Sidebar

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Z

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Lots of investors are going to get burned (Gox style) moving coins via the blockchain with stuck transaction, as a result of increasing transaction demand. When the market is moving against them it is going to damage bitcoin as an investment tool regardless if one is moving coins onto or off an exchange.
Click to expand...
Now is the time to get this idea out there, before the event, so that it will hit hard if it does happen, rather than the Core and /r/Bitcoin Ministry of Truth putting their own ridiculous spin on it.

I suspect what will happen is that people won't move their coins off exchange. But it may not be clear why and Core will just spin it as the usual risky behavior. There was a post on /r/Bitcoin today telling people to move their coins off exchange. Ironic if that were to cause a logjam. Marshalling evidence that people are keeping their coins on exchange in order to avoid tx fees is going to be key then.

They have the censorship card, so we have to preempt if we want to win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway, bluemoon, majamalu and 1 other person
AdrianX

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@Zangelbert Bingledack keeping coins on exchange is risky too, in a crash most exchanges that don't function on a 1:1 reserve will find themselves short, so your fiat will be stuck too.

TPTB behind BS/Core are probably counting on chaos during the next crash it will be used to justify Pegged Side chains, LN and segwit customized nLockTime scripts.

If I put my black hat on and give myself unlimited fiat power I'd want to implement as many control hooks into bitcoin as possible before going all in. There is no better time to do it than to propose it as a solution to maximum pain (lessons learned form the introduction of the FED), and present the BS/Core team as the savior who just happens to have developed the solution.

The hurt from the crash would be just the catalyst needed to push it all through.

The real challenge is how does one bring about the understanding that the situation could be avoided by allowing a market driven fork for bigger blocks to form organically now.
[doublepost=1483572208][/doublepost]
lunar said:
BTCC just spiked to 8600 ¥ thats 1,240 $

Gold is so 20th century :whistle:
Click to expand...
OMG I love China.

This is Trump uncertainty China mix :LOL: *edit so many i like this one.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: freetrader, Norway and bluemoon
Richy_T

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
OK, so I'm thinking of the idea that Core Segwit is a virtual hard-fork. If Segwit activates, old nodes will be using the Satoshi chain, Segwit Nodes will be using Corechain.

All very well and confusing but as long as both chains are using the same hash-power, nothing much to see here.

The issue becomes if Satoshi chain undergoes a hard-fork and gets its own hash power. These miners would not be enforcing Core segwit rules and all transactions which had been actioned as Segwit transactions would be spendable by anyone.

Could this happen? Perhaps not if Segwit had no issues *AND* continued to provide scaling. But it doesn't, it's a dead end. So sooner or later, there will have to be another hardfork. And which will people choose? Satoshi hardfork or Core hardfork (with it's built-in theft of miners fees and parasitic secondary chain)
[doublepost=1483588706][/doublepost]Question: Do transactions conducted on segwit enabled nodes to old-style addresses show up as traditional transactions? (i.e. recognized by non-segwit nodes)

I would assume they do but want to check.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu, Norway, bluemoon and 1 other person
Richy_T

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
Well, I was worried about going to bed that I would miss all the fun. Seems I should not have been concerned :)
 
Mengerian

Mengerian

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
536
2,597
@Norway, Interesting article by Rusty, thanks for posting.

Yes, it's nice to see BU and Bitcoin.com pool referred to positively. Hopefully if we just continue building BU competently as a project, over time perception of credibility will diffuse out to the community. Maybe this article is a sign of that happening.

I found the "Centralization" section of the article a bit frustrating to read. It equates "centralization" with only mining centralization, as if it is a significant threat. No mention of development centralization, which to me seems like a far more obvious problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steffen, Peter R, bluemoon and 9 others
Z

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Although he works for Blockstream and buys a lot of the small blocker notions, Rusty Russell is probably an early example of what I meant by "adult supervision" entering the space to help tame Core/BS's worst excesses/autism/naivity/groupthink as the price rises and brings in more high-calibre people who have fame outside of Bitcoin. Imagine how much less likely someone like Peter Wuille or Eric Lombrozo would be to risk the wrath of Greg by giving props to BU and Roger. He even mentioned Xthin *before* Compact Blocks, which is sure to ruffle plenty of Core sycophant feathers since "everyone knows Greg invented it."
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluemoon, majamalu, Norway and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest threads

Members online

Total: 101 (members: 2, guests: 99)