Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 18943. (Read 26609764 times)

Segwit pull request in main repository -

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910


I expect Segwit to remove from segnet testnet to the bitcoin testnet this month and enter mainnet early may for activation in June/July depending upon the miners hitting 95%

No, its akin to a seller telling a merchant that they have been paid/ them checking their bank or paypal account and not seeing the funds, and the seller socially engineering the merchant to go to a different site and login to a fake bank. Of Course some idiots will fall for this , but most will be alarmed and do a speck of research before accepting the fraudulent software.


You are quite correct that the ASIC mining cartel will be left with a pathetic 1.5 PH/s of hash power(Did you forget what year it was?) because their new alt they created with higher inflation will be practically worthless. The other alt, you call "trucoin" would certainly also take a massive hit, but could recover in time.



21 million is so intrinsic to the identity and contract of bitcoin most would move over, but for the sake of argument lets assume only 100 people move over... Do you really think we care? You are making an assumption that we are only greedy speculative traders who have no principles. I will never accept or use a bitcoin alt that changed the inflation rate.

I find your above post a bit confusing. 

Are you talking theory or is there anyone of import (besides you and some members of the bitcoin community who actually bought bitcoins) who is actually opposed to seg wit?

My understanding is that even "developers" Gavin and Jeff Garzik are in favor of seg wit, and Gavin and Jeff Garzik are the only two "developers" who had been proposing a need to hardfork (through XT and Classic).

So, what's the deal, is there someone else who is notable who is opposed to Segwit? 

In other words, if there is no meaningful opposition (besides some whining voices of non-users or even users), then it seems that a softfork would be preferable to a hardfork, no?


 In other words, are you whining for a hardfork when a hardfork is not actually necessary?  how could a softfork be more dangerous in the deployment of seg wit and in such actual real world circumstances, if there is actually no opposition seg wit?

Users never have to accept it and can instantly veto any SF or HF introduced by the miners simply through inaction.


Downloading a wallet to refund some counterfeit altcoin doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the original bitcoin chain or software. There would only be a problem if the user or merchant wasn't bright enough to actually check or ask why the coins weren't accepted before swapping out their old wallet.  

In unlikely even such a scenario existed their would be a very loud and widespread warning declared and developers would likely implement some emergency patch to disqualify the mining cartel trying to hijack bitcoin. Sure there would be a few people accepting some counterfeit tokens , but this is no different than a 51% attack and much less of an issue than all the fraud that regularly occurs within Fiat.

Good morning Bitcoinland. Wow, big surprise... it's $430.

That is the point: with a soft-fork type of change, old clients would not even be aware that the change was
deployed and activated, unless they read about it somewhere.  How many bitcoin users follow the forums
(and know about the reward schedule)?


And would use the garlic spray and silver bullets in case of a vampire attack...

Switching the PoW algorithm will not jam the miners' equipment.  They would
continue mining as always, and every user or business will continue to
use their blockchain by default, "secured by a network with 1.5 PH/s
of mining power". 

What "switch the algo" actually means means  is that the Faithful will create
a new altcoin, say "TruCoin", that starts off with the current state of the bitcoin
blockchain, but has only a modest amount of CPU/GPU mining; and will ask
everybody to ditch their bitcoins and use only TruCoin. 

But, to  do that, users would have to download a new version of the software. 
How many do you think will bother?  My guess is fewer than 5000 bitcoiners...

[/quote]

Someone would have to implement that change; but it does not have to be the Core devs.
The changes would not be too big (compared to the whole of the code); the miners could
easily find programmers able to implement them.

Again, a soft-fork type of change to the protocol becomes effective as soon as a majority
of the miners starts mining by the new rule.  The other players need not download
a new version, and would not even notice the change.

In practice, the cartel will probably want to warn at least the other non-cartel miners, and
provide them the modified code, so that they don't waste effort mining blocks that the cartel
will orphan.

For the change to have an economic impact, it would still be necessary for some part of the user
base to download software that incorporates it.  However. that does not have to occur before
the change is activated (as would be the case with a hard fork).  Old clients would still operate
normally for a while, and would interoperate with new clients to some extent.

It is hard to be more specific about the process without specifying the change, and its
context.  There have been several soft forks already, that users for the most part were not
aware of: they eventually adopted the changes, mostly without knowing, when they downloaded
newer releases of Core.

Specifically, for a change that creates additional coins (beyond the normal block reward schedule),
the miners would start accumulating those rewards immediately; but anyone running the old
software would not see those extra coins, because they would be in the new extension part of the blocks.

In order to sell the "extra" reward coins, the miners would need to convince an exchange to run
the new software.  At the moment, any majority cartel would have to include the top Chinese miners,
so the big Chinese exchanges (that are very closely connected to them)  will probably accept those
coins too.  Those exchanges would then  provide the new wallet software to their clients, and
urge them to upgrade. 

A user or merchant running the old software will only notice that something is amiss
when he fails to receive coins that someone else claims to have sent him.  That will
happen if the sender is using the new software, and the coins that he sent were tainted
by mixing with the new "extra" reward coins at some point.  When that happens,
the receiver would have to download the new wallet software to get access to those coins
(even if only to return them to the sender).

There are many reasons why a mining cartel would not want to do such a change, of course.
However, those obstacles would also stand in the way of the same change being deployed by
a hard fork.  The soft-fork option just removes one big obstacle: the need to inform
all users beforehand, and to convince them to accept the change and upgrade, before the
change is activated.

A hard-fork change that is adopted by a majority of the miners also creates a permanent split
of the coin.  Normally one expects the minority to adopt the change too, so the minority branch
will immediately die.  However, if a significant minority of the miners insists in rejecting the change,
each client will have the option to refuse it too, and continue using the "old" coin.  Or use both
coins, independently, by running both versions of the software. 

With a soft-fork, users do not have this choice.  Even if 45% of the miners hate the change to the
rules, they cannot force a split of the chain, and must adopt it. The users will have to accept it too,
whether they are aware of it or not.

If there are enough buyers out there, then they risk to sell their stake at a low level - does not really make sense to me.

Better is always to drive the price higher, not to sell cheap.

Interesting theory.

sure they are... we are testing bitcoinPure on skynet platform atm. this will allow us to send bitcoins to mars via our dark side of the moon mining node . at bitcoinPure we are always thinking ahead of the segwits and botnets.

IMO the point is to get the most out of Bitcoin until the halving event. no new miners allowed until then.

Hmm... I was counting on a Chinese pump to break above 2820 CNY within 2 days. If this won't happen, then the market will have made a lower high,
and then probably a lower low, which means a downtrend will become apparent.

chinese cartel in action. preventing a price above 2793-2795 to avoid new miners coming into the game. seems they have tons of bitcoins available.

https://snag.gy/4tpVj5