@FUBAR-BDHR
edited
Who Will Retain the BCH Ticker
I keep seeing quite a bit of FUD about the BCH ticker. Here are the simple hard facts. Exchanges decide what ticker they will assign to a chain. Right now Binance, Huboi, Bitcoin.com, and OKEx are all signaling support for BCHN with their mining pools. Source https://cash.coin.dance/blocks CoinEx/ViaBTC has stated they will remain neutral and support both chains Source https://twitter.com/yhaiyang/status/1297377355602653189 Historically exchanges have awarded the ticker to the majority hash chain. As far as I know no other exchanges have come out with a stance on the possible split. So are the possible scenarios for the ticker? Other exchanges follow Binance, Huboi, Bitcoin.com and OKEx and the BCHN signaling chain retains BCH. ABC somehow manages to convince exchanges and they get BCH. This looks very unlikely at this time. Exchanges create 2 new tickers and no one gets BCH. This is also very unlikely. A mix. This is the most likely scenario. Majority of exchanges assign BCH to the BCHN signaling chain. Some exchanges create new tickers for both chains. It's unfortunate but there are exchanges that have interest in harming BCH and will make things confusing. One of these could even assign the BCH ticker to the ABC chain on their exchange for just this reason. What is certain is that at this time nothing is certain. Still the most likely scenario in the event the split happens (and a split isn't even a certainty) is that BCHN signaling chain will retain the BCH ticker.
15 comments
ABC keeps ticker. I don't like it but it is what it is
If you gave some reasons, we could discuss. But you're just stating as fact something clearly debatable.
> Historically exchanges have awarded the ticker to the majority hash chain. There is no such historical precedence. Tickers have been decided for other reasons. The BCH ticker is already inconsistent; and is "BAB" and "BCHABC" in various places. As far as what *BITCOIN CASH* is, the organization that *defines* what bitcoin cash "is" has already stated that the specification for November includes an 8% funding rule. Any exchange listing something other than what is specified on BitcoinCash.org would be committing fraud and be subject to lawsuits by their clients. Hope I cleared that up for you.
You are doing nothing but spreading more FUD. Of course you want your cut of that 8% so you have financial incentive to do so. Enjoy your frivolous lawsuits.
> As far as what BITCOIN CASH is, the organization that defines what bitcoin cash "is" has already stated that the specification for November includes an 8% funding rule. Please stop with this nonsense suggesting that Bitcoin Cash is whatever Amaury decides. Complete false. Ps: when you threaten lawsuits you sound a lot like Craig Wright.
I'm not threatening a lawsuit. And you do realize I'm a named party in his dumbass lawsuit? Your argument is void.
So, ABC has gone full BSV tardism incl. statist lawsuits etc. Right ok. Fuck off.
> the organization that defined what Bitcoin cash is There is no such organization.
Nice bluff Shawarma. You and your rag-tag band of incompetent theives aren't scaring anybody.
Fun Fact: In Aug 2017, ABC launched their client with the 'BCC' ticker and then changed to the community derived 'BCH' ticker after the November 2017 upgrade. In fact, BU/XT/Classic all implemented the BCH ticker in their node implementations well before ABC, therefore ABC has no legitimate right to claim ownership of the BCH ticker symbol.
> Still the most likely scenario in the event the split happens (and a split isn't even a certainty) is that BCHN signaling chain will retain the BCH ticker. That is what the anti-BCH troll army has been claiming for weeks. It may be true on some anti-BCH exchanges no matter what happens in the hash battle. IMO, If ABC wins the Hash battle it will be BCH on most exchanges still. If ABC loses the hash battle, BCHN is likely to get the name. Of course the troll army will assure their recruits BCHN will win the hash battle and be BCH. We can't know yet since BTC miner hash may well be involved. Anyone who claims it is already a certainty or that the winner of the name is obvious now is being dishonest or fooled.
"It's unfortunate but there are exchanges that have interest in harming BCH and will make things confusing." Such as? Why?
Look what happened with the BCH/BSV split and how some exchanges continued until recently mislabeling BCH. The ties between Bitfinex and Blockstream are well known. I can see them messing with the tickers again.
Yeah, there will probably be some ticker malarkey. I would doubt any larger exchanges would veer too far from their business interests in trying to do anything malicious though.
Don't ask me why, but bittrex it still using "BCHABC" as ticker for BCH (since bsv split) and they are still not using cashaddr. One could argue it's not malicious, just lazy, but i think they're doing it on purpose.