Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
Again this is exactly the goal - I understand selling your coins to guarantee profits but to sell everything is insane because imo this is going to be the greatest transfer of wealth in Bitcoin from guys who bought in at $10 and selling at $400 because the guys buying at $400 are not going to be selling anytime soon. These is the establishment making a run at getting the 14M coins that have not been moved in years.
I thought this way for a long time and agree with you regarding selling everything. But taking some off the table is not unreasonable, if bitcoin goes to the moon you are still going with it. But if it crashes you at least came out ahead.

When I got into bitcoin years ago I said as long as bitcoin functions as I believe it should I am holding. Well bitcoin is not behaving as it should, blocks are full and only 3% of miners are voting for a tiny little bump, while some aholes have taken over development and seem to control everything.

Bitcoin may still work as it should, but that no longer seems to be a sure outcome. That change makes reevaluating positions reasonable.
 

agilewalker

New Member
Feb 23, 2016
20
58
@Jihan as for upcoming antpool's voting system would you please consider making "Classic(2MB)" as the default option? In any case miner can always opt-in for "Core(1MB)". AFAICS, it perfectly aligns with Core's standard practice of system upgrades recently (opt-in RBF wink...wink...).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cypherdoc

KoKansei

Member
Mar 5, 2016
49
360
@KoKansei Great job! Donation sent.
Many thanks, guys! I'm not in this for the money,* but it's nice to be recognized.

*In the spirit of this thread I guess I should acknowledge that as a holder doing "uncompensated" translation for the community I'm indirectly incentivized by the growth of the ecosystem. Guess I'm not very charitable after all... =P
 
Last edited:

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585

Does anybody have historic data of the market share of the top-20-altcoins?

Right now they have about 25% of Bitcoin's market share.

I thnk I've never seen any altcoin gaining such a high market cap as ethereum.
While I do think some of this is a response to Core, nothing ahistorical is happening so far. Even just the one-year chart above shows that last summer altcoins likely had a greater market share than now if you discount the inflation from the new trend toward premined/presale coins, especially Ethereum. If I recall, 2013 was the real heyday of altcoins, but I didn't find a chart going back that far.

If alts perhaps double their share from here and there is no response from the ecosystem, I would start to consider worrying. But who knows how tightly ETH is held. If it is held tightly enough by few enough people who are well-capitalized and determined, it could even eclipse Bitcoin's market cap fairly meaninglessly, just like Ripple could have back in 2013. It's a neat little demonstration of how flawed "market cap" is as a measure of a coin's value, but as the key factor of concentration of holdings - which can serve as an easy 2x, 3x, 5x, 10x, even 100x multiplier on market cap with no additional meaning - remains hidden nothing can really be concluded.

I had worried, way back when coinmarketcap.com stopped filtering nonmined coins by default thanks I think to a kickback from Ripple Labs, that XRP could exceed Bitcoin's market cap just because they printed 100 billion XRP and only released a few of them to the market, and that that would mislead people.

That makes a fantastic dynamic for a pump and dump if you can get out in time (anyone remember Quark?), but is of little relevance to actual market share in a practical sense.

Note as someone said above, the price falling can just be attributed by the small block camp as Classic becoming a threat, thus they will see the solution as vesting even more power in Core and refusing to mine any Classic blocks.

This situation cannot be resolved through a price drop until we can have such a thing as a price drop in *Corecoin* while Classiccoin surges. Fork arbitrage is the ultimate remedy on that front. However, stuck and delayed transactions and users leaving in droves (on the darkmarkets, of course!*) may send a clear enough message by itself. Unlike BTC price, that message is unambiguous. It cannot be shoehorned into supporting either camp, like straight BTC price can. If and only if that fails, I believe the ultimate step is fork arbitrage on the exchanges, though I would of course welcome it sooner if some exchange wants to step up.

*I check the subreddit every so often and there seems to be zero talk of transactions issues yet.
[doublepost=1457263139][/doublepost]As with a BTC price dip, this Cory Fields quote is completely ambiguous. It's like an inkblot test. People see what they want to see. My reply is tailored to not be downvoted in /r/Bitcoin while still pointing out the silliness.

 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@Norway

“Everybody who support that, raise your hand” : a dozen or so people, most of whom were part of that Hong Kong meeting, raise their hands.

“Everybody who does not support that, raise your hand” : everybody else (forty? fifty people?) raises their hands.

