Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[AdrianX]

would you look at this: https://www.bitfinex.com/legal/cst/segwit2x a futures market for the upcoming fork!

...and they're both off to a strong start with quantifiable support. https://www.bitfinex.com/stats

This futures market is already looking like some investors are going to try dangle a carrot in front of the 1X chain, it'll be similar to schrodinger's cat, if miners go for it, only they need to mine 100 blocks if they are to ever cash in on the value. That cat may not bounce.

This is going to be crazy if the market wants that 1X coin. I'm literal going to buy popcorn and watch this show while I hodl. (I may throw the odd tomato at one or the other for some entertainment to buy some more BCH)

 

[adamstgbit]

the BT2 volume is more then 10X more then BT1
but so far this is still really small volume.

IMO we're looking at heavily manipulated prices for BT1 and BT2, and its working, it fooling poeple, they manipulated forums, posts and upvoting, and now they're manipulating a futures market.

bitcoin's entertainment value just doubled.

 

[Dusty]

what, in your view, was the original reason for 10 min. blocks?

I think it was latency between nodes, in particular if the network of the miners is not well connected.

But with the actual situation with miners connected at a very high speed thanks to the improvements in hardware and software, 10 minutes seems like overkill.

10mins if fine, I would rather see increased confidence in 0conf TX.

That's exactly where I disagree: no matter what are the relaying policies of the nodes, 0-conf txs are inherently dangerous because a miner is free to choose whatever txs to mine and a rational one is certainly economically incentivized to insert a double spend in the block if the fees are high enough.

On the other side, faster blocks (and of course an adjusted block reward) give much faster confirmations and each confirmation leave less time to a doublespender that wants to do its tricks.

 

[awemany]

would you look at this: https://www.bitfinex.com/legal/cst/segwit2x a futures market for the upcoming fork!

...and they're both off to a strong start with quantifiable support. https://www.bitfinex.com/stats

This futures market is already looking like some investors are going to try dangle a carrot in front of the 1X chain, it'll be similar to schrodinger's cat, if miners go for it, only they need to mine 100 blocks if they are to ever cash in on the value. That cat may not bounce.

This is going to be crazy if the market wants that 1X coin. I'm literal going to buy popcorn and watch this show while I hodl. (I may throw the odd tomato at one or the other for some entertainment to buy some more BCH)

As I wrote on reddit this looks like they made the same "mistake" as they did it for the BU tokens again:

From their site:

“Incumbent Blockchain” means the currently existing Bitcoin blockchain that is exclusively used based on the consensus protocol as set out from time to time in the repository https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin;

and, later

In the case of BT2, Segwit2x shall be deemed to exist only if a blockchain has diverged incompatibly from the Incumbent Blockchain. Any settlements of BT2 shall be to B2X. If no Segwit2x blockchain exists pursuant to these T+Cs, BT2 tokens shall be deemed to have a value equal to zero and shall be removed from the platform.

Scenario "Core caves in to the pressure": My S2X tokens are worthless then?! Fuck that shit.

@Justus Ranvier , @Richy_T , @jbreher : I was talking only about mined blocks, of course. Sorry that I wrote that not clearly enough.

 

[lunar]

Finex are at it again. Not happy with disparaging Bitcoin Unlimited with their totally rigged futures product, looks like they are doing the same to the 2MB chain. The whole process is playing out almost exactly as the people here predicted last year. These confidence tricksters or carpet baggers are slowly but surely having to show their hand, as they double down on the insanity.

Hey scammers, your conflict of interest is showing. If we had a more mature legal system supporting cryptocurrencies, this would no doubt be under control, unfortunately fraud is now common place.
(IANAL but.. ffs)

https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/why-bitfinexs-chain-split-tokens-are-completely-biased-towards-the-small-block-side-again-698395bae619

If the theory holds, when Blockstream falls, that should expose Bitfury, several of the bias exchanges and maybe even implicate DCG?

There is a real gap in the market, for some real old school investigate journalism. Exposé wanted. !

................

here's one, good riddance.

https://news.bitcoin.com/josh-garza-held-liable-9-million-usd-wire-fraud/

 

[awemany]

There surely must be some more neutral exchange who would offer a more fair future contract?

I wondered whether maybe ViaBTC could do that, but then they (like all Chinese exchanges) closed their exchange branch, right?

 

[AdrianX]

Yes it's BS... pun intended. All that the futures market can do is dangle a carrot in front of the miners in the hope they mine that chain to extract the value.

Showing a bias to one chain over the other doesn't create meaningful value. If there is going to be a split hold on because i think there could be a huge transfer of wealth bitcoin early adopters vs the banking system buying in.

