Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

That make sense if you want to support BU but don't want to support forking yet.

I think it's just a silly political statement that they will go down with the ship in case of an upgrade. But who knows...

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Norway
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/60fgeo/libertarian_city_liberstad_in_norway_is_moving/?st=j0hxzxo2&sh=0bd8cb08

Do you know these guys? Is it legit?

 

[Norway]

@satoshis_sockpuppet
Ha ha, yes, it's a real initiative. But I wouldn't bet on their success. They have to follow the norwegian law. If not, police will pay a visit.
EDIT: But it could be cool.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

I'm curious about the outcome, the landscape they've found looks really nice at least.
(admitted, it's pretty hard to find a not great looking part in Norway if you are outside of the cities )
I hope it will become a success!

Any way, PoW is totally yesterday. reddit polls are the consensus tools these days!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60fq72/poll_which_of_these_outcomes_are_preferable_to/?st=j0i1l8os&sh=3e1a755c

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@satoshis_sockpuppet Wow they really do seem, by the inescapable pretzel logic of Core, to be coalescing around consensus on changing the PoW. Some voices of sanity down near the bottom of that thread, though.
My guess is we see a 2MB+Segwit compromise from Core. I know, they don't compromise, but that was because they had a very firm dominant position in every measure. Now they are suddenly on the defensive with no good options and their friends are scattering.

 

[torusJKL]

2MB+Segwit is a compromise that could have succeeded 1 year ago.
Now it is too little too late.

 

[molecular]

Did you guys see the bitfinex CST (chain split token) offering? One can depostit BTC and then split them into tradable tokens BCC (bitcoin core) and BCU (bitcoin unlimited). Cool (so far).

CSTs will trade as BTC and USD pairs, initially without margin, and as will any other product with list, we will reevaluate that decision if there is sufficient liquidity.

Users will be able to create CSTs by “splitting” a bitcoin through the Token Manager (located in the Order Type drop down menu of the sidebar order ticket). Once split, the BTC will be removed from your account for each BCC and BCU added. Through the same Token Manager, you will be able to reverse this process at anytime, trading in equal numbers of BCC and BCU to extract BTC.

At first I thought: "that sounds pretty fair", but digging a little into the Terms and Conditions I found that the BCU token will be worthless if no fork occurs by end of 2017.

If no fork occurs by December 31, 2017, then BCU will expire worthless and BTC will be given in exchange for each BCC holder. If, however, there is a fork, specifically Bitcoin Unlimited, then, as soon as we list Bitcoin Unlimited, we will exchange BCU tokens for Bitcoin Unlimited tokens as well as retiring BCC tokens in favor of Bitcoin Core tokens. More detailed information can be found in the Chains Split Token Terms and Conditions.

Isn't that a bit one-sided? So by buying BCU you're betting not only that "BU will be more valuable in case of a fork", but also that a fork will actually occur this year. What if no fork occurs and we have bigger blocks? BCU tokens would be worthless in such (desirable) scenario, no?

Also: they seem to fix the tokens to the client (Bitcoin Core, Bitocin Unlimited) by their github repositories. That's a bit problematic and not necessarily the bet I want to place. Maybe BitcoinEC is going to be used... what then? BCU will be worthless, BCC the winner? Not sure.

Trying to figure out if I should place my bet. BCU trades at $265, BCC at $795.

Currently this seems very risky (in addition to the risk of the bigblock movement failing in general): the Dec 31st 2017 deadline, the definitions of the tokens,... what else?

Any opinions appreciated.

 

[awemany]

2MB+Segwit is a compromise that could have succeeded 1 year ago.
Now it is too little too late.

I also would like for more time to be taken analyzing SegWit regarding shift/disappearance of mining-incentives.

There's no reason to bundle bigger blocks and SegWit together, yet some people try to push that view. Miners can and should be able to pick and choose.

No faulty compromises.

 

[Windowly]

Compromise would be terrible imho. They've shown time and time again they do not make compromises in good faith and 2mb would be way to little.

It is amusing though, that they think even if they fire the miners they will still be protecting Bitcoin.

 

[adamstgbit]

Did you guys see the bitfinex CST (chain split token) offering? One can depostit BTC and then split them into tradable tokens BCC (bitcoin core) and BCU (bitcoin unlimited). Cool (so far).



At first I thought: "that sounds pretty fair", but digging a little into the Terms and Conditions I found that the BCU token will be worthless if no fork occurs by end of 2017.



Isn't that a bit one-sided? So by buying BCU you're betting not only that "BU will be more valuable in case of a fork", but also that a fork will actually occur this year. What if no fork occurs and we have bigger blocks? BCU tokens would be worthless in such (desirable) scenario, no?

Also: they seem to fix the tokens to the client (Bitcoin Core, Bitocin Unlimited) by their github repositories. That's a bit problematic and not necessarily the bet I want to place. Maybe BitcoinEC is going to be used... what then? BCU will be worthless, BCC the winner? Not sure.

