Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
bitcoin cash is bitcoin.
we seem to be coming out of this long night unscathed: with market-determined blocksize, no segregated witness spaghetti madness, no zombified nodes, no capture by venture capitalists and their bullshit pontificating single point of failure surrogate devs, multiple implementations, a clarified, truly revolutionary governance structure, a defeat of censorship, and a sense of the limits of social media campaigning when measured vs. global market forces.
overall, a strong sense of resilience.
it may be that the only thing lost was the ticker. in the end, perhaps not even that.


Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
Objectively I would argue that Bitcoin Cash is massively superior on practical grounds simply because quadratic sighash scaling is fixed once and for all with zero kludgy technical debt.

There is no way for Core to actually fix this in order to scale beyond the practically non-existent segwit bump in adversarial cases without bikeshedding for years over consensus-level changes.


Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
There are tons of reasons, why cash is massively superior. Still I couldn't believe that it had a realistic shot after so much time as a diverged ledger. As of now I hope to be proven wrong by the optimists.

It would be very interesting to know if a lot of cold storage (long time untouched) coins are being moved these days... (But I guess it takes a lot of time for some of the schemes people have.. so maybe in a few days / weeks there'll be more).

Looks like it is all in now. Cash or death! ;)

btw, has there been serious discussion about cash's longterm blocksize plans? (Man, I'd cry if Bip101 was implemented lol)


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
Ok folks, I feel like I should be writing some more (and am too busy watching all this unfold) but of course I see it now like the rest: There's no alternative other than BCH left.

I was quite concerned about the 'this is a sign of weakness part' in all this, but with (BCH+BTC) losing only a couple hundred dollars so far in total makes me actually cautiously optimistic. A slight market bearishness is expected with such a turmoil.

Initially, I felt this was the lamest and weakest move the miners could have made, called Jihan names and all that - I guess there are others having had the same mindset. But now I have to say: Well played.

The case for which BCH was insurance happened but it looks like the insurance is *a lot* better than I expected.

Man this is one aggressive market today and yesterday. Amazing to see this.

This should also answer @jbreher's and @Zarathustra 's and a couple other folks concerns about my alignment. My patience with Bitcoin legacy is of course finally over as well and I am hoping, rooting for and expecting for the Phoenix to rise out of the ashes. :)

No way back to that shit. My only remaining concern is that there might be some deal that will pull the miners back to Bitcoin + a blocksize increase. But I think that is highly unlikely and would be too much erosion of trust in the whole idea of crypto being viable. And every day this flips, every % Cash cuts out of Bitcoin is another day for an even stronger alignment of the miners against legacy Bitcoin as any form of viable competition. Some folks are choking on SegWit now. Can't say I am unhappy.

Lots more stuff going through my mind now.

Oh and also I promised Greg an admission of defeat and they should surely get that. Will write a reddit post regarding this.


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
@79b79aa8 : Excellent summary!

There is no way for Core to actually fix this in order to scale beyond the practically non-existent segwit bump in adversarial cases without bikeshedding for years over consensus-level changes.
Not only that. The miners will hold up the BTC deal of 'no controversial changes ever'. I am pretty sure any change that will make BTC more of a a competitor to BCH is going to be quite controversial now. The miners own too much BCH for wanting competition from BTC. Mining it until it goes away? Sure enough.

The best "digital gold" is the one that doesn't get changed at all - I learned that from Mircea, Greg, Luke, Adam, ..

So let them have it.

"Lambotard". A word that describes the current set of folks on /r/Bitcoin well, I think.

And if they try the POW fork: Well let them do that while trying to appear decentralized.

Looks like BTC went into an inescapable trap.


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
@Erdogan, and I was dead wrong assuming that TPTB behind Blockstream would actually join 2x to keep at least a sense of control. Here's my prediction:

Prediction of the days and weeks ahead in Bitcoin by awemany
Monday, Oct 9th 2017

As we're inching closer to 2x, BCH will continue to lose market cap.

Wtihin about a week or two from now, F2Pool will stop signalling NYA, bringing
the signalling rate below 90%. F2Pool will coincidentally tweet something
along the lines of "we have just restarted our pool server", referring to
their earlier tweet that they stopped NYA, but haven't stopped their pool
server yet. /r/Bitcoin will cheer the end of 2x.

This will both cause a slight drop in BTC price as well as a larger drop of
the bitfinex 2X futures vs. the 1X ones to an even more unfavorable ratio. It
will also cause a moderate jump upwards for BCH.

This will also be about rock bottom of the "2X:1X" ratio.

Despite the unfavorable price ratio, none of the large companies (miners or
otherwise) will call NYA into question. They will largely keep their mouths
very tightly shut on NYA until and including the actual fork time.

About a week after that 2x:1x rock bottom and about 3..4 weeks to the
predicted HF date, another exchange will come out with a 1X:2X futures contract
on fair and dependable terms.

The 2X futures price will creep up, slowly first, only to flip in 2X's favor
just days or a week before the fork.

F2Pool will likely tweet something along the lines of 'we also never said that
we _don't_ support NYA to the full extend' and switch signalling on again
around the time 2X:1X reaches parity.

The fork will succeed with vast hash power majority and Core will bring out an
emergency POW fork. With the resulting price fireworks around the time of the
fork. The begin of the next big (huge) adoption rush. Altcoins will deflate or
crash, however you want to call it.

Their resulting CoreCoin will be worth around $100 and then keep dropping.

Many folks on our side as well as on Core's side will say that "Bitcoin has
been captured as BizCoin", feeling that their vision of the true Bitcoin has
been captured by TPTB or any other enemies.

