3 ms·
Which is better because the original blockchain rewarded the majority of bitcoins to very low difficulty early adopters running nothing more then a 3GHz CPU. Wh
by nosuchthing 9y ago
Which is better because the original blockchain rewarded the majority of bitcoins to very low difficulty early adopters running nothing more then a 3GHz CPU. Why would you want to keep an old blockchain and keep raising the difficulty? Why not keep the difficulty high and announce the date of the new chain without premining? Because it's a ponzi scheme, and it's easy to hide behind the technical jargon and hype propaganda that all the speculators are publishing.
Thousands of other BTC was rewarded to protocol hackers who exploited the empty block rewards and submitted useless "Proof of Work" to the network. Mining pools have also reaped plenty of bitcoins on the "original blockchain" by manipulating their stance as overseers of a vast swath of the mining activity in the network where they could simply prioritize their transactions and rewards over the slaves in their mining pool.
This is not even mentioning the inherent slowness and susceptibility to ASIC attacks, and overall antiquated design of both BTC and BCC network designs.
- olegkikin 9y agoYou have no idea what you're talking about, your argument is not even coherent, it's just a bunch of talking points stringed together. As I explained, the reason Bitcoin Cash situation is different is because the blockchain / private keys are shared. It's not the case with the altcoins. That's why Coinbase is in the wrong. Plus it would cost them very little to fix the situation, compared to how much of the users' money they are holding.