People trying to get their CNY causing a sell-off now?
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Is PBoC just grooming the ETF now? I hope soAnother connection I have seen, related to the ETF (Yes, it's a tinfoil thing):
For the last months, in most articles with Wall Street people talking about the chances for the ETF to be approved, they allways talk about the trading volume in China as an obstacle to get the ETF approved. And guess what, the PBoC forced the Chinese exchanges to apply fees to every trade, removing high frequency trades and bringing volumes down to a similar level as the dollar exchanges.
Yes, I predict the ETF will be approved, unless it isn't.
EDIT: They lock up BTC but not Yuan until the EFT decision. Driving the price down before all hell breaks loose at march the 11th when institutions finally can get into bitcoin in a big way. (If the ETF is launched straight after the decision.)
EDIT2: Locking up funds should actually have the opposite effect, making BTC more scarce. My vision is blurry, but I'm sure there is some high level manipulation going on related to PBoC and the ETF.
Last edited:
Perfect comment, and the ensuing discussion in NK is golden:
One respondent actually thought if you let users set the block reward everyone would set it as high as possible.
One respondent actually thought if you let users set the block reward everyone would set it as high as possible.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
Spelling this out just for kicks.
Suppose you own 1 BTC: you presently own a 1/16.6M share of the World Wide Ledger (if you hold forever, this eventually shrinks to a 1/21M share). There is a fork. One one side is BitcoinA, in which nothing has changed. On the other side is BitcoinB, in which emission has doubled. As @Zangelbert Bingledack points out, this event alters *not one bit* your 1/16.6M share in BitcoinA. In addition, you now also hold a smaller (and faster decreasing) share of BitcoinB. This bounty you may sell or keep.
Yet, undeniably, there are more cryptocoins post-fork than before; in this sense, there is less digital scarcity. But is this a problem for you? Obviously not if the price of BitcoinA is unaffected or increases. It would be a nuisance, though not a loss, if the price of BitcoinA permanently decreases but the loss is made up by gains in BitcoinB. The situation only poses a definite problem to you if the combined valuation BitcoinA + BitcoinB becomes permanently smaller than the pre-split valuation. How likely is this?
1. Either there is a compelling economic case for both BitcoinA and BitcoinB, or there isn’t.
2. If there isn’t, one of the two coins withers. If it is BitcoinB, you are were you started. If BitcoinA withers, you are covered, as you hold a significant stake in the winning coin (indeed, the highest possible stake you were prepared to hold), which events have demonstrated to be stronger than the pre-fork one.
3. But scenario 2 is unlikely or not interesting: if there hadn't been a compelling economic case for the fork, it would not have occured, or it would be unnoticeable. We may therefore assume that all the prefork use cases continue to exist, plus whatever new ones that were not served pre-split. Under such conditions the combined valuation of BitcoinA + BitcoinB > the valuation of pre-fork Bitcoin. The split created new value. Wealth was generated. You win.
4. The only worrisome situation (“Back’s bugbear”) can be one where the combined valuation of BitcoinA + BitcoinB < the valuation of Bitcoin pre-split (this also covers the special case of 2. where one of the coins go to 0 and the winning one ends up being weaker than pre-split). Why would this happen? Conceivably, if the disorder created by the fork is so great, the panic so widespread, thad cryptocurrency never recovers.
You be the judge of how likely 4 is. But if you are worried about it, you should get out of crypto. Forks are built into the system, as they are to any open source project: their possibility constantly orients the direction the project takes, exerting healthy pressure, weeding out malinvestment, preventing against co-option. Indeed, Back’s bugbear is a threat only to people like Back, who would like to assert control of that direction. When Back speaks of a “contentious hard fork” he only means: a fork that takes me out of the driving seat.
Suppose you own 1 BTC: you presently own a 1/16.6M share of the World Wide Ledger (if you hold forever, this eventually shrinks to a 1/21M share). There is a fork. One one side is BitcoinA, in which nothing has changed. On the other side is BitcoinB, in which emission has doubled. As @Zangelbert Bingledack points out, this event alters *not one bit* your 1/16.6M share in BitcoinA. In addition, you now also hold a smaller (and faster decreasing) share of BitcoinB. This bounty you may sell or keep.
Yet, undeniably, there are more cryptocoins post-fork than before; in this sense, there is less digital scarcity. But is this a problem for you? Obviously not if the price of BitcoinA is unaffected or increases. It would be a nuisance, though not a loss, if the price of BitcoinA permanently decreases but the loss is made up by gains in BitcoinB. The situation only poses a definite problem to you if the combined valuation BitcoinA + BitcoinB becomes permanently smaller than the pre-split valuation. How likely is this?