(Whereas it actually shows that money and incentives *do* rule Bitcoin)

More hazy long term prediction:

Blockstream will be closed down in 2018, as it will have served its purpose
and can thus then be deorbited. Many of their employees and members of the
Core team will continue to work on Bitcoin, despite their assertion to the

Thoughts that led me to the above predictions:

- The fact that a 3txn/s or a SegWit1x-ed Bitcoin can't go anywhere isn't lost
on *any* of the larger investors either, and also among other things, the fee
market clearly and predictably didn't work. The future of BTC simply cannot
rely on that kind of unpredictable transaction pricing. *All* major
investors are aware of this fact (and likely have been since the beginning),
but some still played the other side in this conflict, to suppress the price
and strengthen the position of their companies vs. the miners in the
Bitcoin ecosystem. They *do* want to have a say on further protocol
development and position their companies as large players in the world of
finance after the upcoming 'disruption'.

- so, in the end, the whole reason for smallblockism was a long play to
suppress the price, load up on BTC and have a say in its future

- In the end, **Nakamoto consensus prevails**

Both 'our' big blocker side (at least those who now overly cheer BCH and
left the mainchain for this spin-off) as well as the small blockers have
lost sight of that to a large extend. Some of the folks on our side argue
that "BCH will overtake BTC" (but by that actively ignoring the mining
majority!) and the other side, well not much must be said about that between
consensus by twitter, chain definition by github, and ruling by developer
decree bullshit.

This might well be by design of the actors directly behind NYA, as well as
the long term strategy of the large investors (DCG etc.) and similar

**Shake out the extremists on both sides of the battle (those who 'take
their ball and go home') while keeping Bitcoin fundamentally intact and also
dominant enough. (Let the Altcoins grow only until the point where they are
still non-threatening)

This also relies on all important actors believing in the long-term future,
see below. If the two sides fight - the third party that watches this and
pulls the strings profits.**

- Money talks. NYA clearly is the money in Bitcoin.

- The miners are sufficiently fed up with Core's antics to keep sticking to 2x
and signalling NYA (except the F2Pool flip-flopper and some very minor other
pool maybe) even though they are likely (up until the price ratio flip)
quite suspicious of the determination of the rest of the NYA signers to
actually pull through.

- For the investors who played the small blocks side of things, sticking with
NYA is also a way to "rebuild trust" with the miners and thus
psychologically getting them closer ("binding them" !), as the strong
suspicion that Blockstream is a pawn in the game by the other side cannot be
lost on them, to the full awareness of all large parties in the background,
however large they might be.

As the support of the miners is long term very important to build the
ecosystem, the non-mining parties will pull through with the 2x as well (and
are told to do so by their investors in the background).

"Giving this one to the miners" is very helpful and important to secure their
support down the road.

- The big actors know Bitcoin is the future and thus in the end want it to
succeed. They invested in companies, development, marketing and so forth. It
seems very unlikely that they want to kill it.

- Finally, on F2Pool, the F2Pool guy just seems to like to continuously troll
all sides


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015

btw, has there been serious discussion about cash's longterm blocksize plans? (Man, I'd cry if Bip101 was implemented lol)
BIP101 works for me, just do it, no need to even include the 75% activation threshold. Personalty I like the default 16MB limit provided by Bitcoin Unlimited Cash. It's fundamentally comparable with the BIP101 limits by default. why not just use that?
The case for which BCH was insurance happened but it looks like the insurance is *a lot* better than I expected.
LOL I have to agree @Jihan if this works Well Played. and to everyone who has made this possible. It's the risk takers in the market who will push this through, all with their divergent risk tolerances.


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
@AdrianX: I think I now favor something where the miners go and optimize for maximum fee revenue.
That can be BU-style BIP100 or straight BIP100 or a variant or whatever.

No strong opinion though. But definitely not any hard "set in stone gold" cap on that shit any longer :D

Another issue: I noticed that the pattern of "hold strong guys" or "note the astroturfing" or "he's a scammer why" is especially strong now on /r/Bitcoin.

That whole SR seems to have ripped into shreds as well. It is as if the moderators just got fired. A wasteland.


Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
Another prediction: the new daa in bitcoin cash will stabilize the block time for bitcoin cash close to 10 min, stabilize the block time for bitcoin segwit to something just lower or just higher. Bitcoin seqwit queue will go downwards, fee requirement still high, maybe in the 200 sat/b area. Value of both coins rise.

edit: 600 sat/b now, jeez
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and awemany


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
Regarding hash power behind a chain and most difficulty, it is actually an interesting field:

First of all: I still refuse to call BCH BTC until it became the most difficult chain :)

But there's a very interesting aspect: BCH had hashpower of close to zero at times.

But it doesn't only count what hash power a chain has, it also counts how much hash power a chain has available for protection. And even at close to zero hash power, no miner will dare to attack BCH because everyone knows that this will just mean to be a lose-lose proposition against the BCH friendly miners - and would further increase BCH in value as demonstrating it a viable (because of the attempted attack) threat to BTC.

In that sense, I suspect BCH is what I would name a "silent majority fork". The 50% majority of miners surely want to put all their hash power behind that chain, and they bought BCH because they believe it will be the market's answer eventually as well.

But there's no need to mine it much until it becomes the more profitable one - just protecting the baby until it grows up is enough. Meanwhile, rinse the BTC chain and holders.

Quite beautiful, actually.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
@sickpig: Awesome. Man I am getting optimistic now :)

It seems like Ethereum Classic got pumped with a volume of a billion dollars traded today. Thoughts? Banksters trying to create confusion among coins? "A.k.a.: Bitcoin dead now, value flowing into all alts?"

Seems likely to me. I think they will fucking fail with that. People know what's up :)