Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[bitsko]

In the sense that the end goal of bitcoin is everyday cash, I agree with freetrader. In the sense that tokenized fiat is superior at this moment in use for spending I agree with cbeast.

It is the volatility. When the price drops off a cliff, all of that 'spending money' gets retracted and kept long term, new 'spending money' must be acquired through however one gets paid.

I would argue that in order to make it to the point in which bitcoin can be reliably used as an everyday cash, it would require its use as a commodity in every imaginable fashion, to have such distribution and velocity as to lend itself to a low and upwards trending volatility in price.

 

[_bc]

It's estimated up to six million bitcoins are burnt already and the number only grows over time. It becomes impossible to estimate the market cap to determine its scarcity. I mean, why not then just add a small amount of inflation to adjust for leakage? If you throw off economic incentives, folks will look for other forms of scarcity like off-chain transactions.

If it's *estimated* that up to six million bitcoins are burnt, then it's not impossible to *estimate* the market cap to determine its scarcity.

Do you really want to introduce a new attack vector, in inflation? In my estimation, a limited issuance is half of bitcoin's magic.

Who's throwing off economic incentives? Are you taking about burnt coins? Or blocksize caps?
[doublepost=1557188945][/doublepost]

@freetrader:
> But what will you do if a court finds him to be a liar and a fraud, as some have alleged?

Keep investing in the bitcoin that unwriter is rocking, and popcorn futures.

 

[cbeast]

@_bc
The problem with lost coins is that financialization requires good reliable data. Conservative investment won't get involved with completely unknown quantities.

 

[Griffith]

pitiful turnout. are there that few members?

active on the forum and clearly has opinions about the oganization but isnt a member.
complains about bad member turnout.
hmmm......

@sickpig voted no to BSV on both buip's. Very disappointed.

Don't do that. Everyone is free to vote as they see fit.

BSV supporters could, in theory, try and elect a developer who is friendly to BSV with the intention of using BU resources toward porting BU tech to the BSV codebase.

Would BCH supporters reject in the vote? Its quite possible.

As bitcoin professionalizes, will there remain a place for a democratic development process?

In the event that the BSV removal of HF features is removed from the dev branch and is separated into its own branch, BSV supporters could simply continue to develop on top of the BSV branch.

It was likely that these two code bases would have needed to separate at some future point anyway due to the increasing needless added complexity of supporting two different feature sets in the same branch.

 

[_bc]

@_bc
The problem with lost coins is that financialization requires good reliable data. Conservative investment won't get involved with completely unknown quantities.

Understood. Then let's start with companies who can *use* BSV to accomplish something quicker, and with less friction than otherwise. When enough of them are, this will all snowball. We don't need "conservative investment" to jump in willy-nilly. If they did, they'd likely jump-out willy-nilly at the first hiccup. It's not their cup of tea just yet. Let them be the last ones on the train.

My guess is that introducing inflation to entice "conservative investment" isn't in the cards. There was a Freicoin back in the day - it might have been the first to introduce inflation (or a fancy French word for it), and it fizzled.
[doublepost=1557191496][/doublepost]continued:

And it's not a "completely unknown quantity". I've heard that there are estimated to be six million burnt coins.
[doublepost=1557192068,1557191349][/doublepost]I'm going to admit that I'm ignorant on mainstream BCH development (r/btc). I've stopped frequenting it. Is there anything (BCH-related) out there in anyway similar to unwriter's momentum?

I've heard that schnorr is coming, but I don't know about any bang for that buck (again, ignorant). I've seen that CoinShuffle is hitting some milestones. I'll admit I used to think that was important, but now I don't. I've read that Jonathan Silverblood is slowing down. I thought his Cash Accounts were a cool idea that could help with wallets, but I haven't heard of much adoption (again, ignorant). I have heard of his Cashual wallet, but I dunno.

Anyone? Please fill me in. Not being fecitious.
[doublepost=1557192294][/doublepost]And when I say "unwriter's momentum", I'm actually not just talking about him alone. He's growing a small something. School? Clan? Neighborhood? Whatever. They're do-ers, makers. It's inspiring.

 

[cypherdoc]

active on the forum and clearly has opinions about the oganization but isnt a member.
complains about bad member turnout.
hmmm......

do you think it's a good turnout upon which major decisions should be made?

 

[Zarathustra]

But what will you do if a court finds him to be a liar and a fraud, as some have alleged?

That wouldn't be a problem for @cypherdoc, @Christoph Bergmann, @Norway, @rocks, @bitsko, @Zarathustra et al. who are hedged equally. It would be a problem for @freetrader , @Peter R , @imaginary_username , @satoshis_sockpuppet , @chriswilmer and all the 100-percent-believers (truthers) , if it turns out that he was part or even the main part of the team. Or are you members of the Satan Cult still BSV hodlers?
You don't even answer that question. "All you Zombies hide your faces".

[doublepost=1557209638,1557208573][/doublepost]

The membership decides which chains the "official" BU project supports.

Seems clear to me.

Passive members decide the direction of BU? They just decide the direction of the BU client.
They decided to transform that client into a Zombie, while the BU vision, represented by the mother of all Bitcoin threads, is alive and well.

 

[Griffith]

do you think it's a good turnout upon which major decisions should be made?

if the minimum required votes for a given proposal is reached then yes. by definition in the structure of the buip voting system it is a good enough turnout.

 

[Zarathustra]

We all have different jobs. Don't bother us with your job description @freetrader ...

freetrader and infiltrator sounds similar, somehow ...

 

[Zarathustra]

@freetrader:
> But what will you do if a court finds him to be a liar and a fraud, as some have alleged?

Keep investing in the bitcoin that unwriter is rocking, and popcorn futures.

 

[cypherdoc]

That wouldn't be a problem for @cypherdoc, @Christoph Bergmann, @Norway, @rocks, @bitsko, @Zarathustra et al. who are hedged equally.

you can add @AdrianX to that list.

it probably would be better if we were hedged more towards BSV as it would be easier for the naysayers to then just write off our support to a financial bias. b/c afaict, all of us have made a conscious decision to remove not only financial bias from the equation but also personalities. as i've said many times before, all the controversy over implementations (BTC-core, BU, and ABC) to date have mainly revolved around the decision making and corporate affiliations of their devs. this has become intolerable for me such that none of that can matter at this point and i've made the conscious decision to focus only on what the code is doing TODAY (as in, is it adhering to the original scaling of the WP?), what the short term progressions have been (progressive blocksize increases and optimizations), and what long term promises have been made (eventual removal of all limits and restoring most of the original code). this is the most logical to me, as if any of these sacred promises get broken down the line, i'm confident we can hard fork away from the rogue devs responsible to continue down this original vision.
[doublepost=1557241153][/doublepost]or, if enough large institutions and players are onboard BSV in the far future if and when nChain tries some rogue act like to hard fork steal stagnant coins from old addresses (they won't), refuse to upgrade down this path and defend the original BSV from some frivolous lawsuit, patent related or not.

 

[freetrader]

That wouldn't be a problem for @cypherdoc, @Christoph Bergmann, @Norway, @rocks, @bitsko, @Zarathustra et al. who are hedged equally.

you can add @AdrianX to that list.

You guys are hilarious. Do you all work in the same office, real or virtual?

I find it most amusing that @Norway , to whom we owe the expression "going Full Norway", isn't confident enough in BSV to proceed as he did when Bitcoin Cash was created.

Anyway, carry on. I don't believe a word out of your mouths anymore, @rocks perhaps excepted.

 

[cypherdoc]

>You guys are hilarious. Do you all work in the same office, real or virtual?

you can laugh and adhom all you want; tactics of a true saboteur.

> isn't confident enough in BSV to proceed as he did when Bitcoin Cash was created.

this would be expected as we all had more confidence in the BCH fork after 3-4y of fighting and censorship. BSV birthed after only over a year and over less controversy (CTOR) mainly from the efforts of Calvin and Craig. i'm just making my decisions based on what i see.

what happened during the fork though was intolerable; ABC 10 block rolling checkpoints and internal dealing. talk about "working in the same office".

 

[freetrader]

tactics of a true saboteur

step away from the mirror, SV shill
[doublepost=1557246033][/doublepost]

None of you even bothered to deny this, while not asking for proof.

 

[cypherdoc]

shill would imply I've invested specifically in BSV or hedged away from BCH towards BSV. I've already told you that's not the case, as have others. keep up the adhoms though. you sound desperate.

 

[bitsko]

Bitcoin cash needs to rebrand.

It is not bitcoin.

I prefer 'Just Cash' or 'p2p cash'

 

[freetrader]

Bitcoin cash needs to rebrand.

It is not bitcoin.

I prefer 'Just Cash' or 'p2p cash'

Bitcoin SV needs to rebrand.

It is not bitcoin.

I prefer 'filecoin' or 'metatoken'

(parody of @bitsko's post, in case some here don't get it)

 

[shilch]

It is not bitcoin.

It's BitCoin, actually.

 

[Zarathustra]

Bitcoin SV needs to rebrand.

It is not bitcoin.

I prefer 'filecoin' or 'metatoken'

(parody of @bitsko's post, in case some here don't get it)

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of. (Satoshi)

And he never had the right personality to kind of be the technical lead and ... be patient with people and ... all the other things you need to do if you gonna lead an open source project ... (Gavin Andresen)

 

[cbeast]

The creators of money have little to do with how society refers to it. When I say BSV is Bitcoin, I only refer to the fact that it shares the original design and Genesis block of what Satoshi Nakamoto dubbed Bitcoin. From a design point of view, the other chains forked away. Building server farms instead of data centers was a mistake. The SN white paper specifically said data centers. Server farms can come later as needed, but storing and selling data adds more value and uses less electricity than server farms. Data and transaction access fees are the long term revenue source, not block rewards.