Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
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.
I don't think that forks of Bitcoin make any difference to the issuance, at least not an inflationary difference.

That the limit is 21 million is arbitrary. It could as well have been any other number. The significance of a limit is to protect holders against dilution.

When the chain forked between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, existing holders did not suffer a dilution. What happened was that, for existing holders, Bitcoin's single strand became a twine consisting of two strands.

Bitcoin Cash is an insurance for Bitcoin holders because it offers the possibility of sustaining the bitcoin project in the event the Segwit strand fails. Similarly the Segwit2X fork will either completely replace the existing Segwit chain or else create a third strand in Bitcoin's twine, an insurance against Segwit1X failure: whichever happens existing holdings will not be diluted, although those who hold only Bitcoin Cash are competitively at risk from a stronger Segwit chain.

Forking from the same source, the various Bitcoin chains represent different strands (dimensions) of the original 21 million Bitcoin universe ... Bitcoin string theory, perhaps.

While the different Bitcoin chains are in competition with each other, Bitcoin users can treat them as complementary.

It is not obvious to me that it is better for the twine to revert to a single strand.
of course, like you, i would love for there to be a single bitcoin, and for it to be massively dominant.
It would make life simpler, but as you say, Bitcoin was co-opted; it looks to me as if the events of the last few years suggest Bitcoin needs a highly competitive environment to keep it pure.


Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
I just wrote another article in my series looking at different difficulty adjustment algorithms for Bitcoin Cash. This time looking at the proposal by dgenr8 (Tom Harding).

We now have several solid proposals out there, so prospects are looking good to replace the sub-optimal EDA mechanism.

@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?
I don't have any specific insight into exactly what will happen. It seems that there is growing consensus on a few particulars though. For example, it looks like Bitcoin Cash will end up with a difficulty target that is recalculated for each block, with a shorter window than the Bitcoin 2016 block period. So difficulty will be slightly "noisy", which is a new thing for Bitcoin miners.

It's still unclear to me, though, whether everyone will come to consensus on all the details for the proposed hard fork. So it's possible things could get slightly chaotic. From my perspective though, I think this is far preferable to the stagnation and paralysis that plagued Bitcoin for years. I would much rather forge forward and try to make change, than get endlessly bogged down striving for social consensus.

So I am very optimistic. I think Bitcoin Cash can only succeed by embracing Market mechanisms, and hard forks play into this strength. As Bitcoin Cash goes through successive hard forks, the community will learn new lesson every time, and the process will become smoother and more efficient. Over time, this could empower it to grow and evolve more rapidly than the competition.


Active Member
Mar 14, 2016
GBTC has decided to liquidate all their BCC holdings and distribute it to holders as of November 6th.

Should see some downward pressure for BCC.
The people (investors in GBTC) might learn the hard way, why it is preferable to keep crypto directly under ones control. Once all financial intermediaries like localbitcoins, Xapo, GBTC have sold off their customers coins price is likely to rise in a sustainable way. I hope that we can keep the prices for Bitcoin Cash as low as possible for as long as possible, as this improves hedging qualities in case of a Bitcoin Legacy bubble pop.

If hedging can be done within crypto, we don't need fiat to re-balance our risks.


Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
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..).
This is the point. With the 1mb limit, that won't be Bitcoin. Cash is an attempt to protect those who recognized Bitcoin's potential early on.
i doubt the network effect constitutes some kind of a priori reason for all equilibrium scenarios to involve a single chain.
Certainly there will be niche coins that offer different utility. Though perhaps side-chains could also fill some of those niches. For the most common use cases, one coin will tend to dominate. That may not be Bitcoin but if it does what it was designed to do well enough, I see no reason why it wouldn't be.
Good to see Bitcoin Core being referred to as err, "Bitcoin Core" in advertising. It means their grip on the brand is loosening.


Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
Additional coins creating inflation (in the amount of money units in total):

I think we can view all cryptomoney as a whole, then the amount of units depends more on the distribution. Due to the network effect, one coin will always be the most loved, and if that coin can have say 50% penetration, there will be no inflation problem (If 100 coins had 1% each, that would be more inflation).
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu


Active Member
Dec 10, 2015
@AdrianX I wonder if they already sold it and so that's why it's going up. As far as I understand Xapo still has to sell a bunch of coins by the middle of December, right?
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX


Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015

How about creating a double spend register?
AFAIK, a double spent transaction is not registered anywhere today. It would be nice to be able to prove that you "got double spent" in a court or to other parties if this should happen. This would also strengthen 0-conf transactions.

What do you think, guys?
  • Like
Reactions: NewLiberty