Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

@Mengerian
I know people are talking about "smoothening out" the difficulty adjustment algo's in Bitcoin Cash because "oscillations are bad".

I am still trying to wrap my head around this, and I am certainly not convinced that oscillations are bad in this situation. I am working on how to describe it all in a sensible matter.

It has many aspects, public perception and altcoins are part of it.

I don't think we should aim for a stable ETC/ETH situation, but I'm also not 100% against it as a tool on a very long road.

I'm in war mode, but I would really like to hear what the largest problems with the current EDA situation is and how inflation will cause problems.

Maybe I just want to question the idea that we have a problem at all, and not a powerful weapon to increase bitcoin's capacity on chain.

 

[AdrianX]

That's it @adamstgbit and if the miner is buying BCH with his BTC then the effect is amplifier in that it supports the BCH price being in more profit seeking miners.
[doublepost=1503813412][/doublepost]EDA is a killer feature not a problem.

Change it and you'll see BCH dumping into Segwit2x.

 

[AdrianX]

Here is an interesting fact one would expect with the EDA and "abuse" and that is, it is causing a hyper inflation.

But looking at this it's just marginally higher than BTC.

http://fork.lol/reward/inflation

The interesting fact is when BCH difficulty adjusts making it harder to mine BCH it resets to the projected BTC inflation. Also noteworthy BTC inflation has decrease slight when BCH inflation is catching up.

Let's see how the new difficult resets inflation relative to BTC.

 

[awemany]

@Zarathustra, all:

If BCH is an attempt to take Bitcoin back from the Core authoritarians, it is already turning out to be severely botched IMO.

Furthermore: Assuming such a take-over attempt, the longer a situation persists where 'to-be-abandoned' Core-Bitcoin (current BTC) stays at majority or at least parity hashing power, the more the miners play directly into the hands of those authoritarians that define Bitcoin as 'the software that sits on github.com/bitcoin'.

There's no way that people are going to relearn the name Bitcoin if there's going to be months upon months of transaction history on what is supposed to be 2X Bitcoin.

Redefining Bitcoin to be what is the chain that came out of Bitcoin Cash would mean a double spend respective a rollback of months of transactions. Think about this!

So ... if the miners really want to take over with BCH: That window is closing fast, if it hasn't closed already.

If that indeed was the goal, the miners botched it by not having the balls to stand up to Core directly and telling the team outright that it isn't their job to define that Bitcoin is.

You don't win a war by doing lame, half-assed attempts.

Which brings me back to believing that BCH is and was "just" meant as a viable threat to 'force' 2X activation.

Costing millions and alienating those that jumped ship, but maybe showing that the blocksize barrier can be broken is deemed worth this investment by the miners that created this threat.

As Brian Armstrong said (about ~ paraphrasing from memory): "A blocksize increase / HF should come fast and decisively.".

2X and actively obliterating the Core-1X chain (to "force" them to HF/POW fork) would be that.


Oh and on the EDA: It is hard to not see this as gaming the coin release schedule IMO. I understand why it was made, I understand why the miners behave the way they do, but the outcome is shitty.

As far as I can see, the miners had a window of days or maybe few weeks for collectively shifting folks over to BCH. And they didn't yet, which makes me tend to think that they didn't want to.

 

[Zarathustra]

@awemany

I don't think that there is just a short time window to win the race. If Bitcoin Cash stays more usable than Bitcoin Segwit, then Bitcoin Cash will become Bitcoin sooner or later. I see nearly zero enthusiasm behind the Segwit2x project and their 185 nodes. Bitcoin Cash is supported by the most enthusiastic representants of Satoshi's Bitcoin - A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Zarahustra
SW2X will seamlessly become Bitcoin, BCC can't (new wallet software, replay protection, etc.). I doubt, that BCC has a chance after the 2 MB fork (even if it's a laughable little blocksize). There is no reason for two Bitcoins (hell, there is no reason for any altcoins to have more than 10 % combined market cap..) and I still believe, that the one that's supported by the vast economic majority, will stay Bitcoin.

That yours starts to use BCC is interesting and makes BCC's survival more likely, but on the other hand, there is no reason for Yours to not switch back to BTC as soon as it's possible to use.

