that's definitely a bull flag forming on the daily. should break UP:
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Lots of "users", I somehow doubt a single one of them will volunteer to be personally named in any lawsuit. They just give money to "the cause".
In the end someone will just ghost and take the money with them. Possibly after a lawyer or two laughs them out of their office.
In the end someone will just ghost and take the money with them. Possibly after a lawyer or two laughs them out of their office.
>They just give money to "the cause".
i seriously doubt they'll even go this far. but i hope they do; Bitcoin forces lots of losses onto the stupid.
i seriously doubt they'll even go this far. but i hope they do; Bitcoin forces lots of losses onto the stupid.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
the good aspect of this suit going forward is that it would put to rest a bunch of allegations and half-baked notions about what bitcoin is.
the not so great aspect is that it would take a toll on mr. ver. although it is possible he comes to see it as an opportunity to advance BCH further.
the not so great aspect is that it would take a toll on mr. ver. although it is possible he comes to see it as an opportunity to advance BCH further.
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,695
@cypherdoc @theZerg
I think the recent pop in BCH is the market pricing in future scenarios after a long period of consolidation and seller exhaustion.
a) potential for the re-enabled and new op-codes to allow more advanced transactions (BCH)
b) potential for the Lightning Network to remain in pre-alpha for a much longer period of time (BTC)
So, there are forces pushing in both directions and these relate directly to peer-to-peer payments utility, vindicating both your views.
I think the recent pop in BCH is the market pricing in future scenarios after a long period of consolidation and seller exhaustion.
a) potential for the re-enabled and new op-codes to allow more advanced transactions (BCH)
b) potential for the Lightning Network to remain in pre-alpha for a much longer period of time (BTC)
So, there are forces pushing in both directions and these relate directly to peer-to-peer payments utility, vindicating both your views.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Should we (BCH) have two live forks?
I have to admit, the upcoming fork concerns me. I'm big on BCH and I do think the opcodes would be a good thing. But bringing them in opens us to risks, both in the underlying code and in the opcodes themselves. I'm starting to wonder if we should have a "fast and loose" fork and a "conservative" fork which only takes on-board the features from the first fork after they have proven themselves for a while. Though far from being a testnet, the tokens on that fork would be allowed to persist and have real value. Users would just have to accept that the risks are higher.
In fact, could we possibly share the hashrate between two such chains? So when you solve a block, you actually solve it for both. Perhaps these would be considered sub-chains of the same chain. Though that might introduce perverse incentives.
I have to admit, the upcoming fork concerns me. I'm big on BCH and I do think the opcodes would be a good thing. But bringing them in opens us to risks, both in the underlying code and in the opcodes themselves. I'm starting to wonder if we should have a "fast and loose" fork and a "conservative" fork which only takes on-board the features from the first fork after they have proven themselves for a while. Though far from being a testnet, the tokens on that fork would be allowed to persist and have real value. Users would just have to accept that the risks are higher.
In fact, could we possibly share the hashrate between two such chains? So when you solve a block, you actually solve it for both. Perhaps these would be considered sub-chains of the same chain. Though that might introduce perverse incentives.
Last edited:
Yes, it's multi factorial . Or IOW, the end of a long descending wedge.
[doublepost=1524959560][/doublepost]@Richy_T I share your concerns. In fact if @deadalnix is as swamped as he claims then when did he have time to test and evaluate all the re enabled OP codes?
How long have we been on first seen first accepted? @deadalnix
[doublepost=1524965283][/doublepost]Up we go
[doublepost=1524965283][/doublepost]Up we go
Last edited:
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
It's a model that a few Linux distributions (typically Debian based) use. Keep one branch really stable so people can use it and know they won't be trying to get their email server to boot at 3AM in the morning after an upgrade and another branch for people to try out the gee-whizz stuff.
We do have a short period where things are still a bit quiet to make mistakes and fix them in production but the window is closing fast. I just have this image in my head of Maxwell sitting there with some opcode exploit that has been kept private waiting for us to go live with it. We can't put anything beyond those who are against us and some of them have been studying the code for a long time.
We do have a short period where things are still a bit quiet to make mistakes and fix them in production but the window is closing fast. I just have this image in my head of Maxwell sitting there with some opcode exploit that has been kept private waiting for us to go live with it. We can't put anything beyond those who are against us and some of them have been studying the code for a long time.
- Aug 29, 2015
- 536
- 2,597
I just wrote an article, partly inspired by memo.cash, in favor of massive on-chain scaling:
https://medium.com/@Mengerian/bitcoin-cash-memo-and-the-public-goods-fallacy-cb6d23d1cf75
https://www.yours.org/content/bitcoin-cash--memo--and-the-public-goods-fallacy-7861b7dee557
https://medium.com/@Mengerian/bitcoin-cash-memo-and-the-public-goods-fallacy-cb6d23d1cf75
https://www.yours.org/content/bitcoin-cash--memo--and-the-public-goods-fallacy-7861b7dee557
deadalnix
Active Member
- Sep 18, 2016
- 115
- 196
Since day 1. But it's just a policy, so any miner can chose to do something else.
@cypherdoc: Indeed, great article. Is Chris Pacia here on this forum as well?
I would welcome the LN effort if they'd truly seek for a layered solution that would not attempt to endanger the very foundation that they are building upon (fee-supported sound money).
But as they even wrote right in their whitepaper that one of their premises is to avoid paying these very fees, it surely looks like an attack of the same kind like the one by the folks who undermined (no pun) the gold standard.
And a desire to make money layered seems to always align with a desire to extract fees at some of the higher layers, as well as a desire to hide the base currency behind the layers. (Compare also the more recent comments by some LN folks regarding "LN can work on any chain and even across chains" and trying to sell that as a feature ...).
I think this historical argument plus the absolutely excellent "put yourself in their shoes" argument by u/MortuusBestia is key for people to realize their brainwashing.
The only "issue" I'd have with Chris' argument is that, though excellent, is formatted like a reddit comment and I suspect too brief for many to follow and realize.
Maybe someone good at this could illustrate this with some cartoons and images and extend it with a more detailed look at history.
I would welcome the LN effort if they'd truly seek for a layered solution that would not attempt to endanger the very foundation that they are building upon (fee-supported sound money).
But as they even wrote right in their whitepaper that one of their premises is to avoid paying these very fees, it surely looks like an attack of the same kind like the one by the folks who undermined (no pun) the gold standard.
And a desire to make money layered seems to always align with a desire to extract fees at some of the higher layers, as well as a desire to hide the base currency behind the layers. (Compare also the more recent comments by some LN folks regarding "LN can work on any chain and even across chains" and trying to sell that as a feature ...).
I think this historical argument plus the absolutely excellent "put yourself in their shoes" argument by u/MortuusBestia is key for people to realize their brainwashing.
The only "issue" I'd have with Chris' argument is that, though excellent, is formatted like a reddit comment and I suspect too brief for many to follow and realize.
Maybe someone good at this could illustrate this with some cartoons and images and extend it with a more detailed look at history.
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,695
The number of readers of r/btc, at 7200, is almost 60% of r/bitcoin's 12200. This is a significant data point as for a very long time the ratio has been 3:1 with r/btc community discussion more sparse.
i don't know. but given all the concepts he espoused in his post were discussed in this thread years ago, i'd think he must have passed thru here at some time in the past
i thought i'd just wave to him while acknowledging his excellent post
Last edited:
- Aug 28, 2015
- 517
- 1,679
First post here for a while. I very significantly increased my BCH holdings in the last month.
Tipping point approaching?
Tipping point approaching?
