Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[albin]

One thing I'm curious to think about... why didn't Core just go along w/ 2x in the first place?

It would've been incredibly easy to circumvent the perception that they weren't involved, they literally created the coup narrative themselves by not attending. If they genuinely were afraid of the timeframe, they could've easily got it delayed into sometime in 2018, I'm sure everyone would be fine just knowing that it's happening and on the table. This was the right political move, they would've stayed in control, and garnered a lot of goodwill that would've lasted them a long time.

The obvious conclusion I'm left with, is that inferring from revealed preference, they must actually want the fight that's going on now.

 

[AdrianX]

i think we dont give core enough credit when it comes to the amount of support they have,

the loud mouths on line are 1%< of the bitcoin users.

When asking 99.9% of bitcoin users about the fundamental issue behind the 1MB limit it becomes clearer.

Should bitcoin transactions be limited to the technical limits ie. the capacity of technology deployed on the network or should it be set by an authority who say 1MB is optimal. The ramifications of keeping the 1MB limit resulting in users biding against each other to transact. Capacity diminishing as value increases.

There after it gets confusing and the need to censor the truth becomes apparent.
[doublepost=1507764096][/doublepost]

why didn't Core just go along w/ 2x in the first place?

it was a done deal, they did not have to attend to activate segwit. Their investors don't care if it's 1X or 2X, they get segwit and an opportunity to pick up cheep coins and can swing the tide if they can pull off a 1X fork.

More over why invite Segwit developers who only had 30-35% hashing support and not invite the BU developers who had 45-50% of hashing support.

 

[freetrader]

To set the record straight.
It was clear to me that Barry would have liked us to attend the meeting
regardless of any intention to sign the agreement.
It is possible I did not convey that clearly to a half dozen other Core
developers in passing on the invitation although I tried to.

But I was biased against any Core developers attending because:
a) I did not feel the other participants in the meeting would have
appreciated us being there if our intention was not to "compromise"
b) I did not feel it was Core's place to represent the opposition to the
intended agreement or negotiate on behalf of the opposition. (i.e. ever
attend a meeting like this)

Alex Morcos (taking one for the team)
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-October/000376.html

 

[adamstgbit]

@AdrianX

If only poeple knew the truth, they would understand why 1MB is no good, that i can agree with. but the reality is that very very few poeple know the truth, because its been censored, and lies have been spread in its place. with gr8 effect!

9/10 bitcoiners agree, core is the all star team of programmers that we should listen to religiously.

as misguided as that may be, it is what it is.

i would be utterly SHOCKED, if you can provide some credible evidence that >20% of simpleton-bitcoiners dislike core in anyway.

you have to realize that most "bitcoiners" aka as "HODLERS" have never even heard of RBF, when asked about it you make get the response " oh ya, that thing that core did to speed up TX, ya that was some nice INNOVATION from core, clearly they know what they are doing"

thats my feeling anyway.

 

[AdrianX]

The obvious conclusion I'm left with, is that inferring from revealed preference, they must actually want the fight that's going on now.

I agree with this, I'm sure key investors in segwit, Mastercard for example, have indirectly advised Core to stick with the 1MB promise, while encouraging the DCG to compromise. They are playing both sides of the segwit coin. BCH being the wild card.

There is a win either way, the results give them new information on which to build their next move. To them Core are nothing but salaried employees they are expendable. they are foot soldiers in this fight, if they win they will be sent out again and again until they are spent. If they lose Segwit is implemented and they have more time top plan the next assault - and deploy layer 2.
[doublepost=1507764871][/doublepost]

9/10 bitcoiners agree, core is the all star team of programmers that we should listen to religiously.

99% of bitcoin investors I know have no idea that Core exists or what this debate is about, they intuitively know the best solution will win, they don't care who how it happens.

 

[adamstgbit]

99% of bitcoin investors I know have no idea that Core exists or what this debate is about, they intuitively know the best solution will win, they don't care who how it happens.

well the one hodler bitcoiner i know of IRL, knows about core and i could tell that he read just enough BS online to be able to justify the 1MB limit, he did a pretty good job repeating the propaganda...

 

[79b79aa8]

The obvious conclusion I'm left with, is that inferring from revealed preference, they must actually want the fight that's going on now.

Perhaps, but I doubt they anticipated their plans could quite possibly be fully circumvented by Bitcoin Cash.

 

[adamstgbit]

well its a bitter sweet day, with BTC breaking in a new ATH and BCC dropping to a new low.
will the tables turn come Nov.?

 

[79b79aa8]

perfect conditions for going full norway. except it takes a lot of cojones.

 

[go1111111]

One thing I'm curious to think about... why didn't Core just go along w/ 2x in the first place?

