Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[sickpig]

@cypherdoc stochastic variables are.... sthocastic, or variance is a bitch if you will

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

This graph gives at least some hope:
http://xtnodes.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks

This one doesn't look as good as before, let us keep the Classic nodes coming:
http://xtnodes.com/#classic_012_vs_core_012

And I would love to see <50% for Core the next months:
http://xtnodes.com/#nodes_pie_graph

 

[cypherdoc]

as for what can drive BTC price in April other than a rejection of SW?

plunging stocks and pm's in concert.

 

[albin]

This would have the makings of being the first rally in history where it's easier to move dollars on and off exchange than bitcoin!

 

[bluemoon]

@Inca Lol, I envy you your bot!

 

[Melbustus]

Core dev is the best thing to happen for alt-coins....ever.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Melbustus

yeah, i like Belshe's article:

For Lightning, prospects are even more risky – there is a real chance that it won’t work at all. Further – if you think decentralization is hard in existing Bitcoin, think how hard it will be to punt the problem up a layer – its just pushing the problem to someone else with unproven software.

 

[albin]

Please don't judge, I'm not trying to disparage anybody's interest in ethereum (because it's without question a useful project), but you ever get the impression that a lot of what's going on is the most deliberately well-crafted altcoin script to date? From the inorganically pre-named denominations that transparently pander to cypherpunk culture to basically pre-empting every imaginable difficult-to-implement enhancement proposal to Bitcoin (GHOST, faster blocks, memory-hard PoW, migrating to PoS, formal protocol spec w/ multiple implementations, even ring signatures now, etc I'm prob missing like dozens of things here).

I can't necessarily justify this totally rationally, and obviously not on a mission to demonize ethereum, but something just really rubs me the wrong way intuitively, that even if not consciously, this thing might be designed driven by pandering to a laundry-list of disparate marketing wishes instead of necessarily the objectively best decisions.

 

[cypherdoc]

sounds like the delays have already started:

[URL='https://bitcoinclassic.slack.com/team/aquent']aquent[10:01 AM]but we were told segwit would be deployed in April, what happened to that?
mably[/URL] >[10:05 AM] delayed :wink:
>[10:06] from what I can read on the #bitcoin-core-dev IRC chan, they are working on a new segnet that would incorporate CSV to be able to make some payment channels experiments(edited)
>[10:07]
sorry it was rather on the #segwit-dev IRC channel

 

[albin]

@cypherdoc

I'm starting to really think your instincts are very on point as to how it's going to play out.

Delayed segwit -> greater likelihood of uneventful 2MB hardfork + end of triangle formation + halving around the corner = bullish as hell

That seems like the most plausible scenario knowing what we know now.

 

[go1111111]

For those who are curious I have just concatenated the logs of the reddit voting bot i have been running since mid January. It has been a busy bee.

http://expirebox.com/download/4b00467e360a4f70c9f5e058c5241e47.html

IMO this is really bad for the Classic / Unlimited cause. It makes people question all of the legitimate support that big block advocates have, and makes people sympathetic to theymos continuing to censor.

I suggest you stop running this bot.

 

[cypherdoc]

mably>[11:03 AM] From the last IRC meeting notes: "He’s aiming to have it ready before the 0.13 release."
https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/2016/03/17/
>[11:04]
So probably in june as 0.13 as been planned for july 1st
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012562.html

 

[rocks]

Excellent summary that I think well represents the thinking of long term holders who are frustrated by the current state of affairs.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4bnlks/no_longer_waiting_for_godot_with_bitcoin/

This is the market of users that I think a well publicized user led hard fork could gain initial traction with. There are more and more people who love the original concept for Bitcoin, but are giving up hope. If you are going down the path of either losing faith or giving up hope, then participating on a user led hard fork provides an option to stay with and support the project. It is better than walking away which I see more and more people doing.

 

[cypherdoc]

@rocks

haha. my favorite part of which i fully agree:

I would not trust these guys to mow my lawn let alone develop a decentralized money system.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@rocks If Bitcoin has failed and it is fundamentally flawed, I do not think that only changing the mining algorithm is enough to fix the problem, since changing the mining algorithm only delays the same thing from happening again, it does not fundamentally fix the problem. Incentivized full nodes, self funding block chains and more complex and clearly defined voting mechanisms can.

