Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[79b79aa8]

i can't find an exchange that lists bitcoin gold (the coin itself, not chain split tokens), to see how the price of that behaves . . . clues?

 

[Zarathustra]

Coinbase and Jeff 'Be good to each other' Garzik sink the S2X ship.
Coinbase sticks with the North Corean cripple coiners and Garzik launches his own altcoin together with Vessenes. With Vessenes! Segwit collapsing - Bitcoin up!

 

[adamstgbit]

i can't find an exchange that lists bitcoin gold (the coin itself, not chain split tokens), to see how the price of that behaves . . . clues?

i dont think you'll find an exchange listing it anytime soon, the dev said that he's not sure if it's actually forked or not. he will let us know when he figures it out.

 

[AdrianX]

apparently the BitcoinGold team didn't think to check the ticker BTG before selecting it - seems odd to me given the BCC screw-up.

anyway BTG was is up over 400% https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitgem/ on the news of the upcoming forkhttps://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitgem/

 

[Richy_T]

You know BTC is actually the ticker for a pre-existing currency? (Courtesy of our very own Solex). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148229.0

 

[adamstgbit]

https://blog.coinbase.com/clarification-on-the-upcoming-segwit2x-fork-d3c0f545c3e0

this doesn't make any sense to me.

when it splits the default is BTC == Core, once " forks are in a stable state " they can change their minds and BTC ==2x

but what if i buy BTC when its considered core, and then they change their mind!

did i buy CoreCoin's that were labeled BTC at the time?
or
did i buy a "BTC" which happened to represent a CoreCoin one day and a 2x coin the next!?

IMO coinbase is doing this purely for show, they want to pretend to be impartial, and they can say this nice sounding BS because they are SURE they wont have to go back on the default BTC == Core

edit:
someone on reddit was able to answer the question

 

[albin]

If you take the "extreme consensus" view at face value, once people become completely disillusioned about trying to get the Core chain to hardfork a blocksize increase, does that mean that Core will immediately start putting that on the schedule?

When you finally wade through all the bullshit, you end up with "we won't do it because people we don't like are saying they want it, and we don't like them because they're saying they want it", which eventually logically reduces to the unspoken "they're not us".

 

[adamstgbit]

annnnddd now the [NO2X] retards are hating on coinbase

 

[AdrianX]

Ok so 2X is back on the table.

That post begs the question if it was "market decide" all along why coerce miners into activating segwit?

 

[torusJKL]

when it splits the default is BTC == Core, once " forks are in a stable state " they can change their minds and BTC ==2x

but what if i buy BTC when its considered core, and then they change their mind!

did i buy CoreCoin's that were labeled BTC at the time?
or
did i buy a "BTC" which happened to represent a CoreCoin one day and a 2x coin the next!?

My interpretation of this is that BTC is an Alias for SegWit1x at the beginning and if you buy BTC during this time you will be buying SegWit1x.

At some time BTC could be changed to point to SegWit2x and from that time forward when buying BTC you would buy SegWit2x coins.


I think they chose the worst possible solution.

For one it favors SegWit1x as some users might just go for BTC without having enough knowledge to decide if that is a good decision or not.

And in addition there will be chaos should Coinbase change the pointer to the other chain.
They will get tickets like "Why all are my Bitcoins gone?" and "Why were my BTC converted to B1x?".

 

[albin]

Going on about 2.5 years since Peter Wuille wrote this:

Skewed incentives for improvements. I think I can personally say that I'm
responsible for most of the past years' performance improvements in Bitcoin
Core. And there is a lot of room for improvement left there - things like
silly waiting loops, single-threaded network processing, huge memory sinks,
lock contention, ... which in my opinion don't nearly get the attention
they deserve. This is in addition to more pervasive changes like optimizing
the block transfer protocol, support for orthogonal systems with a
different security/scalability trade-off like Lightning, making full
validation optional, ... Call me cynical, but without actual pressure to
work on these, I doubt much will change. Increasing the size of blocks now
will simply make it cheap enough to continue business as usual for a while
- while forcing a massive cost increase (and not just a monetary one) on
the entire ecosystem.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/007884.html

So what exactly has the "actual pressure" accomplished that has affected making transactions in any way whatsoever?

I guess we have to wait 18 months??

 

[AdrianX]

Coinbase have a solution to the issue they just haven't thought of it yet. They are not in the business of screwing their customers or taking on customer risk.

During the transition they should just sell BTC as both B1X and B2X. Users then pick the side, and when it's totally cretin which side is the winner just follow the hash-rate.

They don't need to make that decision for users.

 

[79b79aa8]

SW2X should fold. if you want SegWit, you already have it. if you want a blocksize increase, you already have it.

what if you want both? you shouldn't:
- if you are convinced about the virtues of SegWit, its own designers are telling you a blocksize increase is dangerous and unnecessary.
- if you are convinced about the need for bigger blocks, 2MB is insufficient and will require to be upgraded via another hard fork in the immediate future.

 

[adamstgbit]

@79b79aa8
totally agree with you there.
"bitcoin" is better off split in two distinct schools of thought.
and it looks like thats what will happen... i think there is a strong possibility that s2x folds before the deadline.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Haven't really been following the Bitcoin drama the last days, but did the little price dip coincidentally happen with Coinbase's weird SW2X message and the turn around with their clarification?

I've been flip-flopping on Bitcoin cash since it's inception (though always excited at least about the experiment) and now it's interesting to see so much anti-SW2X sentiment from big-blockers who invested in BCH or just think SW2X is a foul compromise (both comprehensible points of view).
But in the long run I don't want to see both chains to have recognizable market cap.

Forks of this kind still create some kind of inflation and the "attack" on the 1 MB chain that has been discussed lately by the btc1 devs seems like the right way to go and I'd be content if the Bitcoin cash chain would be attacked in the same way by the SW2X miners (sorry for everybody who went full norway). Instinctively I always though a spinoff should have a different PoW algorithm, Bitcoins PoW is Bitcoins PoW, all coins that use the same PoW just exist because of the Bitcoin miners mercy, even more so if they could get killed by a soft fork on the most-PoW chain.

The Bitfinex BU tokens are a great find @Peter R. I don't trust Bitfinex one iota and I'm 99% sure, that the will violate the contract (as I'm sure they are just to dumb to understand their own contract). Maybe it's an idea to gather people for a possible lawsuit even before the fork to pressure them into holding the contract?

 

[79b79aa8]

i doubt one can make firm correlations among most price movements and news. there could be some large institutional trade in korea that we have no trace of, in the same morning coinbase posts a muddled blog post.

similarly for the debate. arguing one's position on reddit or twitter to a few people glued to a screen all day is not going to make a long-term difference. the space has matured: several options are on the table, and alternatives will, on the whole, rise or fall on their own merits. for developers, best to spend their time improving on the alternative of their choice -- presumably exactly what the serious ones are doing. for investors with deep understanding of the market, there are diminishing marginal returns with getting caught in the acrimony. they set aside their emotions, apply their knowledge to pick winners, and hedge.

 

[albin]

The colossal failure of Bitcoin Gold so far might be a very vindicating indication that Bitcoin Cash forking was very justified, and I think might backfire the narrative that people are just going to keep making forks to create pseudo-"dividends" (this is kind of the passive-aggressive cognitive dissonance Core position to emotionally defend against forks actually happening). Which frankly is a phrase I don't want these knuckleheads to keep repeating in earshot of the IRS, because these are clearly not dividends!

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

arguing one's position on reddit or twitter to a few people glued to a screen all day is not going to make a long-term difference.

Sure, but if Coinbase for example dropped their support for SW2X it would make a long term difference.

@albin
I'm not afraid of people forking Bitcoin. And Bitcoin cash is so valuable because it is (or has been) an insurance against core while Bitcoin Gold or whatever is just crap.

But long term I don't want the 21 million limit touched, and with Bitcoin cash and Bitcoin both coexisting we have doubled the issuance. Only very few chains will survive and I've never seen a very compelling reason why there won't be a single blockchain dominating > 90 % of the market (network effect..).

 

[adamstgbit]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

insurance against core, or Or OR, freedom from core's trinary?

 

[79b79aa8]

long term I don't want the 21 million limit touched, and with Bitcoin cash and Bitcoin both coexisting we have doubled the issuance. I've never seen a very compelling reason why there won't be a single blockchain dominating > 90 % of the market (network effect..).

powerful as it is, i doubt the network effect constitutes some kind of a priori reason for all equilibrium scenarios to involve a single chain. there might be enough market demand for different instruments, in which case the issuance for each will just be one factor determining its price, which in turn will be a slice of the valuation of the whole space, i.e., the amount of wealth in the world denominated in cryptocurrency.

of course, like you, i would love for there to be a single bitcoin, and for it to be massively dominant. but given contingent factors in the evolution of the space, this might not be the final outcome. 'BTC' was co-opted in 2015. bitcoin was not.