Armogan, I was just about to mention this.

This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but it does have some credibility. Chinese Govt apparently supports the control of BTC by taking over the hashing power. Some guy called Jihan Wu combined with Ver apparently control a huge % of the hashing power and can bring more ASICs online if needed. This may happen until the point that BU hashrate dwarfs that of BTC. Apparently these massive Chinese ASIC farms can be profitable at prices as low as $320. What other places in the world can produce hashing power as efficiently as the chinese? It seems odd that the PBOC recently did these things such as mess with capital controls again, take various actions with the yuan, investigate BTC exchanges etc. Are they worried that BTC would interfere with capital controls in China, or that it could damage their goals with the Yuan in the end? Did they see BTC at a relatively small $20 billion market cap, look at the S curve and determine to nip it in the bud while it was still small enough to do so?

I have wondered for a while that if Chinese govt wants BTC dead or control of BTC they can get it. Whether BU is this in action I am not sure, but if it's not and BTC survives BU, Chinese govt could still take over while its mcap is still quite low.

I've also read that for the first time post-split BTC and BU futures have been listed, on BFX I think. It was something like a $750:$250 BTC:BU split. So even though BU is much less than BTC, it's a lot more relative value than was given to ETC after the ETH split, which is worrying for BTC.

(03-20-2017 04:04 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  Armogan, I was just about to mention this.

This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but it does have some credibility. Chinese Govt apparently supports the control of BTC by taking over the hashing power. Some guy called Jihan Wu combined with Ver apparently control a huge % of the hashing power and can bring more ASICs online if needed. This may happen until the point that BU hashrate dwarfs that of BTC. Apparently these massive Chinese ASIC farms can be profitable at prices as low as $320. What other places in the world can produce hashing power as efficiently as the chinese? It seems odd that the PBOC recently did these things such as mess with capital controls again, take various actions with the yuan, investigate BTC exchanges etc. Are they worried that BTC would interfere with capital controls in China, or that it could damage their goals with the Yuan in the end? Did they see BTC at a relatively small $20 billion market cap, look at the S curve and determine to nip it in the bud while it was still small enough to do so?

I have wondered for a while that if Chinese govt wants BTC dead or control of BTC they can get it. Whether BU is this in action I am not sure, but if it's not and BTC survives BU, Chinese govt could still take over while its mcap is still quite low.

I've also read that for the first time post-split BTC and BU futures have been listed, on BFX I think. It was something like a $750:$250 BTC:BU split. So even though BU is much less than BTC, it's a lot more relative value than was given to ETC after the ETH split, which is worrying for BTC.

Skank:

You express your concerns well; however, it does seem a bit conspiratorial (as you seem to acknowledge) to attribute so much investment from the chinese government in this regard, which seems to imply that the chinese government is more motivated than other governments (such as the USA) to engage in a concerted action to attempt to undermine bitcoin and you are asserting that the already existence of mining power and ASIICS production in China facilitates the ability of the Chinese government to more economically attempt to co-opt aspects of bitcoin's mining and to attempt to totally overwhelm bitcoin with hashing power. Your theory and framework seems plausible - even though there also seem to be quite a few assumptions built into it (which you would probably admit to that).

I will concede that we cannot put our heads in the sand, so we do have to consider these kinds of theories with some amount of weight, while at the same time recognizing that there are a lot of potential holes in such framings and even the consequences of such, if it were true.

Juan conversing with you similar to having two Russian supermodels give you a handjob with sandpaper. At first, it sounds like fun and you want to do it, but after it hurts sooooo bad and part of you has died inside.

(03-20-2017 08:47 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 10:21 AM)Armogan Wrote:  U.S. legislative branch, which is notably more stringent, has a 2/3rds rule. This is extremely hard to achieve. Over 66.67% of Senators need to agree on something, that is very difficult. To be clear 75% is even HIGHER than 66.67%. 75% is a very high threshold for a consensus vote.

What the fuck are you talking about? You think that bitcoin should be some political toy? And, you think that 75% is sufficient to remove bitcoin from politics?

Well this went up and over your head - way above your pay grade. Let me break it down for you. 75% is a large, overwhelming number for consensus in a non-homogenous population. To ratify the Constitution you need at least 66% approval, a BTC hardfork needs even more. That's enormous and extremely difficult to do. It has nothing to do with politics. Stop being a straw man. This was to indicate how 75% is not a low threshold, which you claimed, in fact its very, very high.

