Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 22. (Read 120029 times)

Alts are not safe. Bitcoin will be the canary in the mine. If bitcoin proves to the clueless masses that a decentralized form of money cannot work due to social dynamics and essentially human psychology than do you think they will continue to have faith in these altcoins that operate on the same basic principles of dynamic social co-operation as bitcoin? I doubt they will. Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency and it will be held as a reference point. Eliminating the "human psychology" risk from any structure built by humans and used by them is going to take a genius of epic proportions. Maybe in the future when we'll have AI this AI will hopefully be nice enough to build for us a cryptocurrency or at the very least manage it, cause everything we humans do is messy and we're bound to fuck it up somehow, someway, and sometime.

The other thing we must keep in mind is that the only reason some of these altcoins exist is because the entry into the btc sphere is so expensive - ie some people just cannot afford to grab a stake in btc. If btc tanks the average Joe is going to be thinking "well shit, if this bullshit can happen with bitcoin the same thing can happen with my shitcoin too! I better sell right away before I lose my entire life savings that I invested in this shitcoin in the hope that I will be a billionaire!"

So in a more verbose way I am just basically agreeing with you guys on this one - altcoins are not a safe haven if the bitcoin titanic crashes into an iceberg.

OK, the takeaway is:
BTC = all of crypto
Core = all of BTC
Got it.
 

Whole crypo is driving on myth that crypto = BTC and BTC is driving party.
Whole value and commercial part of BTC is 21m HARD cap that people can not create more.
Fi you spilt BTC and you will have 21m then you create new 21m... and you will keep printing like central banks then
whole point of BTC as 21m currecy is worth piece of shit.

That what ETH is doing wil kick their asses later.
I think that we shuld go for drivechains and give those big blockers to be big blocks if they want and think that will help them.

You are correct mindrust - and there is wide-spread faulty logic that alts are going to be a safe haven in the event that there is some kind of bitcoin demise.

Probably the odds of such a bet is less than 20% - even though there a lot of folks taking that bet, as if it were a lot more favorable, such as 80%

Can we stick to actual facts for the remainder of the thread? 

If something bad happens to bitcoin, altcoins are the least safe place to get hide. Haven't you figured that out yet? In a bull market, altcoins (certain) are making the most money, in a bear market it is the opposite. If you have concerns, stay with FIAT. No altcoin is safe.

All commodities have exactly the value that people place on them. There are more 2+k diamonds in the world than there are people.
Only a fool takes a pass on getting free $


P.S. - The viewpoint of Bitcoin's solo elitism will lead to Bitcoin being left behind someday.

I do, but should I just take all my BTC and put it into ETH/XMR/DASH pending august 1st and beyond?

It's 2017, how do you not already have $ in alts? 

What in the hell is going to happen to BTC on august and should I just put all my money into altcoins pending it

Fair enough, but both parties could end up losing a great deal to satisfy their conflict. It's a question of how badly do you want to get your way. August 1'st is fast approaching!

Not when the interests of the parties are at radical conflict, sir... :/

Fragmentation is bad. It should be avoided if at all possible. To paraphrase a cliche, can't we all just agree and get along?! 

If there is a HF, prepare for two versions and no it won't be like ETH and ETC, it will be much messier...

Secret meetings and miners getting butthurt over UASF, sound like good reasons to go ahead with UASF to me.

Infact let's have a UASF version and a secret cartel HF version and see which one ends up at < $10

If you are a friend, rather than a foe, as you seem to imply, then you certainly are lacking in some of your explanatory abilities.   and therein lies a significant communication problem.    

Furthermore, I don't give too many fucks about whether or not LN falls in some kind of existential definition that you seem to want to describe when I understand that LN is intended to be sufficiently connected to bitcoin in order to facilitate bitcoin's functionality and therefore utility... so in that regard, even if LN is not technically an existential part of bitcoin, it still seems to play a pretty meaningful roll in various future possibilities of bitcoin - and especially connected with the segwit part of the segwit2x that is being discussed in this thread... so maybe there is some stretch in terms of topicality - yet I don't seem to be way off of the mark to be involving myself in such LN discussions within this thread.

And, your existentialist claims regarding bitcoin seem to be attempts to avert meaningful discussions about relevant topics rather than any attempt to clarify and or resolve differences of understandings.... or even possibly technical knowledge deficiencies of some other posters... since you are claiming technical (and apparently existential) expertise.    NOT that it matters, but I am not very convinced about your proclaimed areas of expertise.   

Still feels like a massive clusterfuck is going to happen.

Funny thing is, in some alternate universe SegWit activated without a fight and is north of 10k right now, while in another alternate universe bitcoin is in its death throws do to political fighting over blocksize/control and probably sub 200 on its way $10.

We'll probably fall somewhere between the two 

Assuming they want to spare the hashrate indeed. If it's large enough, however, then it would be too expensive a venture for them to do. At this stage there's enough pool support for segwit2x to believe there isn't enough hashrate (15%) to sustain a fork separate from it in any meaningful way, especially since some of that 15% is not showing support for regular segwit and likely to jump to the bigger fork.

Even with small hashrate, this chain wont work - expect orphaning with empty blocks to kill the small chain economically. Even doublespends could be a problem. This reminds me of Luke-jr attack with his pool to merged minined altcoins - Im pretty sure similar incentive is here as well. The same reason why BIP148 would not work.

You're assuming there won't be two chains. Why? At this stage there's every reason to believe core will not support the 2MB hard fork component of segwit2x leading to two chains. If you're saying the hashrate will be small on core's fork, this is precisely the issue - what chain will economic entities and SPV clients follow. It is possible to voluntarily and involuntarily follow a lower hashrate fork. Note I'm not arguing in favour of anything, just pointing out the facts.

The point is there wont be two working chains, so from this perspective arguing with "hijacked" or "replay attacks" is moot.