Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

When Bitcoin ceases to be Bitcoin (the 2nd death)

https://medium.com/@shadders333/when-bitcoin-ceases-to-be-bitcoin-the-2nd-death-893f6cceb9e0

 

[cypherdoc]

oh my. SV passing the 1:2 ratio:

 

[cypherdoc]

I didn't get any responses to my request for SV supporters to exchange SV for ABC coins with me.

I've now sold all my SV coins elsewhere, but I still see lots of overconfidence from people here about SV's prospects. I would still like to profit off of this overconfidence.

Are any SV supporters here interested in betting on the relative price of SV and ABC at some point far into the future? I'm pretty sure we'll be able to set this up so that we both feel protected from counterparty risk.

If you do support SV but for some reason the idea of betting on its future price doesn't interest you: why not? I may be able to address your concerns and help you enter into an agreement that you believe will be profitable for you.

looks like you picked the bottom cleanly

aha, and look at the one chump who up voted you.

 

[go1111111]

Looks like about 20% above the bottom

I'm still willing to bet on whether SV or ABC will be worth more in 3 months. Let me know if you're interested.

 

[Zarathustra]

@awemany would say that's the level of the core trolls, if he was neutral, but he isn't.

You are ready to bet on something that has twice the value right now?
Incredibly fair offer. Bold man. I guess you are also ready to bet on the North Corean project. You know, the project that your favorite miners promised to kill with their CPU power, but then killed Bitcoin (Unlimited).

A random crypto coin that has half the value of another one has a statistical chance of perhaps 3 percent to surpass that other one within 3 months. You would have to offer a 1:30 bet, or at least 1:10.

 

[cypherdoc]

please Jonathan, do it, do it! make my day!

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/a0fr5j/web_simulator_for_my_antireorg_algorithm/

 

[molecular]

ABC/BTC collapsing. SV UP.

What happened here, cypher?

I can see how the SV "idea" (no changes, back to 0.1, pure sound money, no bullshit) is right down your alley, but I fail to see how you can get behind the surrounding circumstances, especially regarding expected governance mode, communication with companies, community, etc... of that coin.

I'm assuming you're still the cypherdoc I came to respect back in the btctalk days, but I have to say you seem rather "changed" in recent days, if not since your reappearance here. This makes me worried.

 

[cypherdoc]

Why would you worry? go back through my posts to observe I have a very strict and should be understandable position even though you might not agree with it. I'm sick and tired of the overweening voluntaryists getting us nowhere on the blocksize limit which needs to be solved now and once and for all. it's that simple.
[doublepost=1543217415,1543216681][/doublepost]

 

[NewLiberty]

as this is not a fungible currency

Fungibility is obtainable by mining, even if by no other means.

 

[cypherdoc]

ABC/BTC collapsing. SV UP.

 

[molecular]

Why would you worry?

uncertainty due to lack of understanding plus a vivid imagination, I guess.

I'm sick and tired of the overweening voluntaryists getting us nowhere on the blocksize limit which needs to be solved now and once and for all. it's that simple.

I would've just removed the blocksize limit entirely myself, knowing full well that miners can and would sort out the technicalities (optimizations, block transmission innovations etc) themselves in a safe manner. It had to stay there in a relative "safe zone" imo because some people shat their pants over the prospect of removing it. So the road BCH (ABC) is on regarding blocksize is a compromise in my view, but a workable one. In case ABC devs deny raising/removing it in time we can always fork. To fork now over blocksize is idiotic, but what can you do... it's a viable governance mode. Comes at huge cost, though. Look at the mess!

 

[Zarathustra]

ABC/BTC collapsing. SV UP.

What happened here, cypher?

Should have gone Bagatell berserk....
[doublepost=1543223777][/doublepost]

@Zarathustra: Ok. So we're finally on the same level as that of Core trolls now in this thread?

What an interesting development.

Daily BCH txs collapsed to 4'000 after this so called 'upgrade'.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

What happened here, cypher?

I can see how the SV "idea" (no changes, back to 0.1, pure sound money, no bullshit) is right down your alley, but I fail to see how you can get behind the surrounding circumstances, especially regarding expected governance mode, communication with companies, community, etc... of that coin.

I'm assuming you're still the cypherdoc I came to respect back in the btctalk days, but I have to say you seem rather "changed" in recent days, if not since your reappearance here. This makes me worried.

That's not fair. Like it was not fair from @freetrader to accuse @Norway of being hacked. There are a lot of reasons to fundamentally prefer SV over ABC.

For example

It had to stay there in a relative "safe zone" imo because some people shat their pants over the prospect of removing it. So the road BCH (ABC) is on regarding blocksize is a compromise in my view, but a workable one.

Yes, I'd had no problem with keeping the limit at 32mb. But I also see the reasoning of @Norway that the limit needs to be eliminated to freeze the protocol. This fork demonstrated extremely clearly how much this is needed. Also, in the discussions surrounding the fork, it appears that the limits was exploited by a devs which make the condition that they first have to hardfork their cool scaling technology before the limit is allowed to be lifted. Their whole reasoning - that the blocksize limit must not be bigger than developers determine it to be safe - kicks us right back to where we have been with Core.

This is just one example from many. I accept it that you don't agree with me, unfortunately, very unfortunately, because you are one of my absolutely favorite Bitcoiners, but please try to accept the other position here.

Edit: Just for a thought play. Imagine you had to chose in August 2017 which project you support: Lifting the blocksize to 128mb, reintroducing old op_codes and freeze the protocol - or lifting the blocksize to 32mb and start half-yearly hardforks to fundamentally change the system until a group of developers says it is ok now.

 

[cypherdoc]

huge green volume candle on the hourly SV chart.

awwwh, poor 95'ers%
[doublepost=1543226142][/doublepost]with BTC continuing to collapse. this is the beautiful contracounter price movements we true big blockists always wanted to see from a real original vision implementation.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

To step in to the privacy / anonymity discussion: I recently had an interview with a researcher from Project Titanium, an EU funded science project to track criminals in a multi-cryptocurrency-context. They created a platform to cluster wallets, and it already needs a cluster computing infrastructure, because the graph for Bitcoin has grown to billions of edges. Big Blocks seem to be a good answer on the privacy problem.

 

[cypherdoc]

which project you support

you know, from what I've seen around here lately, that's going to be a hard choice for most of the participants. especially the voluntaryist devs.

 

[freetrader]

That's not fair. Like it was not fair from @freetrader to accuse @Norway of being hacked. There are a lot of reasons to fundamentally prefer SV over ABC.

You are putting words in my mouth. I said it didn't read like Norway's writing to me. That's not the same as saying his account was hacked. If you can't think of at least two reasons how this can happen, I am more than happy to help you out.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Ok, sorry @freetrader, I have the bad habbit to overshape what other people say, both in real live as online ...

 

[8up]

Where does the idea, that the base protocol should be frozen come from?

Doesn't that mean we exchange a dynamic and adaptable system for pseudo-stability?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@8up

There is a quote from Satoshi "Once the first version is released, it is set in stone" or something like this.

Then ... BCH just demonstrated what happens if you attempt to alter the base protocol without consensus ... you split the chain, create uncertainty, destroy network effects.

Finally, some people think that the basic properties of sound money should not be easily / often changed.