I won't bet on any of the two coins atm and still hold both. Next year Bitcoin cash is either history or became Bitcoin or both chains are worthless and (the Illuminati ) Ethereum became the grave digger for decentralized money. No chance for BCC + BTC to coexist. And I agree with @awemany, every day, that BCC is not Bitcoin, makes it more unlikely to become Bitcoin. The more the ledger history diverges, the more likely, that Bitcoin stays Bitcoin. Everybody who now buys "Bitcoin" or uses "Bitcoin" will have their transactions "reversed". Even trough rose-colored-Bitcoin-cash-glasses that is not good.

Optimistic nonetheless. This is the fight Bitcoin needs to and will win. Fuck Adam Back, fuck the crony "cypherpunks" and everybody who aligns with them. If you play with fire, expect to get burned.

 

[AdrianX]

Here is some interesting trivia. NMC is merge mined with Bitcoin. And when miners switch to BCH they're not merg mining NMC.

I suspect it's largely dumped by miners for a little exert revenue give it lacks a bright future.

the result is the price has been going up during the BCH's EDA, and retracting when hash power moves back onto the BTC chain (and merge mined coins get dumped again)

 

[Epilido]

Everybody who now buys "Bitcoin" or uses "Bitcoin" will have their transactions "reversed". Even trough rose-colored-Bitcoin-cash-glasses that is not good.

I disagree with the "reversed"

If Cash takes over it will be relatively slow. Over a few days or weeks. The segwit price will start to decline and the cash price rise. The difficult will go up on cash and the chain will become the one with the most work. The transactions that have happened since the split have happened independently from each other. There is no "reversal" of transactions the people will be holding a segwit altcoin with decreasing value.

 

[Erdogan]

It seems to me, there is no way to have stable hashpower on any side. With only the profitability as deciding factor, the hashpower flip should be complete. What we see is that only 50% of hashpower leaves btc. There must be other reasons: The miners don't have the knowhow, they have not prepared, or they have non-economic (long view) reasons. The other way however, the hashpower leaves quickly from bcc when the regular 4x difficulty increase comes. (On our side we also have non-economic mining to trigger the EDA).

So we can not get stable mining as long as mining power can switch, even if we get a smoother regulation of standard DA and EDA.

Still there are unanswered questions that the future weeks and months can shed light on: The timing of btc regular DA and bcc EDA. What if the remaining 50% hashpower also want to take advantage of bcc when it is profitable. And what happens if bcc increases in price. And of course other external stuff like 2x and transaction prices.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

There is no "reversal" of transactions the people will be holding a segwit altcoin with decreasing value.

Yes, then. Before that they'll hold "Bitcoin".
I'd argue atm, that the chain with the most cumulative SHA256 work from the BTC genesis block is Bitcoin. So, if I buy a "Segwitcoin" today, I buy Bitcoin. Yes, it is possible, that BCC becomes Bitcoin. But as you see, it is a much more risky "update" than the SW2X (or better: the standard hardfork) way.

It would be an Altcoin taking over and Bitcoin successfully adapting to growth would be still better than an Altcoin taking over.

I'm just happy, that I own as much of that Altcoin as I own Bitcoin (and that it has all the features Bitcoin should have). So, I don' fear BCC taking over (which is unlikely anway) but a normal Bitcoin upgrade would have still been a much, much, much better outcome.

 

[AdrianX]

It would be an Altcoin taking over and Bitcoin successfully adapting to growth would be still better than an Altcoin taking over

This is not just the reason I'm bullshit on it, BCH also voluntarily purged the incumbents who think limiting transaction capacity encourages growth.

It keeps the best type of investors. A Reddit post showed that the top 10,000 Address hold more BCH than BTC. This is in some way a fresh start.

Bitcoin will be stronger for it fundamentalist on one side of history are going to lose a lot of money.

The EDA feature will be abandoned when the total market cap of BCH supersedes that of BTC. It's not going away it just becomes less effective the higher the BCH price goes, and the more effective the lower the price of BCH.

The increasing liquidity either ends up in the hands of investors that believe or it doesn't, the outcome is in the hands of investors.

Just sucking numbers out of the universe of intuition if BCH falls to 0.03BTC the swings will become so bad that I think BCH could fail.

For now EDA is a thing get used to it it's not hurting BCH it's boosting it. Working it for profit will accelerate the inevitable free market outcome.

 

[Epilido]

It would be an Altcoin taking over and Bitcoin successfully adapting to growth would be still better than an Altcoin taking over.

