Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[molecular]

@satoshi_sockpuppet thanks for your input. We probably shouldn't pollute this thread with a discussion that would probably lead very far and fill many pages. I kicked off the question in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976285. It looks like it's 2012 all over again: try to predict what german tax authorities will conclude (or not) years from now, make a best effort and live with a huge financial risk on our shoulders. Shit ;(.

 

[AdrianX]

@sickpig @freetrader @Mengerian Hi my long lost forum friends. I'm sure you have all be working harder than ever on some very important stuff, arguably the most important of this century.

I'm pinging you here to ask for a high level overview of the upcoming BitcoinCash Fork. What exactly is changing and who what and how?

what do you like about it and do you have any concerns?

@solex I guess BUCash the implementation under the BU banner will need to follow suit. I for one would want to stick with my BUCash implementation and would like to know more so this hasty change can be to a vote. (ideally i would have a default follow the longest chain button)

P.S. I think the date chosen is a fantastic idea, if this can be pulled off in a smooth and cooperative fashion it'll make for a great story of how smoothly Hard Forks can be coordinated and just before the mother of all messy hard forks. It'll be like an advertisement for the future moot running Bitcoin. Just brilliant.

The story reads diversified developed teams cooperating to solve contentious difficulty adjustments. I for one like the EDA, some do some don't, but coming to consensus following maximum hash power and miner implemented is brilliant, and dissidents who want to make it contentious will needing to take hash power away form 1X or 2X, Love it!

well done on the date.

 

[Tomothy]

Is there a buip for the hard fork of which the contents are not yet confirmed?(which day is being used, what else is included in the hardfork, is anything else included, are op codes being added back?)

I, along with others have a completely different take and believe the timing of this is bad and the roll out insufficient. Before you do a roll out you first need to figure out what the changes are.

To say this leaves a bad taste in my mouth is an understatement. I only see how this change pre 1x 2x hardfork helps bx2. If this is the purpose great but at least it should be open about the reasoning and how the date was chosen. This has succeeded in kicking the anthill at btcchat and we're out with torches and pitchforks. This all seems to have been unilaterally decided without even having decided what the plan actually is.

I think some significant damage control is needed and maybe time to rethink the relationship with the mystery miner. Until then I'm just getting more torches and pitchforks. I see this as an utter betrayal.

And I still can't find the discussion or buip for any of this.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip-index.1414/

 

[AdrianX]

@Tomothy all good points you raise and they should be explored further.

I suspect there is a lot of discussion happening somewhere it just hits us outsiders as a bit of a slap in the face.

There is no BUIP as far as I know. I'm a little more trusting here, so I'm not as concerned. That said there are risks and they should be explored.

 

[solex]

The Bitcoin Cash HF is needed because the EDA was only a temporary solution to prevent a chain stall. The current situation is unsustainable as the Cash chain either becomes far too profitable or too unprofitable resulting in series of blocks which average nowhere near the desired 10 minute interval. At the current time the Cash chain is 6,286 blocks ahead of the Bitcoin Segwit1x chain. Those extra rewards may be spooking the market and causing some downward price pressure.

A lot of the background arguments have been debated here:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-ml/2017-October/date.html
Anyone can join and constructively comment.

An improved DAA is largely being worked on by the ABC developers. This is basically essential maintenance to get the block frequency stabilised. Once it's done then Cash can steadily grow its mining power as it attracts more users with reliable conf times and low fees.

Obviously the 2x situation is another unknown, but it shouldn't be a factor in getting the block frequency on the Cash chain fixed.

 

[Tomothy]

Thanks guys. Juan from bitprim stopped by btcchat #eda yesterday and more or less did an ama, he verified some community member concerns but explained why what's happening and the time frame importance. It all makes sense, I just hope kyuupichans daa wins out... But I guess any change is a step in the right direction. If I have time later I'll try to put the discussion in a text doc. The biggest take away is that it seems 1mb vs 2mb will be all out war...

 

[Windowly]

The Bitcoin Cash HF is needed because the EDA was only a temporary solution to prevent a chain stall. The current situation is unsustainable as the Cash chain either becomes far too profitable or too unprofitable resulting in series of blocks which average nowhere near the desired 10 minute interval. At the current time the Cash chain is 6,286 blocks ahead of the Bitcoin Segwit1x chain. Those extra rewards may be spooking the market and causing some downward price pressure.

