Topic: How 2 Chainz Would Destroy Bitcoin (Read 1351 times)

Yeah I just meant it is hard to see it being profitable, at least at first. In other words most likely that initially:

original core coins value ≥ core coins after fork + xt coins

Only on the Core chain.
The XT chain (if it wins) will have knowledge of old and new coins so those coins will probably not be devalued.
Then again, the price depends on the buyers

Funny, I don't feel that need.  Maybe in part because I have value buried deep in the chain

Yes but if you have a dump truck, and you want a RS125, you don't tear apart the dump truck and strip it down to it's basic moving parts in an attempt to create a RS125 out of the dump truck. What you have to realize is that a split of bitcoin affects the value of BOTH CHAINS, so it is effectively a threat to both.

If Bitcoin is evolving into something you don't want it to be, then start your own genesis block and keep the properties you like. Don't try to eat off of Bitcoin's plate because it is already established and is evolving in a directly you don't like. You harm Bitcoin if you split the chain for reasons I have already articulated.

You need a separate chain with a separate genesis block if you want to avoid undermining the Value Storage Property of bitcoin which is predicated on a HARD 21 Million cap limit.

When I wanted to get around Sear's Point as fast as I could, I used an RS125.

When I wanted to move 100 yards of earth from one part of my property to another, I used a dump truck.

(True stories by the way.)

An RS125 and a Ford F750 dump truck have morphological similarities in that they have an internal combustion engine which generates power that is transferred through a drive train to one or more wheels.  A dump truck could get around Sear's Point, and an RS125 could move some dirt.  It would be possible to devise a machine which balanced the two functions, but it would not make much sense.

Bitcoin, and more generally crypto-currency, is in it's infancy.  The basic morphology is there but not really that much more.  It would be a reasonable time to go ahead and fork to achieve different (and often mutually exclusive) goals most effectively.  At least there is a strong argument that this is the case as I see things.

Elect a King! We need a trust authority! You obviously either are completely ignorant of what makes Bitcoin revolutionary or you actively seek the destruction of Bitcoin.



What gives gold it's STORAGE OF VALUE properties are it's scarcity. You can never just double the amount of gold in the world and instantly double the amount of gold you hold. This is what gives CONFIDENCE in gold as a STORE OF VALUE.

What you are proposing is THREAT to Bitcoin as a store of value. You propose a 50% devaluation that would result in the loss of confidence in bitcoin's scarcity as people would realize that if this can happen once, it can happen again and again and again, and everyone can just have as many bitcoins as they want by splitting the chain over and over and doubling their coins every time.

This effectively makes bitcoin as worthless as leaves.

You are way to focused on the 'money' aspect of things.  The 'capabilities' aspect is what is important to me personally.

That said, ya, I'm personally not above making lemonade out of lemons.  I'll exploit the shit out of the situation if I can.  That's a potential fringe benefit of getting a footprint in the pre-fork chain.

---

Your simplistic view is that the value basis of the Bitcoin solution is monolithic and static.  I suggest that that is to simplistic.  I'll explain:

Bitcoin has, locked within it, multiple sources of value.  They are there but not expressed at this time.  They are also mutually exclusive.  I'll simplify them to two.

 - One source of value can be best exposed by handing the solution off to (say) Google.  They can support expansion to epic levels as they have many other related things internet.  They can exploit monetization schemes denied to their lesser competitors and thus fund this immense system with probably a negative cost to the end user.  Some people consider this a win.  More power to them, and I'll be happy to join them for many of my exchange currency needs.  Just like I use Google to filter the 20,000 spam e-mails I get per day.

 - Another source of value is that Bitcoin is free of 'counter-party risk' like gold.  Separately, it is not possible for anyone really to tell me who I can and cannot transact with.  If I want to support Wikileaks because I feel that they are doing my country (the U.S.) a service in promoting transparency, I can use Bitcoin to do so.  I can also be as confident in the blockchain as a source-of-truth for my holdings as my ability to keep certain secrets (which I am good at when I put my mind to the task.)

These two things are mutually exclusive.  A split is the best way to expose both sources of value out into the '5th dimension.'

edits: slight

I am glad you posted about the duplicity (1 Bitcoin becoming 2 in different chains) as I have not thought about it that way. If, as you say (and probably will happen) inflation kicks in degrading the value of both coins, people will be obligued to hold onto the 2 chains to maintain their Bitcoins savings 

Or they might also sell their coins on a chain in favor of the other but... Which one? people will be forced to gamble if the two chains keep working.

The only way this could possibly work is if you guys started your own chain with your own genesis block. If you split the Bitcoin chain into two competing chains you will effectively have inflated and devalued bitcoin by 50% and also killed confidence in Bitcoin's scarcity and STORE OF VALUE function.

The only way I could be wrong about this is if after this split you are cheering on I would not have double the amount of bitcoins to spend. Would I not be able to spend bitcoins on both chains??? If my bitcoins are doubled, then you have killed bitcoin for everyone.

Well put.

I'm not threatened at all by two (or more) cyrpto-currency solutions taking their value basis from the current blockchain (which, thanks to Satoshi's 1MB patch, still fits on a single commodity-grade drive.)

I know what is important to me as a user and expect that there are a lot of others in my category.  Plenty to form a viable economy which addresses problems we have in our domain.

I go so far as to welcome the split because one of the biggest problems we have, as I see it, are people who have a diametrically opposed view of what is important and how to achieve it.  A 'divorce' is a perfectly rational and effective way to resolve such problems.

I think the major risk is that they set the bar too low. I don't think 75% is enough to be called "consensus" I prefer something like 90% personally.

I'm not aware that there is anything exists to confer that the scheduled fork is at all inevitable.

Says who?

My guess is that maybe people think that since there are two clients for bitcoins, one must have a lower value than the other one. In that particular scenario, one could actually sell the lower value coins over the other since they are still deemed as bitcoin. Idk how people think that they will actually have double bitcoins in this case.

You sure they're not joking about doubling their bitcoins for profit? I haven't seen anyone seriously advocating forking because they want more bitcoins. It's pretty obvious they would be devalued.

But this time, it involves a lot about politics, which isn't that good for the "decentralized" nature of bitcoin. Consensus does matter, yes, but at the end of the day, the economy will decide what is what and which is which.

Bitcoin has forked before. The sky didn't fall.

This whole fork business is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. People who only grasp the basics of Bitcoin must be so confused now.. it aint even funny. The psychology behind the Bitcoin protocol was always that

the basic cornerstones of the code will stay the same, and only cosmetic changes will be done to scale it. These people will now begin to wonder, what changes will be done next? If 2 guys can rally enough support

to force a hardfork, it might not be too far fetched to think that a group of people could do the same to change the more important parts of Bitcoin. I know consensus is needed for these changes, but with enough

"dark" tactics, this might be possible too. 

Yes, show me where and how to get it for $150 at the moment. I am sure everybody here would like to know this, if not to increase their personal stash, then at least to get some arbitrage action.

Where do you get this info? If true I'm gonna hold of buying my monthly portion of bitcoin for a bit more Don't want to see its value halve over the week

Bitcoin is already selling below 150 on dark pools.