No use buying BCH.
It is just a bcash update.
Yet another sad episode in the Game Of Clones.
No forking clone blockchain split this time.
The ViaBTC mining pool will swap all contracts to mining Bitcoin {BTC} during this so called bcash {BCH} hardfork. With a specific note that this is not going to create another blockchain. In this case that would be a clone of bcash. It is just an update of the bcash software. Where the Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm {DAA} will be changed. To better deal with the low mining power support the bcash Bitcoin blockchain clone is getting. It will be more responsive to low mining power support and sudden swings. As it only has between 5 and 10 percent of mining power Bitcoin has.
It is becoming it bit ironic to see the so called cheap forked clone becoming more expensive. Only because the market seems to think there is going to be another forking blockchain clone. This time it being bash getting cloned. And again, before it is too late to sell that BCH again and buy some real Cryptos. This is not another cloning fork episode, it is merely a software update of bcash. It still is the same value looter. It might be an idea though to outsmart the looter. By creating one or more forking clones of BCH {bcash}. Why not go for 1 GigaByte {GB} blocksizes and speed it up to 1 minute blocktimes. Only change those parts in the bcash sourcecode and then release it. Let's do this!
Miners signalling the 1 GB blocks, call it Diamond Bitcoin {BCD}, the toughest one around. This time forking cloning the blockchain of bcash. Just to see how it works. Compete with the looter. Try to see if the same trick can be pulled on that one itself. Be on the outlook for upcoming events, they may cast their shadows upfront. And if you want real cheap and fast transactions, only 0.001 USD, then use the well supported DOGEcoin. Not that is so much cheaper than $0.66 per 1 KB transaction. WOOF!
There is not free clone bcash this time, maybe soon though... ;-)
Image completely released under CC0 license.
Interesting thoughts on the 1 GB block size. The forking and ICO scene is turning more and more into the wild wild west. I've been thinking by reasoning a lot lately about a reasonable total potential market cap of crypt assets as a whole. Trying to reason whether there is real intrinsic value or not. And I think there is actually. Going to blog about it soon (an in-depth article, which takes... a boat-load of time to write).
It is indeed a crazy scene right now, especially on the Bitcoin part of the cryptos realm. And then there's ICOs and what not.
One GB max. blocksize started from a cynical point of view. Imagine the traffic that clotches up the Peer To Peer {P2P} network. Even with multicasting this is quite tough to make it possible, I think. All peers would need big 100 GB glass fiber internet connections. Are those even around yet?
And what about the computer hardware that need to be able to handle 1GB blocksizes? Harddrives that need to be able to support that extremely fast growing blockchain.
Pulling the blocksize into the realm of extremes made it more clear to me that just raising the blocksize is not a solution at all. Sidechains are needed and for me that accounts for SegWit. And Bitcoin, the one that started as BTC. Makes bcash look even more like rubbish to me...
Sounds like an interesting article you are planning to make. How to determine the intrensic value of Cryptos. It could even become a series, so much material available. Will keep an eye out for it.
Please do so! As a Steemit Newbie (10th day now) I've been thinking how to perceive Steemit as a new paradigm in the world of crypto assets - a new paradigm of their own. In my introductory post I wrote about Steemit as an entrance portal to the world of crypto, since it is the only platform (I know of) on which anyone can acquire a (small) crypto capital position simply by converting time into capital. 2nd World citizens otherwise could not participate (properly) because formerly - pre-Steemit - one would first need capital to be able to invest in crypto assets at all.
At the moment Steemit is still to be regarded as being in its infancy stage. It might function as a "crypto catalyzer" but in order for that to happen Steem needs to grow in market capitalization and that can only happen by attracting new capital from new Steem investors (outside people, non-current-Steemit users at present). The only way to achieve that is through high-quality content (articles) and valid discussions through user interaction (comments). That's - to my perception - the biggest problem of Steemit right now: the amount of utter bullshit posted by people unaware of the importance of good content through copy-pasting external content as if it's their own, and by adding BS comments like "amazing post thank you".
The value of Steem is what I did call Fruit Of Work {FOW}. Good content, no copy-paste shaite indeed. But, as Steem has value, that also will attract copy-pasters. Or upvote fishers with those 'good-post' and so on. Still I do fall for those now and then. Curating is a tough job too and important for the future value of Steem.
And it is indeed an unique portal into the realm of Cryptos. Making it possible for a lot to get other cryptos that they earned by posting on the Steem blockchain.
And I did give it some thought to stop reward obvious upvote fishing. As those who upvoted my post already get some of the potential payout. Only really interesting replies to the content of my post are worth an upvote.
So curation is also a very important part of giving the content on the Steem blockchain value.
I look at Steemit right now, not as a "clone" of reddit, but more akin to Medium.com. I noticed Medium.com because of really good content shared through LinkedIn connections of mine.
Yet on Medium.com a user can acquire a large audience ONLY by providing top-quality content (articles & comments), which isn't directly rewarded monetary. On Steemit, the exact same principles apply, yet people misunderstand its potential thinking they can easily make it (ref: gain a large account value) by posting nonsense. The curation system - auto upvoting, self-upvoting - promotes that unintendedly.
I'd like to change that, but that takes an enormous amount of time so I (and everybody actively involved in creating top quality content) need to be reawrded properly due to large opportunity costs associated with investing time in other areas (e.g. regular work on a regular job).
The dynamics of Steem will make it a platform that will start to value good content more. Even beating the diverse ways of automation that are mainly there for getting as much out of the reward pool as possible.
But anywhere there is value to be gotten people will try to find the most easy way to get as much as possible out. As fast as they can. That is something that Steem and its community has to deal with too.
With the Smart Media Tokens that might be interesting when things are build in like reputation and amount of posts. The combination of that in the formula deciding who gets what as a potential payout might be able to counter bots, copy-paste posters and upvote fishers easier.
Much still possible to find better ways to spread out the value in the rewards pool. And that way rewarding good material with the most Steem.
Another idea, which can be implemented at the blink of an eye technically, is to reward discussions like this one - which currently only you and me and a handful of leechers might see - by putting them automatically on the trending pages.
This here is a high-quality discussion, on this page. To add value by other people to this page, people need to notice this discussion so they KNOW they can participate actively themselves. The quality of this discussion, right here, does not come forward from my amount of followers (I've been here for 10 days, 55 followers, and the followers follow my article posts, rarely my comment posts!) or even your followers (1609 followers right now, but how many are online and following this discussion actively? Right now there are 19 views, and we account for more than half of those).
In order to make that happen, articles could be trending based on the amount of comments. The problem with that of course is that that metric could be tricked by bots posting auto-horse shit to a discussion.
But I have "invented" a solution metric for just that! I thought of a metric called "user authority" as a basis to distinguish what's quality and what's not.
And that actually pretty simple to implement based on a user's followers (not who they follow but who follows them!).
I define it as follows:
User Authority = [ cumulative followers estimated account value ( $ ) + user estimated account value ] / steem market capitalization ( $ )
Using this metric, a page can be automatically put on the "trending pages" by the following rule:
Number of comments on page X User authority (per comment)
PS: this is completely different from simply looking at a user's own account value. It comes forward form "you are who you know, not what you own".
... I'm going to write an article on this I just decided! :-)
Just a quick one then, hahaha. ;-)
It might be a good idea to have something besides Reputation that could bubble up really well done posts while it sinks down the rubbish ones. And I see that you already thought out a mathematical formula how to solve that.
Have to go the future now. Always fun.
Have a great one!
It is great to see how you do think about things a level deeper. That is where great conversations like these begin.
On SteemIt dot com I think that is the part of the HOT section that you are describing. But I could be wrong, not sure. As I really need to dash... Behind on my agenda as it is.
Will be looking into your articles, there is enough food for thought already there. ;-)
Must run now, have a great day!
The problem of properly rewarding high-quality content can - or even should - be solved by the "whales": they could found a "manual high-quality curation fund", rewarding only top-quality posts. Such a fund could also be created by a big amount of people, or as an obligatory "sponsorship" where a small percentage of all rewards on the platform automatically is put into the fund.
On the one hand there is nothing wrong with a small minority of users owning the vast majority of steem capital. That represents real-life wealth distribution quite well. Yet what's different on steem as compared to "the real world" is that wealthy people and corporations in "the real world" are constantly on the look for hiring real talent. That's a primary principle driving the economy upwards.
Ah well, as I am already behind the computerscreen again... :-)
There are several ways to make quality posts get a stronger position. Better rewarded and so on. To make a difference.
The way a small group got a majority in Steem Power was because of the exponential reward system. Very crooked from my point of view. Much of the ever to be released Steem was handed out that way. That only changed a short while ago to linear, 1 SP = 1 Vote. It gave a positive boost to many.
And personally I do not subscribe to that economical paradigm you describe. But I am always open to an exchange of thoughts. For another time.
On a side note, I stopped using SteemIt chat a long time ago. But I send you an invite for our _Nederlandstalige_ group at Telegram there.
Have a great weekend.
Seriously? Did it work like that in the past on curation rewards?
So if I understand you correctly... suppose there was a post, which got rewarded $10,- and there were 4 curators for it: a) $5,- b) $2,- c) $2,- d) $1,- ...
then the rewards given out were distributed quadratically based on the proportion of adding to the pool
so:
5^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 1^2 = 25 + 4 + 4 + 1 = 30 "shares"
Is this correct @oaldamster?
