Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 16012. (Read 26708563 times)

I would argue that it was clear cut that bitcoin cash is the closest living fork to Satoshi's original intent. However it failed (or didn't even try) to win the brand and therefore lost the ecosystem along with it.  The core developers and community has decided Satoshi's vision is no longer appropriate for bitcoin. This kind of makes me sad maybe out of a sense of nostalgia remembering the original promise of bitcoin before the scaling shit fight took over. But then again something had to yield bitcoin was hitting some hard limits.

And how much value would this have to you if there were 40 separate forks? 400 forks?

You'll like this page and the previous page.  At least I think so.   

I am sure that Baron Sassoon, being the previous head of G7 task force on Money Laundering, would not have done anything untoward.

Honestly, some of you guys talking about forks having immediate value or being immediate "competition" are just not getting it.

Let's say that the entirety of Facebook's code base was completely open source, and anyone could fork it at any time and create an FB 2.0 with a click of the mouse. So someone does it, claiming that can make it faster, better, whatever. Let's even say that any holders of the original Facebook stock would get an equal stock 'dividend' of like 10:1 for the new site.

That does not auto-magically give this new FB 2.0 any value at all. Period. There is a whole entire financial ecosystem that goes along with the original Facebook, including the founders, devs, employees, investors, stock holders, stock exchanges, supporting sites, corporate sites, merchants, marketers, ad agencies, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. This ecosystem was built up over a decade or more. Not to mention all the 2 billion users of "the ONE TRUE Facebook" that are not at all inclined to switch to FB 2.0. The are happy and content with continuing to use the original.

And how much value would this have to you if there were 40 separate forks? 400 forks?

There unquestionably is a finite limit on how long forks can produce a return. I don't think we're anywhere near tapping it yet.

Honestly, some of you guys talking about forks having immediate value are just not getting it.

Let's say that the entirety of Facebook's code base was completely open source, and anyone could fork it at any time and create an FB 2.0 with a click of the mouse. So someone does it, claiming that can make it faster, better, whatever. Let's even say that any holders of the original Facebook stock would get an equal stock 'dividend' of like 10:1 for the new site.

That does not auto-magically give this new FB 2.0 any value at all. Period. There is a whole entire ecosystem that goes along with the original Facebook, including the founders, devs, employees, investors, stock holders, stock exchanges, supporting sites, corporate sites, merchants, marketers, ad agencies, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. This ecosystem was built up over a decade or more. Not to mention all the 2 billion users of "the ONE TRUE Facebook" that are not at all inclined to switch to FB 2.0. The are happy and content with continuing to use the original.

And how much value would this have to you if there were 40 separate forks? 400 forks?

Yes, but what if all those billions of users could just login to FB 2.0 using their legacy FB credentials? Wouldn't that be tempting? Wouldn't you do it, just to try the new system?

Honestly, some of you guys talking about forks having immediate value are just not getting it.

Let's say that the entirety of Facebook's code base was completely open source, and anyone could fork it at any time and create an FB 2.0 with a click of the mouse. So someone does it, claiming that can make it faster, better, whatever. Let's even say that any holders of the original Facebook stock would get an equal stock 'dividend' of like 10:1 for the new site.

That does not auto-magically give this new FB 2.0 any value at all. Period. There is a whole entire financial ecosystem that goes along with the original Facebook, including the founders, devs, employees, investors, stock holders, stock exchanges, supporting sites, corporate sites, merchants, marketers, ad agencies, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. This ecosystem was built up over a decade or more. Not to mention all the 2 billion users of "the ONE TRUE Facebook" that are not at all inclined to switch to FB 2.0. The are happy and content with continuing to use the original.

Honestly, some of you guys talking about forks having immediate value are just not getting it.

Let's say that the entirety of Facebook's code base was completely open source, and anyone could fork it at any time and create an FB 2.0 with a click of the mouse. So someone does it, claiming that can make it faster, better, whatever. Let's even say that any holders of the original Facebook stock would get an equal stock 'dividend' of like 10:1 for the new site.

That does not auto-magically give this new FB 2.0 any value at all. Period. There is a whole entire ecosystem that goes along with the original Facebook, including the founders, devs, employees, investors, stock holders, stock exchanges, supporting sites, corporate sites, merchants, marketers, ad agencies, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. This ecosystem was built up over a decade or more. Not too mention all the 2 billion users of "the ONE TRUE Facebook" that are not at all inclined to switch to FB 2.0. The are happy and content with continuing to use the original.

If you are not bothered by it, then why you wasting time bringing up such nonsense?   



Your in my face retort is some kind of assertion that you believe that you have a show stopping argument or a slam dunk and you do not.

The mere existence of bitcoin cash does not prove any kind of meaningful or substantive point, except that a small group of renegade nutjobs decided that they were going to spend resources on a hardfork attack on bitcoin.

Second, I never stated that there was "full" consensus, and you are just making up new terms in order to create some kind of strawman argument.  There is no fucking thing as "full consensus" nor is such a thing required.

What happened is consensus happened around segwit, and that is all that matters.  Therefore, segwit reached consensus and was locked in in early August 2017, and was activated in late August.  If you want to remove segwit, then you need consensus in the other direction, which if you thought about it is not very fucking likely to happen.. because it already happened in the lock-in, activation and implementation direction, why the fuck would the community suddenly decide that they no longer want it?  Makes no sense, instead, stupid ass fuck job big blockers, like yourself, are trying to argue stupid points about segwit not having "full" consensus, and there is no such requirement.. and really do you ever think that there is going to be "full" consensus about anything?  There are always going to be a few stragglers who are objecting and complaining, but they are out of line with the vast majority (which in the segwit situation took 95% mining power to achieve such and at this point is water under the bridge).



Yeah, you could have said fuck you, but there would be no substance in such an emotional response.  So it does not help if you merely become emotional without adding any substantive meaning to your arguments (which would be adding factual claims or logical claims), and you need to have something to back up your fuck you, so stop taking matters so personally and learn how to recognize that these various ongoing BIG blocker forks and anti-segwit campaigning are attacks upon bitcoin and they are not equals to bitcoin (and they are generally inferior and supported by very small segments of the community attempting to rally broader space support or to get newbies into supporting them), and they are not in line with the overall bitcoin community (except to the extent that they may want to attack and infiltrate bitcoin and to the extent that they try to make astroturf attempt to look as if they are part of the bitcoin community), and that is why it seems to be a lot more fitting to be saying fuck you to those kinds  of ongoing attacks, rather than if someone were truly wanting to improve bitcoin without engaging in such ongoing sabotaging attempts.

Shit article with moronic assumptions.

It's in that piece that ivomm posted.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/segwit2x-hard-fork-could-have-devastating-consequences-for-bitcoin

Could happen, but I'm not sure what can be done. I don't think they should be allowed to settle in cash, bitcoin should be required for settlement. Perhaps this will expose the need for full transparency in trades/settlement. This gives me some hope:

Also, the physical PM market seems to be not giving a crap about where the paper price is going. I've seen physical dealers not budging on $1300+/oz for gold and $17+/oz for silver.

First they (their customers) gonna get screwed badly by honey badger and then they gonna complain to have the FED-SEC and the rest of the so called regulators to impose
regulations = destroy price discovery on the exchanges. And we might very well end in the same deplorable position as GLD.