Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[jbreher]

after a block has had many confirmation ( for example 6 ) is there any Valid reason to throw away these block and go with another set of blocks?

We've lost transoceanic links before. Bitcoin must be able to reconverge after such an event.

 

[adamstgbit]

We've lost transoceanic links before. Bitcoin must be able to reconverge after such an event.

you are referring to the HF bug way back in like 2012?
everything would have worked out the same way even with this added " we dont go back on blocks >6conf"
because it was the new 0.8miners that created a fork and mined blocks on that fork. then solved the problem by abandoning the new 0.8chain and going back and extending the 0.7 chain again.
so the block chain wasn't reorg'd, it was abandoned and the older chain continue to grow WITHOUT going back on any blocks.

so... again any good reason why nodes need to allow the reorg of perfectly valid highly confirmed blocks? hard question to answer...

 

[AdrianX]

They think about it first. Then they say no. Because they have instincts preventing them from being totally fucked. And then they accept market price.

I'm still fleecing them, though
--- Double Post Merged, Yesterday at 7:34 PM --- I recommend buying directly from people you know and disagree with. Much more satisfying than buying from an anonymous person at an exchange.

@Norway I had a little LOL, just thinking of this 7% minority BS/Core 1MB4ever fork you'll get another opportunity to see the hypocrisy these small blockers project. That same instinct will kick in when you offer to sell them BS/Core Coin after the 2X fork, they won't take it, they will know it's inherently worthless, even at market value.

__

I suspect BS/Core can't afford to fork away form the 2X agreement they know subconsciously this hype is fabricated and the market will see through it. The question is can they scare Bitpay, Coinbase and the like into breathtaking agreement.

I think as a last resort they may try if they have at their disposal a 0-Day exploit that is not in V0.15, but in btc1, it would go a long way in legitimizing them as the experts. The opportunity here is for exchanges to have BU as a backup, and not fall back to BS/Core 1MB, but move forward with BU, BU developers saving the day.

Whatever happens I'm hedged all my thinking was done years ago, what's transpired has just confirmed the ideas discussed in this tread are very solid. thanks everyone, bitcoin what a crazy idea that just may work.

 

[lunar]

Comedy interlude

https://www.segwetters.org/

 

[spunky]

Am I correct in asserting that both 2X and BCC are [potentially] satisfiable to the agreement?

By that I mean, if Bitcoin Core is unwilling to hard fork and Bitcoin Cash is willing to add SegWit. The potential is enough that agreement can be satisfied, albeit not deployed simultaneously.

 

[Bloomie]

Comedy interlude

https://www.segwetters.org/

I just watched my first Demi Devato video, thanks lunar.

 

[lunar]

DARI (Difficulty Adjusted Reward Index):

Nice set of graphs.

How mobile do you think a larger miner would be? I see you have 3/12/24 hour profitability figures. Do you actually think miners would be monitoring these figures on an hourly basis and switching accordingly. It would be great if they are, but I'm yet to be convinced they are that mobile.
Would be nice to see a 7 day+ numbers too.
[doublepost=1502367544][/doublepost]

Am I correct in asserting that both 2X and BCC are [potentially] satisfiable to the agreement?

Does it say anywhere in the agreement that the miners would activate Segwit and 2x on the same chain? What if they waited until Segwit activation, then dumped that chain, to activate 2MB on the BCC chain. That would make my day.

 

[Norway]

Here's a picture of how I see the situation with two competing chains sharing the same proof of work:

A self-driving car is driving down the road.
The left side of the road is Chain A.
The right side of the road is Chain B.

The car is where the value is.
If Chain A holds the most value, the car is driving on the left side of the road.
If Chain A holds all the value, the car is driving on the left shoulder of the road.
If Chain B holds the most value, the car is driving on the right side of the road.
If Chain B holds all the value, the car is driving on the right shoulder of the road.
If the chains hold the same value, the car is driving in the middle of the road.

The road going left and right is price fluctuations.