1. Either there is a compelling economic case for both BitcoinA and BitcoinB, or there isn’t.
2. If there isn’t, one of the two coins withers. If it is BitcoinB, you are were you started. If BitcoinA withers, you are covered, as you hold a significant stake in the winning coin (indeed, the highest possible stake you were prepared to hold), which events have demonstrated to be stronger than the pre-fork one.
3. But scenario 2 is unlikely or not interesting: if there hadn't been a compelling economic case for the fork, it would not have occured, or it would be unnoticeable. We may therefore assume that all the prefork use cases continue to exist, plus whatever new ones that were not served pre-split. Under such conditions the combined valuation of BitcoinA + BitcoinB > the valuation of pre-fork Bitcoin. The split created new value. Wealth was generated. You win.
4. The only worrisome situation (“Back’s bugbear”) can be one where the combined valuation of BitcoinA + BitcoinB < the valuation of Bitcoin pre-split (this also covers the special case of 2. where one of the coins go to 0 and the winning one ends up being weaker than pre-split). Why would this happen? Conceivably, if the disorder created by the fork is so great, the panic so widespread, thad cryptocurrency never recovers.
You be the judge of how likely 4 is. But if you are worried about it, you should get out of crypto. Forks are built into the system, as they are to any open source project: their possibility constantly orients the direction the project takes, exerting healthy pressure, weeding out malinvestment, preventing against co-option. Indeed, Back’s bugbear is a threat only to people like Back, who would like to assert control of that direction. When Back speaks of a “contentious hard fork” he only means: a fork that takes me out of the driving seat.
Last edited:
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
This might really be very bullish news because the dump very strongly confirms the longer-term trendline. Short of unforseen bearish black swan-ery, we're sitting on very strong support.
@79b79aa8
Another worthwhile mental exercise is to consider what happens if there is a spinoff that snapshots the ledger as of today but then introduces a billion new coins per day. Is digital scarcity destroyed? There are tons of new coins, so yes...except no, not in any material sense. We had better ask a more to-the-point question: is hodler purchasing power affected? Almost certainly not, as the value of such a spinoff can be expected to be exactly zero. It would be a non-event and likely no one but a few devotees would notice. Hodler Purchasing Power (HPP) unaffected.
Some might then say, "What about a middle ground, where a spinoff is launched with 42 million coins. Then the miners get more stake from you than they would have in Bitcoin, seemingly diluting the purchasing power. This may attract Keynesians who see more inflation as better."
Sure, but your purchasing power is still unaffected, at least given rational markets. Rational investors wanting to trade into the Keynesian chain on net will take into account the inflation and invest less to offset that. Many bitcoiners will be selling off their share in the Keynesian spinoff.
Some still will feel this is too uncertain. In response I say:
1) It cannot be avoided anyway. This is and always will be the reality. The market is always in charge.
2) Consider that the alternative for the Keynesians is to create an altcoin, giving BTC hodlers no chance to gain by selling off their shares to Keynesians.
3) Inflation in general is a determiner of market valuation, so any increase in inflation - besides losing a ton of viability and marketability just for breaking the "21M" Schelling point right up front - can be expected to result in at least a commensurate loss of market cap.
4) If you step back and look at the big picture, in general the situation is quite simple. Some part of the Bitcoin ledger is always being eroded to pay miners. If the market wants to pay them more or less than Satoshi planned, it probably still won't because breaking Schelling points is a gigantic hurdle. The same applies in any spinoff, with the result that such a spinoff will tend to sell off to the degree to which it exceeds the market's desired inflation rate.
In short, the gritty details distract from the overriding fact that the WWL and its "digital scarcity" is preserved by the market entirely. And even if this were somehow undesirable it could never be changed anyway, so there is no point making bones about it or acting like it's some new thing BU introduced.
Another worthwhile mental exercise is to consider what happens if there is a spinoff that snapshots the ledger as of today but then introduces a billion new coins per day. Is digital scarcity destroyed? There are tons of new coins, so yes...except no, not in any material sense. We had better ask a more to-the-point question: is hodler purchasing power affected? Almost certainly not, as the value of such a spinoff can be expected to be exactly zero. It would be a non-event and likely no one but a few devotees would notice. Hodler Purchasing Power (HPP) unaffected.
Some might then say, "What about a middle ground, where a spinoff is launched with 42 million coins. Then the miners get more stake from you than they would have in Bitcoin, seemingly diluting the purchasing power. This may attract Keynesians who see more inflation as better."
Sure, but your purchasing power is still unaffected, at least given rational markets. Rational investors wanting to trade into the Keynesian chain on net will take into account the inflation and invest less to offset that. Many bitcoiners will be selling off their share in the Keynesian spinoff.
Some still will feel this is too uncertain. In response I say:
1) It cannot be avoided anyway. This is and always will be the reality. The market is always in charge.
2) Consider that the alternative for the Keynesians is to create an altcoin, giving BTC hodlers no chance to gain by selling off their shares to Keynesians.
3) Inflation in general is a determiner of market valuation, so any increase in inflation - besides losing a ton of viability and marketability just for breaking the "21M" Schelling point right up front - can be expected to result in at least a commensurate loss of market cap.
4) If you step back and look at the big picture, in general the situation is quite simple. Some part of the Bitcoin ledger is always being eroded to pay miners. If the market wants to pay them more or less than Satoshi planned, it probably still won't because breaking Schelling points is a gigantic hurdle. The same applies in any spinoff, with the result that such a spinoff will tend to sell off to the degree to which it exceeds the market's desired inflation rate.
In short, the gritty details distract from the overriding fact that the WWL and its "digital scarcity" is preserved by the market entirely. And even if this were somehow undesirable it could never be changed anyway, so there is no point making bones about it or acting like it's some new thing BU introduced.
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
re-appropriating this from @Beautyon_ twitter KYC/AML post
The 1MB blocksize is an illusion of the mind. If enough people just updated their MAX_BLOCK_SIZE the problem wouldn't exist.
THINK OUTSIDE THE 1MB BOX
UPDATE YOUR NODE TODAY
The 1MB blocksize is an illusion of the mind. If enough people just updated their MAX_BLOCK_SIZE the problem wouldn't exist.
THINK OUTSIDE THE 1MB BOX
UPDATE YOUR NODE TODAY
Bagatell
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 728
- 1,191
Roger_Murdock
Active Member
- Dec 17, 2015
- 223
- 1,453
Good observation by @theZerg here:
"Block the stream," create an artificial drought, and sell a parched world "Liquid" at jacked-up prices. These guys aren't exactly subtle.
"Block the stream," create an artificial drought, and sell a parched world "Liquid" at jacked-up prices. These guys aren't exactly subtle.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
oh, but it will.
and it comes out much stronger on the other end.
and it comes out much stronger on the other end.
Shower thought:
If I'm a big company launching a product and I want to take a million orders on the first day, in Bitcoin with 1MB blocks I simply cannot do that. Even if users are prepared to pay $50 fees, and even if LN is up and running and perfectly decentralized and secure, and even say Segwit is activated and in full use - none of that can help me.
In that scenario, what happens to a bigger blocks spinoff / persistent fork-split that comes available and has a known and relatively steady market value with respect to Corecoin? Let's assume wallet software and exchanges have been set up to deal with both sides of the fork.
I of course will demand payment in the spinoff, since (unlike with altcoins) everyone has it in their wallet initially, there is enough room for all the transactions, and once I receive the spinoff coins I can simply convert them all in a single transaction over to Corecoins on the exchange if I need to (which is why I probably won't need to, and the spinoff will have the higher price). Check and mate?
If I'm a big company launching a product and I want to take a million orders on the first day, in Bitcoin with 1MB blocks I simply cannot do that. Even if users are prepared to pay $50 fees, and even if LN is up and running and perfectly decentralized and secure, and even say Segwit is activated and in full use - none of that can help me.
In that scenario, what happens to a bigger blocks spinoff / persistent fork-split that comes available and has a known and relatively steady market value with respect to Corecoin? Let's assume wallet software and exchanges have been set up to deal with both sides of the fork.
I of course will demand payment in the spinoff, since (unlike with altcoins) everyone has it in their wallet initially, there is enough room for all the transactions, and once I receive the spinoff coins I can simply convert them all in a single transaction over to Corecoins on the exchange if I need to (which is why I probably won't need to, and the spinoff will have the higher price). Check and mate?
Last edited:
@Zangelbert Bingledack : My gut tells me we need to go just up to this very point until the major miners actually start moving towards sanity.
- Aug 28, 2015
- 517
- 1,679
Things seem to be changing in the bitcoin world. Time for bitcoin to scale!
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
'adding too much optionality multiplies up the testing permutations otherwise it might have been interesting'
Yeah, who wants to test for 29 parallel softforks?
He just might see this through!
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Where you thinking about something specific?Things seem to be changing in the bitcoin world. Time for bitcoin to scale!
