Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
If those rules become inadequate a new currency can always be started.
Isn't that trivially always the case? And isn't that the case we have with bitcoin right now?

Bitcoin already delivers everything. It is the "perfect" cryptocurreny. All issues Bitcoin is having right now would emerge in other coins in some way as well. Bitcoin might fail b/c the users are to stupid, but it has no design flaws per se.
For Ethereum for example I see huge issues coming up when it grows. Vitali is a smart guy but he is also a very prominent target and somewhat "dictator". Government issues aren't solved in Ethereum at all. At the moment they might have a nice thing going but if you think about the early days of Bitcoin that was also the case back then. They are not even sure how and if they should replace PoW. I'd rather have this blocksize issue than a PoW/PoS battle ;)

I'm repeating myself, but I see the future of Cryptocurrencies in Bitcoin spinoffs, if they are deployed before Bitcoin loses completely.

And yes, as a Bitcoin holder I'm heavily biased.

Matthew Light

Active Member
Dec 25, 2015
They are not even sure how and if they should replace PoW.
I think they are quite sure of this, of course it is possible it will fail. But every statement from the dev team on this is that they are planning to do this by the end of 2016 if not sooner.
The flight from Bitcoin to Ethereum looks a bit like a bank run to me.

The saving grace, so far, is Bitcoin's $ price is holding up.

Maybe the Ethereum sellers are pleased to diversify and still value Bitcoin? Or maybe there are $$$s making their way to Ethereum via Bitcoin and that is sustaining the price?

I've been doubtful about Ethereum, but it's getting hard to argue with large market moves.
There is a lot of outside money moving into ETH for sure. Not sure how much longer BTC price is going to stay up - my guess is it starts heading down in the next week, but I could be wrong.
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu


Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
Watching from the back row to see whether this crisis-inspired proposal by Luke-jr to include a change to the difficulty algorithm in a coming Core hard fork will end up being "non-controversial":

He is already mulling how to avoid the HF: "... if the code were bundled with SegWit, ..."

Probably realized that it wouldn't agree with the Core mantra about how long HF's take to be effective? (within 1 month now - surely you jest?)

P.S. apologies if this excessively raises anyone's blood pressure.
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu and solex


Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
@freetrader Thanks for the link.

Luke-jr is trying to solve this problem:
"We are coming up on the subsidy halving this July, and there have been some
concerns raised that a non-trivial number of miners could potentially drop off
the network. This would result in a significantly longer block interval, which
also means a higher per-block transaction volume, which could cause the block
size limit to legitimately be hit much sooner than expected."

Well... I think everybody except Luke-jr know the solution to this potential problem...
crazy ... I thought reward drops are economic fundamentals to bitcoin. Aren't we waiting for a year for the next nalving? Are the future halvings not planned to be major disruptions of the world's economy?

Simply getting around the consequences by lowering difficulty is weak and creates an altcoin. Way more than any blocksize increase.

But as Luke don't sees a reason why this is controversial, the hardfork should be passed :)
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX and Norway


Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
One important aspect of practical game theory that the Core diva faction seems to not understand is that something that can happen but doesn't necessarily can have prophylactic effects even if it doesn't happen.

Anyone who has studied chess at a high class-player or greater level intuitively understands this already.

This is a good very entry-level example, in the Spanish game, white plays the bishop to b5 threatening to exchange for the black knight, undermining the defense of the black e-pawn. (This isn't actually a threat to gain material because if white swaps bishop for knight, then takes the black e-pawn, black wins the material back by taking the knight back with the d-pawn and forks the white knight and e-pawn along the half-open d-file).

The point being that all of black's moves now have to take the white bishop into account no matter whether the bishop actually executes the obviously-intended plan or not, and in the majority of real games this bishop just retreats when kicked with pawns.

The reason this relates to blocksize and the current "fee event" fiasco is because the ability to create bigger blocks changes game theory strategies without even having to make any >1MB blocks. The current low capacity creates incentive to try to spam the network simply because it's easy and cheap to pull off, and minimal effort creates maximum disruption because the network has very low (or arguably no) available overhead.

This becomes even more critical if LN moves forward, because a well-used LN would create the greatest DoS incentive Bitcoin has ever seen.

The only solution that isn't crazy is big blocks, because it lets miners put the bishop on the knight, threatening "if you try anything cute, I'll trade for the knight by mining away tx's".

This I-know-that-you-know-that-I-know-that-you-know stuff is critical I think to understanding any adversarial situation, and the tired tropes "blocks will just get filled to capacity since demand is infinite" stuff doesn't cut it.
Last edited:


Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
It's not exactly news, but a little confirmation never hurt anyone:

They are being very short-sighted if they think LN will be that established before a high-fee Bitcoin is overtaken on the market. I will play the world's smallest violin for their sake on that day, while mourning the loss of Bitcoin.

I hope that day never comes, and that the market will teach them a good lesson.
Last edited:


Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
Sometimes I feel like I want to see Bitcoin burn just to prove these people wrong. Investing in the altcoins saying I told you so. Sorry for the grim thought, I love Bitcoin I really do. Its just what they are turning Bitcoin into is not what I signed up for. I even feel like they are breaking the social contract, they are the ones that should create the altcoin, instead of me looking at the altcoins as a way to continue the vision of Bitcoin.


Active Member
Nov 22, 2015
Trust and leaders leads to corruption and/or coercion of said leaders. All you would create is targets and failure points.
I generally agree but there are exceptions. Linus Torvalds and Satoshi Nakamoto are both examples of well functioning benevolent dictators. The problems with bitcoin started when the benevolent leader stepped down. If we can get to a situation with multiple cryptocurrency dictators truly competing against each other that might work out well. Imagine a future where merchants accepted multiple cryptocurrencies as payment and we had say 15 currencies fiercely competing to have the lowest inflation, fastest confirmations, lowest transaction costs etc. That would be a dream for consumers. The problem right now is that it is not easy to start a sound monetary system without very easily risking being run over by a variety of attacks using DOS and/or massive amounts of POW.


Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
The best type of Dictator I suppose. One that only exists in mythology. :)
[doublepost=1456946538][/doublepost]@steffen I will get around to writing a more thorough response, but in short I do not like the idea of "legitimate" software, all that matters is compatibility. If anything diversification in implementation is a good thing. Furthermore I also do not like the idea of having any type of official leaders. This is exactly why the decentralized governance model of Bitcoin works the way it does. We are yet to see if it actually works, but if it does not I am sure cryptocurrencies like Dash have solved many of these shortcomings, without resorting to the more drastic measures you are suggesting.
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: freetrader


New Member
Dec 27, 2015
There is a lot of outside money moving into ETH for sure. .
Why ETH?

It seems Ethereum is not ready for public use. There does not seem to be any Android wallet, and the Windows GUI client is not ready for production use:

"We recommend small amounts only, and remind you that use of this software is at your own risk."

The command line client seems to be possible to use, but ETH is not money for the masses for quite some time. ETH does not seem like a bitcoin replacement any time soon.

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
Ethereum is Microsoft's EEE attack on Bitcoin.

All the institutions that Bitcoin stands to replace are very interested in proof of stake, because all they have to do is buy a large stake once and maintain their level of control over the network forever with no further effort on their part.

Proof of work, on the other hand, puts miners in constant competition with each other and incumbents are frequently replaces with more nimble competitors.

Anybody who is an incumbent in the legacy economy is going to heavily favour PoS over PoW.