If Bitcoin is not fundamentally flawed it could just be that the community as a whole does want this, that we are not in the economic majority, that in effect the miners are expressing the will of the economic majority. If that is the case then the governance of Bitcoin is functioning and it should not be considered fundamentally flawed. Even if it is in part due to manipulation and censorship.

The people within the Bitcoin community are a unique group of people and we might just represent a small subset of that group of people. It could well be that this particular group of people is simply just make the wrong choice for Bitcoin and that is why it will become, obsolesced, out competed and overtaken. It might even be the perfect coin according to their peculiar small blockist ideologies.

However our ideologies as "big blockists" will most likely be much better suited for the masses, and aligns cryptocurrency better for global adoption which is why Bitcoin will be overtaken if it takes the small blockists route, though it is unlikely to die, cryptocurrencies are extremely resilient unless blockstream manages to destroy that property as well somehow. I would even not be that surprised when Bitcoin loses its dominant position, the small blocksists and Bitcoin maximalists will still argue for the superiority of their position.

It might just be better if we have our own cryptocurrencies if that is the case, they can have their crippledcoin. I have always been skeptic of Bitcoin maximalism after all, having many different cryptocurrenies allows for more united communities, since the vision for each is clearly defined and people are free to move between them instead of fighting over what the vision for "the" cryptocurrency should be.

 

[Norway]

One more Classic block, and we will have 10% the last 24 hours!
http://nodecounter.com/#block_explorer

This is a time when very strong hands become weak. And it will probably get worse before it gets better. Probably the worst shake-out in bitcoins short history. Hodl.

 

[Inca]

I am hedged against failure, but this is a sincere test of anti-fragility which has even begun to shake out hardened believers who have been invested in the project for five years or more. Each day that passes without resolution of this governance crisis another 'hodler' packs up and takes their value elsewhere.

All money is a confidence game. If I believe something has value and you share that belief then everything is fine. But as confidence wanes then we approach a tipping point that I would rather not witness.

This is a war over the future of bitcoin. Either bitcoin scales or it dies. I want no part of a project being actively designed to remain a niche curio of the financial system. That isn't the bitcoin that excited me to the stage of being all consumed with the concept when I first encountered it. If that means wrestling control of the currency from those who are deliberately poisoning the well, then so be it.

@go1111111 thank you for your suggestion, but in the grand scheme of things I think taking a stand against censorship is the right step personally.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@VeritasSapere
I think what you're describing is exactly what won't happen. That scenario is one only a Blockstream employee could love.

As @adamstgbit implied above, Core only gets support based on people's confidence that Core will raise the blocksize soon, or that Core's solutions will save the day soon.

When it comes to the austerity policy Greg seems to tacitly hold, that "if Bitcoin must stagnate indefinitely to remain 100% verifiably secure/decentralized then Bitcoin must stagnate indefinitely," I don't think there are many outside of BS in that camp - and most of those few who are will have a change of heart once they see what it means for the price (hopefully with the benefit of comparison to a soaring fork or spinoff price).

After all, despite all the venom in the arguments, we are united by the fact that outside BS just about everyone is a hodler first and foremost.

The price might just hold for long enough so that most will continue believing until it is already to late. The price could just hold while Bitcoin is overtaken. Also keep in mind the vast majority of potential capital will not be coming from the Bitcoiners of today but from the masses coming into the ecosystem, the question is where will these new people put their funds. The majority of Bitcoiners might just continue to hold and believe in Core during this process. Like I said before many of them will continue to believe for much longer, even when it is obvious to most what has happened, the folly of arrogance.

Much of my skepticism stems from the idea that after segwit is implemented it will no longer be possible to increase the blocksize again because of certain peculiarities in the code that is being introduced in segwit, which would break if the blocksize was increased again. Someone please correct me if I am wrong since I would gain much more confidence in Bitcoin if that was not the case. That is why now I am seeing that as a point of no return, which is why the recent statement from slush and results of the mining voting is making me think that segwit will be implemented, and I do not want to be a part of such a Bitcoin at all.

 

[Norway]

Much doom and gloom here today. Maybe we should make a separate thread called "The weak hands", lol

 

[VeritasSapere]

I might be cynical of the situation here, but I will continue to hold, even though I am thoroughly invested in the alternative cryptocurrencies, so I am sufficiently hedged. The majority of my holdings have never been completely in Bitcoin ever since I first started.

Though I did just start this new thread, contemplating this possibility in order to understand what the consequences might be for the wider cryptocurrency ecosystem.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/crypto-gold-standart-transition.1012/