"Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi?"
That is so laughable LOL.
Bitcoin is KING!
No one is dethroning it anytime soon, if ever.
What are ALL alts pegged to? BTC, not bcash.
I don't see people rushing to copy bcash and cash in (on Bitcoin's name like bcash did).
No one really cares about bcash or uses it for that matter outside of pure speculation.
bcash = peon, Bitcoin = KING!
Topic: Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi? - page 3. (Read 5187 times)
I must say I have changed my opinion about BCH. I still don't like it, but I take it more seriously, and I have decided to hold as much BCH or more as I hold BTC, fear of being poor as they say.
Bitcoincash is much more usable that bitcoin (because lower fees and less hoarding).
For example archive.org is fundraising at the moment and has received more donations in bitcoincash than bitcoin:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7gsigz/archiveorg_donations_btc_vs_bch/
(And if you look at the archive page, they've received donations from zcash too).
Lol at some random fundraiser is your proof that there are less BCH hoarders. That is a rediculous conclusion to jump to based off one fundraiser no one's heard of. I bet it was Roger Ver that paid it... lol
I still see no evidence that BCH will overtake Bitcoin, or even challenge it. It seems like Bcash has lost some of its steam the past week or so, but we will see in the future. The price increase several weeks ago was probably just Roger Ver and his millionaire buddies buying up all the supply. Everything about it is so sleezy, so I have a hard time believing the Bcash takeover theories. The free market will hopefully reject the scam at the end of the day.
The more and more Bitcoin forks that are made only helps prove that Bcash is an ALT coin with little value. 1/ Something like Monero is a better cash and (store of value) than Bcash. Its way more fungible, private, and it has a "tail emission" (a small percentage of inflation in perpetuity... so there's mathematically less incentive to hoard and more incentive to secure.) Ring Signatures and RingCT shields both whom is sending/receiving and how much. Instead of raising the block limit by hardforks, there is no block limit. It is only throttled by bandwidth, memory and processing limitations. Yet, since Bcash uses Bitcoin in its name and was promoted by a few whales it is championed, lol.
I have read at least two research papers that state on-chain scaling by perpetually increasing the block for eternity can not scale due to network propogation, network latency, and bandwidth issues (unless completely redesigned, which does not seem to be on the Bcash road map... thus it's a "scalable" sham):
http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~prateeks/papers/Bitcoin-scaling.pdf
https://github.com/bellaj/Blockchain/blob/master/Bitcoin-NG%20A%20Scalable%20Blockchain%20Protocol.pdf
http://vukolic.com/iNetSec_2015.pdf
Once Lighning Networks make there way to existence, then I predict it will drop like a stone. There have already been successful payments through Lightning Network payment channels on the main chain (not on Testnet)... it's just a matter of time.
I must say I have changed my opinion about BCH. I still don't like it, but I take it more seriously, and I have decided to hold as much BCH or more as I hold BTC, fear of being poor as they say.
Bitcoincash is much more usable that bitcoin (because lower fees and less hoarding).
For example archive.org is fundraising at the moment and has received more donations in bitcoincash than bitcoin:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7gsigz/archiveorg_donations_btc_vs_bch/
(And if you look at the archive page, they've received donations from zcash too).
maybe I will get dumb, and diversify into Bcash or some other stupid thing like that? Perhaps? Perhaps?
There’s only one counter-trend altcoin at this time in the Top 10:
https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentage
Very dumb to buy it because it’s going down short-term (before it goes up, up, up again).
BitcoinSegWit is not Satoshi’s immutable protocol, i.e. it is not Bitcoin. It is a “pay to anyone” shitcoin. I smell a rat on the horizon combined with shorting on futures markets.
Re: Will Bitcoin Cash replace BTC after the Fork?
That will only be wave 3. Wave 5 should takes us far above that.
That is too ambitious. For me, peak $1000 is enough
That will only be wave 3. Wave 5 should takes us far above that.
If whales are smart they have cashed out enough of their coins to live off comfortably for the rest of their lives. So I don't think there is a huge number of whales coordinating to screw everyone else.
And I don't think it would work out anyway, what it would do is kill cryptos.
And I don't think it would work out anyway, what it would do is kill cryptos.
Charlie Lee directly answered someone asking about a 51% segwit theft
https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/930539604897173504
Charlie Lee [LTC] @SatoshiLite
"En réponse à @TheEscapening
That's fud. Miners cannot steal from Bitcoin or Litecoin SegWit addresses even with 100% hashpower. This is because users are now enforcing the softfork. Please educate and stop spreading misinformation."
He mentions ressources to read further. I am not technical enough to comment.
https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/930539604897173504
Charlie Lee [LTC] @SatoshiLite
"En réponse à @TheEscapening
That's fud. Miners cannot steal from Bitcoin or Litecoin SegWit addresses even with 100% hashpower. This is because users are now enforcing the softfork. Please educate and stop spreading misinformation."
He mentions ressources to read further. I am not technical enough to comment.
I replied there and told him why he is incorrect. I also stated there is nothing in the 3 part series he cited which supports his argument. Feel free to ping me if he replies. I do not monitor Twitter.
The recent pump of Bitcoin Cash proves nothing about you being right about your overall hypothesis in this thread ("Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi?")
You should be smart enough to see that the thread title is a question. The post of mine which you quoted, claimed nothing about whether the thread title’s question had been answered.
Bitcoin Segwit tied with the Lightning Network tied with Atomic Swaps tied with other ALT coins with the same (Segwit; LN; Atomic Swaps... for alternative payment channels and additional features like privacy etc.) is an infinitely better road map.
Incorrect.
I’m not going to participate in a detailed technical argument with you right now about all the various problems with SegWit, Lightning Networks, side-chains, etc.. Not a priority focus of mine to convince or argue about it in great detail at this time. In short, I have more important things to do.
I must say I have changed my opinion about BCH. I still don't like it
I don’t like SegWit and Lightning Networks. So I dislike BCH less than I dislike that insecure shit they are attempting to destroy Bitcoin with. That is not to say that I like Bitcoin at all, because it is political clusterfuck of whale and miner control. But I need Bitcoin to be a reliable reserve currency for our crypto arena. So insecure shit is the worst of the worst.
Bitcoin scales fine with 1MB blocks because it is a reserve currency (pay enough to play, or get off to an altcoin or an exchange to play). We have plenty of altcoins for transaction volume. I need a reliable reserve currency, not all this bastardization. Trust me that whales understand this. And they will definitely sell all the forks and buy Satoshi’s BTC when the SegWit attack comes.
The tail does not wag the dog. The idiots who fail to understand the power-law distribution of wealth, are going to learn it the hard way by losing their BTC.
It does not matter how many times idiots ban the messenger. His messages will still continue to prophetic as always.
Wait, what does your eye have to do with it?
Why are two quantum particles entangled at a great distance, i.e. quantum entanglement.
That my eye was gouged on a date that contains all the same digits (presume 0 means nothing and to be ignored) isn’t significant statistically.
Yet combined with the fact that only known person to be recorded predicting 9/11 would occur soon and be blamed on Osama Bin Ladin did so on the exact day of my 36th birthday. We can presume that anyone who had predicted in a recorded interview such 9/11 details would have been exalted on the Internet, thus we can safely conclude Bill Cooper is the only such person to do so.
