to say:
1) Anything thing that forks with minority hashing power is an altcoin
2) Anything that forks with a majority of hash power is still bitcoin

But this creates problems because
1) What happens if the altcoin (minority hash power chain) later becomes the majority chain, do we relabel it.

Aye - this is a reasonable question to ask. I think the market will make this decision.

Quote

2) This gives miners all the power to name what is Bitcoin,

No. The market will decide.

Quote

as users, businesses, exchanges (the majority) don't we get a say.

I don't know who the 'we' in your question might be.

Quote

Because there are no pre-defined rules for any of this, only consensus, there is no escape from constantly fighting off hijack attempts by a vocal minority.

Agreed. Such is the nature of a permissionless system.

Quote from: Spaceman_Spiff on July 24, 2017, 08:16:34 AM

Is there going to be a BCC fork no matter what conditions? I heard some people say that it would only be if UASF split off or something? I am a bit out of the loop.

From what I understand, it is a done deal.

While the BIP91 activation took the wind out of UASF's sails, there is a growing perception that many simply lied about the 2X portion. This creates incentive to carry through with the BCC fork. Having a viable BCC when the Nov 2X date rolls around changes the game theory significantly.

However this plays out, it'll be a good show. And while Bitcoin may take a temporary hit in the process, it will likely come out the other end stronger. For the market will have informed the proper course of action.

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 24, 2017, 09:44:27 AM

Quote from: jbreher on July 24, 2017, 06:08:41 AM

Just clarifying for the sake of truth. Depending upon the sequencing of things, Bitcoin Cash may be no more altcoin than is SegWit coin (which is somewhat playfully starting to be referred to as Bitcoin-Jr)

You and your big blocker buddies seem really angry, to be devolving into new name calling and spin terms to attempt to perpetuate various made up bullshit.

Well, JJG, you remain as clueless as ever. How do you get 'angry' out of the above? And what exactly is the bullshit? Either choice going forward is a change to Bitcoin. If one path forward is an alt, then so is the other.

Quote from: Wexlike on July 24, 2017, 09:54:49 AM

Can't wait till a troll hacker replay attacks the BCC transactions on the real Bitcoin Blockchain. This will be firework.

Naah - it'll be a non-event for anyone but the affected party that made the unprotected transaction. As will be the inevitable cases of 'troll hackers' performing replay attacks on transactions on the BTC chain.

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 24, 2017, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: rjclarke2000 on July 24, 2017, 10:23:37 AM

When is segwit likely to be activated?

it is approximately 2480 blocks (464 blocks left in this period plus 2016 blocks in the next period)
and if there are 144 blocks per day, then that is approximately 17.2 days from today. That means about August 10 - ish ( or 9-ish or 11-ish). No?

Well, your reasoning is good, but your 144 blocks/day figure is low. Hashpower growth has been outrunning difficulty again. Recent intervals are averaging closer to 8-1/2 minutes. If this continues, you'll get your segwit locked in that much sooner.

Quote from: bitserve on July 24, 2017, 01:36:20 PM

Have you recently watched the mempool? Is almost empty. Yeah, block usage is still over a safe threshold but Segwit is going to be implemented very soon (now it is a certainty unlike years ago) and will help alleviate some. Also a blocksize increase to 2MB is on the works.

Maybe you don't believe the blocksize increase will happen?

- If that is what has been agreed to reach consensus, then it is time to deliver, or next time we need consensus noone will trust any "agreement".

- Many of the people that were completely against BU (me included) was for the reason that BU is an aberration that, besides the buggy code, gives miners the right to increase/decrease blocksize at will. That's too much power for the already powerful miners. A fixed blocksize increase when (or better yet BEFORE) it is needed? FINE!.

Above all, and most importantly... If someday Bitcoin can be replaced for any other altcoin at will, our digital money fantasy castle will crumble.

Can't we all just work on making Bitcoin (the one and only) better instead of trying to fight against it?

All rather rational. I'll just respond to a few of your points.

Yes, mempool is low. You know what else is low? Use of BTC in day-to-day commerce. While I've rarely bought the canonical 'coffee' with BTC, I used to be able to pay my bar and restaurant tabs with it. No more. While my experience itself is anecdotal, retailers which used to accept BTC do not accept BTC any longer. Maybe you have not noticed this trend. Maybe you don't actually _use_ Bitcoin?

SegWit as a capacity increase is laughable. Follow me on this...
A SegWit coin is not a Bitcoin. It has a more tenuous security model. (I'll expand on this if you don't yet know why). The owner is able turn a SegWit coin into a Bitcoin to reclaim the stronger Bitcoin security model. While trivial to perform, it requires another transaction. Even before accounting for this shrinkage, SegWit can only 'increase' transaction capacity in proportion to its usage. When do you expect the universal usage of SegWit, which is required to get to 1.7x?

Yes, I am worried that a significant portion of the 'community' will renege on the 2X portion of the deal. Perhaps you have not caught Bobby Lee's tweet on the topic? Though merely posed as a question, it brought the concept out of the dark and exposed the extent of this attitude.

'Next time we need consensus, no one will trust the agreement'... Hello? Hong Kong? Hello?

Maybe you don't quite understand how Bitcoin works. Miners already can make the block size any size they want.
"They vote with their CPU proof-of-worker, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
- satoshi, the white paper

Yes. BCC is an attempt to make Bitcoin better. We see the SegWit approach as violative of the current system principles.