Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[_bc]

@_bc Welcome to the forum.



Stated as fact, any source on this, reason for confidence, or just speculation?

Thanks.
Just speculation. I saw a spike in BU, and a dip in 8MB.
More importantly, I haven't learned my lesson:

BU% 8MB%
33.7 + 7.8 = 41.5% (last 1000 blocks)
38.9 + 9.7 = 48.6% (last 144 blocks)

 

[KoKansei]

I'm not down with that Bitfinex scheme.

Prediction markets are ok but this is begging to be fraud.

They get to arbitrarily drive the fork token to zero simply by not listing by the end of the year.

On the other side of the coin, they create perverse incentive to chain split prematurely simply to give the fork tokens value.

Either way, they have asymmetric information that they can insider trade against their customers.

I agree that the Bitfinex scheme leaves much to be desired. Which is to say it is likely to be uncompetitive with the offerings of other exchanges who adopt a clearer, fairer approach to fork futures. You can bet your bottom mBTC that BitMEX et al. are not going to let a subpar offering by Bitfinex dominate the fork futures market when there is so much money to be made.

Subpar or not you have to give credit to Bitfinex for being the first mover here. They have opened the floodgates which is more than good enough for now.

 

[adamstgbit]

41% BU

 

[yrral86]

I think you mean 43%

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

It's great that exchanges are waking up to fork futures trading, but besides the Bitfinex system seeming very biased and poorly designed, it also doesn't make any sense to me that there could be a BU token in the first place.

BU is just a tool to allow miners to create, coordinate, and implement their own proposals, such as the ViaBTC proposal that they seem to be going with now; it's not any one proposal. It doesn't trigger any one specific fork.

I haven't looked closely at the terms, but it seems to you actually have to trade between two specific sides of a specific fork in order to be trading fork futures. *They would have to know what specifically miners plan to do using BU in order to set up the fork futures.*

 

[Fatman3002]

Ok, I see you guys are stirring up a shitstorm. Can someone eli5 to me what's the plan here and how far you've come? Is Gavin onboard? Craig Wright?

 

[freetrader]

@Fatman3002 : The great thing is it's not really a shitstorm, but just a network upgrade.
As a Bitcoin holder, it's possible to mostly ignore this storm (if you're able to remain undistracted by the price turbulence which is to be expected for this, because some people are making a big controversy out of it).

Anyone who wants to keep playing can just ensure their software handles slightly bigger blocks (2MB would be a good start - 4 or 8MB would be plenty for a while). That's just a couple of places in most code that need changing.

For full EC algorithm, obviously a bit more adaptation is needed by full-node clients (I think we'll put out a better specification / description of the EB/AD algorithm used by BU - but others are free to implement whatever adaptations of it they deem suitable for their clients). e.g. Classic does it slightly differently (no AD as far as I can tell).
The main point is just to make your software configurable w.r.t. block size.
Bonus marks if you implement logic that keeps you on following a chain even if it increases past your configured block size limit.

Gavin has expressed support for the emergent consensus driven upgrade (check his Twitter).

 

[Fatman3002]

Is there no activation limit? Or are we just waiting for some miner to pull the trigger?

 

[awemany]

@Fatman3002 : The technical activation limit is >50%. The social activation limit is likely >70%. To be ready when it happens, I think it is a good idea to start running a bigger-blocks capable client now.

 

[79b79aa8]

this is not the end, nor even the beginning of the end. but it is the end of the beginning.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Emergent Consensus could just be called normal consensus-finding where no devs have a privileged platform to sway the consensus-finding.

It is Core who introduces a new paternalistic model where they maintain a privileged position to sway the consensus-finding by making it inconvenient for people to switch away from their preferred consensus settings.

EDIT: I made this into a succinct post, as I realized it's a good TL;DR on the whole debate.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/609rdi/emergent_consensus_could_just_be_called_normal/

 

[Fatman3002]

Well, thx for the answers. Is there anywhere I can keep track of which pools are supporting BU?