Couple this with the fact that the Newsweek magazine cover of David Rockefeller wherein the hands of his watch are apparently set to time of 9 and 11, was published on April 3, 1967. And my ex who was instrumental in my eye being gouged out has her birthday on April 3, 1976.
Combine this the fact that after the first bombing of one of the twin towers in the 1990s, I was telling my ex that was just a test run and that the Oklahoma bombing would be repeated at the twin towers eventually. Thus I was thinking very much like Bill Cooper, even though I did not know about him at that time.
Then combine that with my involvement in Bitcoin (arguing it is a creation of the Zionists) and my (yet unpublished) work on solving the centralization and scaling issues that plaque proof-of-work and proof-of-stake.
I feel like there is some destiny involved here. I doubt even David Rockefeller consciously set his watch to a time of 9 and 11.
P.S. additional exquisite scientific analysis that concludes 9/11 was a military operation.
Quote
Hey it could be destiny! I doubt he set it to 9/11 consciously either and that's why I find some of it so unreal. Because if these type of things weren't done consciously, then it's either insane coincidence or something else. I do think though, that if a person looks hard enough those types of things can be found everywhere, yet not really have any meaning. I'm gonna leave it at, "very interesting" :-)
Btw, I am not 100% certain the resolution on the magazine photo is sufficient to conclude the hands were on 9 and 11. Would need to see an original.
Well I agree except I do not see how this “things” can be found everywhere. There is only one 9/11, only one person who publicly predicted it, and I do not know of anyone with my circumstances in relationship to it. There may be others given 7 billion humans on this planet. I would like to know their stories and circumstances.
I think it is important to understand that my eye incident and the involvement with my ex turned my life away from being a multi-millionaire working for major software companies in the silicon valley, towards being destitute and being in the position to take a great interest in Bitcoin. She and the eye incident were an instrumental factor (not in a positive way however, she was not aiding me and the opposite actually) to me being here working on what I am working on now. Also the TB was instrumental in delaying me such that did not make many of the mistakes that others made before me, such as issuing an ICO or other investment security. Also the delay allowed for me to further refine my understanding of the technological issues.
EDIT: Ah the watch was indeed set to roughly 15 minutes before 11.
Holly shit. An explanation for the 999 in my eye incident date as pertains to this correlation with the 9/11 event. They basterdized Jesus’ probable birthdate of 9/11 into a horrific emergency. And 999 was the first proposed nationwide emergency # (as 666 inverted).
I must say I have changed my opinion about BCH. I still don't like it, but I take it more seriously, and I have decided to hold as much BCH or more as I hold BTC, fear of being poor as they say.
Charlie Lee directly answered someone asking about a 51% segwit theft
https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/930539604897173504
Charlie Lee [LTC] @SatoshiLite
"En réponse à @TheEscapening
That's fud. Miners cannot steal from Bitcoin or Litecoin SegWit addresses even with 100% hashpower. This is because users are now enforcing the softfork. Please educate and stop spreading misinformation."
He mentions ressources to read further. I am not technical enough to comment.
https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/930539604897173504
Charlie Lee [LTC] @SatoshiLite
"En réponse à @TheEscapening
That's fud. Miners cannot steal from Bitcoin or Litecoin SegWit addresses even with 100% hashpower. This is because users are now enforcing the softfork. Please educate and stop spreading misinformation."
He mentions ressources to read further. I am not technical enough to comment.
I voted No.
It was beautiful attack, but i'm happy it failed. IMO this is not a good approach and a good way to show the world what are crypto currencies.
It was beautiful attack, but i'm happy it failed. IMO this is not a good approach and a good way to show the world what are crypto currencies.
That is why I was screaming to buy BCH at $300. And everybody looked at me like I was a kook and loony, same as when I was screaming to buy LTC at $6.
https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/its-said-never-to-argue-with-an-idiot-because-they-re-incapable-of-comprehending-when-they-ve-8318290a3b0a
The recent pump of Bitcoin Cash proves nothing about you being right about your overall hypothesis in this thread ("Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi?"), and you should be smart enough to know that. The market can stay irrational for long periods of time, and day-to-day, week-to-week and even month-to-month value functions are practically meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Sure, there are a lot of shills/FUD/money pumping Bitcoin Cash lately, but that does nothing to disprove my claim that Bitcoin Cash is simply a pump and dump scam, or prove your hypothesis. Ironically, you are here beating of your chest about how 1337 your speculation skills are when all you are is simply a participant (and propagator of the pump) in a pump and dump... congratulations I guess? I don't participate in such practices, because there are victims... the eventual bag holders.
Bitcoin Segwit tied with the Lightning Network tied with Atomic Swaps tied with other ALT coins with the same (Segwit; LN; Atomic Swaps... for alternative payment channels and additional features like privacy etc.) is an infinitely better road map. Not only is it a better scaling road map, but it is also a better overall road map because you get all of the features of the alternative cryptocurrency chains via atomic swaps. Most FUD and Bitcoin Cash hype I have been seeing lately compares Bitcoin Cash to Bitcoin as it is now (without Segwit widely used and without the LN), which is an unfair, short sided, and deceptive comparison. Not to mention most of the FUD (high Bitcoin fees and slow Bitcoin confirmations) can be easily manipulated by perhaps the biggest Bitcoin Cash supporters... the Bitcoin miners that have patented ASICBoost (which ironically
only works on Bitcoin Cash). Since they mine transaction fees, such manipulation would be super cheap.I know you'd like to think you're always right by simply categorizing others as dumb (nothing new there...), but you will learn eventually that speculation is not a black and white subject... there is a lot of grey area. Congrats on scamming greater fools though!
That is why I was screaming to buy BCH at $300. And everybody looked at me like I was a kook and loony, same as when I was screaming to buy LTC at $6.
https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/its-said-never-to-argue-with-an-idiot-because-they-re-incapable-of-comprehending-when-they-ve-8318290a3b0a
Social Consensus prevailed?
https://www.coindesk.com/2x-called-off-bitcoin-hard-fork-suspended-lack-consensus/
Or... this is part of the plan?
Theoretically, if they are trying to anoint Bitcoin Cash as the true Bitcoin, then keeping the Segwit chain with as small of blocks as possible plays in their favor... since having big blocks is their selling point.
Possibly (and ironically), the only sure way for the Segwit chain to squash Bitcoin Cash like a bug is to raise its block size. Sending the big blockers that have backed Bitcoin Cash home with their tales between there legs. A small increase in block size will not effect many people as far as decentralization, because people mostly use hosted and light wallets. Raising the block size can provide a temporary relief while things like the Lightning Network can be worked out.
It is getting annoying to me that Bitcoin Cash shills keep comparing Bitcoin Cash transaction capacity and fees as they exist today to Bitcoin (the Segwit chain) without The Lightning Network. It is a short-sided and unfair comparison, and I think in at least some cases, this is done specifically in order to be intentionally misleading, to pump Bitcoin Cash's value, and/or to promote the herein purported "flippening conspiracy".