It would've been incredibly easy to circumvent the perception that they weren't involved, they literally created the coup narrative themselves by not attending. If they genuinely were afraid of the timeframe, they could've easily got it delayed into sometime in 2018, I'm sure everyone would be fine just knowing that it's happening and on the table. This was the right political move, they would've stayed in control, and garnered a lot of goodwill that would've lasted them a long time.

The obvious conclusion I'm left with, is that inferring from revealed preference, they must actually want the fight that's going on now.

Many Core devs see users as an unruly mob, and they don't trust the market to constrain the destructive impulses of users who want larger blocks. They think Bitcoin's censorship resistance is fragile and needs their protection. So it's very important for Core to try to reinforce the principle that controversial changes shouldn't be forced through. If they accepted 2x but several months in the future, they'd worry that it would still erode the principles that they see as protecting Bitcoin and that efforts to resist future block size increases would be compromised. They don't think the 2x increase is that dangerous itself, but they're really worried about precedent.

From their perspective, the current rally is a vindication of their strategy, because it's the market saying "wow, I guess Bitcoin can't be changed when some loud and small faction objects, which will help it resist censorship in the future, which affirms that it's great store of value."

You don't need banker conspiracy theories to explain their behavior.

 

[adamstgbit]

I wonder if BU has anyone working for an EDA fix for bitcoin cash...

the EDA is the single most pressing issue for cash and i dont see much happening with it, a month ago "they" we're saying "EDA is not a problem" when clearly it was, i hope they are now taking this EDA problem seriously...

 

[jbreher]

EDA Problem? Are you convinced that the hash balance will never reach equilibrium? If so, upon what rationale?

 

[adamstgbit]

what's your rationale that it WILL balance?

 

[AdrianX]

You don't need banker conspiracy theories to explain their behavior.

It's often hard to convince someone of something when there salary depends on not understanding it.

Case in point putting a $90 billion network at risk limiting transaction capacity and pushing through the controversial rule changes known as Segwit.

It just so happens that bankers in part pay the influential Core developers salaries. No theory needed, just facts.

 

[adamstgbit]

can't lie, just looked at the BTC price chart, and i think the world economy is crashing or somthing.

 

[VeritasSapere]

I now fully support Bitcoin Cash, having seen the initial support it has gained from the remaining Bitcoin community, it is in many ways the best chance to fulfil the vision of Satoshi with the Bitcoin name.

Sticking to the fundamentals, it is rough seeing the market be so irrational that the crippled Bitcoin rises in such a spectular fashion, it is truly the mania of the crowd. Most people investing do not realise the insanity they are taking part in. This only makes the crown so much more grander, I have to believe that the superior protocols will rise to dominance over time.

So to all of you Bitcoin Cash hodlers out there. Stick to your guns!

 

[Snokkom]

Almost 20 Bitcoin cash(BTC) for 1 BlockstreamCoreCoin(BCC). Trade of a lifetime.

 

[albin]

I've never taken any significant profits yet at all ever, and was wondering if anyone has some tips/experience dealing with this in the USA?

A few months ago I sold a tiny amount of BTC (<$10k US worth) on Gemini just to see if the ACH would cause bank drama, and it was totally fine.

What would be an upper limit before the bank starts asking awkward questions and/or just insta-drops you? I'm assuming receiving a wire for hundreds of thousands of dollars one shot out of nowhere from Gemini might not be a smooth experience on the banking end, though from what I understand wires don't require the >$10k filing of suspicious activity report?

 

[adamstgbit]

Almost 20 Bitcoin cash(BTC) for 1 BlockstreamCoreCoin(BCC). Trade of a lifetime.

i thought 1:10 was " the trade of a lifetime"
i was half right? hahahah probably....
[doublepost=1507871896][/doublepost]

I've never taken any significant profits yet at all ever, and was wondering if anyone has some tips/experience dealing with this in the USA?

A few months ago I sold a tiny amount of BTC (<$10k US worth) on Gemini just to see if the ACH would cause bank drama, and it was totally fine.

What would be an upper limit before the bank starts asking awkward questions and/or just insta-drops you? I'm assuming receiving a wire for hundreds of thousands of dollars one shot out of nowhere from Gemini might not be a smooth experience on the banking end, though from what I understand wires don't require the >$10k filing of suspicious activity report?

i would assume the banks and exchanges relationship has improved over the years. bitcoin is not the same weird tiny thing no one hear about, 3 years ago it made sense for banks to say " who the fuck is coinbase and why is it paying my customer 40K a month??? is this a scam?"

I'd think you're pretty safe, with some lump sums into your bank account...i'd guess the only Real concern is paying taxes....

but, maybe a good idea would be to google the name of your bank + bitcoin and see if you hit any threads about accounts being closed. i remember back in the day a few US banks we're notorious for closing bitcoiners accounts.

 

[Snokkom]

@adamstgbit 1:10 1:20, it doesn't matter, november is coming . 5 hours ago I was sending a transaction with normal transactionfee ($1.42), not confirmed yet. Is this what core wants?