Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[lunar]

So i'm sure we didn't miss this at the time? It's probably buried under 300 pages of other hypocrisy and double dealings that have gone on over the last few years. Still, what with todays reddit thread, it's a timely reminder of possible ulterior motives behind segwit and sidechains.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/silbert-s-digital-currency-group-announces-major-fundraise-from-mastercard-cibc-and-others-1445998970/

​

With Bitcoin limited to 3Tx/s.

Once a block is full, there are some things money just can't buy !
For everything else there is Segwit&Sidechains

Just speculation, but it looks and smells funny.

 

[Norway]

VIEW IT FROM THE FLIP SIDE:

Explain to people you meet how fiat is destroyed.

"Did you know that when you pay down USD 200 on your house to the bank, those dollars are actually destroyed into thin air?"

 

[awemany]

@lunar: In that light:
I think assuming the payment processors are sweating over Bitcoin (and especially one with an open-ended blocksize!) is a no-brainer. No real conspiracy needed, he's pretty much saying it outright. Transcribing from the video, emphasis mine:

Now, we at Mastercard are not completely comfortable with the idea of cryptocurrencies. Largely because they goes against the whole principle that we have established our business on. Which is really moving to a world beyond cash. And ensuring greater transparency and security and simplicity in the way people live their lives. If you think about it: Cash is a problem for a number of countries. Cash really facilitates anonymity, it facilitates illegal activity, it facilitates tax avoidance, and a range of other things that aren't going to drive an efficiency in the economy. Trust is a critical component of any payment system.

Also, a bit later later:

Why does somebody need to be anonymous?

Now, why so many places in the world have pretty much only two dominant U.S. credit card companies (VISA, Mastercard) is another interesting thing to think about.

But you do not even really need to read between the lines above to get a good grip on where the journey was planned to go by the payment processors and governments, before Bitcoin appeared.
(And restoring this original journey is what is on their collective minds right now. Not a conspiracy, it is pretty much simply what politicians and payment processors (as above) outright say if you actually listen to them)

 

[Zarathustra]

I guess the Bitcoin roadmap will be like this:

Segwit2x → Game over for BSCore → Decentralized client landscape → nullification of the discount poison pill with the next upgrade → Blocksize based on Emergent Consensus

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

What do you think about SegWit2x alpha?

I don't specifically like that it takes a step to SegWit and UASF, while delaying the blocksize hf.

On the other side, Jeff Garzik seems to get things right.

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/11#issuecomment-306851716

He knows that SegWit will not get immediately 2mb, but will be a slow rollout. The group seems to know that SegWit will be too little, too late, and they are willing to work and execute a 2mb hf.

Emergent Consensus might get its chance later, if 2 mb + segwit are full again.

 

[awemany]

@Christoph Bergmann : Yes. There's nothing hard about implementing activation of 2MB and SW at the same time.

The miners agreeing to delaying the HF will be disastrous.

@Zarathustra : Seems like you became quite the optimist with SegWit2X, seeing all the SegWit code just as Bitcoin's permanent battle scar.

But I see the 'fool me twice' clearly on the horizon, especially with the 'yeah let's do SW now and HF later'.

As if we haven't heard that for years now.

 

[lunar]

Not a fan. Sad to say I've seen and heard enough, if Segwit gets in i'm out. I can't rationally explain why a simple blocksize increase - so obvious and economically beneficial to all bitcoin holders would be rejected?

​

That said ... I'll only believe it when I see it. I still think everyone is hiding their true intentions and the game is afoot. ;-)

 

[AdrianX]

I guess the Bitcoin roadmap will be like this:

Segwit2x → Game over for BSCore → Decentralized client landscape → nullification of the discount poison pill with the next upgrade → Blocksize based on Emergent Consensus

FTFU

Segwit2x → Game over for BSCore → Reset all efforts on decentralized client landscape, start over → Decentralized clients follow → Implementation of Layer 2 → retry to scale the blockkchain.
[doublepost=1497654781][/doublepost]

 

[majamalu]

Not a fan. Sad to say I've seen and heard enough, if Segwit gets in i'm out. I can't rationally explain why a simple blocksize increase - so obvious and economically beneficial to all bitcoin holders would be rejected?

Bitcoin is not a sprint but a marathon. You don't train for a sprint with the intention of competing in a marathon.

The people of Bitcoinland will have to get used to live under threat of invasion -- before and after the fall of Blockstream --, always perfecting the art of repelling invaders.

 

[AdrianX]

LOL that is so on the money @majamalu bitcoin was not attacked when it was not big enough to be a threat, it's getting real now attackers are not going to throw stones at bitcoin's armored plating, they going to find cracks and leverage them wherever they can.

 

[lunar]

@majamalu These last few years of the race have been exhausting. To me it segwit fundamentally changes the risk profile, along with all the patent insinuations going around, It would call for a significant rebalancing of the portfolio. I'd perhaps drop down to 10-20% bitcoin, and finally start exploring other currencies.

 

[majamalu]

I feel you, and I think it's not unreasonable to look at alternatives as a hedge. But don't you think that any crypto will face the same kind of problems once they start to develop strong network effects? I'm sure TPTB will try to control any crypto that could become a new standard.

Also, selling 80-90% of your btc holdings will greatly diminish your influence in Bitcoinland. 5-10% should be enough to calm your nerves. If you are exhausted, sell 5-10%, take a brake from the drama, and come back when you are ready. We need sane people.

 

[AdrianX]

mmm... selling has this euphoric effect

 

[Zarathustra]

@Zarathustra : Seems like you became quite the optimist with SegWit2X, seeing all the SegWit code just as Bitcoin's permanent battle scar.

But I see the 'fool me twice' clearly on the horizon, especially with the 'yeah let's do SW now and HF later'.

As if we haven't heard that for years now.[/USER]

They will try to fool the miners again, and I think it's true that you can fool a majority of the miners some of the time, and some of the miners all the time, but you cannot fool a majority of the miners all the time.
If I would believe that Bitcoin constitutes itself by a majority of such dumb miners, I would have sold all Bitcoins already, and not just one third of them.

HF 3 month later than Segwit has the advantage to show that Segwit does not increase capacity in any meaningful way. The fees will stay high and the txs slow. The disadvantage is another 4-5 months of flippening.

 

[flipperfish]

There's nothing hard about implementing activation of 2MB and SW at the same time.

The miners agreeing to delaying the HF will be disastrous.

But with the way it's implemented right now, there is no delaying beyond the 3 months. Once bit 4 locks in, this will also trigger acceptance of 2mb blocks 3 months later. At least, that's how I interpret this line: https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/blob/3d7172ce084b684d431833741ca3fad853648db9/src/validation.cpp#L3082 (with BIP102_FORK_BUFFER == 144 * 90, which equals 90 days).

Of course, if a miner changes the code, this will not be true. But he would risk orphaning a block (that's not built upon a then valid >1mb block).

 

[Dusty]

51% attack in Bitcoin without Segwit:

• attacker can reverse only transactions in the last few blocks
  
  
• attacker can only reverse payments from coin stashes they already control
  
  
• attacker must coordinate a logistically elaborate fraud operation to get sizable amounts

With Segwit:

• attacker can grab the entire segcoin ledger (essentially all the bitcoins if Core would have its way)
  
  
• attacker needs no special set up to pull this off
  
  
• the prize for attackers grows as Segwit use grows

Actually, I'm quite sure this would'nt work: when segwit gets activated, also all the non mining nodes of the network would be updated and they know how to validate segwit transactions, so a block with an invalid transaction would be rejected by them, and the chain of the malevolent miners discarded (i.e.: no economic activity on it).

That's the same situation where a majority of miners would decide to raise the block reward and for example bring it back to 50 btc/block: their blocks would be discarded immediately and the good chain would have much more frequent blocks, but good ones until the difficulty adjusts.

EDIT: wording

 

[awemany]

HF 3 month later than Segwit has the advantage to show that Segwit does not increase capacity in any meaningful way. The fees will stay high and the txs slow. The disadvantage is another 4-5 months of flippening.

Someone quipped on reddit (paraphrasing from memory, can't remember the exact quote) regarding this:

"So let's get shot to show that getting shot is bad and will lead to injury."

There's no sane reason why the supposed HF is so much later than the SF.

 

[lunar]

But don't you think that any crypto will face the same kind of problems once they start to develop strong network effects? I'm sure TPTB will try to control any crypto that could become a new standard.

I totally agree, but the fact that such a controversial and bloated solution with unknown economic consequences, can get shoe-horned in, using social media manipulation, in preference to the obvious and much more beneficial one, tells me Nakamoto consensus is gameable.

If you accept that premise (complex sentence aside ) then TPTB have won the battle, for us to win the war, (Global P2P sound money) we must change the rules. My instinct tells me the solution is total cryptoanarchy on a protocol level. We are already there to a certain extent and this is working in our favour, multiple sound money coins competing in a free market forces them all to behave. You can't inflate one without the other noticing. Unfortunately this sets the whole revolution back maybe a decade, as first we have a battle of the uncontrollable protocols.

So thats one direction, the other is to keep fighting over the one true ledger, in some sort of eternal Herculean propaganda tug of war with unknown and incredibly powerful enemies hell bent on control. Take a break is the correct answer. Perhaps an extended hiking expedition.

​

 

[awemany]

Here's an even better one, thanks to /u/1s44c on reddit, on why we should do SegWit first to get bigger blocks:

How to buy bread:

Drink Cyanide -> Call ambulance -> Hope the hospital can fix you -> On way back from hospital visit bread shop.

 

[lunar]

@mwilcox pointed out this great lecture by Prof. Robert Sapolsky on some of the theory behind naturally repeating patterns, and how they evolve into fractals and emergent complexity. If you're short of time the good stuff starts at ~40 mins, but I highly recommend the entire thing, it was fascinating. Should be a prerequisite watch for BU members, to understand why we need emergent consensus.
( Lame camera guy missed some of the slides )

​

Enjoy.