Furthermore, the more I think about it... claiming that Segwit is flawed and insecure due to the "anyone can spend" vulnerability is almost like telling a half truth. Especially when Bitcoin Cash or another cryptocurrency is championed over Bitcoin (the Segwit chain). Why? Because the purported attack is effectively a simple 51% attack, of which other chains are vulnerable to as well. Someone with enough money and resources to perform such a 51% attack on Segwit can instead initiate a double spend attack any chain- whether it has Segwit or not. Double spending large sums of money to a dozen large Bitcoin companies and causing such economic loss and chaos would surely crash the price and confidence in Bitcoin (or any other cryptocurrency for that matter- Segwit or no Segwit).
https://www.coindesk.com/2x-called-off-bitcoin-hard-fork-suspended-lack-consensus/
Or... this is part of the plan?
Theoretically, if they are trying to anoint Bitcoin Cash as the true Bitcoin, then keeping the Segwit chain with as small of blocks as possible plays in their favor... since having big blocks is their selling point.
Possibly (and ironically), the only sure way for the Segwit chain to squash Bitcoin Cash like a bug is to raise its block size. Sending the big blockers that have backed Bitcoin Cash home with their tales between there legs. A small increase in block size will not effect many people as far as decentralization, because people mostly use hosted and light wallets. Raising the block size can provide a temporary relief while things like the Lightning Network can be worked out.
It is getting annoying to me that Bitcoin Cash shills keep comparing Bitcoin Cash transaction capacity and fees as they exist today to Bitcoin (the Segwit chain) without The Lightning Network. It is a short-sided and unfair comparison, and I think in at least some cases, this is done specifically in order to be intentionally misleading, to pump Bitcoin Cash's value, and/or to promote the herein purported "flippening conspiracy".
Furthermore, the more I think about it... claiming that Segwit is flawed and insecure due to the "anyone can spend" vulnerability is almost like telling a half truth. Especially when Bitcoin Cash or another cryptocurrency is championed over Bitcoin (the Segwit chain). Why? Because the purported attack is effectively a simple 51% attack, of which other chains are vulnerable to as well. Someone with enough money and resources to perform such a 51% attack on Segwit can instead initiate a double spend attack any chain- whether it has Segwit or not. Double spending large sums of money to a dozen large Bitcoin companies and causing such economic loss and chaos would surely crash the price and confidence in Bitcoin (or any other cryptocurrency for that matter- Segwit or no Segwit).
Re: Will Bitcoin Cash replace BTC after the Fork?
There is a scenario where SegWit (1x and 2x both) entirely dies and BTC (Satoshi’s protocol) is restored:
Click the link in the quote above for more details.
The question is would BCH with 8MB blocks be the version of Satoshi’s protocol (i.e. no Core BIPs) restored, or would it be the one with 1MB blocks.
The entire point is that if you want to improve Bitcoin, then make an airdrop with replay protection and let the market decide. That is a decentralized paradigm. Do not hijack Satoshi’s protocol as some privileged centralized tyranny and try to force it to disappear as Core did.
That is why I was screaming to buy BCH at $300. And everybody looked at me like I was a kook and looney, same as when I was screaming to buy LTC at $6.
BTC is Satoshi’s protocol. SegWit is a “pay to anyone” insecure altcoin.
In my opinion it's very unlikely that BitcoinCash(BCH) will kick out Bitcoin(BTC) out of the first spot. Theoretically possible, but very unlikely. Even so, if BitcoinCash(BCH) were to beat Bitcoin(BTC), I'm sure it wouldn't happen after the Segwit2x fork. It would take lots of lots of years of convincing people to use BitcoinCash(BCH).
There is a scenario where SegWit (1x and 2x both) entirely dies and BTC (Satoshi’s protocol) is restored:
The entire fucking point of the game theory of Bitcoin is to be immutable and remove governance. Now we await to see if the SegWit “pay to anyone” booty will be stolen with a long-range chain attack restoring the immutability of Bitcoin, or if the game theory failed.
Click the link in the quote above for more details.
The question is would BCH with 8MB blocks be the version of Satoshi’s protocol (i.e. no Core BIPs) restored, or would it be the one with 1MB blocks.
The entire point is that if you want to improve Bitcoin, then make an airdrop with replay protection and let the market decide. That is a decentralized paradigm. Do not hijack Satoshi’s protocol as some privileged centralized tyranny and try to force it to disappear as Core did.
That is why I was screaming to buy BCH at $300. And everybody looked at me like I was a kook and looney, same as when I was screaming to buy LTC at $6.
BTC is king forever and there is no place to another king.
BTC is Satoshi’s protocol. SegWit is a “pay to anyone” insecure altcoin.
Bitcoin cash will not replace bitcoin. We can speculate all we want but we all know that bitcoin has taken root downward and it will be impossible to undone all bitcoin has achieved over the year!
See my prior post. You are not factoring in the eventual $billions of SegWit booty available to miners who revert BTC to Satoshi’s protocol.
Money talks. UAHF bullshit walks. Whales understand that if we allow Core or anyone to mutate Bitcoin without a decentralized market process, then Bitcoin will be just another altcoin.
Sorry I think you are dead wrong. And you will lose all you BTC to theft by the miners because you are not paying attention.
Quote
trying to understand the segwit theft - bitcoin is so centralized that if a chain reorg would happen core team / blockstream would tell all exchanges and large operators to stop trading and issue a patch that would have "official" block hashes of the last known "good chain" (think they are called snapshots), this would undo the thefts right? and cause massive losses to the mining cartel that has mined a long chain for nothing
1. The miners may have been sending BTC to exchanges to sell it, so they could possibly double-spend this BTC with the long-range chain reorganization and bankrupt the exchanges who attempt to fight the miners. Thus exchanges who want to survive will honor that the protocol is the law and not the centralized tyranny of Core-is-the-law. Miners can offer to share this loot taken from defecting exchanges, with other key players.
2. I presume millions of BTC whales understand that if centralized tyranny is the law, then Bitcoin is worthless as any other shitcoin. Thus whales will fully support the SegWit theft. We will probably get SegWit on Litecoin for offchain scaling and big blocks on BCH for onchain scaling, although neither of those will totally scale. Bitcoin will remain the immutable one-world reserve currency for whales that it was designed to be.
Bottom line is that the SegWit “pay to anyone” loot is an eventual $billions fundraising to pay for the immutability enforcement of Bitcoin.
Whoever created Bitcoin was a genius and had thought carefully the game theory.
CoinHoarder, I will quote Vitalik:
From the results of the poll, it seems we have a balanced split of opinions.
Now we wait to see the outcome of the free market.
Btw, I never claimed Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin. TRB is Satoshi’s protocol with 1MB blocks.
Note that the arguments above do NOT, by themselves, imply that it is a bad idea for miners to be the principal actors coordinating and deciding the block size (or in Ethereum’s case, the gas limit). It may well be the case that, in the specific case of the block size/gas limit, “government by coordinated miners with aligned incentives” is the optimal approach for deciding this one particular policy parameter, perhaps because the risk of miners abusing their power is lower than the risk that any specific chosen hard limit will prove wildly inappropriate for market conditions a decade after the limit is set. However, there is nothing unreasonable about saying that government-by-miners is the best way to decide one policy parameter, and at the same saying that for other parameters (eg. block reward) we want to rely on client-side validation to ensure that miners are constrained. This is the essence of engineering decentralized instutitions: it is about strategically using coordination problems to ensure that systems continue to satisfy certain desired properties.
From the results of the poll, it seems we have a balanced split of opinions.
Now we wait to see the outcome of the free market.
