Topic: Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi? - page 4. (Read 5187 times)

The timing is very uncertain.

Would Omni Assets be rekt in case of a chain reorganisation too ? I have tetherUSD, which so far is a good means to hedge.

Your (what I presume to be) failure to assimilate all the facts conveniently makes my exposition a “conspiracy” and “argument from ignorance” only in your lazy mind. Or should I write more respectfully: your preferences for priorities in the use of your available time.

• I ask you to go watch the videos from PhDs and scholars (proving that Mossad slaughtered 2700+ sheep at 9/11) that was linked several times and I get in return as a “rebuttal” is the usual Baaaa moan from the witless sheep about how they do not have time to watch the evidence because they preordained that everything they do not want to believe must be a conspiracy. Because it doesn’t match their fantasy about the way their grazing corral should be.
• I linked (in the OP) to where I had explained in technical detail citing peer reviewed research from PhDs that Satoshi designed proof-of-work such that it forces centralization into an oligarchy as the revenue from transaction fees rises and the protocol block reward diminishes (a separate technical issue from the fact that proof-of-work is dominated by ASIC mining). Yet somehow you think this is a conspiracy. Do you also see the ghosts and moire patterns aliasing error in your hallucinations that sampling below the Nyquist limit causes?
• I linked within those discussions to where I had explained in debates with @dinofelis that Satoshi designed ASICBOOST (which provides ~30% performance/efficiency boost) intentionally into proof-of-work. Implicitly gifting it to Bitmain who would have the advantage of not paying any patent royalties to employ it. And I reminded everyone that there is no way to detect when it is being employed.
• I linked to a long list of objectives the Zionists could achieve by having been the ones to create Bitcoin. Can you even cite for me the post I am referring to? If not, then how can you claim anything about my argument when you refuse to even know what my argument is in detail.
• I pointed out the economics and math that the only logical reason for major capitalists to be into mining (unless we presume they’re incompetent), is world domination.

Even if the assimilation of the various facts into a holistic theory about Bitcoin is speculation, that does not make the logic not straightforward. If you want to disagree with the speculation, it still does not make the logic difficult to understand. The point of my statement which you quoted, is a challenge to those who want to make a rebuttal, then please actually address the logic and make your rebuttal germane to my argument. Which you utterly failed to do yet again. Instead you entirely side-stepped the points of my argument and wrote about my personality or reiterated your argument about social consensus (and so I repeat my rebuttal below).

Do you really think that Zionists who have shown they are capable of massive deception would not have intentionally made Satoshi’s work appear to be amateurish while the main salient design goals where never changed from what Satoshi delivered at the inception.

I do not have sufficient time (nor energy) to repeat myself to those who are determined to promote herding behavior (e.g. labeling something a conspiracy or diatribe to avoid having to delve into it) instead of having a debate on the issues. They should continue to follow the ass of the sheep in front of them. Carry on.

I'm not claiming others should not present their arguments. My point is that I've provided rebuttals point-by-point to their/your arguments, yet you/they just dismiss my points as conspiracy or diatribe.


Whoa. Where did I state there was no element of speculation in my thread? In fact, I have indicated several times that I am open to the possibility of being shown that my thought process is incorrect. Even stating I would be grateful to anyone who can show me why I am incorrect.

But labeling everything I have presented to be a conspiracy, is a convenient buzzword signalling device to the other sheep who are looking only at your ass, to continue to do so.

In fact, there are no such thing as absolute facts, but the irony of our inability to conclude absolutely that there are not absolute facts on our pitiful existence. We only have partial orders in this perceivable universe. And thus every fact is open to being disproved.

Our life is a speculation.


Destroying SegWit on Bitcoin would not necessarily shatter confidence in Bitcoin Cash nor in Litecoin. Instead I believe it would boost both of those. And also provide renewed confidence that Satoshi’s Bitcoin will remain immutable.

It will shatter confidence in sheep, UAHF, Core, and other nonsense that should never have had confidence in the first place. But sheep will be sheep.

