Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
But where's the volatility expected after a rise like this?
It's well, invisible we had an accelerated rides off $10 some time back while it extremely volatile it's wasn't a good idea to play that volatility And it wasn't volatile enough for those wanting double or even single digit prices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Yeah, this is wrong.

What convinced me to get into Bitcoin back in Jan 2011, way earlier than you, was that I believed the "majority of people "in the world would go for a sound form of money to replace theoretical gold (which isn't even real money in any practical sense). This " majority of people" includes miners and full node AFAIC .

This view can be applied to a HF, imo.

Please stop mischarectising my position. I would rather the price drop to near zero, than have a simple majority be able to eliminate an existing consensus rule and have the new thing be called Bitcoin, despite significant oposition. I only want a very strong majority to have the ability to do that, or Bitcoin is useless in my eyes.

Please don't reply with:
1. Oh but not hardforking is a change - that is simply not what I mean
2. Oh but you can keep your small block coin - That is fine, but if the new coin is called Bitcoin and is regarded as Bitcoin, the minority has lost
3. But we never have a strong majority - Watch CSV, just watch it... 95% in the last 24 hours, even though its a SF, despite teh large blockers saying 95% cant be done...
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
Please stop mischarectising my position. I would rather the price drop to near zero, than have a simple majority be able to eliminate an existing consensus rule and have the new thing be called Bitcoin, despite significant oposition.
You are a supporter of enabling a tiny minority to eliminate an essential consensus rule (Blocks must not be full).
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Please stop mischarectising my position. I would rather the price drop to near zero, than have a simple majority be able to eliminate an existing consensus rule and have the new thing be called Bitcoin, despite significant oposition. I only want a very strong majority to have the ability to do that, or Bitcoin is useless in my eyes.

Please don't reply with:
1. Oh but not hardforking is a change - that is simply not what I mean
2. Oh but you can keep your small block coin - That is fine, but if the new coin is called Bitcoin and is regarded as Bitcoin, the minority has lost
3. But we never have a strong majority - Watch CSV, just watch it... 95% in the last 24 hours, even though its a SF, despite teh large blockers saying 95% cant be done...
@jonny1000 you're advocating for extreme consensus one only Influential Core developers and 95% of miners have any say in. And you in your ignorance have defined individual users showing support for moving the block size limit as an attack on the network and to quote you again, you've said you'll rather see the network go to zero value than concede (bold mine "it" being the understood 2MB block increase) you are wrong despite neglecting to acknowledge the example and solution I've presented.

but you're willing to fight the 2MB block limit increase and would rather see bitcoin become worthless that see 2MB activated outside of the Centralised control of the Core authority - No, nothing to do with Core authority, it needs strong consensus across the enitire community, otherwise yes, I would rather the price fall to near zero
News flash I'm not part of that 95% consensus requirement, my opinion is never counted it worth nothing! Why do you give a f#¢k what I think or do, go convince the 96.3% of miners mining with Core's implementation that they need 95% consensus to increase the block limit, they are still ignorantly following Core's lead already. It's the Core developers who are creating decent.

I'm just saying I'm open to accept bigger blocks and will support anyone who mines one with the exception that I'm not willing to defect from the majority (the 51%)

You're telling me you'll stop at absolutely nothing (merder falls into that category of stop at absolutely nothing, should I be concerned?) and to add you feel it would be justified to see $10,000,000,000 of value wiped off the Bitcoin table to prevent the likes of me for showing quantifiable support for moving the limit. All to ensure that I or anyone who supports bigger blocks befor 95% of the centralised control committee agrees it's OK (the 95% of the centralised control committee I have no communication with and who doesn't care whether I'm in consensus or not - yes I get it.) . I'm not creating a problem you're imagining one.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
You are a supporter of enabling a tiny minority to eliminate an essential consensus rule (Blocks must not be full).
Yeah, this is wrong.

What convinced me to get into Bitcoin back in Jan 2011, way earlier than you, was that I believed the "majority of people "in the world would go for a sound form of money to replace theoretical gold (which isn't even real money in any practical sense). This " majority of people" includes miners and full node AFAIK.

You may not realize this, in fact I'm sure you don't, but Bitcoin is "the people's money".
This view can be applied to a HF, imo.
Oh yeah, this "majority of people" in the world includes those outside the ring fence of current bitcoin, as @Peter R
mentioned earlier.
[doublepost=1465752601][/doublepost]I've described Bitcoin as being "The People's Money" for years. And therein lies the distinction from @jonny1000 and I in our conception of what Bitcoin is.

He thinks Bitcoin is the play tool of kore dev which he will defend to the death. Even of Bitcoin. If he can't control it, nobody should be allowed to; even the free market of people. And I'd bet he doesn't have much bitcoin either.
 

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
855
Please stop mischarectising my position. I would rather the price drop to near zero, than have a simple majority be able to eliminate an existing consensus rule and have the new thing be called Bitcoin, despite significant oposition. I only want a very strong majority to have the ability to do that, or Bitcoin is useless in my eyes.

Please don't reply with:
1. Oh but not hardforking is a change - that is simply not what I mean
2. Oh but you can keep your small block coin - That is fine, but if the new coin is called Bitcoin and is regarded as Bitcoin, the minority has lost
3. But we never have a strong majority - Watch CSV, just watch it... 95% in the last 24 hours, even though its a SF, despite teh large blockers saying 95% cant be done...
I don't care fork now!
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Yeah, this is wrong.

What convinced me to get into Bitcoin back in Jan 2011, way earlier than you, was that I believed the "majority of people "in the world would go for a sound form of money to replace theoretical gold (which isn't even real money in any practical sense). This " majority of people" includes miners and full node AFAIC .

This view can be applied to a HF, imo.
This is maybe where the trust and understanding in the game theory came from, if you were involved in bitcoin in 2011 it was very vulnerable, more so than it is now.

The likes of Jonny1000 and Gmaxwell are too new to bitcoin to have experienced the real vulnerability of malicious network attack, when the network was actually vulnerable and then witnessed how players interacted to create resilience and value.

It's evident that they feel there is some other force needed to keep the bitcoin community in line they are at heart totalitarians.
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Oh but you can keep your small block coin - That is fine, but if the new coin is called Bitcoin and is regarded as Bitcoin, the minority has lost
1. Regarded by whom? The populists or the sound money people?

2. Who cares what the name is? It's the most viable sound money ledger, as the populist version is inferior by hypothesis. The market will vindicate it eventually and it will be called Bitcoin again and regarded as Bitcoin again if popularity is what determines the naming (which was your concern).
[doublepost=1465755191,1465754540][/doublepost]Also, you still haven't explained why the heck Classic users and miners aren't going to run Core's 2MB hardfork. Do you really think people are running Classic because they adore Gavin? They just want the cap raised. New governance would be nice, but at this point most will jump at the chance if Core offers it; meanwhile your story is that Core is afraid of its own shadow. This whole "we must rally behind the existing rules until the Classic threat passes" sounds frankly ridiculous every time you bring it up, so more justification would be appreciated.
 

Dusty

Active Member
Mar 14, 2016
362
1,172
Please stop mischarectising my position. I would rather the price drop to near zero, than have a simple majority be able to eliminate an existing consensus rule and have the new thing be called Bitcoin, despite significant oposition. I only want a very strong majority to have the ability to do that, or Bitcoin is useless in my eyes.
You are getting things backwards, as per Kore doublespeak: if a majority forks the network because they want to ameliorate it (for example raising the block size), you are free to ignore the fork if you don't like it and continue to run your client which will follow the original chain.

On the contrary, if a super-tiny minority of coders want to introduce new rules overturning a basic and fundamental Bitcoin rule like transaction processing using a soft fork, I have to accept it even if I don't want to.

Even a brainwashed person like you should be able to understand that an hard fork is a much better and cleaner way to upgrade the network because it leaves the users the power of choice, while soft forks do not.

Incidentally, this is exactly why Kore is so adamant about soft forks.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
It's also why HF advocates are more comfortable in their position. They are willing to take a chance that their proposed solution won't be followed, given their conviction that they are in fact doing the right thing for Bitcoin . Compare that to kore dev who clearly feels inadequate, paranoid, and scared that their decision making may not be followed by the community either because they are wrong in their estimations or they are doing something outright wrong. Hence their constant berating, censorship, personal attacks & need to SF, etc against anyone who dares express an alternative view.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
So we just passed the halfway point to touching gold.

We will dare to retouch the face of gold and then smash through for good. Just like silver.
 

Ivanhoe

Member
Aug 28, 2015
55
73
Amsterdam
I hope so since the psychological significance of that is huge even if the marketcap of bitcoin will be nowhere near gold's. Still in people's minds "more expensive" usually means "of a higher quality". Although I do not have to tell you that of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX and Norway

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
Brings back memories of the bct thread...



BTW, Reddit is acting up (probably because of the Orlando happenings) so I'll jsut stick this reply to awemany's post here:

Yes. I consider Bitcoin as a very important libertarian experiment. I am a pretty strong libertarian myself but have long been concerned that a core weakness of libertarianism is that far too large a segment of the population are willing to bow down to authoritarianism. It is hard for a man to be free when all those around him tend to serfdom and will oppose his self-ownership.

It is hard to guide governments to the direction of liberty. It only happens rarely and typically with much bloodshed (Magna Carta, US war of independence) and often the outcome of such strife is decreasing liberty (French revolution). Bitcoin, however was delivered pretty much wholly into the hands of everyone so is an opportunity to see what happens when no one really has control, (even Gavin stepping down from a position of significant authority). It's dark days at the moment is all I can say.