On the topic of Bitcoin Cash EDA, here is why I am not so concerned about it. Opponents of the accelerated EDA don't have confidence in the long term price of BCH and want to slow the inflation. the inflation being negligible in my view, EDA is after-all designed to allow the chain to scale fast to the value it protects.

 

[awemany]

I feel we're forgetting the basics with all the various forks. And this is why I am so keen on the 2x:

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Yes. There is absolutely no reason why the No2X-Blockstream-Core-UASF-SegWit-LN-Gang should be allowed to squat on the btc-brand and Bitcoin's network effect. If they can do this, by trolling, ddos'ing, character assasination, censoring, hats, astroturfing, gaslighting and so on, bitcoin proofs for the first time to be vulnerable to social attacks. The scope and width of the attack is impressiv, but it would still work.

And Bitcoin Cash, I love it, but sorry, EDA sucks.

 

[adamstgbit]

no matter what are the relaying policies of the nodes, 0-conf txs are inherently dangerous because a miner is free to choose whatever txs to mine and a rational one is certainly economically incentivized to insert a double spend in the block if the fees are high enough.
On the other side, faster blocks (and of course an adjusted block reward) give much faster confirmations and each confirmation leave less time to a doublespender that wants to do its tricks.

i really dont agree with this argument.

the rational thing for miners to do is make confirm TX in an orderly predictable manner, sacrificing orderly predictable TX confirmation, in order to make a few extra cents is irrational.

and as i said, we could create a new rule which allows other miners to reject a block which includes a "late-double-spend" TX rather than the "first seen double spend". this would clearly remove any incentivize to make a few extra cents.

the idea that miners are losing out on fees, because they are forced to include the first seen double spend, is silly. the benefits clearly outweigh the risk you outline.

edit:
the new rule " if its not the first seem TX, then the block is invalid " , might be difficult to code, and may be down right impossible. but in anycase i would be totally fine simply knowing minners "do their best" at including first seen, but its not required.

the idea here isn't to make 0conf 100% secure, the idea is to incress confidence in a 0conf by being able to say that, if there isn't a double spend within 10 seconds, it PROBABLY won't even matter even if there is a double spend later.

 

[go1111111]

EDIT: has anyone looked at Bitcoin Gold? I don't know if it has any merit, but it certainly could be a deliberate effort to de-legitimize or destabilize Cash

I think it's pretty obvious after a couple minutes of research that Bitcoin Gold was created by Core supporters to make Bitcoin Cash and Seg2x look bad. Look at their twitter account.

 

[awemany]

Hackernews at it again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15421080

 

[Dusty]

the rational thing for miners to do is make confirm TX in an orderly predictable manner, sacrificing orderly predictable TX confirmation, in order to make a few extra cents is irrational.

If one could know the order in which the transactions are created (or broadcasted) Satoshi would have not invented PoW to define total processing order in the blockchain.

Since the network is composed by many nodes and transactions between them travels at finite speed, every node may (and usually has) a partial and different view of the state of the network. You can't predict a total ordering without a central point, in Computer Science this is known as the CAP Theorem.

So, even if you code those rules and miners would enforce them, an attacker could simultaneously give two conflicting transactions to two different nodes, and they would consider it the "correct one".

 

[awemany]

Kind of funny that I appear to be such a pariah now, to folks on /r/btc, with my keen pro-2x and (due to fundamental reasons) somewhat Cash-critical stance

@AdrianX: There's one more thing that I wanted to say regarding this whole debate of 'lower case nakamoto consensus vs. upper case Nakamoto consensus' (the latter which I still believe in):

Note that we have all fought this war for multiple years. We could have forked off a lot sooner. I think it is worthwhile to ponder why we didn't, what this tells us regarding the dynamics of Bitcoin and also what this potentially tells us regarding future dynamics and the health of the ecosystem as a whole.

I am still very optimistic (as I think @Zangelbert Bingledack 's observation that everything has to go to the very brink for some deep reason that I also don't understand completely, probably depending on ability to trade differences or so) that 2x will go through, but I think pondering on this "why did we fight for years when we could have left a lot earlier" dynamic gives quite some insights to all this.

 

[adamstgbit]

If one could know the order in which the transactions are created (or broadcasted) Satoshi would have not invented PoW to define total processing order in the blockchain.
Since the network is composed by many nodes and transactions between them travels at finite speed, every node may (and usually has) a partial and different view of the state of the network. You can't predict a total ordering without a central point, in Computer Science this is known as the CAP Theorem.

i understand. but i'm not suggesting 0conf can ever be just as good as a 1conf. but that doesn't mean we can't strive to make it more reliable.