It will pop the current bubble and reset for the steady rise of BTC at about ~50% per annum (or probably slowing down slightly because larger things grow slower than smaller things do).

Bitmain and its clients will continue to mine the same number of BTC that they did before (or even more), and their Bitmain and Litecoin chains will continue to grow in stature as the mutable (and more experimental) scaling solutions.

Sorry your presumption that Bitcoin will suffer everlasting doom just because we cast off the idiots, does not seem cogent to me.

However I can not predict when it will happen or even if it will surely happen. The future may end up being more complicated than my simplistic analysis.

I was hoping that we could crowd source some thoughts about various scenarios:

No, it is not. This is a reocurring issue when I've entered into debates with you over the years. You combine speculation with conspiracy theories with technobabble with facts, then pass it off as fact using logical fallacies. Mainly, the argument from ignorance fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Since you use enough of the latter (technobabble and facts), people assume you are correct and have a hard time debating you. To make it even harder, you link to long diatribes (that link to more diatribes that link to more diatribes), which in turn require a massive amount of effort (days to weeks worth) just to understand your argument and respond thoroughly. But by tying in speculation and conspiracy theories, it is impossible to argue the opposite side, due to the fact they are speculation and conspiracies.

Theres nothing wrong with speculation, as other people and I speculate on different dynamics of the crypto world all the time, but it becomes a problem when you refuse to admit that your speculation is just that... speculation. Most people can admit they are speculating, and not preaching purely factual information.

I still feel like you are overlooking the very basic macroeconomic principle from which cryptocurrencies garner their value... supply and demand. The bag holder's (including whales' tokens and miners' hardware investments) bags which are worth nothing if no one wants to buy them. The purported scheme you are claiming is happening blatantly under everyone's nose will shatter confidence in all forks of Bitcoin, and thus kill the demand also. If the people you speak of are indeed behind Bitcoin, then surely they are smart enough to realize this.

On the off chance that your SPECULATION happens to be right, then I will reconsider repurchasing some of the Bitcoin Cash I've already dumped (at a huge profit nonetheless). I suggest that you hedge your bet as well.

---

Does the current minuscule community really matter in the larger scheme of things?

Do the masses really care what Theymos or any other Legendary BCT member wrote?


That is an interesting theory.

My popcorn is ready to watch the drama over the next months and years.

---

When fees rise due to a limited block size and competition (and when fees are the only revenue/reward for mining blocks), whales can pay themselves their fees by being a miner, so that only the dolphins pay fees to the whales.

I posit that Mr Popescu’s error when he correctly did the math on why mining is a horrible business to be in, is that he didn’t consider the benefits of monopolizing mining in that whoever controls the mining, sets the fee level to the maximum the market will bear (and in the distant future when nobody can realistically mount a competitive fork, also can print new coins out-of-thin-air and otherwise use this 666 system to bring the nations to their knees analogous to how the EU brought the member nations to their knees employing the Euro).

Afaics, the foundational flaw in Trilema’s outlook is that they expect they can keep the mining decentralized amongst a group of non-defecting whales, but research indicates that proof-of-work does not provide decentralized consensus when the protocol block reward diminishes. Academic peer-reviewed research shows that as transaction fees rise, proof-of-work becomes incentives incompatible with consensus.

I posit the Zionists have outwitted you all. They have designed the perfect monetary weapon which at the end game they control completely. You are all deceived and I think that is quite hilarious.

Do you think with all their money over the past centuries that they have not been able to hire 180 IQ geniuses to map out their (Satan’s or whatever shit you want to believe) strategy for the end times?

I see no cogent rebuttal, yet some clowns anonymously vote “you’re looney” (without making any argument in the thread) because this is the Internet where useful idiots think their vote means anything.


And also refute the compelling evidence and arguments that Mossad did 9/11 presented by PhDs and scholars.