Ethereum
The software in the car is correcting the steering direction every millisecond (Translation: Correcting the difficulty every block.)
This makes it possible to keep the car steady at a point in the left-right space, even when the road goes left or right.

Bitcoin
The software in the car is correcting the steering direction every minute (Translation: Correcting the difficulty every 2016 blocks.)
This makes it makes it impossible to keep the car steady at a point in the left-right space when the road goes left or right.

The Ethereum model is stable with two chains. The Bitcoin model isn't.

Bitcoin Cash has an additional feature. The feature is the Emergency Difficulty Adjustment (EDA). The EDA builds an invisible crash barrier along the Bitcoin Segwit side of the road. This crash barrier prevents the car from going all the way to the shoulder of the road.

Right now, the bitcoin car is scraping along this invisible crash barrier. All we need, is the road to turn a little in the favourable direction. Eventually, it will.

And there is no crash barrier on the other side of the road.
[doublepost=1502368610,1502368004][/doublepost]Hmm, I'll make a medium story of this shit. Please give feedback as soon as possible.

 

[Norway]

Here is the medium story:

https://medium.com/@shludvigsen/a-picture-of-two-competing-chains-sharing-the-same-proof-of-work-75941d779495

 

[lunar]

Demi Devato video

Must be a US thing, didn't really listen to the music... but Paybacks a $BCH

 

[AdrianX]

Am I correct in asserting that both 2X and BCC are [potentially] satisfiable to the agreement?

The agreement isn't committing to much. The way I read it is, they all agreed to run Segwit2Mb, they could make good on the commitment by running it on a raspberry pi and 0% hash rate or supporting it with 100% of their business resources or hash-rate and anything in between.

BCC is a fork by those who don't want Segwit at all, these people did not agree to the NYA, this action has no ramifications on the 2X NYA.

Pools like ViaBTC who agreed to the NYA do not have permission to direct all the hash rate on their pool, as a customer my hash-rate was directed their on condition it support BU, when it became apparent BU blocks were going to be orphaned and I would lose revenue I asked that my hash-rate be directed elsewhere, they obliged.

So while ViaBTC have my hash-rate, they don't have control of where it is pointed, the hash-rate they can direct they direct where every they feel obliged to point it.

By that I mean, if Bitcoin Core is unwilling to hard fork and Bitcoin Cash is willing to add SegWit. The potential is enough that agreement can be satisfied, albeit not deployed simultaneously.

The agreement will be satisfied if we don't fork to 2MB or if we do, it would also be satisfied if no extra hash was directed at btc1. What is at stake is reputation, there is lots of BS/Core FUD, it's all bluffing those people have no power just propaganda.

It does not build confidence that the day before the NYA BS/Core proposed BIP91 as a way to activate Segwit BIP141 on Bit4 at 80% as a soft fork keeping the 1MB.

Coincidentally a day later a bunch of idiots agreed to activate Segwit and a 2MB hard fork at an 80% threshold signaling on Bit4.

So who signaled for segwit and why is unclear to me at this time. What is clear is the 2MB hard fork is going to happen so long as the industry players who committed to the 2MB hard fork use it to run their businesses. (there are lots of legitimate reasons they will chose not to)

BCC will still retain value however it's long term viability is driven by the strength of the opposition to resist the next fork from 2MB to 4MB. - I think well see BCC pump with every effort to resist the 4MB fork.

BCC will also obiously pump if there is a reason to not do the 2MB fork, but for now the reasons i see are just noise and bluffing, until I see a statement from a big player on the list of NYA supporters, avoiding the 2X fork is nothing but FUD.

 

[lunar]

Devils Advocate wanted.

https://bitcoinandtheblockchain.blogspot.com.es/2017/08/chain-death-spiral-fatal-bitcoin.html

This is the future I see playing out very soon. Can someone here give me a reason that this is not the most likely scenario now? I can't think of any?

Chain Death Spiral - A Fatal Bitcoin Vulnerability

 

[jbreher]

you are referring to the HF bug way back in like 2012?

Not at all. I am talking about the mother-frickin'-lovin' InterTubez.

