Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[molecular]

I would tend to agree but with a smaller scope: "supersede the current money system".

The real economy is much more than the money that it is built upon. If people are wise enough (stupid hope, I know), they could keep large parts of the economy intact while still replacing the money system.

Yes. I wouldn't say "built upon", though. The real economy can just switch the money it uses. Sure: large parts of the current economy only prosper because of the type of money that is in wide use (misallocations of capital and distortion of price signals due to inflation of the money supply and injection of the fresh funds in the wrong places). And that's the thing we want to change: end the unfair transfer of wealth by corrupt management of money supply, end the manipulation of prices, fucking end unneeded wars and suppression. The means we (as people) have to effect this change is of course a switch to using cryptocurrency. We can make this switch because in the end, the economy is just people (or other entities like groups of people) making transactions.

 

[albin]

Blockstream successfully killed early efforts to bootstrap a closed loop economy and we don't yet know if it was a fatal blow.

I think one of their greatest PR successes, not necessarily overtly but through implication and now becoming more overtly, has been to capture and re-frame the virtue of hoarding as a consequence of capacity bottlenecks, whereas in reality hoarding is the result of economic preferences, not directly throttling the ability to transact.

To go full on Luke-jr on this one (although admittedly this text probably is not one of his approved Popes), the principle reminds me of the papal encyclical (I forget which number and when) where righteous hat dude drops a great philosophical point on how virtue is only virtue if you have the freedom to have chosen the opposite.

 

[Zarathustra]

@awemany. I find your wish that Bitcoin Cash not be The One True Bitcoin unsettling.

I am not going to berate you, nor argue, nor ridicule your position. I just see it as obvious that the Bitcoin that does not summarily invalidate large volume use cases is the rightful heir.

I guess I can see that others differ, but I don't quite understand the logic.

That is all.

Cheers!

I do hope that it will be Bitcoin Cash, because "Segwit Coins Are Not Bitcoins".

Satoshi: "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures" ; ergo: "A chain of digital signatures backed by the most proof of work" is the real electronic coin

 

[awemany]

@Graff0808 an .exe from dropbox?

Blockstream told us that it all comes down to creative interpretation of terms! It presumably trades your Bitcoin like this:

(thanks @satoshis_sockpuppet from the meme thread)

By the way: I just browsed the meme factory thread. WOW! So much new stuff there that I missed. For anyone who didn't check it out recently - you should

 

[sickpig]

So it started already.

Lopp just began to twist the narrative around the Gigablock Test Inititative

 

[Tomothy]

Unbelievable. At least they're consistent. I think it's now that they don't want bitcoin to work and instead just be a digital store of value. I don't like that narrative but it's catchy from many people.

 

[albin]

How about Lopp participate in the actual discussion, or even offer to constructively participate in vetting the methodology of future study, instead of just pontificate on social media?

In what twisted world do people issue PSA's warning about research?? Honestly this is devolving into a stone's throw away from declaring on-chain scaling as "Jew science".

 

[sickpig]

SegWit2X is no more
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html

 

[albin]

Let the hashtag retards declare victory on this one, in reality this is a good turn of events for Bitcoin Cash.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

WTF..

edit: And what the hell are miners like Jihan thinking?

They activated the Segwit cancer for nothing... (Not that anybody was asking why SW got activated before 2x...)

 

[Tomothy]

Well, that makes the issue of dealing with the 2x chain simpler. There is none now.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

At first glance, that's a strong signal, that the Bitcoin incentive system does not work as expected. I guess the feedback loop for the miners has too much dead time.

 

[albin]

Kind of very anachronistic thinking here, but part of me isn't totally yet convinced that the blocksize cap wasn't a fatal flaw in the first place for social reasons, just the disease is super chronic and spread out over time.

 

[freetrader]

WTF..

edit: And what the hell are miners like Jihan thinking?

They activated the Segwit cancer for nothing... (Not that anybody was asking why SW got activated before 2x...)

I'm not saying I fully understand the strategy here...

But... at least the SegWit insanity is now limited to one very limited capacity Bitcoin chain. Good riddance.