Let's think about RVF for a moment, a niche in the internet with like minded men. If we were to do a vote we wouldn't get nowhere near 75% on where's the best place to live, what's the ideal female ethnicity, exactly how much money is enough a year. The only things that would get over 75% is something like it's easier to get laid outside of the west. In other words, overwhelming agreement.

(03-20-2017 08:47 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  There may be a bit of a problem in bitcoin regarding an inability to know exactly who is controlling mining, but you really don't have enough information to 1) assert that miners are located in places that you describe 2) those miners are controlled in some kind of meaningful and material way by their jurisdictions or 3) that the overall bitcoin system is not able to adapt in order to compensate for the problem in the event that #2 was either true or seeming to be true

How naive are you? If it was anyone else I would assume they were joking, but it's you. It's common knowledge for anyone who knows anything related to BTC and mining that China has an overwhelming presence in mining. I'm not even going to post links, simply do a google search yourself if you are still skeptical. But you being the stubborn purist, I'm sure you still use Yahoo because it was the pioneer.

Chinese are not controlled by their authoritarian government? What planet do you live on? If you don't think so, ask your Chinese friends if they can withdraw their BTC from Chinese exchanges. You do have Chinese friends right?

(03-20-2017 08:47 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Sounds like you are just trying to spread meaningless FUD with your bullshit and your appeal to xenophobia.

I'm not spreading any meaningless FUD. I'm stating the facts, the BTC mining process is centralized in China by Chinese miners. Is this the de-centralization that was intended when it was created?

Xenophobia, now you are getting personal attacks? Where did you get this from. I find it quite odd considering my preferred avenue of sodomization is non-American girls. But hey xenophobia sounds cool.

(03-20-2017 08:47 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  No. You are not trying to mislead anyone.

Your cited article from July 2016 is "very credible", I am glad that you rely on better sources for your information than my previous use of Coindesk for some other minor point that I was making.

Bloomberg is very credible, especially in financial markets, news, and trading. Ever heard of a Bloomberg terminal? I'd bet you haven't. What a feeble attempt to discredit information. The date jab is trivial as well, since then the price of BTC has gone way up making mining more profitable. Chinese operations haven't exactly packed up since then let's be logical. Let me guess you get your Trump news from CNN?

Coindesk is obviously fake news. You don't read through the lines very well do you? Did you even read my definition above? Hold it together, man.

(03-20-2017 08:47 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  That inability to change easily is largely what gives it value.

No. What gives BTC its value is that you can buy drugs with it, but that is practically impossible now with slow transaction times, high fees, vitriolic community in-fighting that will lead to a hard fork. You now have to go to east LA to visit the Mexicans. Nice people, but not exactly top-notch quality. Before you refute this with another straw man argument, just take my word for it.

So BTC experts - if there IS a hard fork, how would you bet to make money from it? What is it going to do?

(03-21-2017 03:37 AM)Malone Wrote:  So BTC experts - if there IS a hard fork, how would you bet to make money from it? What is it going to do?

Personally, I do not bet, yet I attempt to prepare for either price direction. It is a little bit more difficult to prepare for downward price directions if you do not engaging in betting - because shorting and margin betting are the better vehicles for betting against bitcoin - but really, I do not personally know how to do it because it is not something that I do.

My practice is really just opening and closing longs... so as the price goes down I buy. And, as the price goes up I sell.

So far, I am not really changing my approach based on the FUD spreading that seems to be going on.. and even if there is some kind of meaningful possibility that a fork might actually occur.

Surely, other guys are going to be engaged in other practices to prepare for the price moves.

I doubt anyone really knows what is going to happen, but I am also sure that some guys might be willing to throw out a few predictions. I personally rather just watch these matters one day at a time and to see how it is developing, rather than getting caught up in speculation about a matter that, at this point, seems to have a fairly low likelihood of happening any time soon..

Do you own any BTC right now? Do you have any plan? Where do you buy and sell? Do you have accounts set up on any exchanges?

Can someone please explain the fork as well as answer a couple questions in laymans terms?

I've been doing some reading but I still don't understand the fork, and many questions I have I'm getting multiple answers to. Could someone do like a one paragraph simple explaination of a fork and maybe answer some of these questions...

