Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Tom Zander]

Why the pessimism about the 2X cancellation? It doesn't take having balls to go into a fight like the hard fork, it takes brains to avoid it. Activating 2X would have created the only real competitor to BCH. If they tried to activate 2X and failed, they would have lost as well. Avoiding the fight is a win/win situation.

I wrote a bit more on this on yours; https://www.yours.org/content/f6acfa5e6213c1bf86cf54bba9fd6999a79ce9e76dae1a33e18161f3a885c2d7

 

[Norway]

@Tom Zander
I'm not pessimistic. I'm happy as hell, because I don't have to hedge against a potential S2X victory followed by more on chain scaling on the Segwit chain.

 

[79b79aa8]

Putting all this together, imagine the following:
1x continues its exponential rise, with Cash in toe at 1/8 or so, and a bunch of altcoins hanging on for the ride. In the quintuple digits the bubble finally pops, everything crashes, even Cash. But after the fear subsides people start looking at fundamentals, and Cash emerges with the commercial network effect, backing by many major players, miner support, and support from tons of disillusioned Core moonkin.

essentially the dotcom bubble pattern.
overinvestment without regard for fundamentals> bubble> crash.
eventually, google, amazon, facebook, apple emerge as massive winners of the internet revolution.

 

[Norway]

@Windowly I have no idea which exchange gives the best rate. I just knew I had to exchange ASAP.

@Zarathustra :

@satoshis_sockpuppet lol!

Dictionary:

Full Norway
[foo l nawr-wey]

Adverb
1. To invest 33% of Bitcoin Segwit into Bitcoin Cash.
she went full Norway.

[doublepost=1510233214][/doublepost]This is how I expect "The Cashening" to happen:

 

[Norway]

Another visual representation of The Cashening:

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Norway
What makes you trust the miners so much? The same guys who now cancelled a scheduled fork for no reasons at all can also fuck you over with Bitcoin cash. I'm still very careful here, this is all so retarded that I find it unlikely that they don't play some weird game.

And that game might be "let's push Bitcoin cash" or "let the suckers buy a coin we are going to abandon in a few weeks".

I don't know what the hell these people plan but as long as they don't fully mine Bitcoin cash I wouldn't jump all aboard the cash train.

 

[Norway]

@satoshis_sockpuppet
I trust the miners to be gready, both short term and long term. That's why I think they will support a healthy bitcoin.

I do believe the game is "let's push Bitcoin Cash", not only by miners, but a growing industry. Because that's where the money to be made are.

Remember that the NYA was made before Bitcoin Cash was born, and cancelled after. Bitcoin Cash changed the landscape, and the smartest thing to do was to cancel 2x.

I don't care if Core is not fired now. We'll do that over time as Bitcoin Cash grows and Bitcoin Segwit stagnate.

 

[adamstgbit]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

if the recent events proves anything, it proves that miners are only an influence not an authority when it comes to defining bitcoin.

the miners did NOT call off the HF, they were backed into a corner... had they done the HF, the market would have gone the other way, and all the miners would have fallowed profitability.

bitcoin is working as intended. you simply miss understood the "longest chain defines bitcoin" thing. This is true, the longest chain does define "bitcoin", But! the longest chain naturally goes to the most valued chain. if Bitcoin was not intended to be ruled by " most valued chain " then bitcoin has been improved.

miners are just players with invested interest, there hash power keeps bitcoin secure, we dont need to "trust them" not really, they do what poeple pay them to do, and if they stop doing that and do something else, not a shit is given.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Remember that the NYA was made before Bitcoin Cash was born, and cancelled after. Bitcoin Cash changed the landscape, and the smartest thing to do was to cancel 2x.

Didn't the creation of cash simultaneously happen with SW2X?

the miners did NOT call off the HF, they were backed into a corner... had they done the HF, the market would have gone the other way, and all the miners would have fallowed profitability.

Do you really believe, that a core PoW fork would have gotten significant market share?

All relevant companies already declared, that they'll follow the longest SHA256 chain. I really fail to see how the miners were "backed into a corner". They had it in their hands and they fumbled.

 

[adamstgbit]

core had more then enough support to not do a PoW change.
and even if they did....

my point is, bitcoin is whatever poeple THINK it is, "longest chain" is just a way to measure this.

i THINK bitcoin has become an altcoin and bitcoincash IS the true bitcoin. dosnt really matter that for some months ( and likly many more months) hashpower isnt there yet.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

There is no "enough support", you either have the majority of SHA256 miners on board or you are just alive because of mercy. Sadly the SW2X proponents were too cowardly to implement something like this https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/135

my point is, bitcoin is whatever poeple THINK it is, "longest chain" is just a way to measure this.

