Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17538. (Read 26713688 times)

Yes, and if core broke (which I don't really know for sure) the agreement about the 2MB hard fork I can understand Jihan BU rage. But he is wrong in how he has dealt with the situation:

Bitcoin PoW was originally intended as a mean of decentralization, but things (and developments) have gone the exact oppossite. Now PoW is a source of centralization in the hands of a few. That's how things have evolved... and it wouldn't be a problem if we could trust miners would wisely use that power.

Yes, we need/want to trust miners, but latest events have shown a scary scenario in which we fear miners. That needs to come to an end, because, again, we really need/want to trust them for Bitcoin to keep growing.

Let's hope Jihan BU realizes the importance of TRUST and the consecuences of his actions.

Blocksize increase will probably happen in the future. But first comes first, and that is Segwit.

Why? Because it doesn't need a FUCKING HF, because a HF should only be done with the utmost consense and not on threats or dividing the community, and because if we think long term either Bitcoin will have a HUGE LOT of transactions in the future or none at all.... and you can only have so many transactions with L2 not with any linear blocksize increase.

And L2, when in full working state, will NEED a blocksize increase (for opening/closing channels), and when that happens there will be no division in asking for it. Everybody will support/demand the blocksize increase. And if CORE doesn't provide, then they will be the ones that will be left alone the same as its happenning now with BU nonsense.

Yes.

does antpool have any users other than the main man himself?

If antpool and others followed slushpool's example and gave individual users of the pool a percentage of the "vote" we would likely see a much quicker resolution to this standoff.

Edit: some more info.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5y3pm7/on_slushpool_nearly_40_of_users_vote_core_while_a/

The miners are natural shorts since they are always selling.  Exactly the same thing happens in any of the durable commodity markets, particularly precious metals, where the miners have sophisticated hedging strategies with complex derivatives plays.  Antminer e.g., can probably maximise it's profits from sales by going short on leverage at medium term tops and then dumping into the market (maybe with some associated FUD spreading).  Basically they are front-running themselves (maybe with some added insider trading climbing on) since they have knowledge of the large sales they are about to be performing as part of their regular business. Eventually their profitability and business model calculations incorporate these derivative bets as it enables them to become hyper-competitive and beat out all rivals to a position of absolute monopoly, since they are centralising all the risks of market moves upon themselves with these outsized derivative bets.

Bitcoin security model is predicated on honest miners in a constant state of untrusting competition (Byzantines General problem).  Anybody advocating or encouraging for collusion amongst the miners is inviting a shitshow since they are going directly against the underlying incentive structure that secures bitcoin's scarcity.  If a majority of bitcoin miners are colluding to enrich themselves at the expense of the majority of bitcoin users then they are ruining the primary source of value that their businesses are founded upon.  I think the colloquial term is "crapping in their feed bowls".

The bitcoin markets have had a faintly bad smelling odour emanating from the mining scene in China for quite some time. I think the full blown aggressive stance now exhibited surrounding the coup (power-grab, w/e) attempt using the 'big block' wedge issue has revealed to all how deep the problem may have already become. Maybe a large short position was taken out around $950 in anticipation of sales that then got unexpectedly bought up by a raging bull market? Now a very large Chinese miner and fabricator is actually under water to the extent that they are very desperate for a much lower price for its business survival? Such a desperate actor will do anything, including threatening to fork bitcoin or otherwise nuclear options, since it is going bankrupt anyway. Maybe it is as simple as someone who overly centralised power, and therefore risk, around themselves miscalculated with derivatives bets and now wants a bailout, again?

I doubt that we are going to witness segwit consensus any time soon, but I agree with your overall point that a major move towards signaling seg wit support (even a 10% or 20% boost in signalling seg wit support) would be very bullish for BTC prices.

and just maybe one of the causes of all of this madness is the retraction of the 2mb hard fork agreement from that hong kong meeting by core/ not core.

if that was in the bag maybe he'd be signalling segwit right now, but it's too late to know what's true and what isn't regarding that agreement it's been spun so many times.

