The problem with forking and creating two coins

A brief note.

BU people seem to have this idea that if they split off, then the "Core" coin will crash to the ground and the new forked coin will increase in value.

However, if two coins are made, everyone loses. Our bitcoins, that are increasing in value and that will increase further if SegWit activates, will lose lots and lots of value. Don't ruin it for everyone. We're almost at an ATH — let's work through this safely and bust through to $ 2000 and beyond, together.

That is all.

submitted by /u/thisusernamelovesyou
[link] [comments]
Bitcoin

inputs getting smaller

noob here,

am I right in thinking that as bitcoin matures, the average size of transactions, i.e. kb per n BTC, will go up as all the coin gets increasingly spent so that any sizable payment will ultimately end up being made up of increasingly large numbers of smaller inputs, and that this will contribute to the rate at which the blockchain size increases, on top of general total transaction increases over time.. ? With the current large mempool size and delays in getting transactions accepted for mining, except with big fees per kb, will this lead to increasingly large fees to send payments in a timely way or longer delays ??

Thanks

Recent Questions – Bitcoin Stack Exchange

Anonymity of Bitcoin ownership a fakery?

If John needs to send 0.1 BTC to you as payment to your product, and he wants to retain his BTC ownership confidential, and the transaction goes something like this…

1fdfsefesf….. —> send 0.1 BTC to 1hsjhjkwa….. (your account)
—> send 999.9 BTC to 1lkskakkd… (not your account)

… then doesn’t that mean John has at least 999.9 BTC left in his savings?

Even though John may not want you or anyone else to know he has that much but the transaction has just given away info of his savings.

So how can anonymity really be sure?

Recent Questions – Bitcoin Stack Exchange

Solution to risk of address reuse?

I just learned that a Bitcoin address can only be used once because once it is spent, the private key can be hacked with quantum computer. So I want to seek clarification and have a question-cum-solution for this.

Clarifications:
1. Can the hacking with quantum computer be done by anyone on any used address?
2. Or can it be done only by the direct recipient of a used address on that used address only? Means only the recipient that accepts my payment from address ABC can hack my address ABC only?

If only point #2 is valid, then can risk of hacking thru quantum computers be substantially reduced by way of…
1. Have an address that be used only for spending BTC, and
2. Transfer a “savings” address to this “spending” address and use this “spending” address to spend BTC, thus limiting risk of loss to just this “spending” address, and not the “savings” address?

Say I have address A and address B.
I save every BTC in address A, while my address B is empty.
I want to spend $ 100 worth of BTC on an eBay item.
I send $ 100 worth of BTC from my address A to my address B.
I pay for the eBay item with $ 100 from my address B.
If my address B is compromised, I will create a new address, address C.
For added security, I can create address D, and make 2 round of transfers, from address A to address C to address D, and use that address D to pay merchants.
At the same time, I reduce the frequency of having to keep creating new addresses and reduce the risk of compromise by dealing only with trusted merchants.
— Or —
I just create a new address to spend BTC and just send enough of BTC from address A to these “spending” addresses, so I only need to backup my private key of address A, instead of every private key from every address created just in case?

How valid is my solution?

Recent Questions – Bitcoin Stack Exchange

Privacy approach for a light-weight wallet

I am looking for an approach to build a privacy centric lighter weight wallet.
By privacy centric I only mean: network observers should be unable to guess the addresses belongs to the same wallet.
So querying information about addresses should be private.
By light-weight I mean:
1. Do not store hundreds of GB of data (a few is fine).
2. Do not sync for ages. Should be finished within an hour maybe.
The lightest privacy preserving approach I was able to find is pruning, what solves my first criteria, but not the second.
BIP37 is not a good. (See: https://jonasnick.github.io/blog/2015/02/12/privacy-in-bitcoinj/)
Do you guys have suggestions? (Or direct me to a better room to ask this question?)

Recent Questions – Bitcoin Stack Exchange