There is one difference from an altcoin. At the time of the fork all original chain holders had coins on both chains. It is not an altcoin taking over. The people holding large balances have been around for a long time and understand much more about bitcoin than the average new buyer now.

People seem to not do any due diligence prior to investing and have no idea how it works past the most recent meme.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Epilido
Call it a spinoff, still, the process of "updating" is much more uncomfortable than it has to be.
Having all the guys now buying in to experience, that they bought "SW coin" and not "Bitcoin" in a few months is not a good outcome for anybody. And I guess, that Coinbase is very interested in keeping "Bitcoin" as Bitcoin, because that's what they are selling atm.

I'm a supporter of the spinoff idea and run a BCH node but I agree with awemany, that it becomes more unlikely with every elapsed day, that BCH becomes BTC. Any transaction that's done under the name "Bitcoin" on the Bitcoin blockchain reduces the chances for BCH.

 

[Epilido]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

I'm with you this is not the best way to make a change. Any switch if it comes quickly will be a stain on bitcoin and will scare investors/users for a long time. Its too bad that the core group has pushed so hard to this end.

I wonder, if even at this point, it has not sunk in to some/core that this could have been avoided with just a little compromise. I can't imagine where the community would be with a simple block size increase and the compromise of adding segwit.

 

[majamalu]

@Epilido
Call it a spinoff, still, the process of "updating" is much more uncomfortable than it has to be.

It is what it is. What's the alternative? The way it "has to be" was, is and will always be blocked by Core. 2x will also have to deal with them.

@Epilido
Any transaction that's done under the name "Bitcoin" on the Bitcoin blockchain reduces the chances for BCH.

Many of those transactions are made by people running away from Core.

 

[adamstgbit]

holy shit i think minning may just have stabilized @13% dif @-8% profitability

 

[Zarathustra]

@Epilido

I'm a supporter of the spinoff idea and run a BCH node but I agree with awemany, that it becomes more unlikely with every elapsed day, that BCH becomes BTC.

I agree with the opposite. I think that it becomes more likely with every elapsed day, that BCH becomes BTC. Before the fork I just hoped that we will survive with a market cap of $ 200 or 300 million. (Besides the fact that there is no such thing as a probability. All events that happen are 100% likely and all events that don't happen can't happen)

I always expected a slow and steady take over with a slowly growing cash eco system. Now it's already much more than I hoped for.The (opinion) leading miners are also with us and they gained market share. ViaBTC and BTC.TOP

Jiang Zhuo'er (1'200 PH):

Those three blocks (483844, 483845, 483846) were mined by big blockers, the goal (of those three blocks) was to keep the mining reward of BCH slightly below that of BTC. So there won't be a massive influx of hashpower, causing a pre-mature halvening of BCH. (We were going to) stop the excessive use of EDA last time, but I overslept.

A massive influx of hash power is a PR event for attracting attention, but the downside is extremely fast block time, over-producing mining reward.

The advantage of BCH over BTC is capacity (fast confirmation and low fee), and that will win in the long run, not short run.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6wepge/zhuo_er_jiang_head_of_btctop_and_the_recent/

I'm also impressed by the coolness of our developers and lead developers Amaury Séchet (@deadalnix), @freetrader, @sickpig, @theZerg, @Tom Zander et al.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-ml/2017-August/000136.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-ml/2017-August/000129.html

 

[rocks]

Thanks for the welcome back everyone.

Hopefully you will have some time to assist in Bitcoin related development - your insights about the necessary code transformations are much needed and will take much effort to implement.

I would very much like to help where possible. What is the best place to start? Will Bitcoin Cash's direction happen through BU or BitcoinABC. Is there a roadmap in place? Or was the initial focus on just getting the chain successfully launch (which would make complete sense).

Mike Hearn make a great post (when things started to fall apart) on how open source projects are not truly open as they are popularized, but a reflection of the few developers that control the final software releases. Projects with strong leaders and a clear direction do well, while projects with weak leaders or a misguided or inconsistent vision do not. Bitcoin is a great example of this, it had one direction under Satoshi and then Gavin, and then did a complete 180 after Gavin gave up check in control.

For Bitcoin Cash, everyone's understanding seems to be its plan is to enable as much direct on chain scaling as reasonably possible. But even within that there are multiple paths where people may agree or disagree. Take opcodes for example, Bitcoin originally had an open script programming environment, this was later removed for "security" reasons and transactions were forced to standardized on a few allowed forms. Reopening script up could help democratize development letting users directly develop new type of transactions without requiring developer "permission" (yes it would require a _much_ more secure implementation than Satoshi had). Does this fall into Bitcoin Cash's long term vision? Reasonable people can disagree here.

