Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
If Bitcoin Cash decides (collectively) to take the opposite route that core followed and focus on augmenting new functionality onto its chain that has been proven in the alt coin space it should be able to make up this gap. But it is likely going to require taking this approach.
fwiw you could follow the dev line of Bitcoin Cash by subscribing to this mailing list:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-ml

I encourage everyone here to subscribe and partecipate.

That said this is a pretty good summary of what have been discussed in the last month or so by Chris Pacia (OB lead backend dev):

https://chrispacia.wordpress.com/2017/09/01/the-bitcoin-cash-roadmap/
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
@awemany
The well-known fact, that the predictions of the processes in complex systems are only getting better slowly with better computers doesn't negate anything that Laplace claimed. His (and Einstein's et al.) logic stands like a rock in an environment of fiat lux believers.
 

satoshis_sockpuppet

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
776
3,312
I think it is that simple for 99% of Altcoiners.

The mental gymnastics the Litecoiners do, to justify 1 MB Bitcoin are ridiculous. Most prominent the dishonest douche bag Charlie "Satoshislite" Lee. Litecoin is absolute shit, no worth anybody's time. It should be dead and anybody promoting it should be ashamed. It has been on life support by the Bitcoin core devs for years.

By the way, isn't it completely absurd, that Bitcoin cash with 8 MB blocks lives without an issue and there is still opposition against rising the limit on the other chain? I mean you now have the evidence right in front of you, that the world didn't stop. There are no fucking issues. 16 MB is doable right now, tomorrow afternoon. And I would say, that a x16 transaction rate is actual scaling instead of the damn "softforking" around.
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
@awemany
The well-known fact, that the predictions of the processes in complex systems are only getting better slowly with better computers doesn't negate anything that Laplace claimed. His (and Einstein's et al.) logic stands like a rock in an environment of fiat lux believers.
Determinism stands like a rock in an environment of believers in determinism. Oh and I have a Deja Vu regarding this discussion, as if this all came up earlier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 79b79aa8

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
Can someone comment on the following opinion by the (IMO quite competent) market analysis team at BitMEX?
The new difficulty adjustment [in Bitcoin Cash] can cause the difficulty to fall too quickly if the gap between blocks is too long. Unfortunately this can incentivize miners to leave the network so that they can return when the difficulty adjusts and profitability improves. The impact of this appears to be that the capacity of the network oscillates in a volatile way and this appears to be a major weakness of the coin. In our view this requires a fix.
(Quoted from a note sent to traders, password protected on the public blog.)
 

Dusty

Active Member
Mar 14, 2016
362
1,172
This is a tragedy of the commons and a serious issue of Bitcoin Cash, in my opinion: when the difficulty drops the miners are incentivized to move hashing power from BTC to BCH, and when the difficulty resets they are incentivized to move back to BTC, waiting for the next drop.

But to arrive to the point to have the drop, someone must mine at loss, and if nobody wants to do it, the chains stops forever (!).
 

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
Bitcoin Unlimited - Bitcoin Cash edition 1.1.1.1 has just been released

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6y8lrk/bitcoin_unlimited_bitcoin_cash_edition_1111_has/

The main change of this release is related to fixing a peering problem we had due to BUcash forwarding transactions that were not proper Bitcoin Cash transactions (see be83d56).

Other notable changes:

  • Update LevelDB to 1.20
  • Update windows build doc
  • Make the QR code show a fork specific prefix. I.e. use bitcoincash: rather than bitcoin: in payment URI
  • Optimize LevelDB flushing/pruning
  • Parallel executions python integration tests suite
 

molecular

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
372
1,391
However the part of me that did not follow my own advice two years ago to sell BTC for ETH is very worried to see this.
same here

If Bitcoin Cash decides (collectively) to take the opposite route that core followed and focus on augmenting new functionality onto its chain that has been proven in the alt coin space it should be able to make up this gap.
I'm not sure I agree (depending on the meaning of "augmentation"). I'm still a proponent of a "purely monetary blockchain" (including payments, of course). That's what the bitcoin experiment is about and I have no problem seeing ethereum try to eat the other cakes.

I'm not against the bitcoin blockchain being used for non-monetary purposes, as long as it doesn't make the "base layer" unecessarily more complex. It should be kept simple. Big, but simple.

I'm not sure trying to onboard as many "features" into bitcoin (cash) as possible is a good route. The chain itself ("layer 0") should offer enough capacity and versatility to enable those "features" to be implemented on top of it, of course.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Can someone comment on the following opinion by the (IMO quite competent) market analysis team at BitMEX?


(Quoted from a note sent to traders, password protected on the public blog.)
its a feature not a bug, abuse is tolerated, the fact we have bigger blocks allows the transaction rate to stay consistent between long block intervals.

the ramifications are hard to quantify if i was designing the EDA I'd have made it slower. the shorter intervals add some production noise. But I'm still thinking it's going to work, when BCH is the dominant chain I would like to see it removed.
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
Hmm, if this translation is correct, this is incentives at work:

Context: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6y8305/if_pool_miners_run_segwit2x_they_get_a_better/

Oh, by the way, top comment right now, by /u/MariusS_:
I liked @StopAndDecrypt's comment a lot:
I'm for a PoW change more and more everyday. Shit, I'm NO2X and I'll take 2X if it came with a PoW change at this point.
This is starting to be really bad.
Do it. Do it. DO IT. DO IT. POW fork yourself away and take all the fuckers along with you. That is one coin I am actually really likely to dump - 1MB SegShit-NoX Core. Unfortunately, I don't think much money can be made there. The stupidity looks bigger than it is. As it is clearly amplified for political reasons ... .

Oh also: POW fork + 2X. Some kind of weird face saving and miner-jettisoning maneuver attempt being installed into the brains of the Core zombies now?

LOL f-ing LOL.
 

Impulse

New Member
Nov 20, 2015
19
71
Who exactly do they think will be mining a new POW chain if it is viable and profitable? Could it be perhaps, the same businesses who have built an expertise in the crypto mining industry with access to cheap power and hundreds of millions worth of capital and infrastructure?
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
Well, I was excited to find a piece of paper with a password and "eth" written on it but when I tried it on the URL I have, no luck. I think I have about 3 eth on there :/

Anyone know of any brute-force tools?
 
Last edited:

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
this issue is - are we willing to have the system ran by governments, because this is where its all going, Russia will be the first "government miner" but will not be the last... it won't take much longer, 10-20 years and minning bitcoin TX is now mostly done by the top 10 governments and governments dont care about profitability they care about Power and Control.
@Peter R

Nicola Dimitri, he's the guy that presented the economics talk at TFOB conference in Arnhem? If so he's someone who talks a lot of sense. As with Adam I find the game theory maths a little funky and hard to follow. The main problem I have with it is there's so many built in assumptions necessary to make it work, it becomes hard to take too seriously. Nevertheless it agrees with what i've been instinctively thinking so it would be great if this passed peer review from some other mathematician/economists.

I've thought about this before, by reducing it down to the simplest form of two mega miners. lets say USAPool and ChinaPool. The built in assumption, (and especially at global scale) is that miners interests will be governed by profit and economics. Common sense suggests this holds true as I really can't see one or the other lasting as a monopoly where they have to burn real resources to stay in the lead. A parallel here would be the Cold War nuclear arms race, where it was pretty much the same dynamics. Let's see who can make the most nuclear bombs and win the race. Obviously Russia was winning for a while (They made far more nuclear bombs that the US) - just before they went bankrupt. That's how I see a Bitcoin mining arms race playing out. It may be possible to create a monopoly but it's not stable.

In the two miner scenario the sweet spot is 50% hash rate each, my gut tells me that if one of the two gains 51%, that extra 1% is effectively redundant as they are then competing with themselves for efficiency. To examine this a little, imagine we have a perfect monopoly of a single miner with 100% hash rate. Without competition, what would economics predict they do? To me it seems obvious that lowering the hash rate and thus burning less resources would be the outcome. Why burn electricity and chips maintaining a certain level of hash rate when they can just turn miners off and lower the difficulty. This dynamic would persist until the difficulty was lowered sufficiently as to bring in competition. Or as Satoshi said.

"If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth."



Notice now (2010) that both sides have approximately 50% of the nuclear arms (hashrate)

Dr Damitris conclusion states "Finally, the mining activity seems to be intrinsically monopoly-proof, in the sense that if only two miners were to be active, their profits would always be positive regardless of the marginal cost of the opponent. For this reason, none of the two could exclude the other by cutting down his own costs, unless activities other than Bitcoin mining would have a higher rate of return."

I'd go further than this, and suggest that in the perfect duopoly the economic incentives remain the same and it would probably lead to a similar situation where they reached an hash rate arms pact and come to a peaceful agreement to de-escalate the difficulty in order to mutually cut expenditure. This in turn would encourage others to get involved.

In other words, I'm not worried about @adamstgbit doom scenario, as with many governments involved, they would all be forced to play by the rules.
 
Last edited:

Members online