This is how it's supposed to be.
The "core-emotional-consensus" guys are actually forced to play by the rules, they deny every day.
The only alternative is a PoW-spinoff but I guess they know, that nobody would have an interest in ultra-decentralized-luke-greg-adam-coin with 1 MB for ever.
Where did this guy come from all of the sudden?
He writes great summaries of the problems many articulate in scattered posts.@Norway Great news from the Bitcoin vikings! Now you guys know where to invest all that oil money.
About the spinoffs and altcoins:
It all comes down to the fact, that Bitcoin created the first opportunity to have competitive non-government controlled money. If people will have the choice between inflationary and non-inflationary money I really doubt, that even the hardcore Keynesians will personally choose the first if they have this choice.
Government issued money is only competitive, because it's forced upon us by violence. In a free market of currencies.. not so much I guess. We will see.
@bitsko Adam is pretty close to proposing a 2 MB HF again there.
I don't know why I always forget how manipulative Adam is, I guess he just hides in Gregs shadow for the most time. His "goodwill" campaign was ugly to watch. No answers to the tough questions by him.
[doublepost=1486683556,1486682931][/doublepost]http://polis.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398291
After sed -i 's/blockchain/bitcoin/g' that doesn't sound to bad actually.
Combined with Trumps/Bannons hands-off approach for the banking sector the outcome might be not so bad.
And, if you didn't know:
Math, I tell you! Don't reveal the secret to Goldman Sachs! They might start to use math!
majamalu
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 144
- 775
In my last post I tried a new way to highlight the central point of the main argument in favor of BU (or any other viable alternative to Core):
"Just as the Constitution does not guarantee, in and of itself, that the rights proclaimed in it will not be violated, Bitcoin's software does not in itself guarantee that bitcoin ownership will not be violated (that there will never be more than 21 million units, or that double spending will never be admitted). The words written in the document that we call Constitution are not imbued with a magical power that protects our lives and properties. Likewise, commands in the code of a particular Bitcoin implementation do not have the ability to serve our interests. It is us (investors, miners, businessmen, users) who, by embracing or rejecting software, give life to the rules that protect us from the arbitrariness which is standard in the fiat world."
Spanish version here
"Just as the Constitution does not guarantee, in and of itself, that the rights proclaimed in it will not be violated, Bitcoin's software does not in itself guarantee that bitcoin ownership will not be violated (that there will never be more than 21 million units, or that double spending will never be admitted). The words written in the document that we call Constitution are not imbued with a magical power that protects our lives and properties. Likewise, commands in the code of a particular Bitcoin implementation do not have the ability to serve our interests. It is us (investors, miners, businessmen, users) who, by embracing or rejecting software, give life to the rules that protect us from the arbitrariness which is standard in the fiat world."
Spanish version here
@majamalu Excellent approach. I think many people may be newly convinced by that way of looking at it.
Since it is us* making the decisions, it just makes sense that the software levers should be closest to us, not the devs. Core makes a point of hiding those levers from the user. To what end? The Core devs are revealed to hold to an odd notion that their barrier of inconvenience to changing the settings is the gum and string that holds the network together. Even more so if they attack BU, as its only change is to remove that gum and string. Therefore they must find that gum and string to be crucial.
One could only rescue Core's position by noting that Schelling points are powerful, so even that gum and string leads to great solidity. Sure, but making that argument while continuing to imply that Core should be the sole setter of these powerful Schelling points (as every Core dev does, by saying forkwise incompatible implementations are "not Bitcoin") constitutes a bald embrace of centralized power.
*those people you spelled out explicitly and what I have always somewhat vaguely called "the market" - though in a fork arbitrage situation it really is directly a market
Since it is us* making the decisions, it just makes sense that the software levers should be closest to us, not the devs. Core makes a point of hiding those levers from the user. To what end? The Core devs are revealed to hold to an odd notion that their barrier of inconvenience to changing the settings is the gum and string that holds the network together. Even more so if they attack BU, as its only change is to remove that gum and string. Therefore they must find that gum and string to be crucial.
One could only rescue Core's position by noting that Schelling points are powerful, so even that gum and string leads to great solidity. Sure, but making that argument while continuing to imply that Core should be the sole setter of these powerful Schelling points (as every Core dev does, by saying forkwise incompatible implementations are "not Bitcoin") constitutes a bald embrace of centralized power.
*those people you spelled out explicitly and what I have always somewhat vaguely called "the market" - though in a fork arbitrage situation it really is directly a market
Last edited: