Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19535. (Read 26609780 times)

The answer to your question of attacking one of the chains seems to be valid, still.

A week only @ current hashrate. As much as forever after a "big drop."

Good luck with that.

Why would a big drop in mining power be harmful? They adjust difficulty downwards/upwards within 1000 blocks or something. That's a week.

With the first alternative in the second paragraph I meant "fail to gather any suport BEFORE the change is activated, so that the fork never happens and no one seriously thinks that it will happen". 

The first paragraph applies if the fork happens, but is not a clean non-event (i.e., if there is a significant fraction of the hashpower still mining the old chain after the change is activated, in spite of the alerts and grace period).

Sorry for the confusion.

We will see next month. You don't have any power on that. Just telling your opinion to everyone in this forum manipulated by C0re won't change anything.

Even for libertarian and anarchists, a switch to classic should be indifferent or better.  Even if the LN works at all, it will be impractical to use it without going through a big hub; and hubs are going to be totally AML/KNC compliant, which means no anonymous payments, govenment blockades, temporary and even permanent freezing of funds, etc..

Moreover, most coin holdings are not in the hands of ideoologically motivated libertarians and ancaps, but in the hands of profit-motivated investors,
big or small.


I know that it is difficult to understand why democracy is "the worst system of government, excluding all the others".  It takes the ability to think socially: "Whatever I can think, do, want, or get, others can think, do, want, or get too".

Libertarians and anarchists are notoriously unable to think that way.  So, when they conclude that the choices of a minority should prevail over those of the majority, they always assume implicitly that it will be their minority, not some other minority.

It's probably the bitfury 16nm miners coming online. If they can Get chinese hashpower to drop below 50%, this is a really good development. At present, We are in danger of the Red Chinese government either taking over Bitcoin or destroying it if they want to.

Unfortunately, the Chinese just completed a 14nm tapeout, so the majority of hashpower will continue to be produced by a handful of large mines in a country with a totalitarian government, pretty much the exact opposite of what Bitcoin was supposed to be.

*Maslow [accepted anglicization, born in Brooklyn (Jewtown)] was a Jew.
'nuf said

Amazing how well the amount of denigrating puns in a post holds an inverse correlation with the attention the opinions expressed therein deserve.

There are many things that motivate me , but I am definitely willing to risk or throw away my complete investment.
Study Maslov's Hierarchy of needs or research into the psychology of ideals or religion to understand what truly motivates many humans.


Yes, it clarifies the real differences at play are differences of governance and politics. Despite Toomin repeatedly claiming that the capacity increase is most important motivation, the clear distinction is democracy vs an open source anarchistic meritocracy.

I would suggest people consider where republics and democracies eventually lead in the longterm with their decision on the fork.

Coin


Explanation

Thanks a lot for posting this. Awesome (but long!) read.

ClasSick is dead before it's even born.

Didn't you kind of answer your own question? An unresolved fork would be bad for holders, so attacking the minority chain to destroy it would make sense if it's not  too expensive.

Your game theory strategy only takes into consideration the maximization of profit in the short term. There are many libertarians and crypto-anarchists who value other goals slightly more than simply using Bitcoin as a highly volatile speculative asset. we also really don't like a path forward where a democratic majority votes upon each feature as that is a sharp change in bitcoins traditional governance model of anarchistic consensus building based upon evidence and meritocracy.

Yeah, mine was all up-to-date and sparkly but apparently if you want to turn txindexing on, you throw away all the work bitcoind has done previously and start from scratch. Currently around block 356268. It would be nice if it just did it all in the background but I guess it's not like it's something people will do that often. If I'd have known, I'd have had another node running to keep things going but it's too late now...

I'd see if I could hook into bitcoin-qt on my Windows box but apparently that has been "Loading block index" for the last 30 minutes so I guess I'll just wait.

Unless anyone knows of a bitcoind out there with a public RPC interface?

Ok, I've seen that one. Some journalist and some guy translating some text. I guess I'll just have to wait.

Why the surprise?  Blockstream naturally is using every means that they can to kill Classic and retain control of the protocol.  If FUD doesn't suffice, there are bribes, threats, intrigue, etc.

Why would the big holders want to attack one of the chains?  Their holdings are in both chains, and they can keep, move and sell them independently.   Whatever value each branch of the coin has, attacking one branch will kill its value -- which will hurt the holders more than anyone else -- but is unlikely to raise the value of the other branch by the same amount.  

The holders should *pray* that a proposed hard fork will EITHER fail quickly to gather any support, OR quickly achieve majority support and end with a clean non-eventful hard fork.  Any fork attempt that does not resolve cleanly in one of these two ways can only harm the value of their holdings.

If the worst happens, and there is a disputed fork attempt that ends with a coin split (which, in a hard fork with 75% trigger, is VERY unlikely to happen), the best strategy for holders is to keep quiet and wait for the market to define the values of the two branches.  If one of them is quickly dropping to zero, they should dump what they can of it, and then just use the other -- in which case the situation will be the same as after a clean successful fork or clean failed fork, only with bombed buildings all over the place.  If, by some miracle, both branches retain some value, and they seem fairly stable, the holders should keep and use both, or SLOWLY sell the one they don't like to buy more of the other.  

The ONLY bitcoiners who want Core to be the only implementation are the Blockstream people, because their business plans require them having control over the protcol (to add changes that they need, like SegWit, but block changes that their competitors want, like raising the limit).   For all other players, a switch to Classic would be indifferent or better.


Is that right? AFAIK BitFury is based in Ukraine and Georgia, but may have mines in Iceland or other places.

Perhaps the reporter thought that Georgia was the US state?  (Frankly, the US should get rid of the latter.  Their students have enough trouble already with Iran/Iraq, Sweden/Switzerland, Austria/Australia...)