Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cliff]

I liked the polo-style shirts w/ the B on them as well.

 

[Nat-go]

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.

Thoughts?

ViaBTC's announcement at Roger Ver’s “Free Speech Party” @ hardfork.cafe/Milan at the 8th Oct.?
Or ViaBTC's announcement at twitter.com/ViaBTC? That was at the 10th Oct.anouncing ViaBTC's first BU block (000000000000000001249ad8a9c7f4af2916c55f7717af1dcd3a3916f33901ac). But i can´t see bits thats indicate BU, only a Coinbase Size Vote for 2 MB. Is this a "hard, on-chain confirmation"?
How many have noticed the announcement and understood the implications?
You can also read misleading informations a la "ViaBTC's #bitcoin hashrate plummets to under 5% after announcing plans to block Segwit" at twitter.

"That would mean that the market does not really trust what the miners say anymore"

The market does not really trust what CEOs, politicans, the pope et al say, why should the market trust, what the miners say? I remember only a jump in the chart after Jihans Twitter post regarding the hardfork, That was in July, nothing else happend at that time. And still the most people at for example the Bitcointalk-forum explained the price movement with other reasons.

 

[awemany]

@Nat-go: I mean the confirmation of the tweet in the data. Of course, it is just signaling so far.

@Norway: Thanks. Meanwhile, from reddit, very appropriate, Mussolini's headquarters:

Minor historical irony of this latest conference happening in Italy. SISISI, ACKACKACK!

Pointed out to me here.

This all really feels like in a bad, unintentionally comical B-movie. But, nope, it is just reality ...


Did any in the holy inner circle of self-elected wise elders wear these shirts? For example, our beloved flat-earther? Anyone else?

Oh: And I would love to have /u/raisethelimit return. If s/he's reading this, would totally love some new cartoons I think enough stuff happened for some new biting visual commentary.

 

[Norway]

[doublepost=1476208870][/doublepost]

 

[Roger_Murdock]

@Norway, haha, that's great. I like this one too.

 

[Norway]

lol!
[doublepost=1476209284][/doublepost]@Roger_Murdock
Your was the most funny!
Put it on reddit. (I can't do it, my IP is blocked all over reddit. I guess I nacked too much.)

 

[awemany]

LOL. Google turns up a lot of those. Didn't know about that

Makes my B-movie reference even more fitting. Eerie! Did we finally spot real lizard people?

 

[Roger_Murdock]

@Norway

Done!

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/56zg1x/ack/

 

[cliff]

 

[awemany]

So I had this exchange on reddit.

I believe we see so many Core nodes still because of

-propaganda/lies/bullshit/repression/manipulation
-inertia
-maybe propped up counts, too

The guy in that conversation asserted it is because of Core's track record and professionalism.

I call bullshit, because if people would be professional and caring about code quality, the number of
@davecgh's btcd instances would be a lot higher than it is.

It is the cleaner code base (and I am not belittling the BU devs at all, they started with what was there) and yet these Core shills come out and assert 'professionalism'.

With an ever growing main.cpp and function calls jumping all around in there.

Along those lines, I really like that @Tom Zander is putting an effort into code quality.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

Nothing new here as far as you guys are concerned, but I'm pretty happy with this as a succinct explanation for why we shouldn't fear chain splits resulting from hard forks. Plus, I like the Twins reference.


Is this summary from /u/jstolfi correct?

 

[AdrianX]

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

The quoted question is just more trolling again. The author has already give us the answer answer to his question and that is it requires we have 98% agreement on what is safe and what is possible. He may have changed his opinion to 100% - if he has he is welcome to correct me.

A better question to ask is: What is the downside of making the hardfork to increase the blocksize limit practically safe? and I feel confident everyone here agrees the answer is: nothing.

 

[awemany]

@Roger_Murdock : I think a very interesting and valid point is that I have seen Ethereum holders being happy about the chain split. Because they said that it increased their holdings pretty much overnight by double-digit percents.

In any case, I am not afraid of this. A usable, fast, big chain and a small Corium chain. If Average Joe ever gets to use Bitcoin, I know which chain is that. And he's going to call that one Bitcoin.

 

[79b79aa8]

In addition, whatever second layer "solutions" end up being added to Corium, they can be made to work for Bitcoin.

 

[_mr_e]

Yes I agree, under the assumption Bitcoin.com'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.

Bitcoin.com and BU getting "very huge" are two very different things. Perhaps you do not understand the immense pressure miners are under to just break even, let alone make a profit. Pulling a stunt like this would be an extremely dangerous move for a pool. How exactly would it pay them back in the long run?

 

[_mr_e]

@jonny1000 You need to remember that BU hasn't actually done anything that isn't already possible. They've simply moved the blocksize parameter from the compiled source code to a variable that can be set by the GUI. That is it! If the Bitcoin ecosystem continues to grow then these types of client modifications will inevitably become common-place and system will need to be able to deal with it. You cannot stop this.

 

[Norway]

Mandatory reading, ViaBTC blog post, translated to english:

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-must-increase-the-block-size-and-why-i-support-bitcoin-unlimited-90b114b3ef4a#.ryx5zylyw

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Norway Can't believe I'm reading this, written by a miner. This is a great summary and shows that he understands what it is about. I especially liked the part about SegWit.

And maybe it's time for some people to rethink their assessment of "Chinese" miners. And the alleged culture of leaders and followers. Repeated before, but the most anti-bitcoin pools/miners are Bitfury and BTCC, both lead by people from "the west".

 

[Norway]

@satoshis_sockpuppet
The best thing, it's written originally in chinese. It's a great source of information for chinese miners and pools.

 

[awemany]

@Norway: Having read that, I feel like I am developing a man crush on ViaBTC ;-)

It is indeed very well written. Makes sense. Much more than we keyboard-warriors can do, it isn't just a well-written post, it is a well-written post that is backed by 10% of the hash power. And so this does and will have weight.