Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

An addition to my last rant, because it is so incredibly fitting:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60gcbs/bitcoins_real_value_is_in_its_decentralization/?st=j0il3dkc&sh=123b2b55

Bitcoin's real value is in its decentralization, its immutability and its incredible developers

Unfortunately some have fogotten this and only value the hashrate provided by miners.

They might well be in for a very rude awakening.

Holy fucking shit. This is so bizarre. "Bitcoins value is in it's incredible developers."
Who brainwashed these guys?

I always have the urge to comment this stuff because it hurts my eyes but I try to remember the xkcd classic:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/b/ba/duty_calls.png

And if somebody is in for a very rude awakening it's somebody else...

 

[xhiggy]

Core is very desperate, the UASF is a major threat if they have exchanges on board.

Exchanges should be a focus of outreach for BU to be successful.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@xhiggy
UASF SW is bullshit and will never be an issue for anybody. Nobody sane will risk having their SW aka anyone can spend tx being mined by e.g. ViaBTC as a payment to the miner.

 

[Norway]

Does anybody know who contacted the exchanges for the signing of that ticker announcement?

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Norway I don't know it but I have a strong suspicion about a certain inventor of Bitcoin minus inflation control.

 

[adamstgbit]

Does anybody know who contacted the exchanges for the signing of that ticker announcement?

my guess would be bitfinex...

 

[AdrianX]

I'd like to supplement my observation and recommendation.

Segwit at best supplements Block Size with Block Weight, slightly increasing the transaction capacity of the 1MB Block Limit. Sgwit s inferior in that block size and block weight combined provides less transaction capacity than the equivalent amount of data if block limit was increased to match.

Segwit is a superior chose if:

1. you can not upgrade 1MB Block Limit ( we know this is false BU provides just one safe way to do this) - FUD is used to prevent the upgrade - the technical reasons fall flat on analysts.

2. all that is needed is a block size increase. (this is false framing, bitcoin needs much more.)

A transaction limit that is not dictated by the market has to be set through some other method, in which case who dictates the limit? In bitcoin there is only one consensus mechanism that can not be easily gamed, and that is PoW?

Bitcoin has designed into it the market mechanism that dictates an optimum technical limit.

Argument that segwit is a block size increase is technically true, only if you hold 1 and 2 to be true is it technically superior.

But segwit falls flat when you ask the question what is the technical reason to support keeping a block size limit? - I'd be interested to know what they are - I know we've debunked the ones we've been exposed too - so I'm asking the wrong people but that's my 0.02BTC.

 

[awemany]

But segwit falls flat when you ask the question what is the technical reason to support keeping a block size limit? - I'd be interested to know what they are - I know we've debunked the ones we've been exposed too - so I'm asking the wrong people but that's my 0.02BTC.

You shill, troll, and traitor, paid by Roger Ver, Haiyang, Jihan, Gavin as CIA director and the devil. Now we got you! You admitted that your going rate is more than $20 per post!!1!!!

 

[AdrianX]

jackpot - the competing consensus "mining reward" Proof of Post - I should have said transaction limit - not a block size limit, it's only miners who care about the block size and nodes who have to store and relay the blocks.

 

[xhiggy]

A UASF doesn't necessarily mean the transactions are segwit transactions, just that they are segwit compatible/signalling, no?

 

[VeritasSapere]

Bitcoin is under pressure, Bitcoin will split because of this pressure, this is a good thing, just like the splitting of the atom this will release a massive amount of energy, potential energy that was always there within Bitcoin ready to be unleashed. The resulting explosion and shockwaves will reverberate across time and will be far reaching, profoundly life changing, historically significant, more then just a revolution, but an evolution towards a greater state of civilization.

 

[79b79aa8]

"Bitcoin's value is in its incredible developers."

total amount of BTC held by such opinionmakers: < 0.5.

on a similar level of cluelessness, one has to wonder about AmateurGeorge from bitfury threatening to sue devs across all jurisdictions for writing software not to his liking.

i mean, really . . .

on a different note, just logged into GDAX and they have implemented margin trading. had not seen this announced anywhere.

 

[Norway]

I was just waiting for someone at /r/bitcoin to suggest a transition to Proof of Stake, lol!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60kmb1/why_isnt_proof_of_stake_relatively_easy_to/

I guess they don't understand that the "old coins" side with BU, he he.

 

[adamstgbit]

A UASF doesn't necessarily mean the transactions are segwit transactions, just that they are segwit compatible/signalling, no?

correct.
i mean unless they do a UAHF?

 

[freetrader]

Does anybody know who contacted the exchanges for the signing of that ticker announcement?

However, spreading is obviously not the same as contacting. So we don't know who contacted the exchanges. Only that Samson Mow probably knows.

It's all a bit water under the bridge at this point - exchanges are starting to prepare reasonable statements about their policies on the upcoming fork(s). It's looking better.

 

[AdrianX]

and I've been permanently banned from r/bitcoin.

the reason:

Back to spreading fud despite being given another chance:

the offending statements:

....If you're interested you'll need to ping me because if I link to it I'll be censored.

and

Segwit can't activate before the block size is removed.

the first one being mater of fact - a good 25% of my posts were removed, and all links to www.bitco.in get auto moderated

and this whole thread Thanking Satoshi was removed when I was up-voted - after I thanked satoshi for an incredible design - quoting him and explaining how bitcoin worked. pb1x - Suspected to be Greg Maxwell ended all threads in very angry tone - the one that got me the most "LN channels implemented with SegWit can stay open indefinitely" like that's not a threat to blockchain fees. - I bet that the one line that earned Blockstream the $75 million investment.

The second offending statement is not true on its own, but in the context of the economic argument I was making - we need a block size limit increase before we implant segwit - Segwit can't activate before the block size is removed if we want to keep the existing security incentive.

Bitsuryyyy....- the censorship is increasing.

 

[freetrader]

 

[adamstgbit]

 

[AdrianX]

I never thought that the vast majority 43% of the bitcoin community on a random day would get behind BU. - that is amazing but horrid framing on Luke's part - calling a bitcoin upgrade and decentralized decision making "conceding" that BS

28% of the of the community look utterly brainwashed.
22% will support small blocks to the end for no reason.
and 7% crazy - cant hard for because its dangerous - But will hard fork to keep going.

We should not give up now we are so close, 5 years to get here - jut another 6-12 month and I think people will get to understand they are fighting their own ignorance, and we'll have a safe transaction limit increase.

 

[adamstgbit]

OMFG! lol!
"expect maybe poeple who pay them"