The contentious hard fork is much more unlikely with each of latest events:

- BU code is now publicly considered as buggy and untrustable.
- Some of previously BU supporters such as Charlie Shrem now recognise BU is not at all ready for prime time and advocate for Segwit asap.
- Jihan BU seems to be softening its position.
- Roger BUr is full of shit, as it has always been, so no news here.
- All the cards have been laid on the table, and it is now very obvious a contentious hard fork would benefit noone.
- If the (contentious) hard fork would happen everybody would blame miners of the consequences. Not only Jihan BU/Antminer would be finished, but it would also be the end of PoW in the way we know it. It's not wise to associate own fate with such a risky bet, but thats exactly what they have done.

Now if Jihan BU would find a plausible reason to change its mind and begin signaling for Segwit, the price would skyrocket. That's the wise bet and a win-win for everyone.

Many people have sold all or part of his stash in fears of the fork and surprisingly the price has remained over $1000. The FOMO that would be unleashed if a consensus towards Segwit (with no HF) happens would be unprecedented. Maybe $2000 overnight?

I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying ECB.  It is like you are having to work a lot for that explanation when there are better ways to characterize the situation.

We have the various BU supporters (and other big blockers) attempting to take over a large portion of the hashing power or to make it appear that they have a lot of solid support on the hashing end -even though they do not have very much support in other sectors (except maybe the propaganda and spin end and working various medias in get information out there that status quo institutions want to get out there - and that is assertions that bitcoin is broken, blah, blah, blah).

Even with the passage of time, it becomes less and less convincing that whatever BU has is not anywhere close to sufficient to actually accomplish what they are asserting that they are capable of accomplishing - that is both forking the network and getting others to go along with their side of the deal - instead of just creating a shit show.

There are likely quite a few sophisticated folks who can also play the market to some extent, yet a lot of the smarter money sees through a lot of the crap.. and when folks come around and recognize that the market is not going to correct anymore, then they jump back in.  So, yeah, we could get a few more corrections, but bear manipulators are only going to be able to get BTC prices to go down so far - before it becomes apparent that even the dumber money is not really buying the bitcoin is dead story or bitcoin is going to fork story.

a fork's getting unlikelier by the day as more people come out against it. i think the dude's beef is the ongoing stalemate, arguing and how it was all allowed to get this way when it could've been averted a long time before.

I think that is part of the point.  Some of "we" want bitcoin to succeed, but there is another "we" out there.

Now, if you are trying to suggest that everyone in the BU camp have benevolent reasons for why they are pushing the hardfork agenda, then you seem to be giving them too much of a benefit of the doubt.  I would agree with an assertion that some or maybe even most BU bitcoiners are not striving to get bitcoin to fail, but that number is far from all.

Isn't a fork very unlikely? The ones in control of such fork should've figured out the uncertainty and bad press involved with such an event. In the end we all want bitcoin to succeed. I call price manipulation at its finest. When the whales have bought back in, the scaling debate will pass.

Bitcoin, as awesome as most of us here think it is, is a disruptive technology. It flips old systems on their heads. Did you think the people who are attached to the old systems were just going to sit idly by and watch Bitcoin displace everything they've become accustomed to (and control)?

Bitcoin has never been drama free and as it moves forward I don't expect things to calm down in the slightest.

The reason that the debate is often heated, is because many of us see Bitcoin as a tool to obtain and maintain freedom (at least as far as our money is concerned), and we are willing to fight for that when we feel it's under attack. It's difficult for someone standing on the sidelines with merely a casual interest to see through all the bullshit to what really matters.

It's certainly not "all good" but as long as there are people willing to solve the problems, there is a path forward. I think a lot of the drama has the very specific goal of simply separating people from the bitcoins. Clearly, it works.

Thank you for reading and at least realising I am just a frustrated Bitcoin fan.  I still hodl a few - can't let go entirely.  But I did announce I thought the ETF was not likely and after it that I was selling my trading stash.

My heart is breaking at this stuff, it's not 'third parties' doing it, either - that is my beef- blaming the fucking 'Illuminati' is purile.  I want Bitcoin to be what Satoshi envisioned and the fake messiahs in this game are not getting it there.

This thread seems to be full of people who think it's all good. I can't help retching at the denial level.  I am not talking my book, I am just aghast at the level of debate here - it's not taking account of the reality of what is happening. IMHO.

