Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
Information for BU members.

This is the first BU vote since the 15 November general upgrade, so it will be the first opportunity to gauge the sentiment of the membership on the resulting persistent fork and the major issues which arise as a result.

New BUIPs may be submitted for vote up to midnight UTC, 1 January 2019.

Announcing the next BU Vote 16-20 January 2019

Advance notice: candidate applications for BU (lead) Developer
Nov 27, 2015

It was previously reported that BTC.TOP will switch over its mining power to support Bitcoin ABC. But Jiang Zhuo’er, founder of BTC.TOP, dismissed the rumor.He emphasized that the mining pool will side with the party which is willing to invest more hash power and more money to win the battle, in a bid to end the chaotic situation as soon as possible and to restore order to the Bitcoin Cash(BCH) community.


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
Yeah, it's hard to stay active on this forum these days. It's bizarre to see so many pro-nChain accounts here. We just need more in person conferences! :)
Stay active? Have you been active on @cypherdoc's forum? You could try to compete with the opinions of those who are not on the multicoiner's side. But you don't. Maybe it's your side that's bizarre to see.

Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and bitsko


Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
Unwriter is staying 'hyper'active.

Uh, does not follow.

Whatever you think about the new addresses*, there's nothing to say this API couldn't use them.

*Personally, I think there was 0 need to make the change, that it was possibly damaging timing to do it so quickly after the fork and that it was an unfortunate sign of things to come.


Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
So, this forum became silent ... Maybe because we are split, everybody just likes comments of his team, and some people doesn't want to participate as long as people from the sv side keep posting...

Meanwhile, the prices, very frustrating...
I think we've just talked out what can be talked out and are waiting to see what's next. It's better than a perpetual slanging match.


Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
The answer is t = 15 min regardless of when "now" is (it's just easier to see that the answer is t = 15 min if you imagine "now" being t = 0).
I will try to explain why your assumption that t = 15 regardless of when you estimate the expected time is a matter of a shoehorned interpretation of the bet by giving a simplified version of the bet:

Bob rolls a fair six sided dice and get a 6. What's the expected value before the dice was rolled?

By your interpretation, the expected value is 6 before the dice was rolled because you have read the question and know the dice will land on 6. You add the condition that the outcome is known before the event has happened, and apply conditional probability.

The other interpretation is that before the dice is rolled, it's not possible to predict the future and the expected value is 3.5. This is what I think would be the normal interpretation of the word "expected".

The phrase "expected time" is statistics jargon for "imagine repeating this measurement over an ensemble of a million such experimental, and then taking the average of the block times."
I agree with your definition of "expected time". And it supports the latter of the two interpretations I just described. Your shoehorned interpretation is in reality just a measurement of the event and not "expected time".
Last edited:


Nov 28, 2018
I thought that it would happen sooner or later everything goes to the net and electronic money begins to vaue much more than gold nuggets


Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
first interesting thing in a week:

  • Like
Reactions: Norway and Windowly


Active Member
Nov 18, 2015
@Norway the bet doesn't matter CSW is wrong anyway.

I understand where csw is coming from. He's imagining 2 independently generated timelines of block findings (using the appropriate hash rates). One timeline for hm, one for sm. Generated a bunch of blocks for each independently. If you just look at hm timeline and see a block at t=-10, then ask yourself when is the next expected block time for the hm, the answer will be t=5. Now we peek at the SM timeline, we see a block at t=0.

Does the presence of the block at t=0 somehow invalidate the hm timeline? Answer: no. We can still use those blocks. So csw is using that original ask "when is the next expected hm block" (from before we peeked at the sm timeline) and saying t=5. Of course that wasn't the bet. But I think it explains his mindset.

Read his full paper on the subject. You'll see he gets the timings correct (well it seems like it). And his conclusions are ALL WRONG. So while I can see why you want to settle a bet, it doesn't really matter in the end.

Here is a simulation using the 2 independent timeline technique: (it goes to

Members online