What do we do if the internet is cut in two? What happens after the network rejoins? If longest chain wins, there is a lot of strife, true. And gnashing of teefuses. However, without this ability, we are left with two irreconcilable Bitcoins. Mucho worse-o.

 

[Inca]

So it seems like it will come down to Core trying to sybil their way to victory by disconnecting BTC1 nodes from the network.

Let's see if miners, exchanges, and everyone else who signed the NYA have the balls to stand their ground. Hash rate and economic consensus decide what bitcoin is. Not Maxwell.

 

[AdrianX]

@jbreher yes this is the downside to BCC adjustable difficulty. It makes bitcoin less resilient.

It's made all the more real give Trump and N Korea are looking at starting a pissing match.

A long adjustable difficulty ensures the we converge on one chain if there is an internet tragedy.
[doublepost=1502415263][/doublepost]

Let's see if miners, exchanges, and everyone else who signed the NYA have the balls to stand their ground.

In poker it's called a bluff they're not holding good cards.
[doublepost=1502415972,1502415142][/doublepost]@lunar you could mention one solution to the problem is increasing the block size limit, you've mentioned the other solution and that is decreasing 2016 blocks before the difficulty can be adjusted.

Mining is violently it's not guaranteed. Increasing transaction capacity allows the network to function at 100% with just slower confirmation times.

BS/Core need to fix this single point of failure with a hard fork.

 

[lunar]

"you could mention one solution to the problem is increasing the block size limit,"

Right, but if there's one thing I've learnt over the last three years, thats the last thing Core want to do.

It's also the reason it's best not to fully diversify onto the BCC chain, just trade a % across. Nevertheless, not only would they have to hard fork, they'd also have to do it pre-emptively. Once profitability is reached, time is up.

 

[sickpig]

Bitcoin Unlimited Cash edition 1.1.1.0 has just been released

Notable changes:

• Expose CLTV protocol feature at the GUI level. Using bitcoin-qt it is possible to create and send transactions not spendable until a certain block or time in the future
• Expose OP_RETURN protocol feature at the GUI level. Using bitcoin-qt it is possible to create and send transaction with a "public label" -- that is, a string that is embedded in your transaction
• Fix sig validation bug related to pre-fork transaction
• Improve reindexing performances
• Adapt the qa tools (functional and unit tests) to work in a post-fork scenario
• Introduce new net magic set. For a period of time the client will accept both set of net magic bits (old and new). The mid term plan is to deprecate the old sets, in the mean time leverage the NODE_CASH service bit (1 << 5) to do preferential peering (already included in 1.1.0)
• Avoid forwarding non replay protected transactions and signing new transaction only with the new SIGHASH_FORKID scheme.
• Many fixes and small enhancements: orphan pool handling, extend unit tests coverage, improve dbcache performances.

Release notes: https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/blob/BitcoinCash/doc/release-notes/release-notes-bucash1.1.1.0.md

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6t07gj/bitcoin_unlimited_cash_edition_1110_has_just_been/

 

[Zarathustra]

BCC will still retain value however it's long term viability is driven by the strength of the opposition to resist the next fork from 2MB to 4MB. - I think well see BCC pump with every effort to resist the 4MB fork.

I guess they won't need a 4MB fork anymore, because the txs will move to Bitcoin Cash before that question arises.

 

[solex]

My understanding is that ViaBTC did not sign the NYA, so they are free to support BCC as much as they want.

 

[Zarathustra]

Devils Advocate wanted.

https://bitcoinandtheblockchain.blogspot.com.es/2017/08/chain-death-spiral-fatal-bitcoin.html

This is the future I see playing out very soon. Can someone here give me a reason that this is not the most likely scenario now? I can't think of any?

Chain Death Spiral - A Fatal Bitcoin Vulnerability

The solution could be a gentleman's agreement among the big miners to declare old Bitcoin as Too-Big-To-Fail (too fast). An agreement to let Bitcoin Segwit die slowly and bring up the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem smoothly.