Topic: The Bitcoin Balance of Power (Read 790 times)

It could be argued that Segwit combined with other scalability implementations including LN are apt scalable solutions and a hard fork isn't a necessity at this point in time.
These arguments can be made regarding the upcoming split. No matter from which side you argue, the other side would try to make you sound politically incorrect.

Why do you think that people in General will go? Most will stay with the old-fashioned bitcoin. I do not understand how bitcoin cash is still kept. Probably only because everybody kept free coins in the hope that they will ever go up in price as well as it was with BTC. Personally I do but have no illusions otnoshenii clones of bitcoin.

Moreover, bitcoin often helps many people to reach the peak of ideals that have not been achieved therefore the balance system of something that has helped bitcoin very good and bitcoin is a strength for many people including myself.

System of balance and incentives has served Bitcoin well.

Deep thinking! I myself have considered this question a lot that how is the power in the hands of users and in true sense; it’s the systems with the power where bitcoins are kept.

As far as the betrayal from exchanges is concerned, I think it won’t happen if it hasn't yet and what will exchanging platforms get by going unfaithful. Bitcoin holders have full control over their currency, that’s for sure. No taxation, no tracking, answerable to none. Considering governments, I don’t think so any of them have bought any coins in order to have so called 'power'.

Did you just say BCH split? That actually wasn’t a split. I knew their would be the real split on November. This is really going to affect the price of Bitcoin in a big way.

But, I hope everyone in this community supports the real Bitcoin, though I see some people saying “how are we going to know the real bitcoin ?” All I know is that Bitcoin is Bitcoin, any other thing bearing a different name like Bitcoincash etc is not Bitcoin. People should think for God’s sake!

Yeah, it is possible that the big blockers might redirect their hashpower to BCH. Yesterday ViaBTC's CEO had tweeted that Segwit2x might not happen because of lack of nodes and that a third coin doesn't represent the ideologies of both the sides and I guess it is true, Segwit2x is a compromise for both the sides, Segwit supporters does have an issue with 2x and big blockers do have an issue with Segwit so I guess moving on with their own ideologies without any further split would be the apt solution.

I don't believe what ViaBTC says, let's see.

I honestly dont think people will hard fork over the 2x part. I think more than likely they will probably move to bitcoin cash.

That's a good point, governments can outlaw Bitcoin, making it very unattractive and risky for investors, but I don't think that they will do this, because right now Bitcoin has public ledger that can be utilized for tracing transactions, so governments can monitor big money flows in Bitcoin, but if it will be pushed to the darknet, it will evolve to become much more private and will be widely used in shadow economy. So, I think the most likely scenario is that governments will find ways to regulate Bitcoin without trying to affect the network - i.e. having companies to register their Bitcoin addresses, pay taxes in Bitcoin to government wallets, etc.

Hate to say it, but the ultimate balance of power as it stands is the government.
At any time the government can decide to shut down exchanges given there is almost a 100% guarantee a lot of the funds processed there are being laundered from illegal activities.
With that said, we need to prepare for this somehow.
If the exchanges continue to get shut down, sorry but it will be very difficult for Bitcoin to continue to grow.

An option well preferred, i just can't comprehend why all the stakeholders have all just gone bizarre all hold their positions, i fear for the value of bitcoin when you have more than one variant of same coin  

OK folks I have some serious questions to ask, who performed the chain split in 1st of Aug and if viaBTC did the hard folk then why are they still mining on Bitcoin? anyways power has been always in the hands of Bitcoin owners or holders as you put it, users were never in any position of power because they just come and go, they buy and then transfer to some body else, just "using" the system as "users" they give the rights of having the power the moment they send their coins away. there is no power in the hands of exchanges, they only have one advantage> taking all the coins and hit the road. speaking of such abilities, tell me again why do we trust our coins to anonymous strangers probably half way of the world from us? as we all know, any trusted member or exchanging platform could turn untrustworthy at will.
Moreover not even large amounts of cash flowing into the system could give any power to any body unless the coin owners act stupidly by selling their Bitcoins cheap, if every single holder with more than 1000BTC refuses to sell lower than $10,000 even if a government wanted to buy off all the coins in order to gain power they would be careful with spending $10,000 per coin but when they are buying so cheap as $3600 I believe their job is very easy and they are the true powerful entities in crypto .

Definitely not wishing for it, but I AM wishing it goes just as smooth and doesn't create too much chaos (but we both know it will).

yes but as long as you acknowledge the fact that if you invest you may as well lose a huge portion of your investment.
it is the same as investing in an altcoin which is in a bubble.

how many people do you actually know that dumped for real? and do you know why they haven't done it yet?
if the reason is because they believe in BCH, they you are correct in your first regard.

but if the reason is because they are scared of losing BTC,
or they are unable to dump it because they don't know how,
or they haven't gotten around to doing it because they have no account on any exchange that accepts BCH,
or they want to dump at its ATH not at the bottom (like all the altcoin bagholders do),
or generally reasons like that, then your first regard is false.

now look around and see which reason is truer.

True, the best will survive. And what if the best is Bitcoin Cash and not Bitcoin. How can you not worry? You could buy into Bitcoin Cash now and capitalize on the future success and avoid leaving yourself exposed to just Bitcoin!

---

To the OP, that's a GREAT graphic. Did you create it? Very informative.

How much did you dump your BCH for? I love hearing everyone say "it's trash, sell! sell!" and then watch it stay pretty stable in price. Any regrets?

This fork is a little bit more problematic, because it is a battle between miners and core developers, both of whom have substantial clout. This could damage the entire bitcoin ecosystem, if both coins have similar market capitalization and people start wondering which one is the original 'bitcoin'. So don't wish for it.

i am actually tired of reading of this another possibility of a hard fork and the resulting split. Well, if that coming split can give me free coins like BCH had done then maybe it is to my advantage after all. However, if that can be affecting Bitcoin as a whole then maybe stakeholders should as a community find a better way that is not really disruptive. We should be standing behind the real and the original Bitcoin but we are just one voice here and I am not so sure if our little voices and concerns can be heard in the large Bitcoin sphere.

I think the next fork/transition is going to be just as messy and just as smooth once the storm is over and we reflect/assess. Hopefully it will dump another coin with a huge MC onto the market that we can all abuse again lol.

Right now, the rushed time line is one of the reasons given for the opposition to the hard fork. But that is not to say that they will agree on an increase in block size to 2MB after an extended period of time. The reasons against bigger blocks seem ideological too.

the problem and difference between SegWit2x and BCH is that the first one has the SegWit and also it is a 2 MB block size increase which is not bad at all in my opinion when compared to 1 MB, it is a small increase and when compared to 8 MB it is a small increase which will not lead to node centralization.

also I haven't been following things much, so can anyone clarify if core developers are against the 2 MB hard fork or are they against the 2 MB hard fork's time. for example will they be open to 2 MB hard fork at another time like in 6 months instead of 3?