Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Active Member
Nov 11, 2015
My point: That's already ~25% of the network hashrate, and as much as i'd like to see a hardfork to larger blocks, forking the network in a haphazard and uncoordinated manner seems needlessly risky, as many larger block supporting nodes will not follow the longest chain.
I could not agree more with this. Not only is it risky, it also helps the supporters of the 1MB chain win.

I ask this question again and again:

What is the downside of making the hardfork to increase the blocksize limit as safe as possible?

I think what's going to happen if sufficient hashpower blocks segwit activation is that they're going to go through another re-brand of the propaganda of how soft forks are characterized.
It is true that 51% of miners alone CAN force a soft fork. However I would argue against miners enforcing SegWit rules until or if 95% support is reached.

In contrast 51% of miners alone both CANNOT and should not activate a hardfork in my view.

Do you understand the difference?

Segwit is effectively a blocksize limit increase. Personally I am and have always been an optimist with respect to the blocksize, I support a limit up to 8MB. However if a significant minority of miners does not want or is not ready for larger blocks yet, I respect and support their decision. Therefore Segwit should activate at the 95% threshold, in my view.

However, if for example Segwit gets to 70% support, there will be a lot of pressure on the remaining 30% to move over, just to stick with the majority, even if they do not want larger blocks. This dynamic is likely to be far easier than persuading unhappy miners to move when the majority are not already flagging. Are you guys starting to see how the 95% threshold is a useful tactic to get strong miner support?
These miners who you say will mine a 2.1 would be extremely stupid to do so given it is ONLY accepting their block, which is < 50% of the mining power. They would be taking a huge risk of their block getting orphaned and therefore losses of big chunks of cash that these miners cannot afford. Given that the two pools would be likely to converge on the 1.1 block chain, as this will guarantee the attacking pools lose money, the attacking pools would realize this and therefore not take the risk in attacking at all.
Yes I agree, under the assumption's pool is very small, my example does not work. However I assume the BU plan is to succeed and become large.

I am not totally sure you understand my plan, the defender of 1MB in this scenario wants there 2.1MB block to eventually be orphaned, the plan is to split the hashpower of the BU supporting miners into two groups, which should pay returns for them in the long run. I ask again: What is the downside risk of removing these massive tactical advantages of the side supporting 1MB? It is almost as if the BU/Classic community has been infiltrated with 1MB supporters.

its the immediate disruption surrounding the first Hardfork that I find troubling
I totally agree. The only thing I do not understand is why not to the hardfrok in a safer way avoiding the disruption? Doing it in this disruptive way is both unnecessary and counterproductive. Can somebody please explain the downside of doing the hardfork in a safe way? Or is there an ideology here that hardfroks must be done in a dangerous way rather than a safe way?
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
I am wondering: Is ViaBTC around and has an account on this forum or on reddit? Or is it just twitter so far?
  • Like
Reactions: Norway


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
So there was this delay of a couple hours yesterday between ViaBTC's announcement and the market reacting. It seems very plausible to me that is because people give a damn now about what some miners said, and want hard, on-chain confirmations before inferring that a certain action has actually taken place.

That would mean that the market does not really trust what the miners say anymore - after we had seen upswings (and subsequent downward action due to disillusion) earlier when other pools indicated support for on-chain scaling, but didn't deliver.

[doublepost=1476184292][/doublepost]Was @Gavin Andresen in Milan?


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
@jonny1000 Fortunately I don't suffer from Stockholm syndrome, so your fake concern is none of mine. This entire mess could have been avoided with a modicum of compromise from BSCore and maybe still could be?

Stop blaming the prisoners for trying to escape.

back on ignore.


Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
BTC | XAU (spot) * | COMEX CG1 *
$637.44 | $1,259.65 | $1,261.70
BTCswap(BFX - FFR) | BTCswap(Polo)
0.0369% | 0.0219%
HashRate: 1.90 EH/s
MarketCap: $10,112,787,298
BTC Dominance: 80.7%
Exchange Volume (BTC): $90.13m
Exchange Volume (ALT): $43.08m
Exchange Volume BTC Dominance: 67.7%
Gemini Daily Auction: 1650.74 BTC @ 616.365 ($1,017,458.36)
GBTC * | SPDR Gold Trust ETF *
$92 | $119.92
10YR Treas| Copper * | Crude (WTI) *
1.75% | $219.45/lb | $51.10/barrel

*Indicates price at market opening

Last edited:
Hei -- it was great to see you guys in Milano. I enjoyed it! Thanks!

Just wanted to say, if you don't read it already via reddit - I wrote two articles by now about the event and translated them into english. So please, if you find terrible grammar and speach-mistakes - don't get angry about it.

I hope you enjoy!

Ups, sorry, now I see your post @Bagatell. Norways obviously ACK'd :)

BTW: does someone know what's up with Gavin? Are there proofs he left Bitcoin development / MIT?

Members online