 for no financial benefit. > Fraud proofs have proven to be either far more difficult than Satoshi imagined, or impossible (within reasonable efficiency). In the above scenario, you need only one group monitoring an observer node to notice something is going on. Even at scale, it will be within the means of many organizations to verify the claims. Such a scandal would cause the price to crash. If the problem is found fast enough to do a reorg (within 100 blocks?), those blocks may be worthless. >But they cannot be fooled into accepting invalid blocks. They can be if there is a soft fork that miners enforce that the full node does not know about.
I don't see your citations.
The BSV fork did a lot of damage to the community. nChain threw a lot of money around, and allowed start-ups to use their patented technology, so long as they only supported "Bitcoin Cash". nChain then tried to take over the direction of the protocol in a hostile takeover ("accidentally" forking with BSV). The November 15, 2018 drop in the price of BTC was just some of the fallout. Edit: forgot my point: many Bitcoin Cash exclusive startups became Bitcoin SV exclusive startups. As far as I can tell, this was against the wishes of some of the owners.  Edit: Did not find citation in video form of the last point, [but Ryan X Charles explicitly said he went with SV over the threat of patent litigation](https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yaf8j/nchain_will_sue_my_company_if_i_choose_bch_over/).
> **8.Simplified Payment Verification** > It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. He can't check the transaction for himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network has accepted it. If the miners are lying (about the transaction being valid), it takes just one business or watchdog group with an observer node to call shenanigans. > As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification. Section 11 estimates how likely an attacker is to overpower the network. Note that full observer nodes would also be fooled by a 51% attack, unless the attacker's transactions are completely baseless.
Observer nodes have essentially the same security as SPV nodes: because just about any change, no matter how contentious, can be done as a "soft-fork".
> The checkpoints is a mechanism to let minority hash override majority hash. They were brought in to discourage people from even *trying* to do a deep reorg. During the November 15, 2018 fork: miners showed that they were willing to defend the BCH chain from attack. They temporarily doubled the BCH hash-rate, despite it being uneconomic in the short-term. What the 10-block reorg protection does is automatically freeze transaction processing during an attack. Miners would then pull hashpower from BTC to out-pace the attack chain, The ultimate solution is for BCH to become the majority chain. However, BTC may be "too big to fail" at this point; miners may be reluctant to let it collapse.
The 10 block reorg protection assumes that stealth reorgs are either an attack or a serious bug. In both cases manual intervention, such as the reconsiderblock command, is prudent from node operators. POW still prevails for SPV clients or those not paying attention.
Show me your greatest strength, and I will show you your greatest weakness.
Coinex lets me short BTC (and BCH) while using it as collateral. This means that if I use low leverage, and keep back enough collateral, I am unlikely to be ever liquidated. My liquidation price is listed as infinity (but I do not fully trust that: it also claims my chance of forced liquidation is a fraction of a percent ).
No, also meat plants and other outbreak settings. If there are are asymptomatic people in the general population, they should show up in the contact tracing if/when they infect other people who go on to develop symptoms. They have been offering to test anybody with even mild symptoms for about a month now. They are able to do this because they have spare testing capacity.
It appears Blocksteam already rebranded Bitcoin Cash for us "[to avoid buyer confusion](https://fortune.com/2017/08/07/bitcoin-cash-bch-hard-fork-blockchain-usd-coinbase/)". The problem is that they failed to also rebrand Bitcoin Core at the same time, leading to buyer confusion. Some people think BTC is actually the state-of-the art cryptocurrency. They get confused when the "flagship" cryptocurrency can't process transactions in a cheap and timely manner.
[Roger was a big supporter of Segwit2x](https://www.ccn.com/roger-ver-bets-4-million-segwit2x-hard-fork/). But the [Core Developers actively blocked](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982) that compromise solution [despite agreeing to it previously](https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff).
Well you aren't being clear about what you think is expensive about 32MB blocks. The most expensive part of hosting a node is actually bandwidth usage, not the hardware.
It is not a pressing issue? You can pay fees down to 0.004 Sat/kB without fractional satoshis (1 sat for 250 byte transaction).
The Lighting Network does not directly compete at all. * You are required to lock up funds in smart contracts to use it * To receive money on the LN, you need a "hot wallet" in order to send the invoice. This is a security risk. * LN is only designed for small transactions. For small transactions, 0-conf on BCH is "good enough" security (about the same as a signed check until in confirms within about an hour).
For the last several weeks, Alberta has been testing asymptomatic people in outbreak settings.
[Greg Maxwell](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015455.html) who was delighted the fees climbed over $50 in late 2017. Assuming 1 tx per month, that adds up to the cost of my BCH node within a year.
If the fees are high enough, it may be better to let a competitor deal with the fees. Disclaimer: don't actually run a business (yet).
Making nodes cheaper than transactions is false economy.
Were you arguing over hard-rive space then? The smallest drive you can buy is 1TB, which is good enough for 5-10 more years of transactions, even with full BTC blocks. That lines up with the Mean Time Before Failure of the drive anyway.
The under-reporting is only true in jurisdictions unable to test everyone who is sick.
You are supposed to pander to your audience to a certain extent. People get a little upset if both versions of what you say actually directly contradict.
I found the [ADVChina series informative](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNPa8fSXzzAZuT9859GVhg). You are basically not allowed to rock the boat too much in China.
Careful: if you give them points, they may try to get a high score.
I don't recommend BTC for savings either. Currently shorting it (with relatively low leverage, because traditionally shorting BTC is a bad idea). Re 2: the are a lot of things, like software purchase, that seem to skirt that rule. Explaining something is a "final sale" may be enough.
[Flowee the Hub](https://flowee.org/) has an improved database that takes advantage of Bitcoin's write-only nature.
BTC!=Bitcoin for the very reason you outline.
You seem confused: Roger did not change, "Bitcoin" changed.
>... **In a few decades** when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes. It has only been 1 decade. BTC shot itself in the foot even before the "early adopter" phase.
I may steal that analogy.
The fear we have is that the BTC side intends to poison the well so that people will stay away from ANY cryptocurrency. We saw that [just the other day with pine64 being bullied to drop Bitpay](https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gltmhq/pine64_drops_bitpay_after_concern_trolling_by/). (which happens to support both coins).
You go all the way back to late 2017; but cut out the part where B