ERC-20 Transition


Hmhmmm a friend of mine told me yesterday that his ethereum transaction was stuck for longer than one day - and asked me if he needs to worry

Just an additional thought that popped up in my mind


How much did he try to move and how much gas did he use for the transaction? Can he find record of the transaction on ether scanner?


no clue - seriously - i know nothing about how to use ethereum :smiley: sorry


No prob. He might want to check those factors, I think


Well I personally observed that no matter how much clogged the eth blockchain is, still the transaction fee is much smaller and faster than btc. And on an average omni needs 3 times the transaction fee than that of btc. So you can estimate the cost per transaction of maid from omni to exchanges. Long time hodlers might not be affected but short timers do.


Another alternative may be Counterparty Cash (Counterparty on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain), which plans to launch in March 2018:


Ooh - interesting!

That could be great. The Bitcoin cash community is committed to low fees & decent capacity, which was their reason for splitting from the rest of the Bitcoin community who don’t think high fees are a serious problem that warrants immediate action.

One issue with ERC20 is the complexity of Ethereum compared to Bitcoin, and Ethereum its self is hitting capacity constraints.

However, a key benefit of ERC20 is ease of getting onto exchanges, which is not likely to be a benefit Counterparty Cash offers, unless exchanges rapidly adopt the standard.



So only the rich MAID whales might do it, which then unlocks all those coins to even more people, helping the price and allowing things like CEPs, paper wallets, Trezor, Ethereum exchanges, small transactions and loads of other benefits.

Optional optional optional and everyone benefits


Yes, exchange adoption should be an important precondition. I do feel strongly that we should move away from the omni protocol however. A lot of time, effort and money is going into a marketing campaign, presumably to on-board new users. It would be presumptuous (and wrong IMO) to assume that all of these will buy MAID in large enough size to make transaction fees inconsequential. Turning off a lot of new investors/users is exactly what we don’t want to do.

There’s been a lot of hand wringing about the big drop in our position on the coinmarketcap website. I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that MaidSafeCoin has become impractical for small purchases and correlates directly with the big drop in BTC market dominance.


"Bcash only has on average 200–400 transactions per block, and average block size below 250 Kb.In addition, BCH on average have less than 10% of the hash rate. Thus, BCH blockchain is more vulnerable to a 51% attack, and much less secure than the BTC blockchain.


The fact this person used the term ‘Bcash’ means they are very likely biased against Bitcoin Cash, and therefore are not a balanced voice worth giving much attention to. Labelling any entity with a name that the community of that entity expressly don’t want to be known by is rude and discloses animosity & bias against that entity / community.

The issue here isn’t what the transaction rate currently is - it’s the fees and reliability. Bitcoin Cash has far lower fees than Bitcoin, and transactions are able to confirm much more quickly.

This would still be the case if Bitcoin Cash reached the same, or higher transaction volume that Bitcoin has, as it has 8mb capacity per block instead of 1mb + a small additional headroom from SegWit transactions.

However, whether any Bitcoin Cash token (for example on Counterparty Cash) is likely to give the coin as much traction with exchanges etc as ERC20 tokens I’m not sure, though it may result in lower fees.


This is important part

BCH on average have less than 10% of the hash rate. Thus, BCH blockchain is more vulnerable to a 51% attack, and much less secure than the BTC blockchain.

It would be very bad trade off to move MAID coins to much less secure chaine to save few bucks on transaction costs.


Bitcoin Cash doesn’t have a problem with security. Bitcoin Legacy is now purely an investment vehicle with aspirations of becoming digital gold with zero utility. This is everything MaidSafeCoin aspires not to be.


BTC Hash rate is 6 times bigger.


I remember back in 2013 people making arguments that Bitcoin was vulnerable to a 51% attack when its hash rate was much lower than it is today. I didn’t agree with those arguments then and I don’t agree that Bitcoin Cash is vulnerable to such an attack now. The reality is, that a 51% never happened in the early days of Bitcoin, because double-spending coins that would soon lose value (because the bad actor is the only one validating them) is a losing proposition. It’s a red herring.


I don’t think this is rudeness. It’s just the preference for a non-ambiguous name, possibly also a protest against the choice of a name that deliberately confuses people. Not just uninformed newbies but also big companies (see Retailer Overstock mixed up bitcoin and bitcoin cash, letting customers buy items at a steep discount)


Possibly. I don’t see how the name ‘Bitcoin Cash’ is in any way confusing, and nor is ‘Ethereum Classic’ in my view.

If people are confused by a blockchain forking & branding shared between coins that share a common genesis block, then ok, but I’d be surprised if this were the case for those who understand blockchains to a small degree.

However, I see that it was a misquote, or the article has been updated, as the term used in the article is in fact ‘Bitcoin Cash’, and not ‘Bcash’.

Sorry for distracting - what really matters is considering platforms that enable lower cost and more predictable transfers of digital assets to consider using for MAID equivalent tokens.


No misquote. Some people prefer using Bcash because Bicoin Cash is confusing. The article shows an example of such a confusion.


Most people using the term Bcash are deliberately trolling. There should be no confusion about the name, and if anything Bitcoin Cash, unlike Bitcoin Segwit, and true to the White Paper, remains a peer-to-peer electronic cash system and therefore has a legitimate claim to the name.


Yes, but if you put quote marks around words and suggest they’re from an article, you’re misquoting if you have anything other than exactly what is written in the referenced article.

Generally if you change anything in a quote I think square brackets are supposed to be used.