Sure. And if people decided that Bitcoin is the Swift network than be it.

From all definition attempts, Gavins attempt was the cleanest and best and at least a falsifiable one.


Miner should have forked to 2 MB's and choked the 1 MB chain. There wouldn't be any confusion what Bitcoin is and who defines it. We would have one chain, everybody on board and life would continue with a growing Bitcoin.

Instead miners were frightened by Adam Back and his lapdog theymos. That is what happened. The bad guys won with their violence, the good guys are either too nice or cowards.

edit: And I'm pretty sure, that something bad happened we don't know about. Either direct threats and violence or - maybe more likely - indirect violence through lawsuit threats and legal bullshit.

 

[adamstgbit]

having majority of SHA256 isn't depended on anything else then that chains value. which is set by users.
miners couldn't have successfully killed the other chain, because the other chain can change itself and become immune to these Attacks.

attempts at definitions of bitcoin beyond " bitcoin is whatever most poeple think it is " is probably never going to work out in the real world.

it wont matter that you can PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that bitcoin2x is bitcoin because of X Y and Z, if most of the market values bitcoin-core, and they call themselfs bitcoin, they are bitcoin. no metric matters, not really, all that REALLY matter is how many poeple Believe what you believe.

basically you are trying to argue that bitcoin is NOT defined by what the majority believe bitcoin to be. good luck with that.
[doublepost=1510248940,1510248263][/doublepost]

Instead miners were frightened by Adam Back and his lapdog theymos. That is what happened. The bad guys won with their violence, the good guys are either too nice or cowards.

you guys tend to take this too far.
their methods have been questionable but certainly not violent ( AFAIK )

i think core has a viable plan, and there concerns may be valid, to some degree. i cant say that I KNOW they are totaly wrong. but i am glad we can put this to the test in the real world, Bitcoin Cash will do its thing and bitcoin core will do its own. and in time we'll know for sure whats what.

 

[Epilido]

Didn't the creation of cash simultaneously happen with SW2X?

.

As I recall freetrade was working on something for quite some time before the NYA

 

[79b79aa8]

Miner should have forked to 2 MB's and choked the 1 MB chain. There wouldn't be any confusion what Bitcoin is and who defines it. We would have one chain, everybody on board and life would continue with a growing Bitcoin.

yes, we would have one chain: with Segregated Witness, RBF, rule changes by soft fork, massive technical debt, and 2MB blocks which would be full yesterday with no prospect of further change.

but hey! disinterested parties assure you this will bring about growth on sidechains and the soon-to-be-deployed lightning network!

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

New having majority of SHA256 isn't depended on anything else then that chains value. which is set by users.

No. It's set by selling and buying. And one of the decisions for a chain is it's security which is decided by miners. And predictability, which is also controlled by miners. And "scalability"... you get the picture.

if most of the market values bitcoin-core, and they call themselfs bitcoin, they are bitcoin.

Sure. But the market would have never called a PoW-fork by core the "real bitcoin". That is absolutely absurd.

basically you are trying to argue that bitcoin is NOT defined by what the majority believe bitcoin to be. good luck with that.

If we went by that, I'd guess Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme or drug dealer money. Because that's what the majority believes.

their methods have been questionable but certainly not violent ( AFAIK )

Well, there have been pretty obvious threats. At least legal threats but also some of the "hang him higher" threats by [No2X] people would have been justifiable where I live.
People vandalized the Bitmain office, and openly threatened Bitmain employees. That's what we have seen. What happened behind the curtains, we don't know. And I find the timing etc. very suspicious.

i think core has a viable plan,

Not for Bitcoin, no.

and there concerns may be valid, to some degree.

Sorry, but absolutely not.
Core is cancer and everybody aligned with them is part of the evil cabal. Fuck them, they don't deserve an ounce of respect. Not a single one of them.

but i am glad we can put this to the test in the real world, Bitcoin Cash will do its thing and bitcoin core will do its own.

Divide and conquer. Oscillating hashrate is not something that's desirable.

As I recall freetrade was working on something for quite some time before the NYA

Yep, as others before him. But the activation happened with Segwit activation, which was activated because of SW2X.
[doublepost=1510251806][/doublepost]@79b79aa8
We would have also removed the core choke on Bitcoin and made room for real scaling and a miner controlled blocksize.

 

[adamstgbit]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

well said, thanks for the schooling.
but I have always firmly believed that "bitcoin is whatever we choose to believe it is" type thing. Over the years a few points have been made to make me realize that hashpower has more weight then i realize, but my idea still is valid IMO.

saying that "bitcoin is drug money" because that's what most poeple believe it to be, is a misinterpretation of what i am saying, you know this... your just trying to make a point. maybe i should say "the market" rather then "most people".

