Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 16105. (Read 26607588 times)

I'm not sure what science fiction you've been exposed to. Space people are not exactly being civil to one another in most samples that I can think of. Quite the contrary.  

I find it strange that when the mention of a floating structure in the huge ocean comes up, pirates are the immediate thought in everyone's mind yet when someone talks about going into space...no talk of space pirates. I suppose only in space people are civil. Go out on the ocean...we revert to the 1600s.

Yeah Elwar, every time you mention this seastead thing, this is the scenario I always envision in mind of what would eventually happen to one... ending in tears...

You are fooling yourself if you don't believe that might makes right in the current system.

The example given when it comes to war for seasteads is that the night a seastead decides to go to war, they would come out in the morning only to find that half of their population is gone.

You have some mystical idea of seasteads as if things like the UN and powerful nations do not exist in this world. Trust me, if a seastead is involved in piracy or child abductions or anything too outside of the tastes of powerful nations, they will cease to exist. Somalia was once without a government and they were immediately attacked and invaded by the UN and the US (might makes right).

I don't know. This sounds too much like a commune to me. What would happen to the poor souls that end up joining the wrong seastead and end up literally drinking the Kool-Aid? Also, what is to prevent some seastead communities from deciding to become pirates and pillage and plunder other communities. Might would make right. Perhaps some smaller seastead communities would join forces, for mutual defense. Then I am sure that the individual with the most Machiavellian traits will rise to prominent positions. Many of the work horses would end up serving the pigs, once again.

Future seasteads (in the open ocean) would likely be small communities. No need to own your own seastead (do you own your own housing association/trailer park/apartment complex/town?). Seasteads will likely be groupings of floating homes or platforms providing housing, each with their own sets of rules and expectations. From the looks of the work we are doing on the first seasteads almost everything will be blockchain based. Pick the seastead that most closely fits your ideals of how a community should be run, and move there. If they stray, move to another seastead. If some new concept pops up that sounds better than what you have, move there. Either by selling your home or floating your new home depending on how things are set up.

From the first peeks at the numbers I can say that the housing costs will not be too different from ocean front property, some less some more. As things scale that price will certainly come down.

Here comes $6000 again!

Take your time

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not have the resources to set up their own seastead. If they want to participate, they would just have to ride along under the rule of some privileged fat cat. I suppose some of us losers could get together, and form a collective. However, in the end, I'm sure the individuals with the most Machiavellian traits will lord over the rest. In the end, the privileged few will enjoy all of the benefits and the rest of us will continue to be mere chattel subject to our master's mercy, or lack thereof.

Perhaps my views have been swayed a little too much by the books, "Animal Farm" and "Lord of the Flies." However, these two works of fiction seem to have more underlying truth to them then most of the fiction we get fed on a daily basis with the MSM.

^^^ see how he is trying to twist the language around like a pretzel so that Bitcoin becomes S1X ... a slippery shit on our hands here.

There is no s1x, it is simply bitcoin, your propaganda is not going to work here.

Since we are discussing politics, we might as well discussing Bitcoin politics.  As people may know already, BCH is set to hard fork on Nov. 13, 2017 to change their EDA/DAA.  
https://bitsonline.com/bitcoin-cash-hard-fork/
Now while people may laugh it off as just another joke from an ALT.  I believe the date is chosen to deliberately cause max disruption.  

As we know, the S2X fork is set to happen around Nov 14, 2017 and that the next BTC difficulty adjustment will likely increase difficulty by at least 10%.  So with another difficulty adjustment around Nov 10, we would likely see difficulty rise to at least 15~20% higher than the current level.

As we discussed before, S2X coin is now trading far below the S1X/Core at the current rate (6:1).  So the NYA miners are looking at 80%~90% mining loss right off gate if they choose to follow the S2X chain.  There is no EDA either, so as more miners bail, the remaining miners would face an impossible task in getting to 100 blocks to collect their pay at the current projected difficulty.  We also know that at least 30% of current hashrate is "mercenary" in that they are profit seeking and will jump to the currently most profitable chain, based on BCH experience.  

So by changing the BCH algorithm on Nov 13, it seeks to draw in the most opportunistic miners right before the S2X fork, so that remaining miners would have a better chance of enforcing a NYA outcome and make S2X succeed.  We already know that F2Pool pulled out of NYA and that ViaBTC would offer its miners the option to mine either S1X or S2X chain.  By making BCH profitable to mine on Nov. 13, miners who would have bailed on NYA on Nov 14 because S2X price is so unprofitable, would be unavailable on S1X/Core chain.

By trying to draw as much of profit-seeking hashrate to BCH instead of having them jump over to S1X chain right from the start, I presume the purpose is to try to crash the S1X price, or at least try to narrow the huge price difference between S1X and S2X so that people like Roger Ver, who make the 1000 BTC swap bet, can at least cover their ass and not look as bad.  It could also make the forking debacle more drawn out than expected, as its ultimately a power struggle between miners and hodlers.  Miners have to pay for electricity and depreciation, while it's free for hodler to hodl and not making any tx.  So narrowing the price difference between S1X and S2X would make miners' struggle easier.  

They might one day. But even if they went all hardcore and deployed that nuclear option, they are still missing one thing. Bitcoin is completely 100% voluntary. All that existing Bitcoin would be dumped for fiat or traded for another coin in the blink of an eye. It would render their existing mining operations completely bankrupt within 24 hrs.

Sure, what is left behind wouldn't be Bitcoin^TM anymore, in name only, but I think existing Bitcoin end users understand the difference between a cryptocurrency that is 100% centrally controlled and planned like a PayPal 2.0, and one that isn't. They would migrate to the decentralized one. The name brand is not as important as some people think, it's the core attributes and principles behind it that matter.

Women vote more uniformly than men, which means the moment women got the vote, women controlled politics. And women always vote for more security at the expense of freedom. Which, as every american knows, means you will get neither.

Of course, we could already be facing some sort of "Divide-and-Conquer" tactics with various "Two-Minute Hate" figures planted on both side.  But given the relative incompetence from figures such as Roger Ver over the past year, I would presume that a real government attack would be much more devastating, e.g. ban and then nationalize Chinese miners, then simply 51% attack and force a PoW change/hardfork.