Basicly it came down to: Steem Power x Steem Power = Vote Weight. With that the reward pool would bet devided. And because half of the Steem, ever to be issued, was handed out in about a year time, with this exponential voting system, there were a lot that considered this quite unfair. It was extremely biased towards account with very high amounts of SP. Making them even getting more SP faster and in big numbers.
Then some of the more wealthy Steem accounts decided to take action and push for 1 Steem Power - 1 Vote Weight. As linear was to be considered to be more fair, although not everybody seemed to understand their actions at the time. Looking back they did a good job.
Since then we have the linear voting weight system. Considered to be more fair. (The Curator - Poster division is about 20-80% of the potential payout, if I remember correctly.)
Will have a look into that another time, currently have other things on my schedule. Steem took me away from it for a bit too long. :-)
Have a good weekend!
So do you not recommend investing it BCH at all? I am thinking about investing a small amount in crypto, but I can't decide what. Yesterday someone told me that BCH is better than BTC, but it only has less recognition. If I understand your article correctly, that's not true at all?
From my point of view no and I do not own any BCH. The way bcash was created I absolutely disagree with. But from their point of view they are doing the right thing. Yet I can not see the need for just making the blocks bigger.
BTC to me is the real deal. And I think that Bitcoin needs SegWit, Sidechains and so on. Had some nice respectfull exchange of thoughts, concerning this post. And so far I have not been convinced that BCH is better. Match, logic and science keeps me from doing so. There is a thought that Bitcoin is able to replace fiat money, or the Banking Monetary Governance system as a whole.
Anything that can break through that monopoly, offering humanity one or more alternatives, I do support. But when I do the calculations for Bitcoin it is improbable to get there with bigger blocks. Surely not with only 8 MB, nor even 64 MB. And I do see SegWit and Sidechains as something that actually will make much more possible. Releaving the mainchain, where the huge value is secured in ten minutes one MB blocks. While the sidechains can do even DPOS like Bitshares and Steem kind of transactions in high speed.
Do have to state though that I am far from being considered to be a Bitcoin purist. As I do like Alts too and I think that they could atom swap with each other, creating decentralized exchanges on the fly. Also if Nakamoto Satoshi (group or person, who knows) had created Bitcoin as a static kind of crypto blockchain then it would have been better of closed source or with a strictly limiting license. That was not done, nor, as far as I remember, was there something like: "Thou shallethd not innovate the Bitcoin codeth."
There can be more than one Crypto, even besides Bitcoin. Alts that innovate, things that completely change the way blocks are made, like Bitshares and Steem.
And indeed I disagree with the claim that bcash BCH is better than Bitcoin {BCT}. Yes I still am convinced it is not at all, so far. But like I wrote before, I keep an open mind.
It can only start to try and make the banking system obsolote with bigger blocks solution starting with blocksizes of 640 MB. Huge amounts of data. Too much for the state of technology.
But I advice you to have a look into it for yourself. Because I can be, like I wrote before, having cognitive dissonance. And then I would not even know it.
There are however more Cryptos out there that you can invest in. Recently I bought Vertcoin for instance when it was about 1.30 or so. It went really well, but then it got down to 3 something again. Try a small amount first and only what you can effort to lose.
It is all speculation in the end.
Good luck and have a great weekend.
Thanks for the long answer my friend. I will definitely do some more research myself before I make the decision! :) I'm a fan of the altcoins too but as BTC is the biggest player out there, it makes sense to just go for that when thinking long term.
It is my pleasure. :-) BTC is what I expect the one for the long term. My main long term choices I narrowed down recently to Vertcoin, Litecoin and Bitcoin. And Digecoin for short term use.
Have a good weekend!
Any thoughts on Gulden? To me it seems very promising in the Netherlands at least.
Have had Gulden {NLG} in the past. It is being actively developed and the team is really doing their best to get stores to use it.
If I'm right Changelly supports it and the Coinomi wallet too. For me that one was difficult to predict, forsee, where it would go. Even with their innovations, like Pow2, Gulden does not get the boost I think it should.
Today it went up almost 10% after a dip. But I still find it tough to see where it should go.
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/gulden/
No use buying Bitcoin cash...
Unless you think it's the real deal and Bitcoin is being intentionally kept slow and expensive to stop it from replacing fiat.
One addition...
Like you replied: "Unless you think it's the real deal..."
Thing with that is that it is almost like a religion even with its own prophet. Not based on mathematics and logic at all, no science, knowledge of network or hardware and its limits.
It is almost getting like an obsession that thing called peoples money, that is heighly improbable. And I do share the thought of dealing with the Banking Monetary Governance system by giving humanity an alternative.
But the way b2x and bcash do it to me is the wrong way. It is an unrealistic approach, that can easily be debunked by numbers and figures.
Not a belief, not a religion, not what I think, but what math, logic and science can proof.
At least, that is as seen from my perspective. But I could be suffering from cognitive dissonance. And then I would not even know it.
Anyway no matter what, have a great day!