1. What is a fork and what causes it?

2. Are miners supposed to be able to make decisions about the direction Bitcoin should go?

3. What is Bitcoin Core vs. Bitcoin Unlimited?

4. When you say 75% of miners have to agree, is there a vote? What does that mean exactly?

5. What happens to those of us who own Bitcoins? Do we now have 2 different types of Bitcoins or do we choose which coin we want? I've heard some say your coins are cloned and you have two coins. Is that true?

6. Anything we should do to prepare? Put our coins in a paper wallet? Remove all coins from an exchange? Any danger in using Electrum vs another wallet?

Thank you jamaica for writing out what's exactly on my mind. I'm still totally lost.

(03-21-2017 09:39 AM)jamaicabound Wrote:  Can someone please explain the fork as well as answer a couple questions in laymans terms?

I've been doing some reading but I still don't understand the fork, and many questions I have I'm getting multiple answers to. Could someone do like a one paragraph simple explaination of a fork and maybe answer some of these questions...

1. What is a fork and what causes it?

I doubt that I can do as good of a job explaining as the many articles out there and also we have had quite a bit linked in this thread over the years.

Even though there is information all over the place, should be easy enough to find information that thoroughly explains these kinds of forking and current event matters without tricks. I think over the years, we try to provide decent sources of information in this thread (apart from the personal attack squablings that come up from time to time).

I will give it a quickie try.

a softfork allows miners and other users to update their software at their own pace, and it is backwards compatible - example of what seg wit is proposing to do

a hardfork forces miners and other users to chose between software, which forks the bitcoin chain into those who are running software to support version x and those who are running software to support version y... so at the time of the fork, the miners will either be running software in which they are supporting one coin or another and holders end up having one coin on each chain (which equals two coins).

If everyone jumps on board and changes over to the dominant fork (the one with the most hashing power), then there is no issue because the dominant fork is the only one that is recognized. If each side wants to continue it's own version then the two coins remain (those are also called alt coins - many alt coins are forks of bitcoin)

(03-21-2017 09:39 AM)jamaicabound Wrote:  2. Are miners supposed to be able to make decisions about the direction Bitcoin should go?

They make decisions about what software they run, and they are not the total composition of what controls the space (there are developers and there are various other folks that build software on top of bitcoin but are not involved in mining), but the miners do have quite a bit of sway - especially if they can coordinate what they want to do, such as a hardfork... but even venders and developers may chose not to follow the miners - even though many venders say they will merely follow the fork with the most hashing power and the longest chain and some systems are merely set up to follow the longest chain by default.

(03-21-2017 09:39 AM)jamaicabound Wrote:  3. What is Bitcoin Core vs. Bitcoin Unlimited?

Core usually referred to as the status quo blockchain, software, development team and governance, etc.

Bitcoin Unlimited is a group of various folks who are running bitcoin software to attempt to remove the blocksize limit from the way that bitcoin is run, and it is not exactly clear what they are saying, but many of the more recognized folks in the Bitcoin Unlimited camp assert that they will hardfork the blockchain at a point in which they believe that they have an overwhelming majority of the hashing power. They could do so at 51%, but many of them are saying that 75% would be safer in order to get most of the hashing power and most of the movement over to their chain. They may be wrong about their various calculations and their level of support, but that is what some of them are currently saying.

(03-21-2017 09:39 AM)jamaicabound Wrote:  4. When you say 75% of miners have to agree, is there a vote? What does that mean exactly?

when you are saying "have to agree" you seem to be putting too much prescriptive language on the situation.

There are ways that technical folks can measure what software miners are running, and miners vote by choosing what version of the software they chose to run. They can switch between software in order to screw up the numbers, and some can switch quickly and others may take longer to switch. Some mining pools may have a decent amount of reserve computing power that they can strategically turn on or off to show what version that they are running, or what version they support and what version they are running can also be seen by which miners are finding blocks with what versions of software.

(03-21-2017 09:39 AM)jamaicabound Wrote:  5. What happens to those of us who own Bitcoins? Do we now have 2 different types of Bitcoins or do we choose which coin we want? I've heard some say your coins are cloned and you have two coins. Is that true?

If the chain hardforks, then at the moment of the fork, you have exactly the same number of coins on each fork of the blockchain, so yeah, it doubles. Whether that doubling lasts depends upon if the fork lasts.

A hardfork forces choice, but you could just have two coins and see how each fork plays out over the years to see if you want to sell your coins on one fork or another and which one you want to support or if you just want to keep both coins.


