Topic: @RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC. - page 26. (Read 64851 times)

I assume a "split" occurring simply because no split would mean no bet would mean no point discussing.

They could do that, and roger has also threatened to fork Bitcoin with a low hash rate.
But the whole security principle of Bitcoin is the hash rate.
1% hash security cannot split away from the 99% hash security, and hold a higher valuation.
Hash power is what makes bitcoin secure and believable and valuable. That is the entire foundation of Bitcoin.

Roger could just buy into that peon coin cheaply, anytime.

I can understand those questioning Roger's sanity (I wouldn't want to risk that). But those that doubt his veracity would be well-served to review this first:

http://www.coindesk.com/entrepreneur-roger-ver-1m-bitcoin-donation/

He's not doing it with his BTC, he's getting more BTC for his future BTU. After the deal, he will have no BTU and double the BTC.

Which sounds like brilliant business to me.

Loaded fair play to you man, this is really putting your money where your mouth is, and that takes balls.  Hats off.  i have a very small amount of bitcoin and i wouldn't have the balls to do this with them.  

But not 150 spare coins for BTUCoin.com and BTUCoins.com ?

Those are no brainers, I hope core doesn't see them.

Miners don't set the rules. Miners choose the longest chain within the same rules.

If it's listed in exchanges as BTC it's BTC. I'd base it on the conditions from BitFinex, but with a provision that they both have to exist to execute, and the exchange is 1:1 rather than by traded price. I think that would make it fair. If only one exists, making swaps won't be possible.

I guess they would need to define what constitutes a network split.  Conceivably 1% could keep mining, fork their own PoW to
adjust difficult and and create some kind of peon coin.  But even then, who knows, it could get popular later.

 

HAHAHA dream on.

If BTC trades as BTC and it's understood to be BTC, it's BTC.

So this is what they are going to use to backtrack?

Unsurprising I guess.

That maybe what Loaded thinks, but is not true.

As i have shown in my example situation of 99% / 1% hash power. Does Loaded still think he can win?
(i know it wont happen like that)

If Loaded is correct, then we don't need miners anymore?

Well , not exactly.  OP believes Core will have economic majority even if the miners disagree.
Roger presumably thinks otherwise.

The only way Roger can "lose" in this chain split swap is if BU forks with too low hash power.
(Roger must be sure that BU will not activate before "hash power is high enough", and will not be "activated" by rogue actors with ill intent)

To illustrate, if a chain split occurred with BU having 99% hash power support at activation, Core 1%, there is no conceivable way Roger can "lose".
A 1% chain is insecure and untrustworthy, right, that is how Bitcoin works?

Now, a 99% / 1% split is "unrealistic" IRL for any consensus mechanism, so Roger may well assess hash % with achievability IRL, and decide 80% hash power supporting BU is both achievable and workable consensus. (and in a fight, 80% hash power should beat 20% hash power, no?)

If BU never achieve 80% and therefore never activate, no split will occur, bet is void.



Yes maybe, but is now putting in "no further development" opt out clauses?


Is Loaded now saying BU must launch "as it exists today" seemingly because "today SegWit + LN appears to be ready to go".
Shouldn't it be "BU must split the chain before segwit adoption" as "SegWit + LN appears to be ready to go"?
That is fair consensus timescale. I thought this bet was about whenever BU split the chain, Core btc would still be more valuable?

All bitcoiners have to trust the miners to not activate dodgy code, weather that be BU or Segwit.

Why does anyone with a high net worth continue to work? I'm in it to protect and grow my investment.

I am only entering this from a win-win-win perspective.

If a fork occurs are things are, the vast economic majority is with Core and those coins will be more valuable. Win.

If it pressures BU into not forking, win, because the combined value of the post-fork coins is very likely to be below the pre-fork value.

If it pressures BU to make improvements, I reserve the right reevaluate the transaction. Win because at least the combined value will be higher.

Because with traders, it is all about being in the game.

I guess loaded wants to test if ver puts the money where is mouth is
verry simple notting more notthing less.

I'd like to join and swap my future BTU for BTC. I have way less than loaded but still a significant amount. I can provide further proof in private.

I'd like a clarification from MemoryDealers if he is willing to accept further offers.

Let me ask you a question just to satisfy my own curiosity and discover the reason for your recent "business transaction" proposition to Ver. You are "loaded". I assume you live in a beautiful home with all the modern appointments. Surely you must have fine automobiles at your disposal and take worldwide vacations with the same frequency that other people change their underwear. In essence, you want for nothing. Your stake in the "business transaction" you're proposing is worth upwards of $60 million. With that kind of money, why would you not simply cash out, retire, and enjoy everything the world has to offer? Instead, you leverage your millions to prove a point? I don't get it.

My sentiments exactly and why I'm willing to make a similar business transaction with Roger via a pool if available.

Lol, you two are obsessed with me. Why not refute what I say instead of trolling (you can't)

From my perspective at least, this is not a bet, it's a business transaction. My motivations are 90% profit and 10% because I do not foresee BU as it exists today succeeding with the lack of code review and still unsolved EC divergence. Nothing prevents a miner from switching to the Core chain and orphaning the entire BU chain if it becomes profitable to do so.

As for big vs small, I supported 2MB last year when there was no working implementation of LN. Today SegWit + LN appears to be ready to go. I believe that the BU miners are not looking at the bigger picture. On chain fees can continue to rise even while a large number of transactions move to LN. There is no issue paying a $10 fee to open a reusable channel, while the same fee for a single transaction is extreme. SW already offers 2MB, the only difference seems to be where the signatures are stored.

Here's my attempt at making the terms of my bet with RHavar unambiguous:

1. A "network upgrade event" is defined to have occurred if the blockchain (or one side of the blockchain should a split occur) contains a block larger than 1 MB and at least 72 blocks have been built on top of it.  These blocks must be built using the current PoW algorithm and with no reset or fork-based reduction in the difficulty.

2. Conditions where RHavar wins the bet:

   - A "network upgrade event" occurs, resulting in a blockchain split, and at least 2100 blocks are built on the "small block" side of the split (i.e, the blockchain branch that contains no blocks larger than 1 MB) within 4 months (120 days) of the splitting point.  The blocks must be built using the current PoW algorithm and with no reset or fork-based reduction in the difficulty.
  
3.  Conditions where Peter R wins the bet:

   - A "network upgrade event" occurs and the blockchain contains at least one block larger than 1 MB and no blockchain split occurs.
   - A "network upgrade event" occurs and the blockchain contains at least one block larger than 1 MB and 2100 full-difficulty regular-PoW blocks are not built on the small-block chain within the 120 day window.
   - Should the minority chain become unusable for whatever reason prior to reaching 2100 regular-PoW/full-difficulty blocks, thereby requiring a change in PoW or a reset or reduction in difficulty in order to keep it alive, then Peter R wins the bet provided the big-block side of the blockchain contains a block larger than 1 MB.    

4. Conditions for a draw (Peter R and RHavar receive their wagers back)

   - No "network upgrade event" occurs between now and 31 December 2017.