Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I'm having real trouble understanding this mindset.

 

[Richy_T]

@awemany Have we actually seen any user-experience mockups for LN usage yet?

 

[AdrianX]

@awemany looks promising for a theory.

For Bitcoin to succeed on the scale you referring too it's on-chain scaling and global access to the benefits of an immutable blockchain that will enable it. Thinking of bitcoin as a wealth distribution virus it has more growth potential in countries with citizens with low debt. its worth keeping in mind that bitcoin will cause destructive fiat inflation if adopted on any scale so it's also an end game play.

A poison pill has lots of interpretations, however I don't doubt segwit is such a pill.

The poison pill being, additional scripting and layer 2 services enabled by segwit that in time could be used to undermine bitcoin's sound money principals and allow bitcoin substitutes backed by limited access to the bitcoin blockchain to thrive. The ultimate kill switch being layer 2 service providers, essentially today's banking layer, being in control of on-chain transaction fees and indirectly bitcoin security.

Russia China relations and their respective investments in gold would factor into that theory too. Keeping my skeptic black hat on I would imagine that bitcoin is still a pipe dream and they are hedging on gold. Until bitcoin comes into the equation I'd would expect a stale mate on blockchain growth and segwits for some time to come.

Should demand grow it may well be that China is the trigger for the next rally, given their lower per-capita debt to GDP.

If we resort back to exponential price growth in bitcoin with limited transaction volume I'd expect China and the US to bring the situation to a head and strike a deal that does not impact Russia in any way. I'd expect a block size increase timed with huge bitcoin price growth and an increase in contention over something the magnitude over who controls the South China Seas. Conversely resolving a conflict the magnitude of who controls the South China Seas would be closely timed with segwit activation.

Your theory would also possibly explain Russia's hot flashes with bitcoin's legality in the region, those with political influence aligned with the China's Gold Play and the US, trying to curb momentum either way for a multitude of reasons.

I'd also imagine full engagement in an arms race between Russia and the US to be tethered to the failed hard fork block limit increase and segwit activation, and such a race to be quenched by the possibility of global bitcoin adoption with on chain scaling.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

These people are so incredibly different from us now that they're like the buggers in Ender's Game. They are poison to us and we are poison to them (they think). What in their worldview is simply "good stewardship" is to us necessarily a poison pill because it effectively does everything possible to close off our desired vision in an almost irreversible way, privileging theirs.
[doublepost=1482538393][/doublepost]Azop stability charts are back. They continue to predict the price rises with great accuracy, though as I noted in the Wall Observer, this rally could hardly have been less surprising. Every sign was there.

 

[albin]

@Zangelbert Bingledack

This is basically the same thing as looking at bbands squeezing?

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@albin Not sure. I have no training in TA but have developed my own instincts and hacky TA pattern recognition over the years of looking closely at Bitcoin.

 

[albin]

As coins accumulate in Xdef3..., they only actually have to be redeemed if they are spent to a traditional Bitcoin address. Segwit to segwit addresses can just leave the coins where they are (do they? How could they not?) Otherwise, they are there, sitting in the Bitcoin equivalent of "Fort Knox" and are a juicy target for rehypothecation. In terms of tradtional Bitcoin nodes, Segwit addresses deal in promissory notes and are potential targets for inflation. As a soft fork, nodes running traditional Bitcoin transactions do not have to agree to participate.

Check out what Maxwell said on the first page of this conversation in August 2013, just be careful, the irony might kill you!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283746.0

 

[Zarathustra]

Happy Christmas from Zarathustra the Godless with the two best Christmas Songs ever!

 

[Richy_T]

Check out what Maxwell said on the first page of this conversation in August 2013, just be careful, the irony might kill you!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283746.0

The last paragraph is particularly interesting.
[doublepost=1482594365][/doublepost]That thread is gold. When people ask "How come we're only hearing objections now?"...

 

[Richy_T]

Could the reason Maxwell is so keen to move to a fee market be because he is planning on deprecating the legacy blockchain long before 2140 and thus the block reward would become irrelevant more quickly?

 

[MoonShot]

it seems a likely scenario that Maxwell & Co are building something that can replace the legacy blockchain, leaving only a shell to link back to the genesis block. Whether the value is extracted from BTC by sidechains or SegWit, they are defintely not building anything anyone except their backers and a few insiders would recognize from reading satoshi's whitepaper.

 

[Inca]

Merry christmas chaps.

 

[Kurious]

Merry Christmas to Adam and all the Old Guard...

 

[bluemoon]

Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[albin]

@Richy_T @MoonShot

I asked something very much along those lines during their Reddit sidechains AMA, I want to say sometime in maybe 2014 or early 2015 (if I remember right, it was well after Blockstream was announced, probably coinciding with the release of the sidechains paper?), more or less along the lines of "if all activity eventually moved to a sidechain, could original Bitcoin basically be kicked away as a scaffold?".

They didn't seem particularly forthcoming about wanting to address that question!

 

[Richy_T]

Quick, volume is down... Cheap transactions!!!

 

[Richy_T]

@albin This time last year, I would have said that was far-fetched.

 

[Richy_T]

Hmm. Here's a thought. Suppose I want to send x BTC to 1Addr1 but I don't really care when it goes. Would it be possible to delay that transaction until, say, I was ready to send y BTC to 1Addr2 and then send them as part of a single transaction? A "shopping cart" of transactions, so to speak. This should reduce the fees required (by how much?) and maybe keep UTXO size from growing quite as quickly.

It would potentially be not quite as good for privacy but a lot of the time, I don't really care.

Wouldn't it be nice if it was easier to have separate wallets so experimenting with such concepts would be easy?

 

[albin]

@Richy_T

That sounds like it could be really useful for say queuing up your own tx's to consolidate outputs to trigger when you do a real economic tx.

That would be very efficient w/ Schnorr.

 

[Richy_T]

In theory, you could also set a "send on low predicted fee" which would act as negative pressure on the so-called fee market.