I remember a qntra.net page and Trilema log about how Mr Popescu seemed to be claiming that the TMSR had wrecked Hellary’s presidential bid because she threatened to make encryption illegal, yet it was Wikileaks who wrecked Clinton and the ties between Julian Assange and the Rothschild family are documented. They installed the buffoon Trump so they wreck him in the public eye. Now I see Qntra.net has been down since Sept. 25.

So if this TMSR is so powerful and is going to destroy the Zionists who created Bitcoin and who have their fingers significantly in control of global finance, geopolitics, and Five Eyes (G5) national securities agencies, why can’t they keep their website online?

Nobody defeated the Nazis. Come on you guys are hallucinating. The entire thing was a dog & pony show created by the Zionists to justify the creation of the Jewish homeland which they would control per Revelations. The Zionists created the Bolsheviks, etc, etc.

@CoinCube had an interesting post on how the mud defeated the Nazis on the Eastern front, not the Russians.


Jihan Wu refers to his clients. His clients are anonymous. We do not know how many BTC they have. I now believe the Zionists were mining from the start and control all of Satoshi’s million BTC hoard and a lot more than than I bet. I expect they will not move those coins until they are ready to demonstrate their power some decade or so from now.


Indeed the whales control the miners, not vice versa. The whales can mine them own blocks if need to, so the other miners no longer  get paid, once the block reward declines and all revenues come from transaction fees.

Tthe Zionists will still have control over most commerce even after the monetary resets (including the rise of the Bitcoin they created and they control surreptitiously). Mr Popescu seems to think he is only battling against the USG and nation-state fiats, lol. He has been fooled. He is battling against Satoshi.

Of course most people will be deceived, even the venerable Mr Popescu.


Thanks for confirming that.


Afaics, this is an oversimplification which then thus arrives at the incorrect conclusion because it fails to incorporate the most salient facts.

Fact is that the whales will control the mining (when the protocol block reward diminishes) because they pay (a power-law distribution) more transaction fees. In other words the top few percent of whales hold more than 50% of the money supply and thus will pay more than 50% of the transaction fees.

Additionally, peer reviewed academic research has modelled that as the block reward diminishes, then consensus is no longer incentives compatible, thus the whales MUST take control of the blockchain, else it will diverge into chaos of ever increasing number of long-lived (not quickly orphaned) forks.

So yes the whales can control the miners (i.e. the whales and miners are the same economic entity ultimately) and thus the blockchain will be controlled by a few people at the end game.

It is quite a brilliant deception that the Zionists have hoisted on all of us. Am I the only one here capable of not being deceived on this?

If I happen to be entirely incorrect about this, I will be most grateful to the person(s) who can explain to me why so.

Off-topic:


I do not know if what I have designed is really going to solve the decentralization problem. And the security model requires a WoT for objectivity. I have not gone over to the TMSR freenode chat yet because my liver is still causing me to have brain fog. I don’t think I am in a cognitive state to match wits with them and be able to pull from long-term memory when sometimes I do not even have the mental energy to remember where the door is. I’m trying to pull everything together and my higher priority at the moment is to get an altcoin project launched than it is to thresh out the peer review of what I have in mind for the decentralized ledger algorithm. Besides I can not discuss it publicly until I have already first mover advantage. I will just note that my design goal was to eliminate the power of control over the money supply to dictate objectivity. Yet if the whales also control most of the transactions in my design, they could still subvert the objectivity. This is why transaction fees are burned. And to solve the problem about losing consensus when block reward diminishes (my design doesn’t have blocks).

I have my doubts about whether stored monetary capital is going to be as useful in the coming Knowledge Age. We seem to be at any epochal shift in human evolution. Thus I am thinking the Zionists are destroying themselves and monetary capital and finance. I think perhaps we are moving towards an Inverse Commons future. I am attempting to reduce the utility of monetary capital and thereby reduce the malfeasance of the the power-law distribution of monetary wealth. Thus empowering bottom-up knowledge creation and collectivized objectivity to hopefully counter-balance the power of finance.

Btw, my design has a perpetually shrinking money supply.


Agreed. I am not even trying to challenge Bitcoin. I am going for a different market. The one spoken about in the Bible for those who survive the Tribulations.