As for the validity of core's ideology, its really hard to say with certainty, I tend to think they are pretty retarded in thinking that a self imposed limit is good. But they have "experts" agreeing with them, and i understand how a second layer solution might be superior to "brute force scaling".

i think they are wrong.... LN wont work as well as poeple believe it will, and even if it did some onchain scaling will be required, and even if that wasn't true, the fact is LN isn't ready anytime soon, and we want some scaling now....a tiny incress from 1 to 2 MB is NOTHING.

But, i need to respect the idea that "bitcoin is what ever most poeple the market believes it to be", because it dont matter how they made everyone believe there plan was THE plan BITCOIN would fallow, it dosnt matter if they threaten to murder key players and used censorship. it dosnt matter, because reality is a bitch, and reality is that segwit-settlement-coin is recognized as BITCOIN period the end. me thinking that the majority is wrong, because ZYX, and bitcoin cash is the true bitcoin because XYZ, dosnt change that reality.

Sure. But the market would have never called a PoW-fork by core the "real bitcoin". That is absolutely absurd.

i dont think they would of been able to pull it off... BUT, if the market called it bitcoin...

but thats a moo-point, because they wonudn't have needed a PoW-fork. they had more hash rate then you think. you think that the hash rate was 90% in favor of 2x, but that was bullshit, the reality is 80% of the hashrate was going to fallow the money, and the money was going to flow to 1x, and thats why the miners didn't have a choice but to call off the HF.

welcome to the internet

bitcoin IS segwit's settlement-coin.
​

what a terrible time to be alive ​

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Hei Guys, I have a strange, but interesting ethical question. Quite basical.

Nearly everybody in this space says he is in Bitcoin to make the world a better place. But nearly nobody goes into detail why.

So, can you give me an answer: Why do you belief Bitcoin makes the world a better place?

I have my own ideas, but I'm curious what you'll say, and how you justify the dark sides:

... hackers can ransom you by ddos'ing your business or encrypting your file.
... it is easy to buy and spread any kind of drug.
... people can buy weapons and poison to kill other poeple. In Munich some time ago a young guy killed some people with a gun he bought in the darknet.
... evil guys can sell child pornography, which gives an financial incentive to rape and torture children.
... Hitmen can offer their assassination service online
... terrorists can be funded silently
... taxes can be not paid
... extortion makes sense again

And so on. I don't know if everything in this list is real or just a gag / propaganda. But I'd like to know if there are some sins done with Bitcoin which would make you stop liking Bitcoin, or if the good of Bitcoin surpasses any kind of evil thing.

 

[Tomothy]

To all of your questions, I have more or less the same response. Bitcoin is easily traced. Cash is a lot simpler.

Honestly, I think bitcoin is probably one of the worst means of transaction if you are trying to be completely anonymous. If you want to do bad things, you use USD. Theres' a reason why USD is typically involved in nefarious activity.

With regards to potential? I think Bitcoin is the ultimate leveler. You can't make more of it, there's no fractional reserve spending. You have it or don't and from a governance and policy stand point, it's quite threatening. You can't lock a nation out of your financial network, you can't black ball them easily. They just click send. I think the main benefits result in changing society.

And hey, I'm ok to be governed by a AI with machine learning from bigger blocks. Better than us doing it ourselves as we've done a pretty crummy job. j/k, not j/k, j/k.

 

[Peter R]

@Christoph Bergmann

Technology is useful. Because it is useful, it can be used for both good and bad.

The concerns people have about the bad uses of bitcoin are similar to the concerns they had about the internet, cars, factories, and even the knowledge that the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Personally, I see the world through an optimist's lens, and so I think as mankind gains more technology, the good outweighs the bad and we slowly shape the world into a better place. Others probably feel the opposite based on the lens through which they are looking.

But I think the lens through which you're looking doesn't really matters in the end because it is not possible to stop a useful technology from being used.

 

[adamstgbit]

@Christoph Bergmann
anyone living where inflation is >5% / year has a good idea of what makes bitcoin special.

but more basic then that, a less idealistic/ethical reason would be the idea that bitcoin is less expensive and provides more utility then fiat. its hard to explain, I dont even have a concrete vision, but its easy to believe that "programmable money" will lead to a huge improvement in efficiency. alot of the bad things you list is proof of this.

its not like bitcoin invented the black market, and its not liek the black market wont be there if bitcoin is stopped.

bitcoin doesn't sell guns, poeple sell guns.