Btw, I never claimed Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin. TRB is Satoshi’s protocol with 1MB blocks.
@mint
I apologize, there was a death in the family this week and I've been preoccupied with that.
I've been thinking a lot about this the past week while watching the market. There are still some things bugging me about your speculation, but I am starting to see more and more people disseminate similar rhetoric (along with the recent market activity), which leads me to take it more seriously. I will share some new thoughts that have been running through my brain, along with regurgitating some thoughts that I feel have not (or can not) be proven wrong. The issues I still have with your speculation are as follows:
- There seems to be disagreement as to which chain is allegedly going to be attacked. Some purport that Segwit1x will be the target of the attack, but at the same time others purport that Segwit1x and Segwit2x will both be targets of the attack. Both seem just as likely.
- There seems to be much disagreement as to who the beneficiary of an attack on Segwit1x (or Segwit2x) would be. Some claim Segwit2x would be the winner, but at the same time some claim Bitcoin Cash, some claim Litecoin, some claim other ALT coins or ALT coins in general, and some claim that the entire cryptocurrency market as a whole will succumb to a crypto winter. Part of this depends on whether both Segwit forks are attacked, or if only one Segwit fork is attacked. If it is the latter, then the other Segwit fork is the likely victor- not Bitcoin Cash. If the former occurs, then Bitcoin Cash is not necessarily the clear victor. A solid argument could be made for each of the preceding bolded outcomes to be the most likely to occur.
- I am starting to see shills pop up and spread propaganda regarding the imminent attack you have theorized. I look at things through a very skeptical lens anytime there is a proliferation of shills. I'm not sure if you've realistically considered this, but there is a possibility that you are being used as a pawn in a plot to pump and dump Bitcoin Cash (and the purported attack is simply being used as a scare tactic to feed the pump and dump). How did you first come to your thesis on this attack? Were you nudged in this direction by someone, or something someone else wrote? Someone with your status and following would be an ideal pawn. Perhaps someone created the final piece(s) that helped you link everything together, and (unbeknownst to you) nudged you towards it? Perhaps you are in on the pump and dump yourself (I don't think this is true, but at the same time I will not eliminate it as a possibility)? It doesn't help anything that a very shady cast of characters seems to be somehow involved behind the curtains of this whole thing (Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Calvin Ayre, Craig Wright, etc...). Also, remember that this is not the first case of people spreading propaganda regarding what has been termed "the flippening". It has occurred at least twice previously with both Ethereum and Litecoin as being possible flippening candidates, but look at the scoreboard now...
- I am still not buying that Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin. Who's to say what Bitcoin is or isn't? Proponents of Bitcoin Cash seem to argue that Bitcoin Cash is most like the Bitcoin that Satoshi had originally envisioned. But at the end of the day, cryptocurrencies are software programs. They can evolve, and be upgraded for the betterment of the program. This has always been an answer to me (along with the concept of the Network Effect) for the argument against Bitcoin that goes like: "Won't Bitcoin become valueless if a better cryptocurrency is created?". Furthermore, do you think for a second that the sheep and speculators even care about some ideal cyberphunk-like Satoshi pipe dream? No- all they care about is profitable speculation, and this attack has the potential to kill the goose that will lay their golden eggs (in the whole cryptocurrency market succumbing to winter scenario). IMO, that is a risk that is not worth taking. Especially seeing as though everyone in the ecosystem (attackers, whales, miners, speculators, sheep, etc.) shares this risk equally.
- Another new more meta concept I've been tossing around in my head is that puppet masters require the existence of puppets/sheep for their puppet mastery to function properly. Wouldn't it be more advantageous for the sheep herders to weaken and possibly destroy the wolves that can destroy their flock (rather than weaken and destroy the sheep) to upkeep the status quo? Perhaps it is you, the wolf, that is being played here by TPTB? This would make sense if the alleged attack is indeed a simple pump and dump scam involving Bitcoin Cash at the core of the onion. Will the wolves be left holding valueless bags of Bitcoin Cash? As stated previously, the alleged attack has the potential to weaken and destroy sheep while empowering wolves. Wolves of which that are more dangerous to the sheep herders, much more so than the sheep at least.
- I still think that you are downplaying the risks of the alleged attack. As I have stated previously, the people speculating on Bitcoin are smarter than your average sheep. If you anger the Bitcoin "sheep", then I see a very real potential that these sheep mutate into wolves. Then TPTB are worse off than they started. TPTB already have a golden goose. TPTB are on track to becoming the richest and most powerful people in the world (if they are not already- as you purport). This will happen organically over time as Bitcoin becomes more popular. There is no need to force the issue with a risky attack. Why risk it? I just can't wrap my head around that....
At this point I believe the most likely outcome is that TPTB are pumping and dumping Bitcoin Cash. Meanwhile, they are using this alleged attack as a scare tactic to exponentially increase their gains on the dump. And Segwit1x or Segwit2x will remain Bitcoin. It is still unclear to me whether Social Consensus or Proof of Work will win out in the end, but if I had to pick one... I would go with Social Consensus and the Segwit1x chain for reasons I have already argued/blogged about. For a long term hodl-type portfolio, I see solid alternative cryptocurrencies as being a decent hedge against this whole Bitcoin clusterfuck, but FIAT/Metals/Stocks are probably the best way to hedge your bets at this time. I say ride the BCH pump for the time being if you are more into short term outlooks and trading, because the pump will not slow down until the Segwit/Segwit2x fork.
I apologize, there was a death in the family this week and I've been preoccupied with that.
I've been thinking a lot about this the past week while watching the market. There are still some things bugging me about your speculation, but I am starting to see more and more people disseminate similar rhetoric (along with the recent market activity), which leads me to take it more seriously. I will share some new thoughts that have been running through my brain, along with regurgitating some thoughts that I feel have not (or can not) be proven wrong. The issues I still have with your speculation are as follows:
- There seems to be disagreement as to which chain is allegedly going to be attacked. Some purport that Segwit1x will be the target of the attack, but at the same time others purport that Segwit1x and Segwit2x will both be targets of the attack. Both seem just as likely.
- There seems to be much disagreement as to who the beneficiary of an attack on Segwit1x (or Segwit2x) would be. Some claim Segwit2x would be the winner, but at the same time some claim Bitcoin Cash, some claim Litecoin, some claim other ALT coins or ALT coins in general, and some claim that the entire cryptocurrency market as a whole will succumb to a crypto winter. Part of this depends on whether both Segwit forks are attacked, or if only one Segwit fork is attacked. If it is the latter, then the other Segwit fork is the likely victor- not Bitcoin Cash. If the former occurs, then Bitcoin Cash is not necessarily the clear victor. A solid argument could be made for each of the preceding bolded outcomes to be the most likely to occur.
- I am starting to see shills pop up and spread propaganda regarding the imminent attack you have theorized. I look at things through a very skeptical lens anytime there is a proliferation of shills. I'm not sure if you've realistically considered this, but there is a possibility that you are being used as a pawn in a plot to pump and dump Bitcoin Cash (and the purported attack is simply being used as a scare tactic to feed the pump and dump). How did you first come to your thesis on this attack? Were you nudged in this direction by someone, or something someone else wrote? Someone with your status and following would be an ideal pawn. Perhaps someone created the final piece(s) that helped you link everything together, and (unbeknownst to you) nudged you towards it? Perhaps you are in on the pump and dump yourself (I don't think this is true, but at the same time I will not eliminate it as a possibility)? It doesn't help anything that a very shady cast of characters seems to be somehow involved behind the curtains of this whole thing (Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Calvin Ayre, Craig Wright, etc...). Also, remember that this is not the first case of people spreading propaganda regarding what has been termed "the flippening". It has occurred at least twice previously with both Ethereum and Litecoin as being possible flippening candidates, but look at the scoreboard now...