I am not Core or BU, I am someone who wants Bitcoin to be be what I hoped it was going to be.  If I say so, I get replies scripted by Donald Trump's press officer.

I don't know what is going to happen.

And you know what? That is the problem.

Thank you for taking the time to write this.

+1. Totally agree. And congratulations for picking the top.

BTC can crash as hard as it rise, and both fundamental (the horrible BU mess) and technical alignments (the 100-200 day SMA crossing for one) are now suggesting to exit.

Personally I liquidated just about 13% of my coins because I am a pathological hodler, but I'm quite sure of what is incoming.

You are fine with your paper wallet as long as you have no interest in trading either of the two sides during a contentious hard fork.

We have a block chain. All the transactions from the beginning of Bitcoin are in that block chain. Control of private keys (stored on a paper wallet for example) gives you the ability to append the block chain and move bitcoins to another address.

If we have a contentious hard fork, there will be two simultaneously surviving copies of the block chain on "different" networks. Yet, the entire history from the beginning, right up until the fork, is exactly the same. So your private keys will be able to transfer bitcoins on both copies of the surviving block chains.

If nothing else is changed, when you sign a transaction with your private keys, that transaction is valid on both networks. So if you move your coins to a different address, your coins on chain A will go, and your coins on chain B will go. This is called a replay "attack". It's not really an attack, it's just how it works.

In order to disassociate your coins (send coins on one chain to address X and coins on the other chain to address Z) you have to find a way to "taint" coins on one chain so that the transaction is not valid on the other chain.

This can be done by combining coins from block rewards that occurred after the fork, because those block rewards only exist in one chain, with coins under your control. Once a coin is "tainted" it can "taint" other coins by combining them.

One can also leverage BU's larger block size to disassociate their coins.

First you broadcast a very low fee transaction sending your coins to another address you control. This low fee transaction will be included in BU's chain no problem (after all they are all about low fees and bigger blocks to fit every transaction).

It's unlikely this transaction will confirm on Core's chain, due to the smaller blocks and competition (aka spam). Once the transaction confirms on BU's chain, you then use a RBF transaction to send these coins to a different address (not the one used in the previous, low fee BU transaction) under your control, with a large fee.

Once this high fee transaction is confirmed on Core's chain (I would wait an extended amount of confirmations due to possible attacks during the day of the fork), your coins are effectively disassociated (they are on different addresses on different chains) and you can safely send BU coins or Core coins without worrying about a replay attack. You can also use these coins to "taint" other coins if you so desire.

If you aren't worried about disassociating your coins early on (for speculation reasons), you can ignore all of this and sit on your paper wallets and let the smoke clear. Both chains may survive and you may still have to disassociate down the road.

None of this applies if you aren't the sole controller of your private keys. You only have Bitcoin IOUs and are left to the whims of whoever owes you bitcoins. They may, or may not, give you your coins on both chains.

Ok, bury your head in the sand and live in cloud cookoo land - listening to only those who you agree with.  Cool. I am not in any of the fork 'sides' in this.

I have been a permabull on BTC since 2012 - I was buying the shit out of sub $200 post Gox.  I just think we need to get real and stop blaming what is happening on dark forces / Illuminati / whatever and 'their' FUD.

And if you're in denial over a 30% crash 'it's just a $1 dollar difference' well, good luck.  I sold out over $1200 and I ain't buying back in just now, dude and I am glad.. Yep, for your slow myopic eyes:  G.L.A.D.

I might buy back in if this shit sorts itself out - but this is one hell of a self-inflicted clusterfuck right now, it is not a conspiracy.

Bitcoin. Did. This. To. Itself.

Live with it. Not in denial. Open your eyes.

LOL In reality, "paper" consists mainly of multiple copies of encrypted scans of actual paper wallets on flash chips (mostly microSD) in multiple offsite stashes.

Being paranoid prudent, I scan and create paper wallets on a computer that's incapable of internet connection and printer that's never been connected to an internet-capable computer. Print spool buffers can be hacked.

Better safe than sorry.

I was surprised reading the Circle Email, I thought they disabled Bitcoin long time ago ?