The sui generis aspect should be quite clear at the launch due to the fact it will be “illegal” to sell the token.

We have to paradigm shift. Monetary capital is never going to be decentralized, because its generative essence is top-down Theory of the Firm power vacuum enabled control. True decentralization would require destroying monetary capital and elevating knowledge capital. It’s about elevating the creativity and knowledge generation capabilities of humans, not dumbing them down into fungible slaves.

I’m thinking decentralization will be an ongoing profitable forkathon:

Why on Earth would Wu implement this attack on the mainnet? It would likely end up killing his goose that lays golden eggs for him. With the low liquidity in the markets, he would likely only gain a small morsel of foie gras from this. Even if he tried to implement this attack on the down low, since his company is the one most likely to implement such an attack, he would be under extreme suspicion and become anathema to the community.
It would probably be more prudent from him to demonstrate that this attack is possible on a testnet. After releasing his demonstration, he would be seen as the hero; confidence in Core would be shaken; and people would likely buy up BCH and anoint it as the true bitcoin.
I suppose that it is possible that even if he demonstrated it with a testnet, the people that have swallowed the Blockstream Kool-Aid would discredit it, even if valid. Perhaps a black hat demonstration on the mainnet would be the only demonstration that would get through to them.  

I've never bought your assertion that miners and whales are one. Not that it matters what I buy. Let me muddle through:
Yes, in the past, the bear market 2-3 years ago Chinese miners were dumping onto exchanges keeping dollar price low.
But nowadays that doesn't seem to be happening much if at all. The debate on that seems to be between a small @Bitfinexed camp and @MrChrisEllis camp
who works at Bitfinex and claims that that sort of thing isn't happening.

Anyway I think you started using 'whales' in a slightly different sense, not as someone who dominates an exchange, but merely as someone who controls a vast sum of btc.
And yes going back there is this Roger Ver/Wu Jihan axis that is a miner/largish holder axis.
But no other miners can possibly even have 100,000 to their name. So not really 'whales' or large holders to my mind.

Mr Popescu certainly has nothing to do with miners or mining. Indeed they unwisely crossed him once. (and Mr Datskovskiy often calls mining 'a bug'.)

centralisation of mining is not a great problem, there's even a 'core'-camp article on this. miners just don't matter, they mine or get bricked. someone will always mine.

The Zionist stuff is silly. satoshi designed it, but couldn't quite understand all its ramifications. Guess who could get the differences between the whitepaper and 0.5.3.
Who started a republic of individuals actually contributing to bitcoin in its final form, and following its ramifications wherever they lead.
wants young men with backbone to become real, important people (the recent piece on how to get rich)

the tax tracking stuff you just posted is silly. i told you before there is no taint or title in bitcoin. read my dad's (tardigrade) few questions in the logs. and there's already a tax system in place for bitcoin.
the tangible economy stuff too. we defeated the nazis before with russian blood and western tears and leaders. you think the incomparably less efficient cia will be a problem?

Anyway look there's no point you or me or anyone discussing any of this here. we have no skin in the game.
but, you think you have a better bitcoin. great. discuss it with bitcoin, the most serene republic. they too want that.
they will easily see where you are right or wrong and they will help you if you are right. they know it's not perfect
but you'll never get anywhere on your own like this telling us fleas to read your material when you refuse to discuss theirs with them.

say your coin is actually better. bitcoin's prime mover advantage is vastly underrated, not least backed by massive independent research. and look at all the big teams behind the other coins especially the few that aren't scammy, they can't get anywhere. yours will not be perceived any differently even if that is unfair.

To have a correct perspective on what is going on with Bitcoin, requires understanding who created Bitcoin and why they created it:



Indeed. And that is a good thing. We had discussed in great detail why gold is a barbaric relic whose time is coming to an end.

Some old guys still take Bitcoin profits into gold or silver, but the younger (and even GenX) guys realize gold is dying.


Bitcoin is not blinded because it is designed to be a tax tracking ledger. Agreed proof-of-work has some flaws.

You can’t trade gold and silver for anything (with any decent liquidity) without the government regulated market makers. We already had this detailed discussion and I am not going to repeat. You tinfoil hats will all end up being destroyed and your children with throw your shiny metal into the streets as the Bible predicts, because cryptocurrency has superior utility and liquidity.

If you don’t want to pay taxes, then change your citizenship to a country which does not tax you. Refusing to pay the IRS is likely to not work out well for you.

As I explained to Armstrong, the government can’t realistically/plausibly tax the nanotransaction virtual economy. So render unto Caesar what is his, and render unto God what is his.

I will repeat again, you have only provided examples of bug fixes, not forks:

---

The following is not the way I wish the world works. Fact is that herding behaviour of the masses is always a manipulation by some whales who are in control of the (action of) organization. Decentralization is only plausible wherein (the action of) organization is not required, i.e. no power vacuum that demands top-down control.


Temporarily only. And they would continue to mine the same or more BTC at roughly the same profit margins because the difficulty adjusts down as the price declines.

Remember I pointed out to you (the math and examples that show) that mining is a stupid business for any large entity to be in, and the only reason these large entities are financed to be in mining is because the-powers-that-be want to control Bitcoin.

It’s all about control. Bitcoin is the 666 plan. It was designed that way by the Zionists that created Bitcoin (who via their Mossad clearly did 9/11 which no one with a brain stem could deny if they listen to the detail exposition of the evidence). But it is not necessary for you to believe this, the technological and economic facts are clear enough.

Heck even Edward Snowden realizes this:


Correct. The sheep will continue with Bitcoin. This is preordained in Revelation because sheep will be sheep.

But in any case, that point does not add any support to your argument that miners will not do the SegWit attack. The whales know damn well the sheep have no fucking choice but to be sheep. Attack or no attack, Bitcoin will not be stopped, as you admit. You’re supporting my argument.

The sheep do not manage the farm. The rancher decides to raise and harvest the sheep and sell them at the meat market. Learn how the world works. Your fantasies are only in fairy tales. If rather we indeed have decentralization, then social consensus also does not exist. If you need social consensus, then you need centralization and thus your social consensus is a power vacuum controlled by some whales.


You seem to fail to read the links I provide. I provided links to research that models that the blockchain will not even converge any more and will fork off into innumerable forks once the transaction fee revenue is more significant than the block reward revenue due to maligned incentives.

The miners+whales have no choice but to form a centralized control over mining in the future, else Bitcoin will stop functioning!

Please read. I do not like repeating myself.


Sorry. You apparently do not understand how economics works.

The sheep are just fodder for the whales to compete to enslave/control/harvest. The organizers of the economy make the economy, until the sheep individually each become their own organizer which is precisely why decentralization is so critically important.

Because unless there is true decentralization, someone has to be the organizer. This is a power vacuum.


Nope. The ranchers trade between themselves which creates the liquidity. The sheep are their slaves. The ranchers must buy inputs from other farmers to produce their crop/product/meat. The slaves are just sheep-like (herding) creatures that consume inputs and get harvested.


Lol. My popcorn is ready.

Remember that is what you predicted that community will rise up about Steem(it) and you were wrong. It is entirely controlled by the whales who (scam the voting by voting for their sockpuppet bloggers) are now fighting it out to see which whales will take control.


Pride cometh before thy falleth. I will enjoy the lulz.

That is ridiculous to assume that every trader buys the precise bottom of every swing before making profits. LTC went from $6 to $85 after I said buy it at $6, but not in a straight line nor as a monotonically increasing function.

There is definitely some reason for BCH/to remain floating around this price while offering little or no profit for miners and hashrate sometimes leaving it vulnerable to a 51% attack by any reasonable sized mining operation at certain times yet high enough to offer plebs an incentive to sell whatever they have.It seems to be a balancing act played out by major players until it is revealed wht the end game is for this fork.

Indeed. BCH keeps going down and I don't see it surviving from this bleed. The pricing also didn't gain over the past few month but rather it really keeps stooping down. BCH is dead and they are trying to make a new coin to replace it that is why Segwit2x will be implemented.

It is silly to say that miner's "profit tends to remain the same regardless of the price decline". If they were to initiate an attack on the real Bitcoin (Bitcoin Segwit- as decided by Social Consensus), then the public perception and confidence in cryptocurrencies will be shattered.

Everyone's not going to simply throw in the towel, eat the economic losses, and move to an alternative cryptocurrency (Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Satoshi- as decided by Social Consensus).

The whales' bags are worth next to nothing if no one is willing to buy them at decent prices. Miners and whales are smarter than this... they will not risk killing the good thing they have going. They are already well on their way to becoming the richest of the rich. They can do so by doing nothing, and letting this whole Bitxoin thing play out naturally.

Bitcoin has indeed forked numerous times. There have been at least two hard forks and numerous soft forks. A simple Google search will prove such, but this is a good place to start:

I don't think anyone is arguing that mining is decentralized. It has been common knowledge in the community since at least 2013 that due to economies of scale ASICs bring,  proof of work (and all other consensus algorithms for different reasons) tends toward centralization.

But the miners work for us. We are not slaves. This is the beauty of the free market. Whales and Miners are effectively bag holders. Their mined coins are worth nothing if no one is willing to buy them. Their transaction fees tend to 0 if no one wants to transact on their blockchain, and they are left with expensive paper weights. What you theorize is a suicide mission. They are smarter than that.

At the end of the day, the community owns Whales and Miners... It is not the other way around. You will come to realize this come mid November. Judging from the market, I guess yoy have already lost at least some money on this theory, but I hope you don't lose too much more money on this looney Bcash/Bitcoin Satoshi suicide mission.

Lol. The whale who owns a million BTC explained what he thought of the Core developers. They have hence created what is alleged to be a Rube Goldberg machine to fool users into issuing SegWit “transactions” which are donations to “pay to anyone” in Satoshi’s protocol:

I think you have kinda confused original vision and the effect of having the most and best devs on one coin.....

That is not a rebuttal. I’m still waiting:


The n00b clown might possibly be in your mirror.

I’m disappointed. I was hoping for moar “you’re looney” votes. Only 5?  

Oh Geez!
Another thread by that clown!
Absolutely waste of time man.
But continue spreading your crap if it satisfies you. 

I’m going obliterate[debunk] CoinCube’s, CoinHoarder’s, and your myopia now … (no personal slander intended, this is just discussion, I hope all of you wake up)


Note that the mining farms (especially in politically corrupt China or near dams where electricity is free or nearly free) have very low costs per BTC mined. Thus their profit tends to remain the same regardless of the price decline, because the difficulty drops as the marginal miners must quit.

Moreover, I keep seeing this argument and I had already explained why afaics it makes no economic sense:


Fact is that control over mining is centralized from the foundation and unavoidably so (!!) even into the future:


The only reason for anyone to be into mining is for world domination by taking control over the blockchain. Otherwise it is a horrible business to be in.

The whales (even the millionaire BTC kingpin over at Trilema.com) try to pretend to themselves that they have the power to keep the blockchain decentralized, but they do not. Someone has to control it, so ultimately the whales either need to destroy each other or form an oligarchy. They have no other choice.

If you do not understand this, then you understand nothing about blockchains. Ditto for proof-of-stake. (which is why my decentralized ledger is not a block chain)

The miners need to try to obscure this reality as much as possible to keep the sheep fooled. Your job as herded greedy sheep is to regurgitate the obfuscation and lies (mind programming) as much as possible so that the other sheep only look at the ass of the sheep in front of them. Lulz. So hilarious.  


Technological research is very important for having a coherent perspective in our sector. You can’t make correct decisions if you’re a n00b.

I do research. Others talk out of their ass because they do not do enough research.

I’m crowd sourcing peer review of my thoughts+research now. That is the entire point of this thread. Can anyone cogently and coherently refute my points?

---

You need to re-read this thread and digest that the posited SegWit “pay to anyone” booty is a centralized funding for a mining cartel attack.

---

As explained above, “How will your cute community spirit fork off when the whales are getting rich on your unintended BTC donations?”.

@CoinCube explained it well how sheep herd together for surety and think this somehow protects them from reality as they push each other over the edge of the cliff because they were only looking at the ass of the sheep in front of them and greedily copying each other:

---

After losing their BTC, everyone is going to become a lot more circumspect about trading off security for transaction volume scaling.

The mining cartel will be doing the right thing and everybody who still has any BTC will (eventually) realize that. Those who (because of their greed, intransigence, and foolishness) have no more BTC are irrelevant.

Thus we will have BTCSatoshi and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) remaining. BTCSatoshi for maximum security, and BCH (which is not a Rube Goldberg machine) for those who still believe we should scale transaction volume on proof-of-work. SegWit or extension blocks experimentation may continue on LTC.

That is why in my group we hodl BTCSatoshi (no BTC acquired after late July), LTC, and BCH as our core holdings. Eventually we may dump LTC and BCH for BTCSatoshi when it becomes safe to acquire “BTC” again (after the SegWit and other double-spendable shit has been already taken by the mining cartel). We may also speculate on various other altcoins.

(Note I would caution about acquiring LTC at $68 as it has run up very fast. BTC probably has another leg up still and LTC is highly volatile thus could possibly correct a bit before moving higher. Patience. I sold at $80 and repurchased at $44. I sold BCH at $800 and repurchased at $450 and $350, but I was a bit premature.)

---

Ethereum is an experimental blockchain.  It’s not a secure store-of-value nor the reserve currency of the crypto ecosystem.

Equating Zimbabwe’s (or even China’s) relatively shallow liquidity currency and Treasury bond market, to the USA dollar and US Treasuries is not a cogent analysis of reality.

This. Theft happened within the ethereum network, so they forked it to a state before the theft and people received their coins back. The same would happen with bitcoin, in case it have a massive stealing.

But in the case of ethereum, it was hackers who stole it. In this case, this FUDster is saying that the miners would steal it. Theres no reason why miners would do that, as they receive fees and rewards, and are supported by the network. If they would steal, the network would collapse and so would their profits.

The only way for a massive stealing would be someone hacking the second layer, the LN itself. But for this, it would require a centralized structure, like the one on the ethereum network. Guess what, bitcoin is decentralized, and is continuing to be so even after SegWit. And I dont think LN will be centralized as anyone will be able to run its nodes.

Now try to run Mist. I tried to synch it some months ago, spent three weeks with computer turned on 24/7, and never synched. Even tried Geth, it never worked. Ethereum is a centralized network, my computer cant run a node on it, whereas I run BTC and LTC nodes pretty well.

I disagree with your stance on BCH/Bitcoin Satoshi/Bitcoin Segwit.

Although what you espouse as being a fatal issue with Segwit may or may not be true (I do not know enough about the technical to comment on that, as I haven't put in the time to research). I am not arguing this point... let's assume that it is true.

I think that you are underestimating the power of "Social Consensus". The market, press, and users have all already determined that Bitcoin Segwit is Bitxoin, and there can only be one Bitcoin. All others (Bitcoin Satoshi, Bitcoin Cash, etc.) are alternative cryptocurrencies, as decided by Social Consensus.

After that Social Consensus has been reached, there is no turning back (or reverting back) to Bitcoin Satoshi or Bitcoin Cash. This remains true even if the fatal Segwit flaws rear their ugly head on the real Bitcoin (aka. Bitcoin Segwit... as determined by Social Consensus).