- I am still not buying that Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin. Who's to say what Bitcoin is or isn't? Proponents of Bitcoin Cash seem to argue that Bitcoin Cash is most like the Bitcoin that Satoshi had originally envisioned. But at the end of the day, cryptocurrencies are software programs. They can evolve, and be upgraded for the betterment of the program. This has always been an answer to me (along with the concept of the Network Effect) for the argument against Bitcoin that goes like: "Won't Bitcoin become valueless if a better cryptocurrency is created?". Furthermore, do you think for a second that the sheep and speculators even care about some ideal cyberphunk-like Satoshi pipe dream? No- all they care about is profitable speculation, and this attack has the potential to kill the goose that will lay their golden eggs (in the whole cryptocurrency market succumbing to winter scenario). IMO, that is a risk that is not worth taking. Especially seeing as though everyone in the ecosystem (attackers, whales, miners, speculators, sheep, etc.) shares this risk equally.
- Another new more meta concept I've been tossing around in my head is that puppet masters require the existence of puppets/sheep for their puppet mastery to function properly. Wouldn't it be more advantageous for the sheep herders to weaken and possibly destroy the wolves that can destroy their flock (rather than weaken and destroy the sheep) to upkeep the status quo? Perhaps it is you, the wolf, that is being played here by TPTB? This would make sense if the alleged attack is indeed a simple pump and dump scam involving Bitcoin Cash at the core of the onion. Will the wolves be left holding valueless bags of Bitcoin Cash? As stated previously, the alleged attack has the potential to weaken and destroy sheep while empowering wolves. Wolves of which that are more dangerous to the sheep herders, much more so than the sheep at least.
- I still think that you are downplaying the risks of the alleged attack. As I have stated previously, the people speculating on Bitcoin are smarter than your average sheep. If you anger the Bitcoin "sheep", then I see a very real potential that these sheep mutate into wolves. Then TPTB are worse off than they started. TPTB already have a golden goose. TPTB are on track to becoming the richest and most powerful people in the world (if they are not already- as you purport). This will happen organically over time as Bitcoin becomes more popular. There is no need to force the issue with a risky attack. Why risk it? I just can't wrap my head around that....
At this point I believe the most likely outcome is that TPTB are pumping and dumping Bitcoin Cash. Meanwhile, they are using this alleged attack as a scare tactic to exponentially increase their gains on the dump. And Segwit1x or Segwit2x will remain Bitcoin. It is still unclear to me whether Social Consensus or Proof of Work will win out in the end, but if I had to pick one... I would go with Social Consensus and the Segwit1x chain for reasons I have already argued/blogged about. For a long term hodl-type portfolio, I see solid alternative cryptocurrencies as being a decent hedge against this whole Bitcoin clusterfuck, but FIAT/Metals/Stocks are probably the best way to hedge your bets at this time. I say ride the BCH pump for the time being if you are more into short term outlooks and trading, because the pump will not slow down until the Segwit/Segwit2x fork.
The closing wedge pattern prediction of mine was correct.
We have 50% gains off the bottom of $300 of BCH which I had stated would be the bottom if the wedge pattern broke to the upside. I took profits into LTC for 25% of my holdings of BCH. I was about 90% in BCH.
We have 50% gains off the bottom of $300 of BCH which I had stated would be the bottom if the wedge pattern broke to the upside. I took profits into LTC for 25% of my holdings of BCH. I was about 90% in BCH.
.05BTC seems to be a reliable entry price so far.Do you think it will dip lower or gradually increase with the 2x fork shennagins approaching?This Dr Wright seems to know some heavy doods with a lot of moolah so a good pump could be on the way.Of course they could be about to squat and take a big dump all over the place at any time.The psychological factor may very well be that the $350 price range is a good incentive for airdrop holders to sell their BCH while this price is a bit expensive for the lunchbox investor and moon monkey to jump in at leaving a sweet spot to hold the price at as BTC is converted into BCH for the big flip flop if there is going to be one.This way the dumpers who had BCH are decimated and the potential dumpers who failed to jump in are not going to be there.
The closing wedge pattern prediction of mine was correct.
We have 50% gains off the bottom of $300 of BCH which I had stated would be the bottom if the wedge pattern broke to the upside. I took profits into LTC for 25% of my holdings of BCH. I was about 90% in BCH.
We have 50% gains off the bottom of $300 of BCH which I had stated would be the bottom if the wedge pattern broke to the upside. I took profits into LTC for 25% of my holdings of BCH. I was about 90% in BCH.
Some conspiratorial speculation on how this may tie into the coming one-world currency:
I have vacillated over the past 16 years on the global elite conspiracy theme. I became burned out on it for several years and was tired of listening to nutcases rail on and on about chemtrails, reptilians, etc.. But then recently I decided to watch some videos produced by PhDs and scholars about the evidence and arguments that Mossad did 9/11. And frankly, I can not refute that very compelling exposition.
Do you really believe that 9/11 was done by some Arabs who could not fly airplanes well in flight school who boarded the planes with box cutters (yet our government refuses to release the full length of the surveillance videos same as in the recent Las Vegas massacre). What is your explanation of this event (other than to just ignore it and focus on the ass of the sheep in front of you)?
I have an inquisitive mind.
I am interested in understanding the Zionists as it may pertain to what type of monetary systems, laws, and regulations we are headed into, so that my altcoin project has taken this into account as much as possible. It’s actually a very responsible action I am undertaking.
The reason this is so important is because who ever controls the one-world reserve currency can basically turn the world into slaves via debt similar to what is happening to Greece now and what will happen to the entire world soon due to the short dollar vortex underway:
https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c192cedaed52ef11ef97acb239dc5986#euro-is-a-monetary-enslavement-paradigm
[…]
I also wrote a blog a couple months ago about the coming one-world currency:
https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/get-ready-for-a-world-currency
Armstrong continued to make similar arguments to his recent public blogs which I had refuted:
Armstrong seems to address Russia’s creation of a cryptocurrency:
But the mistake I believe Armstrong is making, which was explained my Steemit blog about the coming one-world currency, is that nation-states and even groupings of them (e.g. G5) can’t agree on anything and thus they will each end up with their own attempt to create a cryptocurrency none of which can be the globally accepted one.
Thus I posit the free market will possibly anoint Bitcoin because it’s the only one that is not controlled by any one nation. And the nations will acquiesce to Bitcoin as the king eventually, because of course they want to eliminate cash.
This brings me back once again to my theory that Bitcoin was created by the Zionists to drive the nation-states into submission to a global currency which no nation can control and which ends cash. And which in the end game, the Zionists entirely control per the flaws in proof-of-work as the transaction fees become great and the protocol block reward (i.e. the inflation due to debasement) diminishes as I had explained in previous posts.
