Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
7b) The miners fall in line once again and give Core what they want, spelling doom for BCH
@awemany
That would be definitive proof that the BTC Society is one of the dumbest of all possible societies.
Overall; not just within the crypto environment.

Many scenarios are imaginable, but only one will be possible. Perhaps this: The crypto market cap reaches 1 trillion Dollar next year, with BTC at 250 and BCH at 500 billion.
 
Last edited:

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
@awemany What you're describing is nothing new. It happens during every mania/crash cycle.
How do you mean this? I was thinking specifically about the blocksize dynamics of BTC.

@Zarathustra :
That would be definitive proof that the BTC Society is one of the dumbest of all possible societies.
Overall; not just within the crypto environment.
I was rather thinking of secret deals than stupidity.
 
Last edited:

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
That's so reprehensible that Bitstamp insists on misleading their customers by listing the name "Bitcoin" instead of "BCoin".

Imagine the confusion of customers upon seeing this "Bit" coin listed, and thinking that they're trading something that represents 1/8 of a dollar!
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
@Justus: I see, thanks!

I think keeping the scenario 7b alive, that the miners are bribed/'convinced' into getting bigger blocks on Bitcoin is essentially a variant of "see Bitcoin doesn't work" already.

It is this uncertainty that keeps me from shifting further towards BCH and I suspect it is true for many others as well. If this uncertainty persists, it will depress the whole cryptocurrency space.

Which coin will be dominant long term?

If BTC scales on-chain, it will be BTC. Regardless of what BCH does.
Only if BCH scales on-chain but BTC doesn't will it be BCH.

This is why I think they made a grave mistake with the initial HKC (as I and others here pointed out back then!) and this is also why I suspect (@Zarathustra) that they made another mistake with BCH. They opened the door for the other side to continue and extend this kind of divide-and-conquer play.

This is the battle for/against viability of crypto and control over it. It is at the bottom of it not at all about blocksize as the main matter. I am still certain that both Adam and Greg and a couple others know that Bitcoin needs bigger blocks.
 
Last edited:

Mengerian

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
536
2,597
I have amended the Conference BUIP.

We recently learned the people behind "The Future of Bitcoin", who did the bulk of the work for the Arnhem conference, have decided not to take on the organizing role for this conference. So we will have to either look for another organizer, or do more work ourselves as volunteers.

I have changed the wording of the BUIP to reflect this.

I personally cannot devote too much time to take on the organizing role, so making the conference actually happen will depend on finding more volunteers, finding partners, or hiring a professional conference organizer. There is a also a good chance we may have to push the date back so we have time to reorganize. So don't book tickets yet!
 

adamstgbit

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2016
1,206
2,650
@Justus: I see, thanks!

I think keeping the scenario 7b alive, that the miners are bribed/'convinced' into getting bigger blocks on Bitcoin is essentially a variant of "see Bitcoin doesn't work" already.

It is this uncertainty that keeps me from shifting further towards BCH and I suspect it is true for many others as well. If this uncertainty persists, it will depress the whole cryptocurrency space.

Which coin will be dominant long term?

If BTC scales on-chain, it will be BTC. Regardless of what BCH does.
Only if BCH scales on-chain but BTC doesn't will it be BCH.

This is why I think they made a grave mistake with the initial HKC (as I and others here pointed out back then!) and this is also why I suspect (@Zarathustra) that they made another mistake with BCH. They opened the door for the other side to continue and extend this kind of divide-and-conquer play.

This is the battle for/against viability of crypto and control over it. It is at the bottom of it not at all about blocksize as the main matter. I am still certain that both Adam and Greg and a couple others know that Bitcoin needs bigger blocks.
I think what Adam and Greg legitimately believe is more or less what they are known to say...:
"
BTC dosnt need bigger blocks at all, bottom line is BTC can handle 3tps and thats more then enough to satisfy the "digital gold" use case. the only use case that really matters!
miners dont matter much beyond servicing the blockchain WE THE PEOPLE pay them to secure / service.
only the longest VALID fork is the true bitcoin.
we the poeple determine what is "VALID" by 1) running full nodes 2) voting with your money, if their is a forking
LN can and will allow bitcoin to scale
etc.. etc...

"
I'd agree with you if BTC came to increase blocksize "as big as need be", that would kill BCH(more or less). but this is NEVER going to happen. 2MB BTC blocks in <2years? MAYBE. 16MB? when hell freezes over!!
because BTC has a different philosophy... they will ALWAYS have full-blocks, ( even if these small blocks do get slightly bigger over the years)

This is the battle for/against viability of crypto and control over it. It is at the bottom of it not at all about blocksize as the main matter.
agreed, blocksize is 1 of many many points the 2 different philosophies naturally disagree on.

BCH is the worlds first legitimate fork of bitcoin.
it is official the grate digital currency wars, have begon! :cool:
[doublepost=1512514980,1512513835][/doublepost]for the record their are 2 things hodling me back from going all in to BCH
1) i don't believe my on beliefs, i only believe facts , and i don't have all the facts...
2) i'm trying to time the BTC top.
 

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
the root of the problem with BTC was never the size of the blocks, it's that it fell under the control of a few, fallible people. but this was, after all, eminently predictable. part of the genius of the original design is that bitcoin has a mechanism to deal with such an outcome: forks (that preserve coin distribution). it took time and insight to work this out, but it got done in time.

which is why those fallible people who took control of BTC so vehemently oppose forks (remember back talking to chinese miners, remember jonny). and even when they appear to support a futile fork (back on BTG, the clashic ruse), they patently do it to undermine the fork that does matter.

and it is also why, whatever happens to BTC under the leadership of those few, fallible people, bitcoin lives on.
 

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
855
In other free market news. This happened.



https://ecomotoringnews.com/2017/11/24/bitcoin-mining-in-electric-vehicles-raises-other-questions/

Dear Mr Musk the solution to your problem, smart meters and bitcoin wallets in each car.
Nothing is fucked up, except the contract between musk and the tesla owners. They were promised electric power paid by musk forever. It stopped, new car owners must pay their own way. The question is, will musk be tempted to change the contract for the old cars? I supect there is a small font way out for him somewhere in the contract.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1yNxaVPRpjWKj this video if you have 2 hours (less the first 5 min) is a great summary of the status quo. The predicted correction I think is eminent, but the timing still remains elusive, I'm predicting it happens on the first Tuesday of April. April 1st being a little too conspicuous, but most likely the day the cohorts exist.
 

satoshis_sockpuppet

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
776
3,312
Have to admit, I'm impressed by the stamina to keep Bitcoin core running to new highs...

Imho not much more than a ponzi scheme at this point.. but impressive value flowing in. Not sure what will happen when this implodes... I hope BCH will obtain more economic ground before the next crypto-hangover... Else we'll start from a bad position...
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
At the same time, the tone definitely changed on Theymosian grounds, all have a short peek here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7hzl78/steam_is_no_longer_supporting_bitcoin/

I wonder whether the people complaining there are former(?) Coretards. I see 'when is LN finally ready'-type posts. Great :)

What would make me bullish would be first signs of real infighting in rBitcoin. That would be a sign that they won't be able to keep a closed front against BCH, especially also when the overlords (Greg, Adam) deem "Bitcoin ready for a blocksize increase".
 

Jonathan Valderrama

New Member
Dec 6, 2017
1
0
agold wont collapse so easily, godl have been controlled for the banks since a long time, time will come when real gold prices appear, and bitcoin will help gold to find the real value