Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Justus Ranvier]

Changing the hash algorithm is the best thing Core could do.

 

[79b79aa8]

it's time.

edit: (IMHO, of course, and it's not like the move is irreversible).

 

[awemany]

@79b79aa8 : To go Bagatell(e) bezerk? Sorry, I likely don't get your reference

 

[79b79aa8]

that's what i've done.

 

[awemany]

Ok, let' me play some devil's advocate here, maybe you can convince me:

Assume the miners will be threatened with massive destruction of crypto in the west - all levers pulled basically - or agreeing to a minor blocksize increase on BTC.
Would the go with it, or would stay stay put on BCH being the scaling coin?

This is about the fear I have regarding going BB.

 

[79b79aa8]

frankly (this is my perception based exclusively on the movement of the hair in my nostrils) i don't think anyone gets their marching orders from BS/Core/the twitter [ARMY] anymore.

all the arguments in favor of staying with BTC are either bullshit, uttered by noobs, or both. every sane observer (and anyone with real skin in the game) seems to have concluded Cash it is in the long run.

so it's a matter of making the mental switch. there is a level of risk, but there is also the risk of missing out on the massive wealth transfer flowing to those with the better knowledge that was predicted long ago. remember also that no move is irreversible -- if a mistake is made, there is a cost, but it is not definitive.

so as always, it' a matter of finding that balance between risk and reward. i'm past the tipping point.

 

[awemany]

Understood. I hope the market will reward you well (and rewards me somewhat at least )

 

[rocks]

During the first altcoin scare in 2013 when 100s of altcoins first appeared, there was a lot of discussion in the original GCBU thread on if network effects were strong enough to hold the market to just Bitcoin and keep crypto currency usage and value primarily on the original Bitcoin chain. The general consensus was a mostly confident YES, that the network effects of each individual user wanting a platform that provides interoperability with the largest number of other users would keep Bitcoin as a dominate chain, even in the face of 100s of competing altcoins and even government interference.

Network effects however derive from usage, if users do not use Bitcoin directly, then most of the arguments we made in 2013 no longer hold.

Well we finally reached the point where Bitcoin is no longer functionally usable for transactions. If you are an ATM vendor your business is currently broken because someone depositing or withdrawing $100 faces +20% fees. If you are a payment processor, customers are incentivized to not use bitcoin for purchases for anything less than a few thousand dollars. The list goes on. In each of these cases business owners and users are financially incentivized to use something other than Bitcoin.

The only two questions that really matter right now, and which significant financial wealth can be generated by answering correctly, are:

1. Is Bitcoin's current dysfunction so bad that it is strong enough to overcome the strong binding force that network effects have (something we previously argued against)
2. If Bitcoin's network effects break down and another chain emerges as the dominate chain, which chain will take over?

I think most people here are arguing for network effects to break down and for a flippening to BHC to occur. But it is important to remember that many of us (myself included) argued pretty passionately that this is either not possible or very difficult.

However, again if people can't use Bitcoin the chain no longer binds them together.

The fact that Bitcoin is at all time highs, the financial markets are adding Bitcoin trading vehicles, the financial press can't stop talking Bitcoin and there are rumors central banks may add Bitcoin to reservers, is all irrelevant because this is not usage. Someone buying a Bitcoin on a futures market, can only sell that future back, they can't transact with the coin.

After seeing the updated Bitcoin Cash roadmap I have become very bullish on a flippening to BCH. When the fork first happened I only made a very small conversion over (despite the fact I argued pretty hard for a fork in late 2015/early 2016), but now I am starting to convert more over (still moderate amounts though).

The most significant part of the announcement for me was Bitcoin Cash planning to re-open up more opcodes, which was part of my top 5 wish list I listed in August. Bitcoin's original opcode set offered a ton of functionality. As Bitcoin Cash opens up opcodes again I think we will see numerous examples of new functionality emerge and migrate to Bitcoin Cash. In August I was a bit unsure on the direction because on the dev boards there were arguments over migrating to a new format that was easier for internal developers but offered less new functionality vs. simply building on existing opcodes that were there and just restricted by a soft fork (similar to the 1MB limit). I am glad to see opcodes won out.

To me re-enabling more opcodes (coupled with Bitcoin's restrictions) offers a very real chance for a flippening to occur, and I am feeling more confident to migrate more BTC to BCH as a result.

Slightly OT, I never liked or bought into the arguments for why core (although they we're called core at the time) limited opcodes in the first place. It was the first example of "we need to do this for 'security'" but they never showed what the actual problems were or why they couldn't easily be addressed. 4 years later the same tactics were used to keep a 1MB limit. In retrospect, I think the opcodes limitation is the first example of how core started to get it's tentacles in and constrain Bitcoin much earlier that we realized and why they were so hard to dislodge.