Anyway, please PM me if there is a good place to start to try and help out. I am so happy the community finally took control and would love to help.

 

[rocks]

The EDA is IMO very ugly, and the miner's use and abuse of it even more so. If it is what is needed to break free from Core - so be it. Can't say I am in any way liking this. The way it is used, it also speeds up Coin release, which gets uncomfortably close to me to 'change the inflation schedule'.

The EDA is definitely a hack, but it is not the real problem IHMO.

The problem is Satoshi's original difficulty adjustment method is broken for Bitcoin's next phase with multiple competing chains. Satoshi's 2-week adjustment cycle only works if there is one chain, but breaks down if there are two or more chains of roughly equal size, with most miners switching chains block by block for a 5% profitability advantage

Due to Bitcoin's early start, it never had to deal with the multiple chain issue. It is not a coincidence successful alts do not use sha256. Due to Bitcoin's large size it was necessary for them to create a new set of miners by implementing different mining methods.

Alt coins have had to deal with this issue though and there are multiple methods to address it. Bitcoin Cash should use the EDA as a temporary (a few months) method to draw hashrate off of the legacy chain, and then deploy a superior adjustment method that maintains the inflation schedule and deal with fluctuating hash rate better. This would make Bitcoin Cash superior and more robust IMHO.

Neither segwit2x or bscore can make this necessary change because both are positioning to be the "real" bitcoin by changing as little as possible. That is what the replay fight is over, the chain that implements reply will be declared the alt coin by the other and we have the current "you implement replay, no you implement replay". As a result, both segwit2x and bscore are stuck with a difficulty adjustment method that is broken when there are multiple competing chains.

Their inability to change the difficulty method weakens both chain and exposes them to a death spiral situation. Bitcoin Cash should rise above this show that it is capable of improving its chain as the world changes. This will demonstrate growth and is the path to success (not core's legal threats).

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

It is what it is. What's the alternative? The way it "has to be" was, is and will always be blocked by Core. 2x will also have to deal with them.

If core can block 2x (I don't think so atm), than the current Bitcoin chain is going to die (hopefully being replaced by BCC in that case).
The alternative is SW2X and another 8-16 MB HF or something like that in early 2018.

I always expected a slow and steady take over with a slowly growing cash eco system.

Dangerous splitting of network effect imho. Slow and steady means two semi-big bitcoin blockchains fighting about the bone and the third one (Ethereum) running away with it. That's what I fear at least.

I'm also impressed by the coolness of our developers and lead developers Amaury Séchet (@deadalnix), @freetrader, @sickpig, @theZerg, @Tom Zander et al.

I agree with that! (Although I'm very irritated by deadalnix copying of the schnorr code, that was shitty, maxwell-like behavior..)

The problem is Satoshi's original difficulty adjustment method is broken for Bitcoin's next phase with multiple competing chains.

Hrm, multiple competing chains shouldn't be the standard imho.

are two or more chains of roughly equal size,

If that becomes a regularity, Bitcoin is broken and the 21 million limit is removed. That would be a disaster in my book. (Luckily very unlikely to happen I think)

Bitcoin Cash should use the EDA as a temporary (a few months) method to draw hashrate off of the legacy chain, and then deploy a superior adjustment method that maintains the inflation schedule and deal with fluctuating hash rate better.

Yep, the EDA was a good quick fix to stay alive. But imho it should just be replaced with the old-school method as soon as it's the absolutely dominating chain.

That is what the replay fight is over, the chain that implements reply will be declared the alt coin by the other and we have the current "you implement replay, no you implement replay".

Well, as soon as the usual wallets don't work anymore, you fight an uphill battle. I'm still not sure, that the integration of replay protection by Bitcoin cash was such a great idea. I'd have loved seeing SW transactions being "stolen" on the cash chain.

As a result, both segwit2x and bscore are stuck with a difficulty adjustment method that is broken when there are multiple competing chains.

Segwit2X tries to do a hardfork like BIP101 etc. There won't be any competing chain (except for Bitcoin cash in the current case). There is only one chain that is Bitcoin.

And btw, Welcome back @rocks! Glad to see you haven't been kidnapped to Adam Back's basement..