So, even if you code those rules and miners would enforce them, an attacker could simultaneously give two conflicting transactions to two different nodes, and they would it the "correct one"

thats not an issue here.

i want to make it reasonably reliable to say that IF you haven't seen a double send within 10seonds and the TX fee is about right, there's a 99.9% chance it will confrim in the next block even if there is a double spend later.

if someone creates a double spend a split second after the first, then its easy enough to detect... at that point i dont really care which gets confirmed first, i wont hand over the goods till that SOB pays with a 0conf that he doesn't immediately double spends.


F i'm even OK with the idea that i'm totally relying on the miners word that they include only "first seen", fully knowing that its a possibility his first seen isn't what i thought it would be, or the miner purposely cheated the first seen rule.

the bottom line is that with "first seen" rule, the probably the TX gets included increases ever second, while with some BS like RBF the probability the 0conf TX gets included actually dresses every second ( untill its actually included ).

 

[Richy_T]

@awemany The network effect is hugely important. A coin needs a critical mass to succeed. Just forking without very good reason just makes no sense.

I think Bitcoin Cash was probably the best possible fork and it is struggling (though things are far from over). That is why I'll take 2x as a win. I'm definitely no fan of Segwit but I think it will likely end up marginalized and pretty much a wart on the code. It could even be that most client nodes will end up dropping support and only miners will need to worry about it.
[doublepost=1507434178][/doublepost]You can never guarantee the order miners will put transactions in a block. What might be possible is to have a monitoring service which would give confidence levels that first-seen transactions will be mined vs how long they have been in existence. It might have to attempt a few double spends itself so it's not clear how this would be funded.

 

[adamstgbit]

You can never guarantee the order miners will put transactions in a block. What might be possible is to have a monitoring service which would give confidence levels that first-seen transactions will be mined vs how long they have been in existence. It might have to attempt a few double spends itself so it's not clear how this would be funded.

It would be an interesting experiment. i bet if you tried it, and miners are indeed extra carefull including first seen, you'd find that out of 1000 double-spent-10sec-later TX 0 of these gets included..
again its not about guarantee... its about probability.

i think if it's coded well, and 100% of miner actually do honestly run the code, then yes you CAN guarantee a double-spent-10sec-later will not get included.

with 1 conf your relying on the idea that at least 51% of the network is honest, with 0conf +10sec you're relying on 100% of the network being honest.

Peter Todd would lose his mind reading this.

 

[Zarathustra]

Kind of funny that I appear to be such a pariah now, to folks on /r/btc, with my keen pro-2x and (due to fundamental reasons) somewhat Cash-critical stance

Don't be surprised.
That's because there is not much enthusiasm behind the 2x fork. It's not a libertarian grassroot movement like Bitcoin has been years ago and Bitcoin Cash today.
It's a project of bloodless pragmatists and companies that have been successfully threatened, and the DCG, which hardly represents the interests of the miners. There is some enthusiasm to fire BSCore, but not much beyond that goal.

All the libertarian miners show much more enthusiasm for Bitcoin Cash than Shitwit2x: Roger Ver and the Libertarian Chinese Triumvirat (Jiang Zhuo'er, Haipo Yang and Jihan Wu). They are the majority of the hash power. And don't forget: "We" have Bitcoin.com

 

[awemany]

@Richy_T : Yes, that's about my view as well.

@Zarathustra: Well, your enthusiasm might not be behind 2x, but I am quite sure that money is behind 2x.
And I think money will win this, in the end. I also feel quite enthusiastic about a post 2x world because I see it as the miners finally putting their foot down.

All the libertarian miners show much more enthusiasm for Bitcoin Cash than Shitwit2x: Roger Ver and the Libertarian Chinese Triumvirat (Jiang Zhuo'er, Haipo Yang and Jihan Wu). They are the majority of the hash power. And don't forget: "We" have Bitcoin.com

And I am glad they all own SHA256^2 HP that they can and will direct at the 2x fork. 2x might be a compromise, but I don't yet see it compromising Bitcoin or its ideals.

 

[Zarathustra]

@awemany
"Well, your enthusiasm might not be behind 2x, but I am quite sure that money is behind 2x.
And I think money will win this, in the end. I also feel quite enthusiastic about a post 2x world because I see it as the miners finally putting their foot down."

Different money wins different projects. Libertarian money wins in a libertarian environment (monero, Bitcoin Cash), establishment money wins in an environment where a majority follows the establishment. Bitcoin went down to 50% of the market share, because too much evil establishment money is involved to support BSCore's cyber terror.

"And I am glad they all own SHA256^2 HP that they can and will direct at the 2x fork. 2x might be a compromise, but I don't yet see it compromising Bitcoin or its ideals"

I see it compromising Bitcoin ideals, and it seems to me theat the libertarian miners (60% hash power) will just mine it to destroy BSCore, because there are still too many wimps among the miners. As soon as that mission is accomplished, Bitcoin Cash will be the coin number one that will be supported by the libertarians.