Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 18. (Read 120014 times)

Inflation is not an illusion. Some people really need to stay away from it.

Yeah, the ATH is hard to get logically. Let me construct a weired logic for the drop here.

We all wonder about the monetizing agenda of blockstream.

A way to earn money is maybe: Buy now!

Why?

The most triggy part of the agenda was to find a coded solution, that would totally split the community into consumers and miners, where the dull big miners might pay them a little share on either 2nd layer fees or licence.

Or, if that doesn't play out, speculate with the predictable and currently seen unclear situation of potential chain split,  buy now cheap coins and later join back into consensus beeing the rich heros....

 

If anyone were to buy Bitcoin because they needed it, they would become the 1st person to ever do so.  

It's all about demand. People buy it because they need it. Maybe there are people willing to pay a lot more in some places in the world...

Remind me, again, the logical reason why it was up that high in the 1st place 

At least they proved themselves competent in crashing the market.

I hope they are bluffing. In my opinion they are playing a dangerous and stupid game. Indeed drama and overt arrogance. I sometimes get the feeling that these people may be intellectually smart but probably have the mental maturity of a 10 year old. *Sigh*

You are right. Sorry I should've been more clear and not have used that as a comparison, but I only meant it to refer to a hard fork - ie a chain split.

Not that I think much of this...but remember if USAF activates...bitmain claims they are gonna go UAHF and split.....(drama always drama)

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitmain-responds-uasf-another-hard-fork-announcement/

The entire fundamental logic structure is different here. This is about choosing the "best" path forward, that was about changing the entire premise of immutability (due to a non-protocol related incident).  

Oh no doubt UASF will activate it. But I worry about the Chinese mega miners / mega pools. If they are playing a ruse it could get messy. I would really like to avoid an ETH - ETC scenario. You may be able to grab cheap bitcoin but at the end of it you'll end up with two or more "bitcoins" and your cheap bitcoins may not be so valuable in aggregate as when bitcoin was one whole entity.

Anyways, I don't want to spread FUD. Good on you that you are so chill about it!

Why? I'm totally chilled! Never will I run this client! And when others are freaking out right now and sell their coins I will gladly pick them up. If BTC1 messes it up to activate SegWit then BIP148 UASF will do it. So no worries here!

"The SegWit2x development team aims for July 21st to be the day that BTC1 nodes are actually up and running, and, importantly, the day that miner signaling should commence."

-bitcoin magazine

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/countdown-segwit-these-are-dates-keep-eye/

Damn this is cutting it really close. I bet a lot of bitcoiners are puckering up their butt cheeks now  

His bias shows quite clearly.
There's a perverse irony in any stance that "blames" the majority of miners for "creating" a fork by changing nothing and that fork is actually due to a minority. 

Well is this Segwit2x +2mb version gonna be up in time by August 1st or are we gonna have a complete

'cluster party' ?

This guy lays it out.......I am not encouraged

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-miners-miss-first-bip-148-deadline/

You could begin the discussion as follows: "Once you have the Cat's herded...it is a simple step to......."

So, like the above 'cat herding' I don't see this being up in time and working. (or if 'rushed' ..making its own unintentional fork)

hope I am incorrect though

Good point. Would you think, that all that drama and meetings werent completely needed if there never ever had been such 1MB limit in the top level consensus rules, but rather every entity hat to limit 'spam' or max size by own definition and duties keeping the Nash equilibrium up and running?

My point was that if the decentralized system is well-designed, then entities meeting secretly/publicly under whatever conditions shouldn't matter because they wouldn't be able to do anything about the system.  If one is afraid that the "rules" laid out in certain meetings are "unfair" or dangerous, it means that one thinks that whatever happens in those meetings may have an influence on the system at hand.  But that simply means that the system's decentralization (and hence immutability) failed.
If the system were well-designed, no meeting or no collusion could ever have any influence on it, and all those meetings would be lost efforts.

Now, it might very well be that bitcoin HAS a stronger form of decentralization (and hence immutability) than we think, and that all these meetings ARE in vain.  That would be interesting to see.  However, then bitcoin faces another problem: the fact that its current (immutable) protocol is driving it into a wall with the block size limit.

So bitcoin is damned if such meetings can modify it, and is damned if they can't.

Any discussion on this is totally off-topic so that's one reason why there isn't much point to discussing it. The coins have never been recovered, nor do I know who it was that stole them. The only reflection on that matter that could be slightly relevant to this thread's theme is that had wallet encryption been a feature of bitcoin core (at the time it wasn't called bitcoin core) this theft would never had happened. So it kind of illustrates the value of proactive thinking.

O.k.  So I see why Allinvain may not be too inclined to talk more about his situation - even though I would think that the passage of 6 years, may allow for additional reflection about the matter, and maybe some thoughts from a more refined perspective..

We have to admit that there is a certain amount of bravery to put yourself out there during a time in which you have experienced considerable loss, and probably the update is that those coins have never been recovered.

These are interesting scenarios regarding what might have happened, but they might be fruitless mental pursuits, too?

Frequently, I consider what might have happened if I had found out about bitcoin earlier.  I started investing in late 2013 - but even when I started there were a lot of ways to get bitcoin that worked for me - but if I had found out about bitcoin earlier, I would have likely been a bit scared to wire money to Gox, for example... I bought most of my BTC through Coinbase, then Circle, then Uphold and then Gemini...   Yeah, largely traceable through banks.. and maybe some of us are pussies in that regard?  I don't know?  because, I only know what I know, and that is prior to late 2013, I had only heard about bitcoin as a passing concept. Like, I heard the word bitcoin, and I had flag it as something to research into.. but it was so far into my subconsciousness that I did not know what I did not know, and in late 2013, when a guy told me that his holdings had appreciated more than 10x.. that got a flame under my derrier   

Maybe but still only twenty or so btc1 nodes on the network.