Oh, and how about nodes? I see you only have about 10% of the nodes. Is there some threshold you'll have to reach for those?

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Condensed to two tweetable sizes (@solex):

Emergent Consensus could just be called normal consensus where no devs have a privileged platform to sway the consensus-finding​

and

It's Core who introduces a new model: "We attempt to sway consensus-finding by making it inconvenient to deviate from our chosen settings"​

or in case of accusations of putting words in their mouth:

It's Core who introduces a new model: they attempt to sway consensus-finding by making it inconvenient to deviate from their chosen settings​

 

[awemany]

@Zangelbert Bingledack : Or, even simpler: Are you ready for bigger blocks? They are coming soon, so make sure to run a client and wallet that is!


[doublepost=1489929180][/doublepost]

Well, thx for the answers. Is there anywhere I can keep track of which pools are supporting BU?

https://coin.dance/blocks

Oh, and how about nodes? I see you only have about 10% of the nodes. Is there some threshold you'll have to reach for those?

No, it is a metric that is very hard to measure reliably. (The sybil attack problem)

 

[Windowly]

It seems according to Roger Ver that there's a lot of BU nodes that aren't identifying themselves as BU nodes to shield themselves from getting attacked.

 

[chriswilmer]

@Windowly : This is an area where regular people can help a lot right? By running a BU node you dilute the power of their DOS attacks, right?

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

You don't look into Bitcoin for ~ two days and suddenly half of the bitcoin world runs around like headless chicken.

Looks like the pressure for bigger blocks eventually become to much now. The dam is crumbling at all points.

Interesting that the price is still kind of "stable" for Bitcoin terms. Honestly I've got the feeling like everybody is just waiting for it to happen to get to the moon. I'd have expected some more movement from the latest news just because of the confusion that's visible everywhere suddenly.

There might be some blood in the streets before the fork but a pretty "smooth" scenario looks pretty plausible as well. IIRC it was forkiusmaximus who brought up the iron curtain / Berlin wall analogy some times. Nobody expected that to happen the way it eventually did.

And it's bizarre how fucking uninformed 90% of the Bitcoin industry leaders are.

edit: Oh and ping me if there is fair BCU/BCC prefork trading possible somewhere. Not the Bitfinex ripoff.

 

[Windowly]

@satoshis_sockpuppet It is pretty bizarre. The main part of the battle seems just getting information out there.

 

[Mengerian]

Some more thoughts on Bitfinex's Chain Split Token.

One of the things that makes it less attractive for me is that you are in effect betting on two things in an entangled way:

• The chance that there will be a chain split
• The relative price of tokens should such a split occur.

It seems to me it would be more attractive to speculators for the tokens to have these terms:

1. In the event of no chain split event, and no block size increase, each BCU will be redeemed for 0.5 BTC, and each BCC will be redeemed for 0.5 BTC
2. In the event of no chain split event, and a >1MB block included in the block chain, each BCU will be redeemed for 1 BTC, and each BCC will be destroyed.
3. In the event of a chain split, each BCU will be redeemed for 1 BTC in any chain that includes a >1MB block, and each BCC will be redeemed for 1 BTC on any chain that does not include a >1MB block.

Seems to me the exchanges have an incentive to provide fork arbitrage that is perceived as more balanced, they could make lots of money with it. Or maybe they will come up with various markets with different terms, to find which is most popular. It's a huge profit potential for them.

EDIT: It would also be necessary to clarify the definition of ">1MB block", for example to specify whether Segwit-style extension blocks would qualify as bigger blocks.

 

[lunar]

Schadenfreude I know, but I'm starting to find this collective awakening quite hilarious.
(See the comments)

r/bitcoin - blockstream troll army are so conditioned to the party line they are attacking themselves. The snake is eating it's tail, because it created a self defeating censorship bubble.

It's beautiful to watch.


the truth is dead, long live the truth.