I believe the Zionists are employing their institutions (which are also decoys) to bring this to fruition:
[…]
Armstrong wrote about how the IMF SDRs are unlikely to become the one-world reserve currency because it requires that people are willing to buy the bonds and issue loans in that unit-of-account.
Thus the only way to bring about a one-world reserve currency is what I pointed out in my blog. There must be a popular catalyst that is outside the control of the nation-states, thus cryptocurrency is that likely catalyst either directly or as a threat to the nation-states that causes them to acquiesce to the SDRs.
I also wrote a blog a couple months ago about the coming one-world currency:
https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/get-ready-for-a-world-currency
Armstrong continued to make similar arguments to his recent public blogs which I had refuted:
Quote from: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-17/russia%E2%80%99s-crypto-ruble-just-changed-game
By taxing crypto-rubles at the capital gains rate for those that cannot provide a paper-trail of ownership, Russia and Putin are incentivizing the development of low-cost crypto-payment systems to exchange rubles for goods only in cryptocurrencies that also track ownership, like Ethereum and others that have transparent blockchain histories.
[…]
The crypto-ruble provides the means by which to convert, transaction-cost-free, back into the national ‘fiat’ currency to pay bills, taxes and the like. This is in direct opposition to how the U.S., for example, treats cryptocurrencies.
The 2014 I.R.S. rule that classified Bitcoin as ‘property’ means that every Bitcoin transaction, no matter how minor, creates a potential capital gains event. It means that buying a cup of coffee at Starbucks in Bitcoin is taxable for both the person buying the coffee (capital gains on the sale) and Starbucks when they go to sell those Bitcoins, buy dollars and pay salaries, order supplies, etc.
It’s why the capital that has moved into cryptocurrencies isn’t moving back out. It’s why the ICO market has exploded. Billions in profits actively looking for new investment opportunities without paying taxes.
It’s also the main reason why Amazon, for example, doesn’t take Bitcoin. Who wants that hassle?
Can you imagine Amazon’s Schedule D if it accepted Bitcoin?
The crypto-ruble’s structure dispenses with that for those that can prove ownership via the blockchain. Bitcoin allows for transaction transparency, so does Ethereum, Litecoin and many others.
[…]
The crypto-ruble provides the means by which to convert, transaction-cost-free, back into the national ‘fiat’ currency to pay bills, taxes and the like. This is in direct opposition to how the U.S., for example, treats cryptocurrencies.
The 2014 I.R.S. rule that classified Bitcoin as ‘property’ means that every Bitcoin transaction, no matter how minor, creates a potential capital gains event. It means that buying a cup of coffee at Starbucks in Bitcoin is taxable for both the person buying the coffee (capital gains on the sale) and Starbucks when they go to sell those Bitcoins, buy dollars and pay salaries, order supplies, etc.
It’s why the capital that has moved into cryptocurrencies isn’t moving back out. It’s why the ICO market has exploded. Billions in profits actively looking for new investment opportunities without paying taxes.
It’s also the main reason why Amazon, for example, doesn’t take Bitcoin. Who wants that hassle?
Can you imagine Amazon’s Schedule D if it accepted Bitcoin?
The crypto-ruble’s structure dispenses with that for those that can prove ownership via the blockchain. Bitcoin allows for transaction transparency, so does Ethereum, Litecoin and many others.
Armstrong seems to address Russia’s creation of a cryptocurrency:
Central banks around the world are now very seriously looking into creating Cryptocurrencies. After all, the vast amount of the economy transactions are electronic to begin with. The existence of cash in physical form is what they are trying to eliminate to force everyone on the grid in order to increase tax collection. There is no question that we will be looking at this as the next evolutionary step forward in the monetary system. The problem people do not grasp is that government can easily outlaw private cryptocurrencies and declare it as money laundering that avoids taxes. They will be 25 years in prison and the first person they prosecute will be held up as an example to scare the life out of everyone else.
But the mistake I believe Armstrong is making, which was explained my Steemit blog about the coming one-world currency, is that nation-states and even groupings of them (e.g. G5) can’t agree on anything and thus they will each end up with their own attempt to create a cryptocurrency none of which can be the globally accepted one.
Thus I posit the free market will possibly anoint Bitcoin because it’s the only one that is not controlled by any one nation. And the nations will acquiesce to Bitcoin as the king eventually, because of course they want to eliminate cash.
This brings me back once again to my theory that Bitcoin was created by the Zionists to drive the nation-states into submission to a global currency which no nation can control and which ends cash. And which in the end game, the Zionists entirely control per the flaws in proof-of-work as the transaction fees become great and the protocol block reward (i.e. the inflation due to debasement) diminishes as I had explained in previous posts.
I believe the Zionists are employing their institutions (which are also decoys) to bring this to fruition:
Make no mistake about it; the IMF has been at the heart of hunting down the underground economy. The IMF took the lead in threatening tax havens to give up all people hiding money or suffer the same fate as Iran – expulsion from the SWIFT transfer system. That would mean no money in or out. The IMF even threatened the Vatican that if it did not report all money movements, then it too would be sanctioned and removed from the SWIFT system.
The IMF has been at the forefront of shutting down the world underground economy so that tax collection can be effective. We even find that the International Monetary Fund in Washington published a Working Paper on “de-cashing” the economies of the world and what the implications would be.
This IMF Working Paper stands as a clear warning of the future direction of the world economy. The IMF has been providing advice to governments who want to join in the latest authoritarian maneuver abolishing cash to eliminate the underground economy.
The IMF recommends in its conclusion to this paper that although some countries most likely will de-cash in a few years, going completely cashless should be phased in steps.
The IMF has been at the forefront of shutting down the world underground economy so that tax collection can be effective. We even find that the International Monetary Fund in Washington published a Working Paper on “de-cashing” the economies of the world and what the implications would be.
This IMF Working Paper stands as a clear warning of the future direction of the world economy. The IMF has been providing advice to governments who want to join in the latest authoritarian maneuver abolishing cash to eliminate the underground economy.
The IMF recommends in its conclusion to this paper that although some countries most likely will de-cash in a few years, going completely cashless should be phased in steps.
[…]
Armstrong wrote about how the IMF SDRs are unlikely to become the one-world reserve currency because it requires that people are willing to buy the bonds and issue loans in that unit-of-account.
Thus the only way to bring about a one-world reserve currency is what I pointed out in my blog. There must be a popular catalyst that is outside the control of the nation-states, thus cryptocurrency is that likely catalyst either directly or as a threat to the nation-states that causes them to acquiesce to the SDRs.
Don't care, you are delusional
Quote from: private discussions
I am not sure about anything w.r.t. to the world view. But I can not refute the PhD & scholars compelling evidence that Mossad did 9/11 and the corruption in WW2 to create the Zionist state. Doesn’t mean I believe in UFOs, reptilians, and other disinformation from non-scholars.
[…]
People believe what they want to believe. Sheep like to ignore opportunities to separate from the herd and prefer to feel safe in the herd even when they are being harvested.
[…]
People believe what they want to believe. Sheep like to ignore opportunities to separate from the herd and prefer to feel safe in the herd even when they are being harvested.
I have vacillated over the past 16 years on the global elite conspiracy theme. I became burned out on it for several years and was tired of listening to nutcases rail on and on about chemtrails, reptilians, etc.. But then recently I decided to watch some videos produced by PhDs and scholars about the evidence and arguments that Mossad did 9/11. And frankly, I can not refute that very compelling exposition.
Do you really believe that 9/11 was done by some Arabs who could not fly airplanes well in flight school who boarded the planes with box cutters (yet our government refuses to release the full length of the surveillance videos same as in the recent Las Vegas massacre). What is your explanation of this event (other than to just ignore it and focus on the ass of the sheep in front of you)?
I have an inquisitive mind.
I am interested in understanding the Zionists as it may pertain to what type of monetary systems, laws, and regulations we are headed into, so that my altcoin project has taken this into account as much as possible. It’s actually a very responsible action I am undertaking.
The reason this is so important is because who ever controls the one-world reserve currency can basically turn the world into slaves via debt similar to what is happening to Greece now and what will happen to the entire world soon due to the short dollar vortex underway:
https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c192cedaed52ef11ef97acb239dc5986#euro-is-a-monetary-enslavement-paradigm
@mint
Ironically, most "truthers" get angsty when I start question their theories. Isn't that the point of being a truther... questioning what you've learned about everything everywhere?
Ironically, most "truthers" get angsty when I start question their theories. Isn't that the point of being a truther... questioning what you've learned about everything everywhere?
I welcome any person with a strong functioning brain stem and reasonably decent IQ to listen the PhDs and scholars I linked to and the evidence and argument that Mossad did 9/11 and then I doubt none of them can rationally make good arguments against the theory.
Of course most people are too lazy/busy to expend 3 - 4 hours digesting the videos as I did, and also because they’ve seen so much crap in the past about UFOs, reptilians, and other diversionary disinformation crap that was ostensibly injected by Mossad to create confusion and discredit the truth.
I am saying that potentially you are wrong about who created Bitcoin. There have been so many different people that have been called Satoshi Nakamoto before, with all sorts of proof in each case. Now you think you've solved it? Think about how crazy you sound to the old timers that have heard the "Satoshi Was Found" story 100 times by now. You do appear to have some proof, but as far as I can tell, you and I both will most likely never know who Satoshi was. There is not a way to prove you wrong, just as there is not any way to prove that you aren't wrong. So please stop asking me to do so. Maybe you are right? I can't prove either way...
Criminal investigators look for motive, capability, and strong circumstantial/corroborating evidence. I found all three. All other prior attempts to identify Satoshi were diversionary disinformation crap that was ostensibly injected by Mossad to create confusion and discredit the truth.
Same with the purported Segwit attack by the miners... that's way out in left field too. There is no way to definitively prove it right or wrong.
Technologically it is “right” (i.e. correct) to state the attack is technically plausible.
I think it is more unlikely than the first theory, due to the amount of risk mounting an attack on Bitcoin Segwit/2x will have for the attackers,
I believe the attackers will only do it if it a sure win-win. And so they must presumably wait until the accumulated SegWit (and possibly other miners’ spent BTC) booty is huge enough that it is impossible for them to lose.
yet I still admit that it is possible. However, you claim Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash are safe havens if such an event were to occur, but I have deduced the opposite.
There will be many thousands of very angry people (real people, regular joe blows...) that got screwed, because a lot of people own only Segwit/Segwit2x tokens. I can imagine the "Bitcoin Was A Scam" news headlines scaring investors away from the crypto market in general, but even more so with Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.
There will be many thousands of very angry people (real people, regular joe blows...) that got screwed, because a lot of people own only Segwit/Segwit2x tokens. I can imagine the "Bitcoin Was A Scam" news headlines scaring investors away from the crypto market in general, but even more so with Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.
Well I am expecting a possible boost in the 8MB BCH due to the failure of 2X before any SegWit booty attack.
And ditto LTC as it is 2X (i.e. 2MB) with SegWit.
But BCH might still benefit also from a SegWit attack because Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment is very slow at 2 weeks, so a crashing BTC price will make the BCH orders-of-magnitude more profitable to mine, thus potentially sending BCH mooning while BTC is collapsing.
No, just no... all you have to do is let the other "sheep" know what happened. People are a little smarter than sheep brah. Just saying...
They herd towards price movement which leads them though.
IMO, SHA256 (and possibly Scrypt) as a hashing method is done as far as I'm concerned if this attack goes down, and so is any cryptocurrency that uses it. If this attack happens, then I will sell every single SHA256 token I have, and I will spend a very long time trying to convince people of that being the only way to punish the thugs that attacked Bitcoin. Let the bag holder's (miners/whales) be stuck with useless and valueless bags (usless mining hardware or effectively valueless tokens).
I don’t think so. BTC will become stronger (after some collapse in price and recovery) because it remained immutable as no Core thugs were able to monopolize the mutation of the blockchain for their bankster masters who funded them. Whereas BCH was an airdrop not a hard fork. The point being that the free market should decide which mutation is valuable, by making them all airdrops and not the anointing one over the others by some NYA of whales. Nevertheless, I think the entire Core thuggery is really just a Hegelian dialectic by design, to take BTC from sheep when immutability is ultimately restored. Again this is not a certain outcome nor is the timing certain. I reiterate this is a speculative interpretation of what I perceive may be the reality behind the curtain so to speak, although technological facts are in the open for anyone to analyse. Of course, my speculation could end up entirely incorrect or it could happen years from now when everyone has long since concluded I was smoking my own Koolaid.
Hopefully, we as a community can set precedence for such an event in PoW cryptocyrrencies... If someone amassed enough hash power to attack a certain hashing algorithm, then as punishment the cryptocurrencies using such hashing algorithm are sold off, never used again, and campaigned against. A true show of force from the community could prevent future similar attacks from rogue miners and whales. This is the only way in my mind to punish 51% attackers, and I would hope most people in the community will back me up.
The community of sheep was dumb enough to create a booty that forces miners to steal it otherwise it will always be a threat that some other miners will. It is a power vacuum.
The stupid community fucked up.
The very poor logic skills of most people is for me like someone scraping the chalk board with their fingernails.
I think the biggest benefactors of such an event will be different forms of PoS, PoW cryptocurrencies that utilize a different hashing algorithm, and cryptocurrencies that had nothing to do with the attack. Ethereum, Ripple, Monero, etc... (all other let's say... top 50 alternative cryptocurrencies) would perform better post-attack, because community confidence in Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin will be shattered.
Except all that other shit is mutable by thugs (whale circle-jerks) that control them.
The immutability of Bitcoin will demonstrate that it alone is unique and trustworthy.
You don't want to anger the sheep herd, as they may just kill you to death with their cuteness!
The sheep created the damn booty which destroys the security. Sheep herd right over the cliff every damn time while only seeing the ass of the sheep in front of them.
Oh... and they will make sure that the other sheep know Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin is a scam! You already have The sheep where you want them, why anger them uneccesarily and cause a potentially devastating amount of blowback? The social media pitchfork mafia will never rest.
I think that in this post I have elaborated on different dynamics of what I have termed Social Consensus in prior posts/bligs, and how I think it should ideally play out.
I think that in this post I have elaborated on different dynamics of what I have termed Social Consensus in prior posts/bligs, and how I think it should ideally play out.
I expect the only blowback will temporal such as the sound of all the sheep exhaling as they hit the valley floor after falling to their deaths from the cliff. And any possible crypto winter opportunity for whales to load up on more cheap BTC sold off by those who are marked-to-market by a hard (re)turn to reality.
