Coinbase reportedly gets approval from US regulators for tokenized securities

Re:Coinbase reportedly gets approval from US regulators for ... by simias on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @06:24AM (#17548618)

Out of all the scamcoins out there I wasn't aware that Bitcoin Cash had such a reputation, if anything it's one of the rare forks that actually seem to have a real technical reason behind it (the whole segwit vs. large block debate). Furthermore since it's a fork of the original Bitcoin chain the creators couldn't use the usual tricks to "pump and dump" where they pre-mine a ton of coins to prepare for the dump.

I mean I'm a cryptocurrency "hater" myself so as far as I'm concerned it's scams, greed, poor understanding of economics and technology all the way down but I'm surprised to see Bitcoin Cash singled out that way, it always seemed relatively reasonable to me (as far as cryptocurrencies can be at least). If anything the segwit/lightning network proponents did seem a bit disingenuous back then (pre-fork), presenting their technology as the panacea to Bitcoin's scaling problems while conveniently ignoring or hand waving practical issues with their proposed system (possible centralization, whether the system could genuinely remain usable at scale etc...). They also generally demonstrated the usefulness of the lightning network by always taking scenarios best suited to the system (recurrent coffee buys at starbucks for instance) instead of "worst case" situations where lightning made a whole lot less sense and had a ton more overhead. That's a common issue all over the cryptocurrency space however...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Coinbase reportedly gets approval from US regulators for ... by shakestheclown on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @11:25AM (#17550328)

I don't believe the issue with BCH is the technology, although it's seen as more of a band-aid solution by detractors. I think the main issues are with the centralization aspect of Alibaba miners controlling 49% of nodes, Roger Ver not having a great reputation, and the "hostile takeover" attempts of the split.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Coinbase reportedly gets approval from US regulators for ... by cocktailpeanuts on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @07:03PM (#17554283)

SegWit created an entirely new class of Bitcoin address and also an entirely new type of transactions to "solve transaction malleability", which could have been solved in many different other ways. Now we have Bitcoin with two different address types. Imagine having a two different type of email addresses (for example you [email protected] vs. example.com@abc), any competent engineer would recognize this is the beginning of a huge technical debt, even if we don't go as far to talk about the economic implication.

Compare that to Bitcoin cash where all it did was increase the block size limit and changed nothing when it comes to the way Bitcoin worked.

I'm not making some ridiculous statement such as "Bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin and Bitcoin core is scam", I'm just saying if we're talking about "band aid" technology, what Bitcoin core developers did to Bitcoin is an order of magnitude more of a "bandaid" than what Bitcoin cash did.

I stay on top of both BTC and BCH because I care about both chains, and I can tell you for sure while Roger Ver is indeed an famous figure in BCH, he really has no influence over the direction of BCH. All he has is his website bitcoin.com and related businesses and the subreddit in which he's a mod, but other than that, none of his businesses have anything to do with dealing directly with the protocol. He's just simply a passionate libertarian guy who wants to use Bitcoin as a transaction method while BTC developers are now starting to spin the narrative that Bitcoin is not meant to be used for transaction but supposed to be hoarded like gold. I understand where both sides are coming from, but neither of the philosophies are absolutely correct or incorrect, we will have to see how it plays out.

[ Parent | on HN ]