Pro tip: Zoom out to a time frame longer than 4 hour candles.
Topic: Major DUMP incoming due to upcoming BUChina hardfork (Read 4234 times)
Pro tip: Zoom out to a time frame longer than 4 hour candles.
China miners are about to hijack Bitcoin and cause a contentious hardfork splitting the Bitcoin blockchain.
Think the ETF rejection will be bad? Wait for the massive dump due to the Chinese!
Prediction: ETF rejection dump, MAJOR BUChina hardfork dump, hello $200 my old friend…
I know, I know, I sound like the duckmeister…
It always amazes me how stupid people can be. Thinking giving more control to miners than they already have is a good idea. With mining centralizing in China, that is just giving Bitcoin over to the Chinese. I have no idea why anyone would think that is a good idea…
When China destroys Bitcoin, everyone will wish they stuck with Core but it will be too late!
PS. I hope I am wrong.
Think the ETF rejection will be bad? Wait for the massive dump due to the Chinese!
Prediction: ETF rejection dump, MAJOR BUChina hardfork dump, hello $200 my old friend…
I know, I know, I sound like the duckmeister…
It always amazes me how stupid people can be. Thinking giving more control to miners than they already have is a good idea. With mining centralizing in China, that is just giving Bitcoin over to the Chinese. I have no idea why anyone would think that is a good idea…
When China destroys Bitcoin, everyone will wish they stuck with Core but it will be too late!
PS. I hope I am wrong.
Obvious answer = wrong
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
we are now facing a much more important scarce resource: room on the blocks. Transactions. Transactions will become "centralized", because they will be so expensive (and so unreliable unless you have partnered with a miner) that only big financial institutions will be able to do so. At a frozen transaction rate of the order of 2 or 3 transactions per second world wide, this is as of now the most scarce resource in bitcoin. Hence, bitcoin IOU will allow centralization of bitcoin transaction wallets to occur in financial institutions, making deals with miners to get their transactions on the chain.
Why do you suppose that many posters here do not under this basic idea and only see the other side of centralization from bigger blocks?
Aoh.. the party is over.
Time to sell off now. I can't wait for 3 longgg days to be in bankrupt mode if the estimations are to be true.
Yes weak hands I have been holding on with for all this time.
Time to sell off now. I can't wait for 3 longgg days to be in bankrupt mode if the estimations are to be true.
Yes weak hands I have been holding on with for all this time.
...to whom he handed over the keys to the metaphorical castle? Be rational.
I think you need to look back into history to understand what exactly happened. I don't have to 'look back into history'... I watched it unfold in real time. If you have a case to make, then make it.
No one is more invested than miners, pretty sure they want what's best for bitcoin, their operations cost millions and are very sensitive to bitcoins price, they are just trying to do what's best and protect their investment.
No, miners don't do "what is best for bitcoin" they do what is best for them. Whatever is best for bitcoin, but is worse for them, suffers from the tragedy of the commons.
What can be best for bitcoin but worse for miners?
I also said they're protecting their investment...
No one is more invested than miners, pretty sure they want what's best for bitcoin, their operations cost millions and are very sensitive to bitcoins price, they are just trying to do what's best and protect their investment.
No, miners don't do "what is best for bitcoin" they do what is best for them. Whatever is best for bitcoin, but is worse for them, suffers from the tragedy of the commons.
Do you support centralization, yes or no? If no, how can you justify supporting BU? Please explain this to me.
Centralization is unavoidable in the long run, it was built into bitcoin from the start. The only question is, how long can bitcoin remain relatively decentralized ? Centralization happens because of economies of scale in the use of scarce resources. PoW is such a thing where economies of scale happen ; but we are now facing a much more important scarce resource: room on the blocks. Transactions. Transactions will become "centralized", because they will be so expensive (and so unreliable unless you have partnered with a miner) that only big financial institutions will be able to do so. At a frozen transaction rate of the order of 2 or 3 transactions per second world wide, this is as of now the most scarce resource in bitcoin. Hence, bitcoin IOU will allow centralization of bitcoin transaction wallets to occur in financial institutions, making deals with miners to get their transactions on the chain.
I don't really see the logic in miners trying to devalue the product they are producing.
Someone investing time and money would not want the price to drop.
It would be some outside entity that is trying to destroy bitcoin- major banks, government etc.
Someone investing time and money would not want the price to drop.
It would be some outside entity that is trying to destroy bitcoin- major banks, government etc.
No one is more invested than miners, pretty sure they want what's best for bitcoin, their operations cost millions and are very sensitive to bitcoins price, they are just trying to do what's best and protect their investment.
that is a very good point about miners but also don't forget that someone who has only invested in mining equipment and is mining does not necessarily have knowledge about bitcoin.
i am not talking about a particular person or pool but this is something that we need to have in our mind.
If it happens the same thing as with Ethereum, we are all making a pretty good buck, Market Cap combined after the fork is higher than previous, plus now it is at an all time high.
Don't know what people are afraid of...
Don't know what people are afraid of...
Indeed, when there's so much dissent, normally, a hard fork is best, so that each community can continue in his consensus. But the problem is that the essential value proposition of bitcoin over all other altcoins is its "first mover" effect. Most all the rest of bitcoin is better done in some or other altcoin, but the moral highground of being the first mover is what holds bitcoin at the top.
