Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19549. (Read 26609705 times)

Hope you're right brg444, I think this is the best & least disruptive solution for all of us (well except big block paid shills & the dev defecters).

Coin



Explanation

You can stop at 2, as the other 'options' are just slash and burn/scorched earth policies that will end badly for those foolhardy enough to believe in them.  Most rational players will want to conserve whatever value they have put into bitcoin and are unlikely to be as petulant as the core devs will be. They will follow the longest valid chain.

Changing the POW is just empty sabre rattling from a dev who is seriously worried that this is getting away from him.

Wow. Now Core folk have to please two masters

Everyone but those who don't want Bitcoin to choke on 3tps, you mean?
There's a better way to say it: ALMOST NO ONE.

The news that f2pool doesn't care for Classic. That Bitfury was just bluffing and is meeting Core this weekend.

Some sort of compromise is being worked out that would lead to a 2MB hard fork in........ Feb/Mar 2017.

So sorry, not tonight dear.

Yeah, sorry. I must have missed the memo? I saw that source code is end of next week and binaries in early feb? I guess it just would seem silly for a place like coinbase to support both classic and core, in light of their support for classic. (kinda like pepsi supporting coke or vice versa) Now a place like cryptsy or poloniex, I could see them having an incentive to offer both. Any thoughts as to how BTC-E will respond? Maybe wait on what happens to the markets?

Do you have a reference for that? I'm very interested to read about it.

What news?

Why not millions of nodes wasting money?... It still doesn't change the fact that everyone will ignore those nodes. You are talking about weaknesses that apply more to PoS than PoW ... and I'm tired of educating you ... as it is apparent you are incapable of understanding the distinctions or just trolling.

Why are we still discussing Classic like it's not a failed project already?

Didn't you get the news?

1. There's plenty of incentive for an exchange to support btc, btcc or both - as these will have tremendous volume post fork, if the fork materializes. It will definitely be an order of magnitude greater compared to any altcoin action.

2. That's up to you. Just make sure, prior to the fork, to take custody of your coins from any exchange, pool, etc.

I don't believe you have really thought things through with regards to the possible attack vectors that large btc holders can have. First of all a 51% attack created by 75% of the hashing fork cannot steal individuals coins that are not being spent on the minority chain and the hashing majority has no idea which wallets are friend or foe. Large bagholders (almost all the core team and early crypto-anarchists who tend to prefer conservative implementations that prioritize security and privacy above mainstream adoption) can carry out some pretty nasty attacks where they can quickly devalue the chain with the most hashing power scaring all the miners to support their chain or they can simply quickly and secretly buy up mining farms and ASIC's and attack the main chain without risking any of their investments.

In fact, this course is a much more likely course that could occur over them changing the PoW algo.

Do I want any of this to occur?... of course not, I am not bitter and believe that our values are more similar than different and we will indeed find consensus soon. Our priorities are probably slightly different as all and there can be eventual reconciliation. It would be better to insure for everyone's sake that their isn't a civil war, which is why the 95% threshold is so important as it almost guarantees consensus will follow.

Exactly. I'd love to run a full node and did for a while, but Bitcoin QT just sucks ass. More energy should be put into developing a wallet that is also a full node, which would make it nice to run instad of a pain.

5) Miners on the new fork chose to spend 1/999999 of the $$$$ they've invested in mining gear to deploy "hundreds thousands of nodes with multiple amazon Ec2 instances without users actively securing them and using them."

Electrum is not a full node ....

I reckon a good number of the transient nodes are run as curiosities, and a larger number to support their owners wallets. Everyone else is running them more consistently as part of their business ( exchanges, miners, etc.) so are being recompensed either directly or indirectly.

But, yeah, it would be nice if casual nodes could get some recompense for their service. Satoshi should have designed some sort of a faucet funded out of the coinbase tx's.

Having a decent wallet would help too. Switched to Electrum today, I really got sick of of the QT-wallet fucking up the block-index, verifying stuff for no apparent reason and for looking fugly while doing it. I never could wrap my head around why not more energy was put into a more sexy looking and properly working wallet... Except I understand a lot of ppl think the end user is not that important, BTC was designed purely for either tech nerds or speculators, buying a cup of coffee and running a cool wallet at home is supposed to be done with other crypto's like DASH?

We're discussing the impact of nodes on Bitcoin network, not value of full nodes vs. SPV wallets to you.
The "humans at the other end of the nodes" are irrelevant to this topic, beyond their choice of which node to run.
They have nothing to do with securing Bitcoin.
This is getting too silly.

Assuming there will be at least two competing chains/forks, how would you best take advantage of such a scenario?

You have registered exchanges that allow you to sell bitcoin.

So, you first would have to own bitcoin and actually be holding your private keys, correct?

Then, you need fungibility of coins on both forks?

You would then export your wallet/private key and open it in Fork#1 wallet

You would also open that same wallet/private key in Fork#2 Wallet


As of this point, is it safe to say that you have the same keys in two separate wallets? I'm assuming one of these wallets would be the bitcoinqt(core) and then bitcoin classic wallet?

So this is great, you almost have double the coins. However, I am now faced with the issue of where I would be selling these coins, correct? Currently, my understanding, is that bitstamp,coinbase,okcoin will accept classic

so I can trade core possibly on kraken, circle, gemini?

I guess my concern is who is going to support core after the fork and how could I essentially sell the same coins twice?
So far I have yet to see any exchange say they will continue to support core post fork.

Thanks for any help that can be provided. I'm trying to wrap me head around the market implications and how to properly proceed with coin storage. Or should I just convert to fiat with money ready to be wired to exchanges to buy? The delay concerns me, as markets move fast. If only there was a more expedient option.