Old Bitcoin forks can not reestablish themselves as the real Bitcoin fork once they have established themselves as being alternative cryptocurrencies (due to Social Consensus) because of the economic realities of such. This is the source of my dissent with your stance... the economic realities of what would happen if the real Bitcoin (Bitcoin Segwit) operates for months to years, then it is all the sudden determined that... suprise, Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Satoshi is actually the real Bitcoin. The market, press, users, and miners (which, as a whole, constitute as Social Consensus) will never allow such a coupe because of the huge economic losses they will suffer from it should it occur.

If theft of coins due to fatal flaws in Segwit does occur, then I think a new fork will become the new real Bitcoin... not Bitcoin Cash and not Bitcoin Satoshi. Similar to how Ethereum and Ethereum Classic split. Segwit will be fixed/removed from the codebase and the chain rolled back to before the attacks, and then due to Social Consensus Bitcoin (Segwit then minus Segwit)  will become the real Bitcoin, and Bitcoin Segwit will become an alternative cryptocurrency. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi will remain alternative cryptocurrencies.

I recently wrote about Social Consensus, and how it's power is underestimated by decentralized/autonomous protocol idealists. At the end of the day, Social Consensus trumps all other types of consensus (PoW/PoS/etc.)

https://www.decentralized.tech/blogs/part-2-bitcoin-core-bitcoin-cash-bitcoin-gold-and-bitcoin-2x-oh-my


I can't argue with the above. I agree that it would likely constitute as fraud or theft.

As I wrote before, I think I remember seeing some comments at the logs for Trilema.com where someone there claimed that somehow the risk from the SegWit lineage could be removed, but I do not understand how that would be possible. Assuming a long-range chain reorganization then the lineage is double-spent as a donation to the miners, so then your descendant UTXO is invalid and must by protocol rules be rejected.

Additionally I introduced a separate theory, that those miners who know about this potential plan could be spending BTC for BCH (or other things), and thus plan to double-spend that BTC as well. So one needs to make sure none of that BTC is in the lineage, but how could you know which BTC that is. The kingpin over at Trilema had noted that “he is trying to grok it all” when someone showed him my theory. So in that case, any BTC that was acquired since perhaps late July might be vulnerable of being removed from the BTC blockchain.

Additionally what if they transferred BTC to exchanges and will double-spend that? It could get real messy. Exchanges could possibly be bankrupted, perhaps especially targeting their enemies?

This is why I have refused to buy any BTC, nor keep any crypto on exchanges (use only ShapeShift for trading and Localbitcoins or Rebit.ph to cash out), because I do not think any software can help you acquire BTC safely at this time.

I am waiting for this mess to be sorted out. I hold only LTC and BCH at this time, although “my group” also holds 100s of BTC that was acquired a long time ago and thus are safe.

I am not that knowledgeable about your other questions. No, I have never tried the TRB client. I haven’t even had the spare time to go over to the logs and chat with those guys yet.


Once again, it’s possible I’m Chicken Little. So every reader should decide for himself the threat level he/she perceives to be reality. I’m not trying to sway anyone to do anything. I’m just sharing my thoughts and discussing.

@CoinCube noted about this threat that if it came true, then users who inadvertently double-spent BTC could be sued by exchanges and others and funds clawed back making everybody in the lineage chain responsible for the double-spent funds. A huge mess! That is why he thinks miners will never do it. He thinks there would be outrage in the community. But the whales, most of which who presumably know about this risk, have I think prepared. It’s the n00bs who are likely to be harmed and they’re not economically relevant anyway, their UAHF/community “vote” is not superior in the context of an economic majority. So being that I view myself as a defender of the honest underdog, I feel obligated to share this information.


EDIT: I found the Trilema logs where they were discussing my thoughts and where he mentioned that “you can bury a segwit tx into legitimate spending which is deep enough to not be practically reorg-able”. Now I perhaps realize what he means is that if your lineage has descendant UTXO which fork out to UTXO which the miners own (which is worth more than), then they’re unlikely to revert (and double-spend) that lineage. Or simply because the miners do not want to wreck too much havoc because this would make their rollback too unpopular. So he also means that if you can mix your activity in with the spending activity of whales, the miners are unlikely to revert the transactions of whales as that creates resistance to their fork.