Quote from: hroub on December 07, 2017, 11:21:01 PM

Quote from: jackg on December 07, 2017, 11:00:41 PM

Quote from: hroub on December 07, 2017, 10:51:43 PM

Quote from: yoona on December 05, 2017, 09:32:09 AM

Can someone elabora on this next batch only accepting BCH at the end of January? https://shop.bitmain.com/productDetail.htm?pid=000201711201611548977G3AjqYh0686

Bitmain was the main of the very few supporters of BCH before and after the fork.

I read or heard about somewhere [rumors] that they are trying to centralize BCH by controlling (They sort of already do), so by accepting only BCH, they are sort of increasing demand on it by forcing buyers to buy BCH so they can buy Ant miners. At the same time, they would evetually end up with most of the market capital allowing them to make it scarce when they want to increase it's price, and abundant when they want to lower it's price... Not sure how accurate or true those rumors are, but it makes some sense to me... A lot of the BCH haters also hate Bitmin for that...

It's why they got their negative trust rating in the first place. Unless they own viabtc (unlikely) then we are lucky enough in the knowledge that they won't be able to change it without making a fork of bcc and "bitmain cash" which would be worthless.

There were also rumors bitcoin cash will overtake bitcoin. This is achievable by a company like bitmain (especially if hashnest continues to stop paying or working - from the start of today they haven't paid anything)... They have enough power anyway to dominate that coin and set its value very high, if they want to, however, if they get too poser hungry, people will just turn away from them.

I'm a little confused about viabtc. Stupid question: Why would it make a differnce if they own it or not? Don't they need 51% pool power to be able to make forks?

In order to overtake BTC, dont they need to control both?

Finally, I don't understand why the mining pools still look the way they do. If Antpool BTC was 25% global BTC hash before fork, then after forsk they started mining BCC with a 22% global BCH hash, unless they doubled their mining operations, shouldn't their BTC global hash have droped by half, or at least a little? Care to explain?

~snip~

They needed 95% for segwit2x as I understand it, though that may have just been so miners didn't get rejected by the network and the network doesn't propagate properly making for other complications.

If you own a coin, you can manipumanipulate it's value. Search "pump and dump" scams. Ever looked at the altcoin price and seen that Dogecoin is 100 sats and within a week it has fallen to 10 sats?

To overtake bitcoin they can just force the value of bitcoin cash up. If they own large amounts of it then its quite easy to send the value up by making deficits and surplesses to correlate with other coins that have increased.

The last point is the reason why no one else's split in two. When you have a fork, both coins are incompatible to each other due to replay protection.

They hosted 2 nodes therefore (at minimum). Pointing 3% at the bcc compatible node and 22% at the rest. (They own btc.com from that chart also).

Quote from: niceman2007 on December 07, 2017, 11:34:00 PM

Hashnest didnt pay since yesterday and there is unknown thing occurs any one has informations???

Hopefully they'll fix it. I tried withdrawing and got nothing. The market is also broken. They may end up just restoring everything from a backup if they have one (hopefully they do).