A hard fork turns the forked bitcoin into a mere altcoin, but with more primitive technology than its competitors. This is why bitcoin, as long as it has this "first mover" advantage, will not fork. The forkers will lose a significant market cap as they now have an alt coin.
The only hope for forkers is to get >95% consensus so that the original bitcoin dies, and the new altcoin can continue as "bitcoin". But such consensus will never ever be reached again, as we are talking about scarcity parameters which are protected by the immutability mechanism that made bitcoin great.
I don't really see the logic in miners trying to devalue the product they are producing.
Someone investing time and money would not want the price to drop.
It would be some outside entity that is trying to destroy bitcoin- major banks, government etc.
Someone investing time and money would not want the price to drop.
It would be some outside entity that is trying to destroy bitcoin- major banks, government etc.
No one is more invested than miners, pretty sure they want what's best for bitcoin, their operations cost millions and are very sensitive to bitcoins price, they are just trying to do what's best and protect their investment.
...to whom he handed over the keys to the metaphorical castle? Be rational.
I think you need to look back into history to understand what exactly happened. Well i think you're wrong again. He said this:
Anyway, I dont care -- believe whatever you want.
He couldn't have predicted the massive ASIC centralization. In the case that he did, he is wrong and thus his statements should be rejected.Quote
Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware
Anyway, I dont care -- believe whatever you want.
I don't really see the logic in miners trying to devalue the product they are producing.
Someone investing time and money would not want the price to drop.
It would be some outside entity that is trying to destroy bitcoin- major banks, government etc.
Miners are mere puppets, same as the BU project/folk. Someone investing time and money would not want the price to drop.
It would be some outside entity that is trying to destroy bitcoin- major banks, government etc.
I don't really see the logic in miners trying to devalue the product they are producing.
Someone investing time and money would not want the price to drop.
It would be some outside entity that is trying to destroy bitcoin- major banks, government etc.
Someone investing time and money would not want the price to drop.
It would be some outside entity that is trying to destroy bitcoin- major banks, government etc.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
And let me tell you something else, Satoshi never envisioned centralized mining in China or mega mines with ASICs when he wrote the white paper.
Well i think you're wrong again. He said this:
Quote
Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware
Anyway, I dont care -- believe whatever you want.
We all know why Satoshi left anyways. Hint: Due to a Craig Wright fanboy.
...to whom he handed over the keys to the metaphorical castle? Be rational.
why are we even discussing this and calling it "fork" as in it is a bad thing.
aren't we supposed to give in to the majority vote? if majority voted for Segwit or BU then accept it?
No. We are talking about consensus and not a majority vote. Bitcoin is not a democracy. In the case of a majority vote, all you did was create an altcoin regardless of whether it has more hash power or not.taren't we supposed to give in to the majority vote? if majority voted for Segwit or BU then accept it?
And let me tell you something else, Satoshi never envisioned centralized mining in China or mega mines with ASICs when he wrote the white paper. He envisioned decentralized mining, with people mining in their homes on PCs. It is an unfortunate flaw of Bitcoin.
Satoshi is not a time traveler. His predictions, and some visions, are irrelevant today. The understanding and the technology behind Bitcoin is by far different than it used to be. We all know why Satoshi left anyways. Hint: Due to a Craig Wright fanboy.I would say that this will not result into a dump! For sure not all chinese bitcoiners will follow whatever that hard fork will happen. Probably only a portion of them will follow that hard fork. I would probably have a minimal effect but not to a point that there would be a mass panic resulting to another big drop in prices.
I would say that this will result in your continuing to shit post. 
I would say that this will not result into a dump! For sure not all chinese bitcoiners will follow whatever that hard fork will happen. Probably only a portion of them will follow that hard fork. I would probably have a minimal effect but not to a point that there would be a mass panic resulting to another big drop in prices.
And let me tell you something else, Satoshi never envisioned centralized mining in China or mega mines with ASICs when he wrote the white paper. He envisioned decentralized mining, with people mining in their homes on PCs.
Quote from: satoshi
At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
Here is the source of that quote in context:
https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09964.html
And let me tell you something else, Satoshi never envisioned centralized mining in China or mega mines with ASICs when he wrote the white paper. He envisioned decentralized mining, with people mining in their homes on PCs.
Quote from: satoshi
At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
why are we even discussing this and calling it "fork" as in it is a bad thing.
aren't we supposed to give in to the majority vote? if majority voted for Segwit or BU then accept it?
sorry to ask this but i just don't get it, one mining pool showed a tiny bit of interest in showing support for another proposal and this topic shows up here calling the doomsday? why? it is still a very long way to (i think it was 75%)!
aren't we supposed to give in to the majority vote? if majority voted for Segwit or BU then accept it?
sorry to ask this but i just don't get it, one mining pool showed a tiny bit of interest in showing support for another proposal and this topic shows up here calling the doomsday? why? it is still a very long way to (i think it was 75%)!
How long do you plan to wait to speak up? 30% (almost there), 40, 50, 60?? Now is the time to stand against the hijacking of Bitcoin
Jump to: