Free money

selling before snapshot
i don't want btcpajeet coin
hold my bags newfags

lmao nigga it aint no risk its FREE MONEY trust me zcl gunna be 300 dolla too man easy pump FREE money from btcp totally legit fork its good man def go to $300 each

WTF U DOIN NIGGA I AINT TOLDYA TA SELL WTFFFF now you dumb nigga you gotta hold for the FORK keep that ZCL price up I mean keep it in yo wallet nigga keep it safe yeah man

>is that too much of a risk?
yes.
the dev team is incompetent
no value add

It's going to be worth twice as much in 2 weeks.

bitcoin private currency will be worth $10000 one day

This coin could easily double but still way too much of a risk wtf-- at most put in 25k i think

Meh I put 10k in. Not interested in the shitcoin or the fork and I'll dump once it reaches a good 30~40% gain. It's 3am right now so the fomo hasn't even begun.

english please

Yeah I bought about 10k worth at $100, still holding for fork

well assuming it doubles id sell half the stack to recoup my original investment and the other half id leave as a long term hodl incase bcp hits 1k+

I wouldn't put 250k in but I would put a modest amount in. This is very likely going to at least double in the next month

It hit $240 already, with no news on Bittrex or Binance support. When these happen, I see no reason it wont hit $400+

What's the deal with the dropoff from yesterday?

But why would it obliterate Bitcoin Cash when its main selling point, zk-snarks is going to be implemented in a better and more secure way than it is in Bitcoin Private? With Bitcoin Private zk-snarks are added to the base layer meaning if a bug occurs and 12 trillion Bitcoin Private are created no one will know. But with Bitcoin Cash they use extension blocks so if 12 trillion coins are created in the zk-snark extension block it doesn't effect the main chain, only those currently with coins on the extension block. This coin is a joke compared to BCH if all we are comparing is the zk-snark implementation, and BCH has much more than just zk-snarks. This thing is a joke.

Fork date is a month away. That's why I said it's free money. Because it'll inevitably pump as it gets closer.

zk-snarks aren't coming to BCH. That's just a shitty reddit rumor.

Umm, but this is the lead developer of the most used Bitcoin Cash wallet talking about how he plans to implement it. Also they specifically made the new address for Bitcoin Cash more compatible with extension blocks. You can be deluded all you want, but this coin is a joke compared to BCH (although this is true for all coins when compared to BCH).

yours.org/content/adding-zero-knowledge-to-bitcoin-cash-95a2a022a387/

I honestly don't understand how that would work. The accounts would still be publicly visible, but somehow transact through an extension layer? Or there would be special accounts that exist in the block? Seems like that would reduce the privacy features if everyone wasn't using it. Also it seemed like a blogpost where someone was just thinking about it, not a road map.

>all other crypto is shit compared to BCH

Oh, so you're just a deluded BCH hodler. Nothing to see here.

After reading it again, it is clear that the coins would move into the extension block from the main blocks. So it is a cop out. It is saying "we don't know if we can do privacy well for BCH, but we will let people who want it take the risk". I don't see how that is really a great solution.

>You'll be able to ask someone to send you funds to an extension block without their wallet having to even know about this extension.

>I see here you sent 5 BCH to a wallet associated with a known criminal/private extension block, user.

Without getting too technical extension blocks basically are a second layer where once you send coins into the extension block they can follow any protocol you wish to code. So in this case you send your coins to an extension block address and they now use the zk-snark protocol. This is identical to the way BTCP will have public and hidden addresses. The advantage to using extension blocks for zk-snarks is that if a bug occurs in the zk-snark protocol you can create an infinite amount of the coin. So in BTCP if a bug occurs you could have one wallet address with billions of BTCP. But with BCH if a bug occurs and one wallet address gets billions of BCH when they try and move back to the main block it becomes obvious and the bug is discovered. Also the developer has mentioned zk-snarks in extension blocks in many interviews and the new cash address was made to make extension blocks easier so its planned, just no release date yet.

i know its a larp but i cant even read it

That's not how it works, you can know someone used the zk-snarks, but the extension block is one block so all coins that want to use zk-snarks use the same extension. The same is true of BTCP in that you know someone is using zk-snarks protocol when using their crypto, so this is irrelevant.

bitcoin cash is trash

I don't think you understand extension blocks and if you are worried about the risks in BCH then you must hate BTCP as the risks are much lower in BCH. Again, the risk of infinite inflation is inherent in zk-snarks themselves, but without extension blocks you have no defense against it. They both offer the same privacy and functionality, the only difference is that if a bug occurs and creates counterfeit coins you can only know about it if you use extension blocks. BTCP doesn't use extension blocks so it is a very risky coin to hold as you can never know if someone has figured out a bug to counterfeit the coins. The only people that have to worry about a counterfeit bug in BCH are those who are transacting on the extension block the exact time the bug would occur. So with BTCP the bug would effect the entire coin, but with BCH it would only effect a very small portion of coinholders.

>This is identical to the way BTCP will have public and hidden addresses.

Why do you think BTCP will have public addresses?

Great argument. Seems like someone is getting nervous after realizing their coin is worse in literally every way and has to resort to insults because they have nothing else.

That's the way ZClassic does it and it is forking from ZClassic. Do you even research your coins? I'm a ZClassic holder because I liked ZClassic's zero founders reward, but BTCP is retarded and has no use case as it offers nothing new.

My point is that by having it be an extension, the privacy features are lessened. I understand the way it which it could hypothetically protect the not public coins, but my point there is that is a copout for actually doing a privacy coin correctly.

SELL SELL SELL 1 month is too long to wait! Sell now and buy back later.
>but BTCP is retarded and has no use case as it offers nothing new.
like every other coin? the branding is good, btc holders (mostly whales) will be rewarded with btcp so its not dumb to assume they are going to shill it hard.

DECENTRALIZED

Yes the old we need nodes small enough to validate transactions on desktops computers argument. Coming from the same people who want the Lightning Network whose transactions are not validated by full nodes. So you either have BCH where all transactions are validated by all nodes though only financial businesses, retailers, and miners will run full nodes. Or you can use BTC Segwit where anyone with a desktop computer can run a full node but 99.99% of transactions are not verified by full nodes since they are done offchain. So with BCH you get complete transaction validation, but only by wealthy nodes, and with Bitcoin Segwit you get no transaction validation by anyone because that data no longer exists.

>the branding is good
True, but this is only useful for the short term.

FUDing this hard... i will buy more noa

Hi omgaymaker! I see you still can't write properly..