Thank goodness.
[doublepost=1457276474,1457275318][/doublepost]
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
At this point in the long and protracted debate, I submit that the dangers of a HF are now extremely minimal; because everyone and their mother has heard about it and is in absolutely no danger of being left behind.

 

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
Gavin Andresen said:
Over the last year of trying, and failing, to reach a reasonable compromise, it has become clear to me that some developers don’t want any on-chain scaling solution any time soon. They believe more theoretically elegant (but technically complicated) off-chain solutions like the Lightning Network are a better long-term scaling solution, and they believe that by resisting a simple limit increase we will get to that long-term solution faster.

They are wrong.
 

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
Something seems to have changed on /r/bitcoin in the last few days. I have not been censored or banned for being 'off message' and the odd questionable thread is popping up without deletion.

I wonder if it has anything to do with Theymos being reported to reddit admins by several users citing censorship, voting manipulation and general skulduggery. Or it could be with bitcoin wobbling and the ascent of alternate blockchains that he realises how stupid he has been to drive this schism through the community rather than silently moderate.

Or perhaps he is just on holiday :)
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@Inca

yeah, i've noticed it too.

but it's also the notable absence of idiots like @frankenmint & that /u/0101011001 dude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu and Norway

_mr_e

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
159
266
Yup, I was pretty surprised to see the forum posts to iguana threads not being removed. I kept checking all day but they remained... XThin posts remained as well, perhaps some tides really are turning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
i've noticed some convo about whether we should be happy staying with Core if they did a last minute 2MB HF to satisfy the community.

my personal opinion is that we should NOT be happy with this. and that is b/c of the extent of the lying, misrepresentations, character assasinations, and overall despicable tactics that have been used over this last year to stall the blocksize debate. of course, these are only my opinions as i, more than most here, have been the subject of those tactics.

but more importantly, stepping back and looking at it objectively, i believe there is more than enough evidence to suggest that The Fidelity Effect is real and present. the fiat world will not invest heavily in Bitcoin as long as core dev is controlled by Blockstream. and this has nothing to do with the blocksize. it has to do with the control of money. to understand this, we have to go back and look at Satoshi's Original Vision. he meant Bitcoin to be an unregulated, decentralized, p2p currency with all the properties of digital gold, to be used by people all over the world in a cheap, fast and inexpensive manner. it's really the only form of value that needs decentralization to keep it away from censorship by gvts. decentralization is not needed to trade stocks, bonds, smart contracts or other forms of value. and that's b/c the real problems of today's financial world is the central bank printing of money. that's why i keep saying that Bitcoin should stick to money; if it can tap into the biggest market in the world, the Forex trading of $5T/day (the result of unfettered central bank printing), then Bitcoin will Moon. but it needs to stay focused on it's money function and not get distracted by Blockstream's World of Warcraft trading platforms like LN & SC's, etc. an example of what i'm saying can be taken from Arvind's talk yesterday at MIT. he gave the example of Namecoin as an example where you'd think the market would love the idea; decentralized DNS naming. it's really the only example from the early days, and even now, where merge mining sort of worked. but overall, his message is that it's been a failure. i'd agree. that's b/c it is not focused on the money function which he actually misses in his presentation. once again, i believe that the only reason Bitcoin gained traction and has grown the way it has is b/c of the promise of being an open source, uncontrolled, unregulated, non-conflicted revolutionary, non-governmental form of money that harnesses the Digital Age. if it can accomplish this it will lead to unfettered global adoption by the people's of the world, ie, The People's Money.

if Blockstream is left in control, there is no reason to believe that Bitcoin can be those things. during this lengthy and ferocious debate, core dev has been slipping in LN tools like CSV, CLTV, CPFP, & RBF via soft forks over this last year. there's talk of version bits and other unexplained coding changes that try to make Classic, XT, or BU incompatible. that shows that they have no shame in subverting the core principles of Bitcoin even while being watched. they actually believe they can obfuscate their actions and pull the wool over our eyes while doing so with techno speak. that's how powerful $76M can be to cloud one's mind. and it is true that it is incredibly hard to stop them when done as a soft fork, which will get even harder if SW gets adopted. which is why i really don't like this concept of a wide open script versioning system that allows them to do almost anything as a soft fork. i think sophisticated investors and ordinary ppl can see this and will never move from a fiat Federal Reserve regime to that of a Blockstream controlled regime. hell, i'd take Janet over Maxwell any day. i also doubt, in aggregate, that Wall St will like it. altho that won't stop them from humoring us with projects like R3. we will lose if we let Blockstream stay in control.
 
Last edited:

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
Last edited: