Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[steffen]

@Peter R
Thank you for explaining.

 

[sickpig]

Slightly topic change: Do you think ETC had been the way it is, if the POW difficulty re-target would have been similar to the one we have in Bitcoin (2016@10mins block)?

...so, a block every 3.3 hours if hashpower is 5%? I think the ETC people probably would have HF'd to reset the difficulty in that case

when? just after the ETH HF? same time?

how they would have activate? by block height?

It seems to me that the situation would be quite complicated. I'm genuinely interested in understanding how you envision the implementation of this fork, especially in the context of a potential bitcoin HF.

 

[Zarathustra]

"I am pro abolition of the death penalty. But not before we get 95% consensUS within the society."

Vulgo: never.

 

[Norway]

I'm drunk, and I just nailed it down to one sentence:

Blockchain technology to banks, is like bittorrent technology to the music and movie industry.

(Yes, I'm a "blockchain" skeptic. And I'm proud of it. Many people I meet in Norway at the meetups I throw are blockchain fanatics. It's fiat to be taken as consultants, but no real business cases to be made.)

But all that above is a sideshow compared to the real issue. Bitcoin has to work as a transfer of value. It should be obvious to everybody now that Blockstream is just trying to keep the current financial play with derivates alive.

My theory is that the owners of Federal Reserve (The people Janet Yellen is representing) love derivates. Because it keeps the measurable inflation down.

Sooo... Janet Y can say she is working within her mandate. The measurable "inflation" is below what the mandate says. And she can keep printing money by low interest rates. And QE.

And I'm talking about this insane sidebet casino called derivates. Where the investments are going into sidebets, not the real echonomy like people or businesses.

This is a very good illustration: http://money.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-and-markets-in-one-visualization/

(Note that bitcoin is represented at the top. Then you scroll down the page.)

As a former physicist with strong opinions on Schrödinger's cat, I want my fellow (but more updated) friend @Peter R to reply on this important question:

Does the economics of everyday life by the average person in the western world get sucked by leeches called banks?

EDIT: Jeez, I'm drunk, I mean, @Peter R , what do you think about the theory that money is sent to the casino called "derivates" so there is no real inflation to be seen, and Janet can print more USD by keeping the interest rate low while being within her mandate?

 

[Inca]

It does not have to be a lack of throughput in Core causing the transactions not to match on both chains, after the hardfork people may be frantically splitting the coins to trade them or sell the coin they do not like in exchange for coins on the other chain.

Lets consider the following scenario:

• Bitcoin Classic has:
  • 80% of miner support
  • 80% of token holder support
  • 80% of user support
• Bitcoin Classic activates
• Poloniex the exchange complies with its ethical and legal obligations to protect client assets and splits the coins on deposit and allows withdraw on both sides. It also sets up a Bitcoin Core/Bitcoin Classic pair trade
• Since Bitcoin Classic has 80% support, lets say Core coins only trade at 5% of the price. Bitcoin Classic has a large mining lead
• At one point during a period of low trading liquidity, Core supporters (who own 20% of the Classic coins), dump a large amount of the coins on the exchange and buy Core coins. The price of Core coins then reaches 30% of Classic (Like ETC has already traded at)
• Miners see the huge profit opportunity on Core and start to switch over.
• The 80% of Classic supporters begin to worry, they know that if Core ever takes the mining lead, all the coins they bought on the exchange vanish from their Classic wallets. Core users of course have no such fear, their coins are reasonably safe when Classic has the lead
• This creates a snowball effect and Classic holders start panic selling.
  
• Despite only having 20% support, the small Core minority has managed to resoundingly defeat the Classic Chain, and all the early Classic coin investors have lost their funds.

This is one of the many reasons, why in order to successfully implement an asymmetric hardfork, where the status quo has a massive advantage, you need to ensure there is no significant opposition. (e.g. 95% miner activation threshold should be considered as easily obtainable)
[doublepost=1469933782][/doublepost]

Sorry I do not follow. Once Core has the lead over Classic, all the miners will switch to the Core chain and the entire Classic chain will be orphaned.

Remeber I am talking in the context of Bitcoin Classic/XT. There has been a huge campaign to activate these on the network and many people here still support these ideas. My opposition is to Classic/XT. Under these proposals the coins would vanish forever. If you are talking about some other implementation, then we are talking on cross purposes. Remember I support a 2MB HF, I told Gavin I would support 8MB in May 2015, if he implemented it right. IF you have a different idea, like Core's Soft-Hardfork idea for example. Please write up your idea and I may support it.

Sounds great but it is completely flawed analysis. The only reason that ETHC continues to exist is the difficulty adjustment difference compared with bitcoin. Oh and the speculators allied with the DAO attacker who owns 15% of the coin supply (and murkily, poloniex). Were it not for that incentive the chain would have perished.

In a bitcoin hard fork this would not occur.

 

[go1111111]

when? just after the ETH HF? same time?

how they would have activate? by block height?

It seems to me that the situation would be quite complicated. I'm genuinely interested in understanding how you envision the implementation of this fork, especially in the context of a potential bitcoin HF.

The same exact same time would be ideal, to avoid some period of time where blocks are super slow. The only good reason I see for waiting is if it's necessary to make sure the code is solid.

I think block height is the standard way. If the other group's hard fork code was using something else, you'd probably want to just use the exact trigger they used though.

The only tricky part I see is setting the difficulty to an appropriate level. The level doesn't need to be exact though. Going from 10 minute blocks to 30 minute blocks for six weeks isn't the end of the world. It does seem like erring on the side of faster blocks is better though. Setting the difficulty a little bit too low actually gives miners an extra incentive to mine on the original chain, since block rewards come faster. Although this does mean fewer rewards for future miners.

If I were running a defensive fork, I'd target the difficulty at about half of what I actually expect it to be, and I'd also have a backup emergency HF coded up with a much lower difficulty and perhaps a PoW change just in case difficulty was way lower than I predicted.

Another option would be to make the difficulty temporarily adjust more quickly right after the HF.

 

[jonny1000]

Sounds great but it is completely flawed analysis. The only reason that ETHC continues to exist is the difficulty adjustment difference compared with bitcoin. Oh and the speculators allied with the DAO attacker who owns 15% of the coin supply (and murkily, poloniex). Were it not for that incentive the chain would have perished.

Why do you continue to constantly underestimate your opponents? Waiting a few months is not a big deal? Don't you think the prudent thing to do is to overestimate your opponents?

The only good reason I see for waiting is if it's necessary to make sure the code is solid.

Making sure the code is solid sounds like a good idea. Now only if you guys can make the process calm, safe, sensible and collaborative, we can get back together as a community again. and do the HF. Unless of course you disagree with Andreas here:

Blockstream does not profit with LN. LN is not a blockstream product, it is an open protocol with at least four active development teams that are independent and mostly interoperable. I think the idea that Blockstream is limiting the blocksize limit for their own gain and profit is ridiculous conspiracy shit. It has no relation to reality.

Source: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BEqEhxJjN05HgAZ_OYvVUJ6kxDvEDxGebLvea7XqP-c/edit?ts=57958319&pref=2&pli=1

Please can the sensible ones among you try to be more open minded and start respecting your small blocker peers again. Then lets do the HF in a safe, calm way together.
[doublepost=1470010127,1470009148][/doublepost]

We should be thankful for @jonny1000 who is willing to come and debate

Thank you, it is a shame others ask me to leave, since they appear to only want to speak to people they agree with.

 

[pekatete]

Take your own advice you troll. Do you really still believe that anyone gives a 4x what your opinion is here (at this the dawn of the crystallisation of the junta's greatest ever stalling tripe)?

Your last-throw-of-the-dice edge-case doomsday nonsense of a Classic fork losing have been shown up for what they truly are, along with a long list of other figments of your imagination, but you still insist on manufacturing yet even more nonsense. You may feel secure in riding on a members vouching for you here, but that was weeks ago, and you have spouted a lot of gibberish since for anyone to make their own minds up about you and your twaddle.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

we can get back together as a community again.

This is the biggest lie of all.

Anyone who falls for it deserves what they get.

 

[jonny1000]

This is the biggest lie of all.

Why? Because you hate the small blockers so much? Because you think they are evil?

To repeat again, I think you are genuine, authentic and act in good faith. I kindly ask you to re-evaluate whether you feel the same way about those who oppose Classic

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Con artists are never friends with their marks.

They pretend to be, of course, because that's what makes the con possible.

 

[jonny1000]

Take your own advice you troll. Do you really still believe that anyone gives a 4x what your opinion is here (at this the dawn of the crystallisation of the junta's greatest ever stalling tripe)?

Your last-throw-of-the-dice edge-case doomsday nonsense of a Classic fork losing have been shown up for what they truly are, along with a long list of other figments of your imagination, but you still insist on manufacturing yet even more nonsense. You may feel secure in riding on a members vouching for you here, but that was weeks ago, and you have spouted a lot of gibberish since for anyone to make their own minds up about you and your twaddle.

As someone pointed out here, one of Classic most important supporters (perhaps third behind Gavin and Jeff) appears to be open mined and changed:


Clearly the anti Classic campaign is working to a very limited extent.

 

[pekatete]

Anecdotal and does not affirm any of your flawed arguments against a Classic fork, let alone removing the block-size limit.

 

[albin]

Sergio got sucked in by sensationalized FUD pertaining to an area of knowledge that he personally has no actual specialty in. We have exactly zero evidence that anything relating to this claim is actually true.

 

[jonny1000]

Anecdotal and does not affirm any of your flawed arguments

I am happy to continue to discuss the issues. However, you appear to assume bad faith making this difficult.
[doublepost=1470012929][/doublepost]

We have exactly zero evidence that anything relating to this claim is actually true

In general HFs do provide additional types of liabilities to custodians. That is what happened with the ETH HF.

 

[albin]

@jonny1000

We do not know that whatsoever.

Please present your supporting evidence that indicates that such a liability is established legally anywhere.

 

[pekatete]

You continually spout the same accusation of "bad faith" and then turn around and put forward (edge-case) flawed arguments in support of your position. That there is the bad faith, not you repeating the accusation to whomever you refuse to agree with.

 

[albin]

Classic 100% textbook concern troll. He may not even be a bad person in real life, he might just derive some perverted pleasure fucking with people online.

 

[jonny1000]

(edge-case) flawed arguments in support of your position

I understand that you believe the points are flawed. Please help point out these flawed areas, in a polite and respectful way, so that we can discuss them more. Perhaps you are correct, I would love to find out if my arguments are flawed.

 

[pekatete]

Well if you believe patronising is going to do it, think again. Take your time and read through the thread as each and every argument you have put across has been sufficiently debunked.