Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[lunar]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41qdrt/bitcoin_classic_update_email_for_subscribers_tldr/

Our initial beta/test release will be based on bitcoin-core 0.11.2. It will have a 2MB block size limit.


The source code will be made available in the last week of January. Binaries for Linux, Windows and Mac will follow soon after.


Work on 0.12 will start after the 0.11.2 release. We are planning to disable opt-in RBF. This decision is based on community feedback (miners included).


The activation threshold % and earliest activation date are being discussed with the community and will be announced next week.


Future


In the future we will continue to release updates that are in line with Satoshi’s whitepaper & vision, and are agreed upon by the community.

 

[JVWVU]

$GBTC getting killed

http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/GBTC/quote

 

[Erdogan]

I wonder if this is likely to be resisted until the halving. The block reward will be lower, meaning less potential loss and the overall hashrate is likely to be lower (not sure how that plays into it though).

It might also be an empty block that is artificially inflated that gets mined rather than a block with real transactions too.

I agree with both, and I think it is OK. In the meantime, I would like to see insurgency against segregated witness. And replace by fee, but that one does less harm, as it can be reversed later, after confirmation there is no trace of the event in the blockchain, and we need not keep bloat in the protocol forever. I think nodes and miners should be reluctant to upgrade core past the current 0.11.2.

 

[cypherdoc]

wow, fellow doc /u/throckmortonsign recommending crazy shit. shhh, i hope core dev listens to him b/c i think it would be the kiss of death for Core. i think he's greatly underestimating the economic majority's support for a block size increase:

 

[Richy_T]

I'd like to see some response from a miner or two on this SHA3 nonsense. It might also be interesting to see classic and unlimited pledge to not support SHA3 publicly.

 

[Fatman3002]

Interesting:

Pardon my French, but this is un-fucking-believable!!!

They are friggin nuts!!!

I heard IS was using Bitcoin, but I never thought Core would go Jihad!

 

[BldSwtTrs]

A counter-fork from Core would be the best thing that can happen to Bitcoin.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Maybe it's a warrant canary?

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Is there a word for someone who is equally willing to use either a statement or its opposite to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion, depending on which version is most advantageous in the moment?

An equivocator.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Peter R
It is essentially a declaration of war against the fork.

to be fair - the fork itself was the declaration of war.

They just decide the weapons ....

... to be honest ... This idea is so mad that it is genious. I'm no sure who'll win. A bitcoin that can be mined with your gamer's gpu will earn more enthusiasm.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

It is essentially a declaration of war against the fork.

I think we have to be fair here. If they were wrong to call XT an "attack on Bitcoin" because forking should be allowed, they should likewise be allowed to defend their vision against the majority fork - otherwise XT really was an attack on their vision. It's really just open source working as intended. Changing the PoW algo will be required by us if we end up in the minority, after all.

Now of course this can be used against the minority as further leverage with the miners, driving home the point in miners' minds that their profits are completely dependent on following the dominant side of the fork, even that's only a 60% dominance rather than 75% (or 95%).

This is a practical point, though, and will be applied to us as well if we end up in the economic minority. The only hope for the economic minority is if their vision is truly far superior and the market got it temporarily wrong, which can happen, and in such case it won't be a death sentence to lose all the current miners since people will eventually scramble to mine on the superior fork.

 

[YarkoL]

I remember Maxwell bringing this up on Bitcointalk sometime last August.. he said that if it came to total war (his words), they could change the PoW and thereby also reset the centralization of mining. But that's absurd, either this new PoW-coin will fail or if not, there'll be new Asics manufactured and again the mining will centralize.

What happened to the "conservative, cautious approach". Unless he's bluffing of course.

edit: ...or he is seriously worried about being 51%'d

 

[AdrianX]

Interesting:

Core willing to entertain the idea of dropping them at will, it's amazing how miners continue to support Bitcoin Core at all.

I won't be pulling my GPU farm out of storage just yet. I did LOL as I was making plans to sell it. Maybe I'll hold on.

Core would limp on if it did don't think anyone could call it bitcoin though, that's a serious fork and exhibits a lack of understanding of how energy is spent to secure value.

 

[Richy_T]

The patch as supplied by Luke-jr activates in April. This probably means it is in miners' best interests to switch to a bigger block solution and push out a big block ASAP to allow the weaker chain to wither before it takes effect.

They could still bring the switch-over date forward, of course but I think they would find that difficult.
[doublepost=1453242669][/doublepost]OK, quick poll... What crazy thing will Core do to alienate those who would otherwise be on their side next?

 

[AdrianX]

$GBTC getting killed

http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/GBTC/quote

this in relation to changing the mining algorithm peeks an interesting question. Would my existing wallet say v0.11.0 still secure the bitcoin represented in the trust? or would the trust need to upgrade there wallet to a new alt, and function under the same name?

I guess I see theymos's point now, to me changing the mining algorithm is a change to bitcoin, changing block size is just an update to allow it to grow. he just see them having the same impact and weight.

 

[rocks]

In the event of a PoW change to enable both chains to continue functioning at the same time, the winner will be decided by user support and the number of services using that chain.

Here is a short list on the Classic side, they have quite a bit more than this BTW.

• Coinbase
• OKCoin
• Bitstamp
• Blockchain.info (Peter Smith)
• Xapo
• Bitcoin.com
• Foldapp
• Bread Wallet
• Snapcard.io
• Cubits
• Vaultoro
• Coinify
• Bitso
• Bitnet
• BitOasis
• Lamassu
• BlockCypher
• BitQuick.co
• itBit

Here is the list core has.

• Blockstream (nonfunctional)
• Green address

The result should be clear

 

[Richy_T]

Yaknow, it might have been interesting to actually have an altcoin where the POW changed on a regular basis in order to prevent too much specialization.

 

[AdrianX]

to be fair - the fork itself was the declaration of war.

They just decide the weapons ....

... to be honest ... This idea is so mad that it is genious. I'm no sure who'll win. A bitcoin that can be mined with your gamer's gpu will earn more enthusiasm.

there is no doubt who will win, in the back of all the minds of those who think this is even viable, is the longing for the days when you could make 1000's of present on your mining investment and get money for nothing. (Gmax can't mine with a 30% profit margin (needs 300%) so therefor mining for individuals is dead)

The market has moved on, if you try match energy input to security there might not be enough energy in Germany let alone enough GPUs on earth to mine a decentralized coin to protect a market cap of 15,000,000 coins worth $5,000,000,000. with just 7,000,000 coin left to mine.

it will ensure there survival but not make it a credible threat.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Guess who's back? None other than loaded! Him and associates control >1% of all bitcoins, and support a blocksize cap increase.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41r561/150k_btc_between_personal_holdings_and_associates/

 

[JVWVU]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41rzv2/possible_spx_crash_incoming_and_core_cant_agree/