@mint
Ironically, most "truthers" get angsty when I start question their theories. Isn't that the point of being a truther... questioning what you've learned about everything everywhere?
I am saying that potentially you are wrong about who created Bitcoin. There have been so many different people that have been called Satoshi Nakamoto before, with all sorts of proof in each case. Now you think you've solved it? Think about how crazy you sound to the old timers that have heard the "Satoshi Was Found" story 100 times by now. You do appear to have some proof, but as far as I can tell, you and I both will most likely never know who Satoshi was. There is not a way to prove you wrong, just as there is not any way to prove that you aren't wrong. So please stop asking me to do so. Maybe you are right? I can't prove either way...
Same with the purported Segwit attack by the miners... that's way out in left field too. There is no way to definitively prove it right or wrong. I think it is more unlikely than the first theory, due to the amount of risk mounting an attack on Bitcoin Segwit/2x will have for the attackers, yet I still admit that it is possible. However, you claim Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash are safe havens if such an event were to occur, but I have deduced the opposite.
There will be many thousands of very angry people (real people, regular joe blows...) that got screwed, because a lot of people own only Segwit/Segwit2x tokens. I can imagine the "Bitcoin Was A Scam" news headlines scaring investors away from the crypto market in general, but even more so with Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. Litecoin has Segwit too, so it's susceptible to the attack they already did on Bitcoin, and is owned by Zihan's gang too. Why would the "sheep" in your scenario flock to Bitcoin Cash or Litecoin? To give more money in transaction fees etc. to the same mining cartel that stole your money in the Segwit attack? To pump the value of the guilty whales tokens? No, just no... all you have to do is let the other "sheep" know what happened. People are a little smarter than sheep brah. Just saying...
IMO, SHA256 (and possibly Scrypt) as a hashing method is done as far as I'm concerned if this attack goes down, and so is any cryptocurrency that uses it. If this attack happens, then I will sell every single SHA256 token I have, and I will spend a very long time trying to convince people of that being the only way to punish the thugs that attacked Bitcoin. Let the bag holder's (miners/whales) be stuck with useless and valueless bags (usless mining hardware or effectively valueless tokens).
Hopefully, we as a community can set precedence for such an event in PoW cryptocyrrencies... If someone amassed enough hash power to attack a certain hashing algorithm, then as punishment the cryptocurrencies using such hashing algorithm are sold off, never used again, and campaigned against. A true show of force from the community could prevent future similar attacks from rogue miners and whales. This is the only way in my mind to punish 51% attackers, and I would hope most people in the community will back me up.
I don't think that Litecoin would benefit as much as other cryptocurrencies, because Zihan and his gang are balls deep in Litecoin mining too. Bitcoin Cash is supported and owned by the same thugs that attacked Bitcoin too. Why would the speculators (aka. "sheep") flock there? I will not support any cryptocurrency in which its miners blatantly attack other cryptocurrencies, and I am sure many will support me here.
I think the biggest benefactors of such an event will be different forms of PoS, PoW cryptocurrencies that utilize a different hashing algorithm, and cryptocurrencies that had nothing to do with the attack. Ethereum, Ripple, Monero, etc... (all other let's say... top 50 alternative cryptocurrencies) would perform better post-attack, because community confidence in Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin will be shattered.
You don't want to anger the sheep herd, as they may just kill you to death with their cuteness! Oh... and they will make sure that the other sheep know Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin is a scam! You already have The sheep where you want them, why anger them uneccesarily and cause a potentially devastating amount of blowback? The social media pitchfork mafia will never rest.
I think that in this post I have elaborated on different dynamics of what I have termed Social Consensus in prior posts/bligs, and how I think it should ideally play out.
Ironically, most "truthers" get angsty when I start question their theories. Isn't that the point of being a truther... questioning what you've learned about everything everywhere?
I am saying that potentially you are wrong about who created Bitcoin. There have been so many different people that have been called Satoshi Nakamoto before, with all sorts of proof in each case. Now you think you've solved it? Think about how crazy you sound to the old timers that have heard the "Satoshi Was Found" story 100 times by now. You do appear to have some proof, but as far as I can tell, you and I both will most likely never know who Satoshi was. There is not a way to prove you wrong, just as there is not any way to prove that you aren't wrong. So please stop asking me to do so. Maybe you are right? I can't prove either way...
Same with the purported Segwit attack by the miners... that's way out in left field too. There is no way to definitively prove it right or wrong. I think it is more unlikely than the first theory, due to the amount of risk mounting an attack on Bitcoin Segwit/2x will have for the attackers, yet I still admit that it is possible. However, you claim Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash are safe havens if such an event were to occur, but I have deduced the opposite.
There will be many thousands of very angry people (real people, regular joe blows...) that got screwed, because a lot of people own only Segwit/Segwit2x tokens. I can imagine the "Bitcoin Was A Scam" news headlines scaring investors away from the crypto market in general, but even more so with Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. Litecoin has Segwit too, so it's susceptible to the attack they already did on Bitcoin, and is owned by Zihan's gang too. Why would the "sheep" in your scenario flock to Bitcoin Cash or Litecoin? To give more money in transaction fees etc. to the same mining cartel that stole your money in the Segwit attack? To pump the value of the guilty whales tokens? No, just no... all you have to do is let the other "sheep" know what happened. People are a little smarter than sheep brah. Just saying...
IMO, SHA256 (and possibly Scrypt) as a hashing method is done as far as I'm concerned if this attack goes down, and so is any cryptocurrency that uses it. If this attack happens, then I will sell every single SHA256 token I have, and I will spend a very long time trying to convince people of that being the only way to punish the thugs that attacked Bitcoin. Let the bag holder's (miners/whales) be stuck with useless and valueless bags (usless mining hardware or effectively valueless tokens).
Hopefully, we as a community can set precedence for such an event in PoW cryptocyrrencies... If someone amassed enough hash power to attack a certain hashing algorithm, then as punishment the cryptocurrencies using such hashing algorithm are sold off, never used again, and campaigned against. A true show of force from the community could prevent future similar attacks from rogue miners and whales. This is the only way in my mind to punish 51% attackers, and I would hope most people in the community will back me up.
I don't think that Litecoin would benefit as much as other cryptocurrencies, because Zihan and his gang are balls deep in Litecoin mining too. Bitcoin Cash is supported and owned by the same thugs that attacked Bitcoin too. Why would the speculators (aka. "sheep") flock there? I will not support any cryptocurrency in which its miners blatantly attack other cryptocurrencies, and I am sure many will support me here.
I think the biggest benefactors of such an event will be different forms of PoS, PoW cryptocurrencies that utilize a different hashing algorithm, and cryptocurrencies that had nothing to do with the attack. Ethereum, Ripple, Monero, etc... (all other let's say... top 50 alternative cryptocurrencies) would perform better post-attack, because community confidence in Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin will be shattered.
You don't want to anger the sheep herd, as they may just kill you to death with their cuteness! Oh... and they will make sure that the other sheep know Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin is a scam! You already have The sheep where you want them, why anger them uneccesarily and cause a potentially devastating amount of blowback? The social media pitchfork mafia will never rest.
I think that in this post I have elaborated on different dynamics of what I have termed Social Consensus in prior posts/bligs, and how I think it should ideally play out.
Jump to: