Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17616. (Read 26713204 times)

Can anyone (maybe BU supporters) explain me why would miners support an action (non unanimous hard fork) that will surely result in an inmediate drop of the price and also a long term lose of trust/value of Bitcoin?

Shouldn't miners act always in what is better for higher Bitcoin price (higher rewards for them)? Or is it that for some unexplained reason they think the price would react otherwise? Is there a hidden agenda that I am not aware of?

I really can't get it.

Yes.  You seem to be giving considerably greater odds to the possibility of a fork than me.

But, sure, I could see some of the passionate nutjobs attempting to pull such a trigger and even pulling such a trigger way too prematurely.

yes, this is the dip that all the sodl out bulls have been waiting for ... $1235 is your chance to finally go for glory!

i'd place the odds of a full on chain split within a year at 70%

but, i think the odds are very high it will be a very uneven split like 25/75 worst case, bitcoin(BU  ) might drop 20% and not recover the next day, but hey we'll have CoreCoins as a consolation prize.

What are the odds of a hardfork anyhow, let's say in the next 3-6 months?

One thing is to talk of a hardfork, but another is to actually have the mechanisms to carry it out.

Probably the odds currently are less than 20%, no?  Maybe I am being too generous with giving it too high of odds?

oh shit we have movement!

The price can't be to flat for so long, i expect it will move up today ore tomorrow.

hi 5 

good man, taking one for the team!

The prime mover of the universe is non-uniform distribution of matter and gravity.  For the non-uniform distribution of matter to exist, some type of entropy source had to exist on the other side of the big bang.  *God refers to this unknown entropy source.  It's above my pay grade figuring out how you could derive free will out of the whole thing even with a random seed.  It seems like determinism and causality would persist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ThPAW5sd0

if you are asking, obviously you already know, so why are you asking?

long time hodeler here....
so i figured id drive up the price by selling a coin at $1245.  (i can push it down when i buy ) never fails.
$1300 incoming  ... your welcome folks!

Heard today that some wall street guy did something to this statue of this girl standing infront of the bull in NY.
Anybody know what he did? And was it water cooler worthy?

^^^a bout of tautology, perhaps...
by your logic, *some guy surely was created (indirectly) by the same entity that created gold and silver, was he not?
who made stars, included supernova?
It goes like this:
? entity>early stars without much metals>supernova>metals>stars with planets that have metals

hashing power and node count is only a signal of the truth underlining Very much Decentralized consensus.

a super-majority hashrate Fork ( hard or soft ) can fail
a User Activated Fork can fail

the reality of the situation is if there is sizable demand for not consenting to a fork of any kind
a split will occur, and all exchanges will be economically incentivized ( through trading fees ) to say impartial (somthing they seem to want to do naturally anyway ) and allow for the 2 competing forks to trade ( ex. BTCCore Vs BTCBU )

when we fork with a majority hashrate and node count, we can safely assume, economic majority is on our side and such a "split + market battle" is unlikely, but we are simply assuming node count + hashrate is indicative of the economic majority's will.

its a fairly safe assumption since miners are economically incentives to align with economic majority.

bottom line is, bitcoin necessarily is what WE think it is, its not about the miners its not even about the users, when push comes to shove money talks.

it goes without saying a split is not what anyone wants.
But it isn't well understood how a small minority disapproving the change is irrelevant.

we are currently at an impasse with the blocksize debate because as of yet there isnt even a rought conusues, and no one wants to risk spliting the chain.

this will end 1 of 3 ways

1) we finally do get a super majority rallying behind a solution, in which case the minority opposed to the change can easily be crushed.
2) we split the chain, in which case its unclear if one side can ever really call themselves "bitcoin" ever again.
3) we do nothing forever, in which case altcoins become more relevant

I'm honestly tired of reading this Orwellian nonsense.  Bitcoin was clearly designed with miners controlling the protocol and forks in mind.  Instead of speaking the truth, that there's supposed to be such a large amount of individually acting miners that it's not possible for them all to collude forming a nash equilibrium, and that only win-win policies would be adopted in a non-zero game game, you instead have a failure of bitcoin decentralization where everyone who controls the entire coin can fit into one car.

ASICs and pools destroyed how bitcoin is supposed to function.  It essentially died at that point and people just pretended it didn't ever since and now it's the Chinese Paypal.  This doesn't mean "full nodes" now control bitcoin just because you don't want one car full of Chinamen to control it.  That's not how it works.  Miners will always control it or it's not actually bitcoin.  The fact is, there was a breakdown in the decentralization and Nash equilibrium of bitcoin that has to be addressed.

Decentralization may even be an insoluble problem itself, making this thing a giant fugazi no matter what you do.  I tend to believe that is the case until someone can prove me wrong.  I imagine it would take something extreme like some cutting edge cryptography to let you create decentralized captchas for mining so that it takes active user input to solve blocks - human based mining.  Using energy expenditure to find convergence was never that great of an idea in the first place when energy costs are not even close to uniform across the globe.  It was designed to centralize even without ASICs.

Why do you think I like metals?  Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme created by *some guy.  Gold and silver are a Ponzi scheme created by *God.

You changed your tune pretty fast.

if you're bullish you'll set some bids slightly above 1200.
if you're bearish, join me now i'm doubling down. 

if we break above 1250, I'm fairly certain we're going to go to 1300 pretty fast,
after that we'll probably be seeing a new ATH set weekly.

Oops. I saw that as $1250 not $1500.

My bad.