Trying to figure out if I should place my bet. BCU trades at $265, BCC at $795.

Currently this seems very risky (in addition to the risk of the bigblock movement failing in general): the Dec 31st 2017 deadline, the definitions of the tokens,... what else?

Any opinions appreciated.

right, but at this point if the HF isn't activated within 6 months it probably never will. altho i dont see why they wouldn't extend this deadline to 2 years just to be sure.

I think prices of both of these will trend toward 500$ each if the HF becomes more and more of a possibility. if poeple become sure that the fork will happen, they might value BCU just as much as core.
If a HF seems to be less likely BCU will plummet...

Its not the best indication of how poeple might value BCU / BCC because its more of a bet on what you think will happen then what you want to happen.

once the fork actually happens this changes everything.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@molecular

Yeah it is a total trap and an incoherent contract as there isn't even a way to tie blocks to a specific repository. Note how Bitclub signalled BU and Segwit today. Bitfinex is going to have to radically revise or annul the whole thing. Scroll up for more comments on it.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

My guess is we see a 2MB+Segwit compromise from Core.

I doubt it. They created a monster with their absolute HF fear, how could they sell a 2MB HF to their fanbois now? Do you really think luke-jr and Friedenbach would accept a 2MB HF now?

It really is incredible watching this shitshow. People expect miners to act as charities. "They are just in for the profit" is now the saying on r/bitcoin. What the fuck is wrong people? Were they lead to believe, that Bitcoin is the new Socialist International? I really hope the HF will be a cleaning thunderstorm to get rid of these cretins. How come, that anti free market is so heavily programmed into people?

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@satoshis_sockpuppet The anti-market sentiment is not limited to the small block side.

The reason this catastrophe has drug on for four years is because any time somebody brought up the idea that certain developers should be fired for unsuitability a substantial fraction of the pro-scaling side grabbed for smelling salts and collapsed into their fainting couches.

Core should be fired simply because Bitcoin lost substantial market share during their tenure. That's reason enough and no other justification is necessary.

I can't think of any other industry that's so caught up emotional bullshit that they can't simply fire people for not performing.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@satoshis_sockpuppet Luke just said he would be open to a 2MB hardfork, in the thread below.

Here /u/tomtomtom7 continues to talk sense, raising an interesting point about the PoW change (option (4)) Luke proposed:

 

[adamstgbit]

http://www.strawpoll.me/12569383/r

dont forget to vote on luke-jr's poll

 

[_mr_e]

What we need is a futures contract for any client's > 1mb HF with no expiration. Then we can really see what the chances of activation are. I would drop some serious money on a 10 to 1 contract with these rules.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Justus Ranvier Good point. Still I see the chance to get rid of some bad actors with the HF.

Luke just said he would be open to a 2MB hardfork, in the thread below.

You're right, astonishing.

A 2MB+SW compromise imho is the only way out for core at this point. Everything else would mean the absolute loss of any authority Blockstream (sadly) has. If miners agree to something like this, that could mean some more painful moments in the future before we finally put devs in their place.

Developers really have absolutely no place in Bitcoins power balance. The current power they have comes from the fact, that Bitcoin wasn't really finished until now I guess. It gave them some power, they weren't intended to have. If Satoshi or Gavin pulled Bitcoin over the goal line (removing the BS and the protocol bugs) before leaving development, Bitcoin would have worked just as Satoshi proposed. This is why I don't fear BU devs, after the HF they, just as core devs, wil have no power at all. They can offer stuff, but the system will than work itself out between miners and the rest of the economy.

The right answer by miners at this point should be: "Let's do a 2MB HF first and then we'll look into SegWit."

But I also still find it hard to believe, that core comes around with such a proposal. Anybody believes, that Greg is ready to do that?

 

[freetrader]

It looks to me like /r/buttcoin now has free reign in /r/bitcoin with creative proposals on how to maximally damage Bitcoin at least in China.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60hbt6/breaking_tiananmen_square_massacre_of_1989/

Yes, Ctrl-F for 'spam' doesn't get you any hits on that thread.

 

[AdrianX]

2MB is too little too later. Remove the limit - miners agree to soft limit like we used before

Then discuss options for controlling the limit and segwit integration - in an environment where there is a Gentlemen's Agreement not to mine a block above 4MB.

The bitcoin design has a consensus mechanism that's been in oppression since inception, bitcoin should use it.

Developers are subservient to miners who enforce the rules in the interest of the network. Miners are subservient to users confidence (the market price)

The developers have over reached in an attempt to control bitcoin. There is no technical debate. The developers are using propaganda, lobbying and politics to get miners to include new rules.

The developers are not in a technical debate about code but a political one, in an attempt to convince miner and users to accept the new code they have made that change the bitcoin rules.

 

[bluemoon]

@freetrader

Bitcoin has many challenges to overcome.

And will perhaps be a force for more revolutions than Satoshi can ever have imagined.