pull down to refresh

I think they're going with BLAKE2b-256, but honestly they have a somewhat convoluted process here...

it seems that they were waiting for a new block on testnet4 and then they were going to use the block header from that as an oracle of sorts. unfortunately, there seems to be a fork on testnet4 right now...

h/t @0xB10C

reply

dear lord:

source

reply

so it could be sha3x?

reply
1021 sats \ 7 replies \ @Scoresby 11 Aug

reply

lmfao you beat me my 5 seconds

reply

i guess we are getting a small glimpse of what it might be like to change the PoW algo...(although i'm not confident they went about it in a very thoughtful manner).

reply

lol. I don't think so.

reply
126 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 11 Aug

it does give the impression that they didn't actually plan to have a PoW fork. If they had, surely they would have already thought about how to pick it. This seems like something they came up with over breakfast.

103 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 11 Aug

lol imagine the (BIP-110) chain splits again

reply

perhaps there is another commonality...

reply
reply
346 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 11 Aug

What I like about this is that it means I might be able to sell my bipcoins one day

reply
264 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 11 Aug

the way this is going...i wouldn't count on it

reply
103 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 11 Aug

Mhh, the way I'm thinking about this: BIP-110's hash rate is somewhere between BSV and BCH, and both have exchange rates, so I see a chance. Or rather, I don't see why exchanges wouldn't want to support it; it's just another shitcoin to them, no?[1] I think they want you to trade, regardless of what it is.

It would also mean I need to care about replay protection, though.

  1. Replace "exchanges" with "miners" and "support" with "signal", and I sound exactly like the forkers haha

reply

deleted by author

179 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 11 Aug -210 sats

This the new fake L2 fascination? Fake Chain 2?