Yes, they really must hate exchanges. First, they sold a lot of splitted coins, to claim unsplitted ones, and now, because of new coinbase locking rules, they can sell locked coins for unlocked ones. And then, it can artificially increase the price, so they can pump it, to allow Luke getting back at least some coins he lost.

Yes, of course. I can also claim everyone uses my coin, if I would use compatible signatures, and keep replaying a lot of BTCs transactions.

Other forks can say exactly the same thing. I guess the government must also use these ones:

Bitcoin Purity: https://mempool.bitcoinpurity.org/tx/9194d9de95703bd6d43997e0f1341896314e6586650a6ae179371f2dc10dfd3d
eCash Alpha Testnet: https://explorer.alpha.ecash.ninja/tx/9194d9de95703bd6d43997e0f1341896314e6586650a6ae179371f2dc10dfd3d
eCash Beta Testnet: https://explorer.beta.ecash.ninja/tx/9194d9de95703bd6d43997e0f1341896314e6586650a6ae179371f2dc10dfd3d

Yeah, definitely the government is busy doing all transactions on all forks. Sure. And it is not just a consequence of P2P peers replaying it from mainnet. Of course.

Edit: Yes, they should just burn all coinbase rewards, and claim, that the total supply should be set to 20 millions, instead of 21, because it was like that in the original pre-release code from 2008.

By the way: even if all coinbase transactions will be burned forever, then people can still deal with it. For example: centralized pools now claim the coinbase, and split it later. Instead, people can simply send fees directly to some Proof-of-Work address, and make a lottery on top of it. And because they didn't touch SHA-256 inside the Script for calculating sighashes, then old miners could be used to claim these coins.

Also, if there will be no monetary reward, then guess what: the only use case will be related to pushing data. Because if you mine, and get zero coins, then what you can do? Just include transactions, and push data, because you are not rewarded anyway. And then, all transactions could use zero fees, and simply be sent directly to the proper miners, to avoid stupid rules.

Please spare the hashers, they just want to dump their mined coin as soon as possible while the price is high


Is there any user-friendly wallet and public electrum server for BTCB2 coin yet? Last time i checked, power user who don't want to run BTCB2 node create multiple different transaction on specific order. Has it changed since then? If no, higher price alone isn't enough to make majority BTC holder dump their BTCB2 coin.

Remember that the exchange wants you to trade whether the price goes up or down. They make money either way. They dont really care if late buyers are left holding the bag after price has fallen.

This doesnt necessarily require any sort of conspiracy either. Entities that control the liquid supply of a token will benefit from pumping its price even if it subsequently falls. Thus when you see freshly minted or unlocked coins being funneled to exchange addresses it can be a sign that those coins are about to be sold into maximum market enthusiasm.

Likewise a low cap coin that sees its total traded volume suddenly double (or more) might seem exciting, but in fact its often a sign of just how thin the market really is and how little money it takes to pump or dump the price. Keep an eye on the order book to get a sense of liquidity conditions.


Of course you could still have high priced token on very thin orderbook with poor exit liquidity.

Another gotcha with this coin is that transfer/claim process is very technically challenging (needing to craft your own txs, running full node, etc.) and may keep most people from being able to "sell". Essentially acting as a sort of lockup, except without smart contract. More than 95% of people are probably casual holders that would be filtered out before attempting to sell. People left (miners, early claimers) are technically capable of claiming/transferring their LukeCoins.

This might also be reflected in the trading stats on the exchange, as the "$641k" in volume and the stat that "93% of volume is LukeCoin" might not indicate "this coin is popular", but instead mean "this is the only liquid venue for a very small circle of people who can actually access their coins." In which case it would just be same few coins getting passed around, and maybe looking at unique addresses trading token (amongst other onchain metrics) would be more telling than the volume stats to indicate popularity/demand.

I see, but the most important question is whether there's any public Electrum server instance for this altcoin. Most people can't or don't want install either full node wallet or electrum server. If it's exist, more people may consider dumping their BTCB2 coin.

When I played with dust on that to move my blake coins also I added fulcrum.kilombino.com to the server list on Shrike, I was way to bored to install another node, as I already had to grab another clean laptop from storage at that time so probably there are a few others.
Not recommending any of them to be honest, so pay with it at your own risk.


I'm one of those guys posting once or twice a day on Discord supporting this, I'm barely holding my laptop while I call moderates there suitcoiners!
As the great Sun Tompix said, troll the morons till they make the mistake you want them to!

That aside:
Guy who is spamming blake2b with those pics, if you read this, you know, there is also porn outthere  !!!!!

Loooool!!!!!!!
How empty is that chain that even with 1/3 of the blockspace you can upload 4mb of data on it so easily?

Oh, wait, seems like our former forum collegue has realized this:
https://x.com/LapiuPepe/status/2109458918623555748


My god, it's worse than what I was thinking of!
So if we take out replayed tx from the equation, that chain is just a bunch of JPGs?

I think they should just fork again, because they did it recently, and they are used to it. Users will be fine, miners will adjust, and opposing miners should just run URSF, if they disagree, right? Blocking all coinbase rewards is a soft-fork anyway. It can be signalled like before, and it can be coded to activate unconditionally, even if miners disagree. And if again, there would be 2.5% of miners, supporting locking their coins for a year, then yet another Proof of Work change can be done, because why not.

That's how things look like, once you accept, that hard-forking is a good idea, and should be done to solve problems, where even soft-forks are not needed (like: processing a subset of the mainnet traffic).

The sad part really is that if they had presented their case and had everyone reject it but then just quietly moved off and done their thing like eCash is doing they probably would have been left alone.

But, pretend to be BTC, call people names, insult people, harass the developers and so on people are going to hit back.


And that should really worry them. How many people are sitting on enough BTC to dump the price to just about nothing (and keep it there) but are just waiting because it's not worth the time and effort to deal with it. Once that happens how many others are going to go "Oh shit, let me get out now" and then move and dump theirs. Kind of like a bank run but for crypto.

A couple of thousand BTC would drop the price to sub $200. Which for most of us would be a lot. But a couple of long term holders with a couple of hundred start dumping how many others would follow.



Well they are going to have at least a couple more. 1 for the maturity change and another to probably change the algo once some miner someplace spins up a bunch of older blake miners and then uses stratum to mine instead of datum so you have to block that somehow. Oh, and then don't forget have to block the dust & gambling fork. Anything else they can fork for?

-Dave

Recent interview with Bob Burnett (Barefoot Mining) on why he stepped back from BIP-110 and sees no real path for the Blake2b chain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWWizyXVuh4