Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
A couple cynical ideas:

Do you think Borgstream is going to successfully hype their (likely centralized) 'Bitcoin' payment system with crippleblocks at least once?

Are our Bitcoin shares somehow going to be Borgstream shares? Are those going to appreciate more than the current price of Bitcoin? (I see no long term value - this would rather be a case of 'sell to bigger fool'...)

That looks like the questions to answer to figure out whether to sell now or not.
 
Last edited:

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
Twitter links please
JAMIE ELIZABETH SMITH Bitfury Global Chief Communications Officer

BTCC official twitter account:

I'm in hurry now sorry... just to give you an idea
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
The thing that really worries me the most about this:

The total flip-flopping, the 180deg turnaround.

With the original 'we support 8MB' letter, you could still go and say: "Well, they simply changed their opinion on some more data." (Even though there wasn't really any new interesting data, but whatever)

But now, you have the same miners who indicated clear support for Classic saying: "Umm, actually, no,
we don't support Classic anymore".

In a matter of weeks. And incidentally just after Classic is released.

This reeks like a fiat infusion on the side. Which would be equivalent to a 51% attack.

There is no way in hell that there isn't some foul play behind this.
[doublepost=1455196666][/doublepost]
I don't get it.
If classic fails as badly as the "signer" of this letter seem to wish, I see venture capital dry out, the bitcoin economy to stagnate, Gavin and Jeff to leave, Ethereum to overtake bitcoin's value and r/bitcoin celebrating all this as a success.
Maybe that is what is behind this all along. Maybe they all have a lot more Ethers than BTC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

bluemoon

Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
215
966
Seems to me the roundtable document is an attempt to get Core to agree a HF to increase the blocksize, probably to avoid a 'contentious' HF and the likely associated DDoS attacks.

See para 3: "In the next 3 weeks, we need the Bitcoin Core developers to work with us and clarify the roadmap with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size."

Personally I would rather see Core cut out of Bitcoin and if Core are uncooperative that may still happen.
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
@bluemoon: That doesn't make sense. This whole thing will be contentious, no matter what. It also only helps Core, and their stalling.

Even if most people finally agree that we want a HF now, it is still contentious. There are these die-hard 1MBers. They won't go away. Except .. through a successful HF.

And running Classic or Core and mining with flags is exactly the way to come to a decision.
[doublepost=1455197293][/doublepost]Another voice of sanity in a sea of idiocy is the first comment below that medium 'letter',
Dr. Washington Sanchez (is that @drwasho here? I hope it is ok to quote the fulltext(?), I like it a lot):

The pool administrators who have signed this statement represent ~90% of the hashing power on the network, but this does not necessarily represent the miners themselves.

I advise any Bitcoin miners belonging to these pools, who feel misrepresented by this statement, to join pools (or form them) that will advance Bitcoin’s hard fork to 2 MB.

Bitcoin Core have had ample opportunity for over a year to schedule a hard fork to increase in the block size. It has taken a very real threat of a hard fork for them to signal progress on this front.

Segregated witness, while an awesome improvement to protocol, is not a long-term scaling solution. Moreover, it is a smokescreen for Bitcoin Core’s true intention to limit transaction capacity using the block size. This is euphemistically referred to as creating a ‘fee market’.

In reality, the use of the block size to retard the transaction capacity of Bitcoin, to increase fees, remains a value Bitcoin Core has not deviated from. Unless they explicitly abandon the idea of creating a fee market, Bitcoin Core will achieve a real hard fork in the economic properties of Bitcoin.

Furthermore, a token increase in the block size now by Bitcoin Core will only plague the community in the future, as they have no intention of keeping the block size comfortably above the market demand for on-chain transactions.
 

bluemoon

Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
215
966
@awemany: I agree with you, but it seems pretty clear the miners are trying to act together, which means moving at the pace of the slowest, most cautious, and feeble-minded.

Previously the word from China was they wanted a 90% threshold to activate a HF when they also intimated they might just do the one line Satoshi hack themselves to increase the block size.

It is hard to understand the mentality, but I read their document as saying they want an increase in blocksize.
 

tynwald

Member
Dec 8, 2015
69
176
3 weeks until CoreMageddon? If no HF plan is promoted with specific details AND node count goes over 1500 I see some interesting changes coming soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
@bluemoon: Agreed. But they have missed ALL of this multi-year war over blocksize.

The stalling is happening since years on this.

Maybe a mix of not noticing what went on in the western Bitcoinosphere and a culture of avoiding confrontations?

And again, there will also be contention, no matter what. There are some die-hards. You cannot appease them. That is the whole problem: We are appeasing them. We tried to talk to Greg for too long.
[doublepost=1455197573][/doublepost]@Bagatell: Yes, but that thing seems to be at least 'somewhat verified' now.
 

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
The thing that really worries me the most about this:
There is no way in hell that there isn't some foul play behind this.
if this the case I think that they would have saved a few bucks to run a decent pump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: awemany

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
855
This smells like government. They have got control over the developers and would like to keep it that way. They will use it to insert a fatal bug in the system at some point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lunar

Bagatell

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
728
1,191
@awemany I remember seeing the post a few days ago without the signatories. If you search for the first paragraph of the post it only occurs in two places -reddit and BTC. Where is the original?

edit: and medium where it is the single item posted by "bitcoinroundtable"
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
@Bagatell:

Sorry, I am slow to understand, I still don't get it. Are you saying it has been manipulated, the content of the letter separated from the signatures and someone added them and put the thing on medium.com?

Because the one on medium.com has a lot of signatures?

And has been retweeted by some signers?