A lot of the background arguments have been debated here:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-ml/2017-October/date.html
Anyone can join and constructively comment.

An improved DAA is largely being worked on by the ABC developers. This is basically essential maintenance to get the block frequency stabilised. Once it's done then Cash can steadily grow its mining power as it attracts more users with reliable conf times and low fees.

Obviously the 2x situation is another unknown, but it shouldn't be a factor in getting the block frequency on the Cash chain fixed.

Excellent. I think one of the benefits of forking to a better DAA is that it will show the world that Bitcoin Cash can fork to incorporate upgrades and improvements without the vitriol and fighting associated with hard forks on the legacy chain. This should encourage businesses and users that Bitcoin Cash will continue to stay nimble in competing and offering the best user experience.

 

[lunar]

https://news.bitcoin.com/should-we-fix-malleability-in-bitcoin-and-bitcoin-cash-if-so-how-and-when/

Good read from @JonaldFyookball

I find it hard to fault his reasoning, and think some serious study needs to be done before 'fixing' malleability.

"Arguably, the only worthwhile benefit to fixing malleability is to solidify 0-conf reliability for unconfirmed parent transactions.

But we have a long ways to go on merchant adoption, and we should not put the cart before the horse. Let’s get so many merchants on board, so that this becomes an actual (rather than theoretical) problem.

That will be the right time to address malleability as a priority."

 

[adamstgbit]

@lunar
ya good article to read and discuss, I reluctantly agree that " there is no real problem ATM so we should do nothing", my feeling is that my TX can be changed by anyone and still be valid, and i dont like that pure and simple.
after reading this, I've dreamed up a new mal-fix lol.

how about adding a CRC to the TX?
TXID could remain a product of hashing the entire TX data ( including signature) + a CRC this way if you change the signature the CRC is invalid, and if you change the CRC the signature is invalid. this could be opt-in, by making that extra TX CRC optional.
there you go, TX are no longer malleable, and blockchain remains a "chain of signatures"

is this a viable fix? i wonder...

Edit:
hmmm wait this CRC thing makes no sense
the CRC needs to be signed, but you need the signature to make the CRC.
brain fart!

 

[AdrianX]

"Arguably, the only worthwhile benefit to fixing malleability is to solidify 0-conf reliability for unconfirmed parent transactions.

But we have a long ways to go on merchant adoption, and we should not put the cart before the horse. Let’s get so many merchants on board, so that this becomes an actual (rather than theoretical) problem.

That will be the right time to address malleability as a priority."

this quote reflects my view.

 

[AdrianX]

This Segwit2X is turning into a shit show. Coinbase conceding to the 1X is bitcoin No2X nonsense the ramifications of this post are huge literally the big NYA players are going to ignore the fact there is no replay protection and split the ledger. They are clueless if you ask me agreeing to segwit for nothing.

Bitcoin Segwit2x
The Bitcoin Segwit2x fork is projected to take place on November 16th and will temporarily result in two bitcoin blockchains. Following the fork, Coinbase will continue referring to the current bitcoin blockchain as Bitcoin (BTC) and the forked blockchain as Bitcoin2x (B2X).

The capital flowing into BTC now is all about playing it safe - stick with BTC without knowing why. The 2X fork could result in another selloff like Bitcoin Cash pushing up the BTC price and swinging hash-rate.

This is good for BTC price, not good for Bitcoin security long term and not good for the new coin B2X. This could be good for Bitcoin Cash.
[doublepost=1508805918,1508805161][/doublepost]A less interesting development Jaxx & Bitcoin Gold http://decentral.ca/statement-bitcoin-gold/

Bitcoin Gold codebase does however contain a private premine of 8,000 blocks (100,000 BTG) owned and controlled by those anonymous developers.

it varies between 0 and 200,000 BTG depending on who is reporting.

If the BTG development team see this message we’d like to encourage them to reach out to us on info@decentral.ca

But I smell Charlie Shrem all over this - it's like he's saying but hey give us some of that private premine and we'll plug this to our users.

