is this project still going?

CMC link moved to telegram...  There's not a lot of activity here.

Congrats on the launch! I'm looking forward to seeing what comes from it!

What are the next steps the company will focus on? Also, there are some outstanding items that need to be addressed. Now that the token sale is over, hopefully these issues can handled be put to rest so that the community has further confidence in the company.

The bitcoin we know of will not be the same bitcoin for both BTC and BCC/BCH. Once SegWit is activated, and 8MB is running with some hashpower. Both are spawned from the same chain but not the original incarnation. Unless centralized decision making is ok. The market will decide which is better. I'm hodling both and if bcc gets cheap enough or btc i'm buying.

I don't get what the big fuss is about. I really don't get why anti-bcc's are so angry. This should reinforce your position and also clear out the people that have complained for a long time. I don't get what the negative to BTC users is. It really isn't that confusing is it? They differ quite a bit in functionality. BCC will work the same as BTC now but faster and BTC will add a bunch of new sidechains thanks to SegWit.

This is the first time, i've seen so much anger for an 'altcoin' or anger for any release for that matter. If you don't like Jihan/Ver, this is great no? They're leaving...

If china decided to stop mining and segwit activated with payments not going to miners and through payment hubs instead. Mining would not be profitable and very few new blocks would be rewarded. Very few countries have electrical grids that can supply electricity at a price that would be profitable to 1.) start manufacturing asic chips 2.) setup new bitcoin mining operation 3.) Once running, not drown in electrical costs and forget upgrades. I think another coin would have to rise, but existing bitcoins might be able to survive albeit very slow.

Thanks for the links and I agree about the name but BCH doesn't sound cool though.  I don't consider BitConnect a real coin though imo. I don't really like it. We'll see the results soon. Cheers.

don't need a smart contract... It's all really up to core. SegWit2x or a Melee. hopefully we all learn a little something from these debates. It's much better than the bashing i see all over the place. I think BCC can crash hard its all centralized on cores decision to 2x or not. That i can't predict, instead, I'm going to hodl with my blanket.

Good points to you as well. I appreciate the clarification and corrections. I think Blockstream | Core should have the ability to vote for a change course of the original vision and if there is consensus then that is the way it will be. I just don't like the censorship that is happening on r/bitcoin and I don't agree with a lot of the misinformation being passed around.

I am in agreement with consensus and the nature of decentralization. Some people are confusing the fork as if it will result in centralization. It will not. It will prove what the world thinks is bitcoin. Our individual beliefs are moot in the greater scheme, but trickery and censorship I really didn't like seeing when I was researching between the two. Neither side should be dictated to if they didn't reach an agreement which is why I think this is the appropriate use of a fork. Like you said and we both agree, let the people and the market choose.

As far as which is the altcoin, if you go by the Satoshi whitepaper, BCC is the original and continuing on the original chain. BTC w. SegWit cuts it up and modifies it which, to me, is the altcoin since it is no longer the same chain from the genesis block. It is a fundamentally different chain from a code and technology point of view.

I am also in agreement that mid November is going to be the real date to watch. If Core does not apply the 2x, from what Bitcoin.com mentioned, they will move hashpower to BCC. After that i think others will follow. I think instead of another hardfork, miners will skip SegWit all together and back BCC. This would make it 2 bitcoins rather than 3. If the agreement is not kept, there's no reason to have 2x at all. Then Bitcoin BigBlock vs. Bitcoin SegWit, fight in the world market for marketshare and usage. This is definitely an interesting time. Both can technically coexist but peoples ego's wants one to die to hold the title. IMO, BCC is the better option for a country like Japan/Korea/etc to use in the retail space. BTC will be better as an asset type.

As the network grows it becomes more expensive to do DDoS especially with a higher cap. SegWit is by nature a centralized payment channel. We will deal with that issue when the time comes. The cap itself is artificial. Esp. to a devops guy, its kinda silly to think "processing power" will be out of reach of peoples hands if bitcoin ups the block to 2MB. There is really no technical reason not to implement 2x. The only thing SegWit does is allow a payment channel for Liquid that take fee's from miners. We'll no doubt be DDoS'ed on SegWit before hitting 8MB on BCC.

The whole premise of miners signaling for BIP91 was for SegWit2x, that's why it was not BIP148. It was a compromise. If Core holds onto this like you are saying, there will be a split. Also Gavin being the lead, his signature should've represented the team. Because the team changed, doesn't mean the agreement changes with it.  I think it's healthy for bitcoin to grow up. I would think of it like a civil war. Businesses and countries have to sit on the side to see who will win. Bitcoin big block or Bitcoin w. SegWit. Competition is not only healthy, it is needed to prove which iteration will be more widely adopted.

If you support decentralization. Then you know there's no central entity and trying to keep it centralized is against its nature. This could be looked at in the future as an attack on bitcoin by one side or the other and the decentralized nature allowed both to try and see which version actually works better. Otherwise, it is centralized control where one side dictates to the other. I think this fork is by definition what decentralization was meant to be, not just nodes but decision making and the proper use of a fork. In my experience scaling systems, most of the anti-bcc arguments aren't true. A lot of this scaling stuff has been done 10x over by many centralized companies over the last 7-10 years. The amount of volume bitcoin usage on a system/network level is small compared to large orgs and highly inefficient. The rebel nature and passion behind it make it pretty powerful, but to unleash the power using configs from 2010 to prevent DDoS is a limiting factor.  At this point, its preventing legitimate traffic and we know it.


From the blog post in your link... It's a choice.. Some people would rather leave onchain vs. adding "additional layers" while breaking up the original blocks.

I think BCC will run until November as a contingency to see if core will actually implement 2x. If core does not, then BCC will be 2x. If core does, then BCC goes away. It's quit simple its really up to core to decide if they will honor 2x or not. BCC is just there as a backup because with SegWit being an irreversible change, any engineer/dev/ops team would like to have a contingency regardless of factions, its a saftey measure..