Even if core decides on a small block size increase, if Bitcoin Cash focuses on functionality while BTC focuses on functional restriction in favor of LN/side chains, then I think the odds still shift to BCH.

 

[Dusty]

It seems like we have to rename the thread... What about:

"Bitcoin legacy down, Bitcoin Cash up"

 

[79b79aa8]

@rocks it is always good to read you.

this is rbtc stuff, but i feel the need to recall that the BTC/BCH switch works differently than one from BTC to alts, in that BCH inherits BTC's network effect, or a huge portion of it anyways. so the old arguments against 1. and 2. do not hold.

 

[rocks]

@79b79aa8 fully agree the dynamics of a BTC/BCH switch are different from other alts, I think the question is to what extent though.

Most people use coins through services, and to users of services Bitcoin Cash appears the same as any other alt. For example, when Coinbase finally offers Bitcoin Cash in January it will be placed next to LTC & ETH. To a user BCH appears no different as these. It will carry a Bitcoin name and has some legitimacy from that, but that is about it. Same for Bitpay, etc. It is also important to remember that almost all new users since the recent price increase are on BTC only, they have no BCH, the Bitcoin name carries very little weight or comfort for those people who bought in post fork.

Again I'm saying I think it will happen, and I think the Bitcoin Cash roadmap will help make it happen, but it is still an uphill battle and not guaranteed, that's all. And if a flip does happen, the odds although favorable for the BCH chain are not 100%. And BTW, it should be very difficult to make a switch happen, that is the whole point of Bitcoin's durability against interference.

Edit: OK not January, TODAY!

 

[awemany]

@rocks: Great to see you again. I like your perspective - one can feel you took some time off, away from this crazy field to get some perspective!

I agree on your analysis and this is also what kept me from being too bullish on BCH initially and only the failure of 2x made me go 'BCH or bust'. (With also only very moderate amounts shifted, as discussed above).

Now on the opcodes, I think yes it makes sense to enable opcodes if they enable good use cases, but I do think there's a risk (though small) that opcodes have implementation errors etc. leading to chain forks. I like to be very careful here, if possible.

One thing that Core did a good job with was to do QA regarding security holes.

 

[79b79aa8]

indeed, to those who bought BTC post fork, BCH is an alt.

now price on august 1st was about $3000/BTC. it has rocketed ever since. so what percent of the float is in the hands of post-fork noobs? i would guess not that much.

in any case, to people in that situation i'd say, if they were listening: you have done spectacularly well in dollar terms, it is time to hedge by using profits to buy as much BCH as you originally bought BTC. this would put you in almost the same position of a pre-fork-holder. unfortunately, someone who is dreaming that his 0.1 BTC is going to make him rich is not going to want part with any (and the fees won't let him anyways).

everyone else (who didn't rage sell) has their BCH keys. sooner or later they'll dust them off.

 

[molecular]

I just realized the tax systems probably put a huge brake on the flippening. By converting BTC to BCH people in most jurisdictions have to pay taxes on the gains those BTC experienced since they bought them. Just keeping the BTC on the other hand incurs no taxes in most jurisdictions.

You can't just "undo" those taxes ;(

 

[rocks]

Geez, I sign back on and look at what happens. Sorry about that. Clearly the tetherprinter needs to get back to work. But then again it is only BTC that is down, BCH is up. Dusty clearly has the right new name

BTW, I am absolutely convinced most people buying "USDT" on many exchanges have no idea they are not buying real dollars.

 

[Bloomie]

For a true flippening, a major exchange will have to come out and start aggressively adding BCH to altcoin trading pairs.

I also have reservations about branding. Bitcoin Cash is a fantastic moniker to win over crypto-savvy people, but grandpas and other ordinary buyers are confused. Again, a powerful supporter would have to officially brand BTC as Bitcoin Core to give the buyer pause and push him to decide whether to buy Core or Cash. Once that happens, the CNBCs of the world will be happy to offer Core vs. Cash tutorials for dummies. But it's not a sure bet.

 

[Richy_T]

It's not possible to store a BIP 39 mnemonic HD key on a normal Rubik's Cube.

Another similar project i did 3 years ago was a way to create your BIP 39 seed with 4 special Dungeons and Dragons-dice in a plastic box with internal walls. Three D8 dice and one D4.

If you're willing to use materials less durable than stainless steel, a lot opens up (I've considered ceramic tablets). If you're willing to go to plastic, the world is your oyster (though your bitcoins may end up a carbonized mess). If you're just talking about generating a private key (or some other base 16 type operation), D16 are available which make things somewhat simpler.

 

[Windowly]

Coinbase and GDAX have fully enabled Bitcoin Cash.

Liquidity on GDAX is not enough yet to enable buying and selling on Coinbase, but they say it will only be a few hours.

 

[Norway]

It's time to put on @AdrianX ' favourite party song:

 

[humanitee]

Hilarious.