I used Jaxx for a while nice wallet but no BCH support. I got fed-up with the almost daily updates pushing new ICO tokens, and when I found out Charlie Shrem was head of business development it clicked.

 

[Windowly]

If Coinbase is giving Segwit 1X the Bitcoin name it doesn't really make sense to fork. The whole idea of the NY Agreement was to upgrade the network in a way that all the major players agreed to. It's already spawned one fork (Bitcoin Cash) and big blockers don't really need another fork.

 

[Peter R]

Is it just me, or are the BTU tokens on Bitfinex a ridiculously good deal. They've been trading at a rate of 1 BTC to 30 BTU. The terms of the contract state:

Settlement—BCUs: In the case of BCU: the blockchain shall be defined by the latest release of Bitcoin Unlimited; and, the blockchain shall be deemed to exist only if has diverged incompatibly from the blockchain defined by Bitcoin Core. If no Bitcoin Unlimited blockchain exists pursuant to these T+Cs, BCU tokens shall be deemed to have a value equal to zero and shall be confiscated and destroyed by Bitfinex. Any settlements of BCUs shall be to BTUs.

So if we get bigger blocks at block #494,784 and the software in the Core repo doesn't follow along, then the BTU tokens would be paid out 1:1 as tokens on the majority chain.

 

[Peter R]

Bitcoin Unlimited has two spare tickets to Scaling Bitcoin Stanford. If you would like to go, please let me know. The organizers of Scaling Bitcoin have requested that we only give these tickets out to technical people actively working on Bitcoin-related projects, so please keep that in mind. If there is more demand than tickets, I'll come up with a random scheme to decide the winners based on some future block hash.

 

[awemany]

@Peter R.: Depends on how much you trust bitfinex to do the deal correctly. Have you seen this reddit discussion around it?

Can't say I exactly agree with Olivier Janssens on why those tokes a bad, but I have other good reasons to stay clear so far.

 

[awemany]

Not revising, just adding more to my earlier prediction:

9bcd60a163212cf9115358dc72dfcb6ace49aef2a92acdb5715ee978414f717c

EDIT: Oh, @Peter R., it seems that those who can read have an advantage in life. Oops

You are talking about BCU tokens, not B2X. Now that is interesting. Let me have a look.

 

[AdrianX]

Is it just me, or are the BTU tokens on Bitfinex a ridiculously good deal. They've been trading at a rate of 1 BTC to 30 BTU. The terms of the contract state:

Holy cow that is a good find, the 2MB BU fork won't be comparable with Core and Core won't follow so yes technically the terms will be met.

In reality though Bitfinex is a little shady, they only paid out the 1:1 BTC:BCH split 1:0.85 for reasons, the same reasons still apply. so you could get 1:0.25, or 1:0.5 depending on the reasons.

 

[adamstgbit]

to bad the 2x chain will be worthless....

The fork might not even happen, the miners might realize that mining 2x chain WILL be ~10X less profitable then minning BTC. ofcoures no minner is going to continue minning a chain that is 10X less profitable for any amount of time... so why fork at all.

Smart miners will ignore the " mine this chain at a 10X loss, because you signed an agreement to undermine the core dev team" and they will avoid losing money.

if 2x chain can produce more than 100 blocks before stalling i'll be amazed

 

[79b79aa8]

Move on over to Bitcoin Cash - exactly like Bitcoin always was, only faster and cheaper. All you have to lose is a three-letter ticker.

 

[Richy_T]

Such a project needs to be scoped well. How much? Money is available if the work can be realistically done, and completed.

I've had some thoughts about how to go about doing it. I've mostly held off because I didn't want to make faulty assumptions about Bitcoin code which I am not terribly familiar with. I'll see if I can throw something together in the next few days.
[doublepost=1508879004][/doublepost]

I've been getting some mind-food and I'm in the mood to share some thoughts. Forgive me in case it's all bullshit,... just thinking.

Some of this sound like "a step too far" to me but I think one interesting option for a coin would be to allow any kind of data in a "transaction" as long as it was accompanied by an appropriate fee. The normal type of this data (and one that would be recognized by all nodes) would be a value transfer but many other systems could be built with other types of data.