Topic: Bitcoin and Bitcoin Classic (Read 1402 times)

Your layers (dimensions) are mutually exclusive

You basically talk about Bitcoin value which stems from its transactional utility (i.e. from Bitcoin use as a means of payment) in your convoluted way but you still ignore the fact that this utility is minuscule at best (or just outright ridiculous). Most of Bitcoin value comes out of sheer speculation, and that's where its utility exactly equals its nominal price (remember, "buy low sell high"). As you can easily guess, exchanges are the place where this speculative utility is born, just like the transactional utility is brought about by merchants accepting Bitcoin as a means of payment for their goods. The lesson to take home is that the impact of exchanges is devastatingly overwhelming that of merchants and which can be safely discarded for most intents and purposes

im not being contradictory at all, i just see things layers/dimensions deeper than most

as always you think 'value' means price

but value is utility

anyone can have a coin with a large market cap
anyone can cause a swing in the price

but if you went to use bitcoin to buy something real.. and found out that the merchant tools (shopping cart) was using a different chain.. then your stuck with a coin that cant buy real things.

..
as for the exchanges, most exchanges will offer swaps between the different chains.. thats where exchanges get their profits. from people doing swaps

..

ok lets simplify it for many people
instead of thinking about price of bscoin(segwit) bitcoin(legacy/classic) bitmaincoin(bitmains alt) and the fight for price.

imagine coinbase, bitpay, purse, gyft and other real world purchase utility flipped to use litecoin for real world goods purchasing

now imagine the impact of merchant services deciding a certain coin for utility.. and let that play into your scenarios.. knowing it has nothing to do with which 'bitcoin' has biggest price..

once you do that and come to that realisation.. and ran a few cause/affect scenario's... simply replace the word litecoin for any of the bitcoin upcoming forks.. and realise the same applies. its not due to 'price' but due to utility and decisions of services

The bitcoin that will allow for scaling via larger blocks will always win and be the true bitcoin.

If you look for popularity wise, then the bitcoins is always an upper hand, but if you look for price wise, we can not buy more bitcoins because the price is too high. With that money, we can buy more Classic coins. And the potentiality of a classic is very high to compare Bitcoins. So I will now show interest on bitcoins how much possible that many classics I will buy and hold it in until August 1st.

I don't see a lot of sense in what you want to tell

Basically, you say that things didn't get resolved because things didn't get that far. And now the parties are ready to reconcile and come to an agreement of sorts. I guess this is not how things work in real life for the most part. In other words, we may already be past a "point of no return", and someone is scripted to pull the trigger. But this is not my point at all. I'm losing money when Bitcoin goes down just like you, and the question is essentially about risks involved. Right now it is simply not worth the risk to keep your funds in bitcoins when you can just cash out or move your cryptowealth to Litecoin and forget about Bitcoin for the time being (metaphorically speaking)

I just figure the node operators and the miners moving forward together will naturally result in a smoother transition than the node operators declaring war on the miners and somehow trying to secure a chain without them being on board.  Escalation hasn't solved the problem so far and is probably a net contributor as to why it's taken as long to resolve this as it has.  The 4 way split can be avoided if the rather explosive signalling trend for SegWit2x continues.  If it activates before UASF, there will be no reason for Bitmaincoin to exist and all will be mostly well in the cryptoverse.



Bitcoin Core are developers.  All they can do is push code.  They aren't the ones who matter in terms of consensus.  That's down to nodes and miners.  And the two working in unison is stronger than the two trying to fight each other.  It's almost certain that some users and miners may try to stand in the way, but we'll have to see how it plays out.

I swear that I missed that reply of yours

You talk (further in your post) that we are going to move forward and all that, but did you ever ask yourself how we got there in the first place that we now should "claw our way out of this sordid quagmire"? This didn't begin all of a sudden a month ago. Things started to escalate since 2016 if not earlier. I remember the first transaction jam as early as in July, 2015, i.e. almost two years ago. Some folks had euphemistically called that  "testing Bitcoin limits". Now it is clear that it had been anything but that. And now we came to a possibility of a 4 way split, wtf. Why should we really hope for a "far smoother transition"? It looks more like Bitcoin slowly but surely turns into shit, and it is really fascinating to see people desperately clutch at it as if they had no choice

Ok I am hoping that this doesn't happen, even if it happens would it be Bitcoin unlimited rather than classic? Anyways here are my answers to your hypothetical question:
1) This is tough to predict, if the newer coin is better in BTC in all aspects it may gain popularity and surpass bitcoin but in the beginning, I think Bitcoin would be higher.
2)I think this is obvious, almost everyone will just some of that other coin just to check how it turns out if it profits almost everyone would buy back BTC.

bitcoin only one, never bitcoin classic , bitcoin unlimited or another bitcoin
if birth new bitcoin is only altcoin, if double bitcoin or more i think is bad bitcoin future

Won't bitcoin core simply block this with their version? A role flip? Stalemate?

I could have sworn we just had this conversation, but yes, the fiat price of Bitcoin may take a tumble, but in no way does that mean I'm interested in selling any crypto for fiat.  And I will be buying more BTC if the fiat price drops.  I'll keep holding some alts as well, including Litecoin, plus day trade with alts as may prove profitable in order to get more BTC and other cryptocurrencies in the end.

But hopefully the recent surge in support of SegWit2x will alleviate the risk of a 4 way split anyway, likely resulting in a far smoother transition than a UASF with minority hashpower (and meaning Bitmaincoin will never launch as a result).  I'm almost certain this is how we move forward and claw our way out of this sordid quagmire, so people should get behind it.  The miners certainly are.

We just hold our 100's of BTC. Don't care about the "split/fork". There is "reserved" hashrate to the tune of 30% that is sitting in two warehouses right now. 0 chance of > 1 chain.

Are you sure that Bitcoin won't lose as such?

I mean, no matter what chain "wins" in the end, the overall outcome might be highly negative for Bitcoin (something like "another such victory and I come back home alone"). I understand that big whales are not interested in Bitcoin turning toxic but I don't quite understand people who stick to Bitcoin like there's no other viable alternative which doesn't have these issues or already has them resolved (I refer to Litecoin here). Did you get married to Bitcoin or what?



It may be fun to watch but betting your financial well-being on that doesn't look like a good idea

Make that a 4 way split: 

https://cointelegraph.com/news/f2pool-announces-support-for-segwit2x
http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/06/17/chinese-mining-pools-support-segwit2x-aim-activation-july-31st/
http://www.coindesk.com/first-look-bitcoin-scaling-proposal-segwit2x-gets-alpha-release/

I wish it were some sort of joke, but we could genuinely find ourselves in a scenario where we've got the current 1MB chain, UASF, SegWit2x and Bitmaincoin all potentially running at the same time.  Things are certainly escalating quickly.  The word "clusterfuck" has never seemed more fitting.

If those are indeed the four options, I'd personally go with SegWit2x, but can't say I'd short the others.  Well... I'd obviously dump Bitmaincoin, heh.  There's no way that shit has a future.  But everything else has a high degree of uncertainty around it.  Hodl and enjoy the ride, I guess.  Longest chain wins.

Based on the name ; bitcoin of course.
But, there are some things to consider such as, which one is supported by majority and has the highest price will get more attention from traders and investors obviously. So, it is clear to keep both of it but prefer to the best one

Maybe because it is all very confusing everyone will go to support other coins like ETHEREUM and LITECOIN. We see that the ETH marketcap now is over 30 billions USD and LTC is gaining big ground the last few days. We will see a complete shift and I think Bitcoin will slowly fall behind, with it's forked brothers and sisters.

The BitMainCoin is the thing that least worries for that date, finally is another centralized altcoin and an attempt by the company to sell more mining equipment only and probably to get instamine it.

I don't want the UASF lobby to win the battle, but now it seems like they will have their way. Anyway I don't want to lose out just because I don't like UASF. I will support them, although reluctantly. I have already moved my coins to a secure wallet, and I am having the private keys with me. But I will not be selling BTC Classic immediately. I will wait for at least one year, before dumping them.

I assume he's referring to legacy chain bitcoin/new bitcoin (assuming that one of the chain splits becomes the majority chain) - treating it like ETH/ETC.
You do have a choice.  Most exchanges will give you the choice IMO, merchants aren't even that relevant anymore when it comes to the price considering how few of them there are.  

Regardless, you can decide which merchants/exchanges you spend at based on what they're accepting.  It's the idea of the economic majority that's fueling this whole UASF/UAHF thing.

You are making contradictory statements (as always)

It is no use supporting the coin which doesn't get traded (read listed) at major exchanges (and Coinbase is nowhere near being one). If we compare the impact of exchanges versus merchants on Bitcoin price, the latter will suck heavily as you yourself say ("pretty much all the coins will be on all the exchanges"). It should be obvious that most of Bitcoin value comes via exchanges, so Coinbase, Bitpay (or any other payment processor, for that matter) with their shopping cart API's will be utterly irrelevant if exchanges refuse to support a certain coin