 

[79b79aa8]

i think this is the best possible outcome.

1. the SW1X devs and backers are interested in things like: establishing a foundation for a new kind of transaction network to be built and tested; relaying blocks over SW radio; keeping the blockchain small for future generations.

SW1X has powerful support -- including major institutional support. it will likely at least preserve its current transaction output and market capitalization. however, given its governance structure and the way the technology is being oriented to suit the needs of private companies that do not benefit from permissionless innovation, i deem its growth potential to be restricted.

2. the BCH devs and backers are interested in keeping bitcoin on its 9-year exponential growth trend, with tested and improving technology.

BCH works almost flawlessly at present, is widely distributed, and does not follow the pattern of an altcoin -- rather, it functions just like bitcoin always did. its growth potential is gigantic.

in the end, the two may be complementary. in any case, most of us own both.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

coda: now that the SW fork is called off, would it be prudent to delay the BCH EDA fork until the devs across implementations are sure they have the optimal solution, achieved via a precedent-setting decision making process?

 

[bluemoon]

BTC v BCH means big blocker miners can now concentrate on building Bitcoin Cash without trying simultaneously to pursue a big block strategy for BTC. They will migrate to BCH as it grows to support them while the small blocker miners and banks will have their own toy to keep them occupied.

It does risk ethereum or some other horse winning, but the miners cocked it up when they kept deferring to BS Core and then contaminated BTC with Segwit.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

BTC v BCH means big blocker miners can now concentrate on building Bitcoin Cash

They don't. They still mine Bitcoin. And they failed at creating one chain.

Miners should control Bitcoin, the system failed. Shillberts, social media campaigns and bullying tactics control Bitcoin.

And the miners don't have enough foresight to protect their investments (failed feedback).

I find it very hard to see that from another angle than the one, that Bitcoin in fact does not work outside of a lab. And I agree with Justus Ranvier, we didn't even know if the damage hasn't already been done. Now we actually know, that there is no way to correct the mistakes.

Bitcoin is pretty close to a ponzi scheme now. Economically completely irrelevant, unspendable (We are in year 8 and it is very, very hard to buy stuff with Bitcoin (including cash..). Exchange points are controlled and censored by banks and governments), driven by the believe of scarcity. Which is laughable when you see, that the miners just created a second Bitcoin and doubled the amount of existing "tokens".

And I fail to see, why the same miners, that fucked up Bitcoin 1 MB should do any better on the Cash chain...

Oh, and will miners now rollback Segwit? LOL

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

lol and the price for most retarded statement goes to viabtc for writing "bitcoin cash" into the coinbase message on the SW chain..

Fuck you.
[doublepost=1510171661][/doublepost]Let's see how well this tweet ages:

 

[bluemoon]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

I agree, the system failed. The shysters prevailed and the miners proved inadequate. And that is bitter.

I do not believe a 1MB bitcoin can dominate in the long run, because ultimately the market will exercise its preference for unlimited transactions at low fees. That is what remains to be tested and I believe and hope it will test Bitcoin 1MB to destruction: as you say Bitcoin 1MB is now close to a ponzi scheme.

If Bitcoin Cash better represents what the market wants, the miners will be driven to it and do so in the context of a failing Bitcoin 1MB.

In August I put Bitcoin Cash's chances at 35%. I didn't and don't give anything for SW1X's chances. I'm not sure I put BCH's chances any higher now, but we'll see.

 

[Zarathustra]

Let the hashtag retards declare victory on this one, in reality this is a good turn of events for Bitcoin Cash.

Yes, of course, it's a pyrrhus victory. A gregegated 1MB WitCoin cannot compete with Bitcoin Cash. Never ever. Haipo Yang is one of the heroes of the chinese libertarian triumvirat (together with Bitcoin.com!) that will destroy the business model of the streamblockers@blockstream.

Bitcoin legacy now will slowly but steadily scale into Bitcoin Cash.
Our system ist called Bitcoin Cash because it is Bitcoin - A Peer-To-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Great minds like @awemany and @satoshis_sockpuppet will be with us again. Win-Win ....

... and Lopp is one of the dumbest of Greg's useful idiots.