My recent thoughts from private chat:

I'm expecting BCH to exceed $1k to maybe $1800 but it's difficult to offer a timeframe yet

Yeah and I also want to trade SegWit BTC for LTC @ 0.013 soon. Remember don’t buy any BTC because it could be stolen in a chain reorganization. Only sell on the way up. It’s possible for LTC to move down to 0.0118 on this next move up for BTC to $4000. BTC for LTC would be a definite trade.

After LTC pumps, I’m out of crypto and into the dollar (and for you I imagine US stocks?) until I can safely buy back non-SegWit BTC without fear of a chain reorganization stealing the BTC. That is okay for me because I only have 3.7 BTC remaining right now. For you, I don't know if you want to entirely exit crypto? So I guess you should hold ETH or other large cap alts? But if the SegWit chain does fork (into TRB and SegWit), then could all alts get hit hard and speculators exit to fiat?

My thought is BCC (and LTC) will be the beneficiary if SegWit BTC forks. Because neither BCC nor LTC will fork. BCC will be seen as the safe haven initially perhaps. I see a 3-way split of BTC into BCC, SegWit, and TRB. I think Bitman is buying everyone’s BCC with BTC that he plans to steal back by a huge chain reorganization funded with stolen SegWit.

In other words, I speculate that Jihan Wu may really be using BCC and LTC as leverage (decoys) to take more BTC from people. The SegWit was accepted by him because he knew it could finance his attack.

Well I will not be out of crypto if Bitnet launches. I will hold those tokens because will be very underpriced initially. I’ll probably also hang on to most of my STEEM.

John Stuart Millibit wrote:

_{There are now two versions of the same currency. One is Bitcoin Cash (BCC), the currency that branched away and the other is the “old” Bitcoin (BTC).} That is not entirely true though. BTC also changed[forked] at the time of the network split._{The main changes are the adoption of segwit and promises of further diversion from the original rules of the game.
…
The second indication that we got for the viability of a new coin was … Mining power were prepared to mine at a loss to make a new branch come to life.
…
The way that segwit is implemented imposes great systemic risks.}

_{…that specific change [BCC’s emergency difficulty adjustment algorithm] could very well prove itself to be an advantage in some circumstances…}

_{If the value of BCC surpassed BTC, you’d think that the mining power would shift accordingly, just adapting to the new world. That is not how it works. As previously mentioned, the difficulty adjustment rules of BTC is symmetrical. This means that you need to expend the same amount of resources to bring difficulty down as you did to bring it up. This has until now been considered a virtue, preventing malicious miner behaviour. The main problem with the symmetrical difficulty is that if BTC would ever loose a substantial amount of mining power, a vicious circle would start. It would even happen well before BCC became the dominating currency. Let’s assume that BCC takes away 30 percent of the mining power due to the better value proposition. Congestion would appear on the BTC branch and this could cause miners and investors to panic. They might assume that this time it very well could be permanent. A mass exodus to the safe option would happen almost instantly.}

_{Blocks on the BTC branch would not be coming slightly slower. It would come to a grinding halt. The branch would be dead within days or even hours.}

Correction to Millibit’s blog: SegWit didn’t just “change” BTC. It forked off from BTC!

This is a very crucial distinction, because it explains what the real Trojan Horse purpose of BCC is.

anonymous wrote in private chat:

It seems as though essentially the same attacks that can be made against Tor/I2P are applicable to any existing cryptocurrency. The mining depletion attack has always been a concern as well, but may not be as devastating as portrayed - even with 2/3rds of mining shifting off of BTC to BCC it would slow the network but rising fees should ameliorate further congestion.

I think you could possibly be underestimating the non-linear effects.

If SegWit is being stolen back to the TRB chain, then we have a 3 way split with SegWit being sold off like scalding potatoes. So I can see mass exodus and congestion trying to scramble to get out of that SegWit (Core) chain. Deathstar to 0 effect.

I have to wonder whether there may be some kind of effort at merging the chains (BTC/BCC) if there is enough of a stalemate in divergence.

IMHO, I really do not think that is the point at all. I think BCC is Trojan horse to enable Bitman (and their backers) to grab a huge amount of TRB. Keeping the LTC and BCC separate as a seesaw to milk more tokens from.

However, my expectation could be incorrect.