In my opinion, it appears that the deployment of Bitcoin Cash (BCC) is quit nefarious for a number of reasons:
- SegWit2x had already achieved miner consensus, and is the compromise solution;
- BCC's deployment to the public was premature as it's supporters claim their reasoning would be in the event that miners did not implement the 2MB blocks they agreed on - heck that's not even supposed to happen until 90 days after August 1!
- It appears the BCC deployment is ment to a) recoup mining costs and b) influence adoption.
image source: http://www.coindesk.com/happen-bitcoin-visual-guide-scaling-outcomes/
Considering the manner in which it was deployed, without even allowing miners the opportunity to live up to their (2x) agreement does not gain confidence.
COULD THIS BE CONSIDERED AN ATTACK ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK?
Let's look at Satoshi's Whitepaper:
"Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. >>> The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. <<< The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone."
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
If BCC is not allowing the proof-of-work to play out before broadcasting their fork, are they really pro-bitcoin?
"Bitcoin’s security model depends on the collective efforts of miners. Ceteris paribus more miners mean a more secure and hence valuable Bitcoin....
there are at least 3 client implementations that will be supporting BCC one way or another. These are Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic...
some of the miners that are currently supporting Segwit2X have a vested interested in keeping the BCC blockchain alive."
https://keepingstock.net/has-segwit2x-lock-in-avoided-a-bitcoin-fork-afd2fd72bcc9
"Even former supporters [of BCC], including mining firms Bitcoin.com and Bitmain, seem hesitant to back the effort. For now, they remain committed to controversial scaling proposal Segwit2x.
Mining company Bitmain even inspired Bitcoin Cash. Yet, the firm said that they only planned on going through with making the switch under certain conditions. Still, the firm might support both Segwit2x and Bitcoin Cash in the future.
In a PSA statement, Bitcoin.com said that it will allow miners in its pool to choose if they want to mine the Bitcoin Cash token BCC.
For now, though, it will mine on Segwit2x chain, though it said it "will immediately shift all company resources to supporting Bitcoin Cash exclusively" if the block size increase part of SegWit, scheduled for roughly three months from now, falls through...
Beijing-based mining firm ViaBTC, which boasts roughly >>> 4% <<< of bitcoin’s computing power, is the clear ringleader."
https://www.coindesk.com/coindesk-explainer-bitcoin-cash-forking-blockchain/
Like us on facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/cryptoknightsdames/