1. Predicting Success

Although this is a difficult prediction - predicting whether others are determined to burn money - but as a prophet who has made many real money predictions in the cryptocurrency circle and all of them hit the mark, I have hit another key prediction:)

2. Peaceful “Computing War”

In "[The Great Justice of the World Should Be Mixed as One] (Part 2) Hash War", I made a detailed deduction of the various forms and developments of hash wars based on the experience of previous hash wars. I also predicted that CSW would not be determined to fight a head-on war that would burn a lot of money, but would only fight a guerrilla war (harassment war) that would not burn money.

When two conflicting blocks appeared at height 556768, I got excited for a moment, thinking that CSW was going to fight hard , but it turned out to be just a normal isolated block: Bitcoin.com and Waterhole mined block 556768 at the same time, and then Bitcoin.com mined the next block first, and Waterhole's block was unfortunately isolated.

After that, until 11am on the 16th when I wrote this article, no attacks occurred, no attack blocks were detected, both parties just mined on their own chains, no direct battles, no harassment battles, not even a single attack. Where is the hash rate war that CSW has been promoting for several months? I wrote such a long article for nothing.

For those who were not familiar with CSW before, after this hash rate war, they can probably understand what I mean when I say “CSW is just a big liar”:

3. Wudou Bianwen Comparison

Of course, the whole night was not without highlights, but the physical fight (both sides attacked each other and isolated each other’s blocks) turned into a literary competition (both sides focused on mining their own chains to see whose chain was longer and whose accumulated mining difficulty was higher).

Up to now, the two parties have cumulatively used 6162P (ABC chain) + 3499P (SV chain) = 9661P of computing power, which is equivalent to an output of 13 million yuan per day in RMB, and the pure money burned every day is nearly 10 million .

As a result of both parties' massive computing power accumulation, the ABC chain is currently 42 blocks ahead of the SV chain, and the overall mining difficulty of the ABC chain is 2.3 times that of SV.

Please note that this comparison is a textual comparison. The longer chain cannot cover the shorter chain. It is just a show of strength between the two parties and their respective computing power . According to the longest chain principle in the white paper, the longest chain (the chain with the highest cumulative difficulty) has natural legitimacy . For example, Bitstamp has announced that it will trade ABC as a BCH trading pair.

We will only support Bitcoin ABC during the fork and the price of BCH at Bitstamp will reflect the price of Bitcoin ABC. Initially, we will not support any alternative chains, but will monitor the situation and decide about further courses of action at a later date.
We will only support Bitcoin ABC during the fork, and the price of BCH on Bitstamp will reflect the price of Bitcoin ABC. We will not support any alternative chains, but will monitor the situation and decide on further courses of action at a later date.

So don’t imagine that “we are not fighting now because the exchange does not allow deposits and withdrawals”, and find all kinds of excuses for CSW. He clearly has the ability to kill the ABC chain, but he doesn’t take advantage of the ABC chain’s weakness to crush it to death, and doesn’t fight quickly to save computing power and funds, but has to wait until ABC mines such a long chain and the exchange generally supports it before fighting? Do you think CSW is a monster in the game that helps players level up?

IV. CSW Errata

CSW has been claiming for months that there is “no split”

Even until a few hours before the fork, CSW still claimed that "there will be no split"

This has resulted in a lot of fallacies and heresies, so the following corrections are made:

1. BCH has separated into two chains, BCH ABC and BCH SV. The two chains are completely independent, with different rules and are unrelated to each other, just like BTC and LTC have incompatible rules . ABC is longer than SV and cannot cover SV, and vice versa, SV is longer than ABC and cannot cover ABC.

2. "SV chain includes ABC chain", "SV chain is compatible with ABC chain", "SV chain can be connected to ABC chain", "SV blocks can cover ABC blocks" are all fallacies. Think about it yourself, can LTC blocks with different rules cover BTC blocks?

3. The current block generation speed of the ABC chain is just a temporary result of the high computing power of the ABC chain . Under the DDA difficulty adjustment, the number of blocks of ABC and SV will be stable at 24*6=144 blocks/day for a long time. It is meaningless to compare the length of the two chains. The cumulative difficulty of the two chains should be compared (cash.coin.dance, etc. are all online cumulative difficulty statistics charts). The computing power of the ABC chain is higher than that of the SV chain, which is ultimately reflected in the fact that the cumulative block difficulty of the ABC chain is 2.3 times that of SV.

4. The mining pool’s computing power can be adjusted between BTC and BCH in seconds. There is no such thing as “waiting for ABC’s computing power to leave before attacking”. The computing power is always there . Now ABC has piled up a lot of computing power, not because it is afraid of attacks and has to pile it there, but to obtain a cumulative difficulty and orthodoxy that far exceeds that of the SV chain .

5. Limiting the maximum reorganization height of blocks (max re-org) is a kind of mining rule. It is a neutral rule that can be used by all parties . It has nothing to do with "alliance chain" (whitelist mining is "alliance chain"). Max re-org cannot increase computing power and does not violate the principle of the longest chain of computing power. It only allows the party with computing power advantage to reduce the number of reorganized blocks and reduce the instability time of the blockchain when facing harassment from the party with weak computing power . Of course, CSW has not had any attacks at present, so there is no talk of reorganization, let alone specific reorganization rules.

6. Checkpoint is a technical convention after hard forks and has nothing to do with the hash war . Both the "BCH Birth" and "DDA" hard forks have checkpoints, including BTC's checkpoint at block 546:

BTC and BCH checkpoint code

Hard fork = opening a new chain, so the first block needs to be determined (similar to the genesis block), otherwise it may cause subsequent nodes to be synchronized incorrectly. This is not unique to BCH, but a technical practice formed by early altcoins to stabilize hard forks .

7. I won’t talk about other CSW scams, just read it for yourself

5. Impact of the Hash War on Miners

The computing power war is definitely a good thing for miners, as the demand for computing power has increased.

First, both parties mobilized a large amount of computing power to mine BCH, reducing the computing power on BTC, and the next difficulty adjustment directly dropped by 6.8%.

Secondly, both parties may seek to rent a large amount of computing power in the market, raising the rental price of computing power.

The battle table of hash rate war on Wabi.com, entrance to watch the game: http://www.wabi.com/hashwar