Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17611. (Read 26712970 times)

The only problem with that assumption is that holding fiat cash is still basically the same thing as holding sovereign debt when they can monetize or devalue the debt at any time.  There is no point in holding cash of a nation with a parabolic debt chart because it's obviously not a safety net.  Nobody wants Venezuelan money just because they raise interest rates.

Another thing is that as the USD index increases, most of the world's debt is denominated in USD, so countries who were already insolvent and unable to pay default even faster, causing cascading deflationary collapse to bring down the whole system.  Rising USD index is a systemic risk and there is no scenario in which the USD just magically becomes twice as strong, thus doubling everyone's debts and doubling the amount of goods they have to send to America, without everyone completely boycotting the dollar.  USD index is already up huge since 2014.  The only question is how high can it go before it blows up the system.



The voting mechanism of bitcoin is supposed to be where a Nash equilibrium exists so nobody can collude on any change, so the only changes that can go through are non-zero sum game win/win changes for all.  I would say neither segwit or a block size increase actually fits that description in whole, so if bitcoin was actually functioning as designed, it would likely not morph into either one.  Bitcoin is supposed to be highly resistant to change and both of them have their drawbacks, so how would either go through?  

On the other hand, I don't believe bitcoin has value as a settlement layer because metals act as a far superior store of value and you'd need to get TPS up to something like 5000 where it's not a settlemenet layer to justfiy it's existence.

Good they find this error now and not at a critical time. Isn't the scaling debate being used to FUD the price since traders sold at the bottom? I'm getting sick of this kind of manipulation. The idea behind bitcoin is beautiful but unfortunately some greedy people are willing to hurt our project. They will not get any coin from me.

i guess i should apologize for the conspiracy theory.

and also apologize for my past speculations that BU was safe to use, i'm sure I've somehow stipulated that somewhere.

**BU is an experimentally beta  with known security hole, use at your own risk**  

no just stop it with the bullshit please. I really resent the insinuation that all Core are employed by Blockstream (or the banks by some crazy extension) ... some asshole was on reddit saying all Core devs are paid by AXA (the banks) ... I mean what a complete asshole lying thing to be saying in public. If he was saying that to my face he would be out cold on the ground in under a minute, guaranteed.

1 company does not "have so much leverage", that's just wrong and lies.

If BU guys had any confidence in their ideas they would have submitted a patch to core for review, like everyone else and argued their merits in an open court..... they are free to try and propagate their own code but they better be prepared for an even more rigourous test (the real world) ... but they are better off putting it up on the Core repo and getting real feedback and testing first, not in some BS echo chamber full of emotional, butthurt, raving idiots.

bit worse than a shame ... it's a fucking shitshow travesty.

Now BUg pumpers are gonna be forever wondering if there is another zero-day BUg out there waiting to wipe out all there bitcoins shortly after they hardfork??! WTF?

If Peter Todd was malicious and greedy he could have made mega-bank on this by keeping it to himself until they forked and then shorted majorly the BU fork and killed it dead anonymously without telling them what was happening, they wouldn't have had a clue what hit them ... and made a killing too.

What's the bet that the DAO attacker is sitting on a BUg zero-day ... just waiting for the fork.

Stuff is toxic, it's finished. Woo is finished too.

right, "howitzer" wasn't available i guess. 

i get where you're coming from but they shouldn't have brought a knife to a gun fight. they needed to have brought a howitzer.

if their ideas and execution were plain better then i believe there are enough rational people to turn the tide. but they ain't, so there ain't.

its a shame that BU does not have as much peer review and scrutiny.

I dislike the idea of having one team ( mostly all employed by 1 company ) having so much leverage.

for who? even the most fervent unlimited supporter might not be very impressed if the entire system seized up. i'll bet there are many more surprises hiding too.

they shouldn't have put their heads above the parapet until their game was 100% immaculate. if you want to influence a 20 billion dollar deal expect to have your every move gone over with thousands of microscopes.

this ain't play time any more and this is more than an internet spat for the lulz.

what a shame.

The BU comedy gold just keeps on flowing. Thing is more holey than the DAO.

From what I have seen it probably isn't an RCE (Remote Code Execution) but it shows how sloppy they are in secure coding and versioning control. That BU code should be removed asap from the Bitcoin network. Who knows how many more critical vulnerabilities are hidden in that poorly reviewed code.

You and I are using the word "consensus" to mean different things. You are saying (and I agree) that every peer in the network must agree on what is valid. In that sense, bitcoin requires, and in fact bitcoin currently runs on, 100% consensus. What I am saying is that right now the community has not reached "consensus" on how to scale. My point is that Satoshi's original vision did NOT assume that hard forks were impossible. Satoshi did NOT assume that everybody will always agree on the future direction of bitcoin. Satoshi did NOT assume that everything will be roses and that we will all get along.

In theory, the possibility of a contentious hard fork has always been part of the plan. If a contentious hard fork is enough to kill bitcoin, then Satoshi's vision was doomed from the start. I believe Satoshi's vision was not doomed from the start, and that a contentious hard fork will not kill bitcoin. But if it does, then we may as well learn it sooner rather than later and so we can focus our efforts on a modified governance mechanism (dash being an example of a modified governance mechanism).

If the first time that a contentious hard fork actually happens is 15 years down the road when everybody is using it, it would be very reassuring to look back and say "remember that scaling-debate contentious hard fork? We all thought it would kill bitcoin and it didn't. Therefore, no need for a worldwide economic panic this time."

Kind of glad that I didn't go with it before this happened.
It has to be pretty patched to get any one to put any faith into what we have now with the current blockchain.
Unless people are viewing this as a layer or alternative to it and of it instead.

This is not a children fight, BU is a very bad update for Bitcoin.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/

some extra info here. anti BU people should be keeping future bugs to themselves. then they can roll them all out at once for a real party.

incredible that they'd be this slack. if they want everyone to take on their ideas then at least make sure the foundations are bulletproof. then you can carry on with your mud slinging.

Sure..



Ends up with

Advocacy for BU is political, not technical. Centralization, invalid blocks and crashes are not so important.

I haven't had time to review this vulnerability but that might be way worse than it sounds. Most "crash from remote" vulnerablities are due to buffer overflows which can lead to exploit from remote when more finely crafted.

Maybe this is enough to create some awareness of the importance of following the right process instead this children fights.

Ok, semantics then.  You were talking about a small number of people?