Cloning does not seem to be the right word, even though at the beginning of a hardfork, you do have equal number of coins on each fork.

Softfork does not cause two chains because it is backwards compatible, and miners and developers can upgrade their software at a much slower pace.

(03-21-2017 09:39 AM)jamaicabound Wrote:  6. Anything we should do to prepare? Put our coins in a paper wallet? Remove all coins from an exchange? Any danger in using Electrum vs another wallet?

Initially, some wallets or exchanges will only recognize one of the forks and some will recognize both, but over time, most of them will figure out whether they are going to upgrade to recognize both forks or fork x or fork y.

There is likely some variance with what exchanges and wallets are going to do and how they are going to approach this matter. There is already variance, and all kinds of information in which miners or venders or developers say what they are going to do, but they can also change their plan based on what others are doing.

Of course we have to take each piece of news with a grain of salt, and some articles are better than others in terms of explaining the situation.

I just pulled these two articles down quickly, but there are lots of articles that discuss various aspects of what is going on in bitcoin and hardforking questions.

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-unlimite...k-outcome/


https://themerkle.com/what-to-do-if-bitc...hard-fork/

About a week ago, I posted an article in this thread that is probably better because it discussed bitcoin unlimited as a hostile takeover attempt... you can browse up the thread to find it.

O.k. I give in. For ease of reference here is a link to my earlier post on the topic that links the referred-to article:
https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-21537...pid1529420

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Juan conversing with you similar to having two Russian supermodels give you a handjob with sandpaper. At first, it sounds like fun and you want to do it, but after it hurts sooooo bad and part of you has died inside.

Maybe you just have a low tolerance for attempting to communicate substance with guys who happen to have differing opinions?

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 08:47 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 10:21 AM)Armogan Wrote:  U.S. legislative branch, which is notably more stringent, has a 2/3rds rule. This is extremely hard to achieve. Over 66.67% of Senators need to agree on something, that is very difficult. To be clear 75% is even HIGHER than 66.67%. 75% is a very high threshold for a consensus vote.

What the fuck are you talking about? You think that bitcoin should be some political toy? And, you think that 75% is sufficient to remove bitcoin from politics?

Well this went up and over your head - way above your pay grade.

I see no reason for patronizing, merely because we disagree - or you just have a kind of ego issue.

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Let me break it down for you. 75% is a large, overwhelming number for consensus in a non-homogenous population.

Like I already said, you are attempting to bring in the wrong principles, and it is becoming more apparent that maybe you are the one who does not get it?

if you try to apply the wrong guidelines, the guidelines are not going to work, and it does not matter how logical and intuitive that it might feel to you.

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  To ratify the Constitution you need at least 66% approval, a BTC hardfork needs even more. That's enormous and extremely difficult to do. It has nothing to do with politics. Stop being a straw man. This was to indicate how 75% is not a low threshold, which you claimed, in fact its very, very high.

Yes. Again. I understand those principles, and I already made my points in my earlier post that the principles do not seem to apply very well to bitcoin (at least they should not for some of the reasons that I already stated). You can continue to repeat your point over and over does not mean that you are anymore correct than the first time that you raised the point.

Do you have a problem when someone has a difference of opinion from you?

From my end, I don't care. You can go on and on about your belief that 75% consensus is completely and totally adequate for bitcoin and the bitcoin situation. It does not matter to me that you have that opinion. I already stated my opinion which I think is pretty solid as well, and does not rely upon various bullying tactics to attempt to convince anyone or even bullying tactics in the actual implementation...

Do you understand that higher level of consensus means that there needs to be a lot more persuasion, rather than bullying in order to achieve the objectives?

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Let's think about RVF for a moment, a niche in the internet with like minded men. If we were to do a vote we wouldn't get nowhere near 75% on where's the best place to live, what's the ideal female ethnicity, exactly how much money is enough a year. The only things that would get over 75% is something like it's easier to get laid outside of the west. In other words, overwhelming agreement.

Again. Your whole analogy does not seem to fit because your underlying point is flawed ... a money system is different from a opinion poll for a variety of reasons that should be obvious.

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 08:47 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  There may be a bit of a problem in bitcoin regarding an inability to know exactly who is controlling mining, but you really don't have enough information to 1) assert that miners are located in places that you describe 2) those miners are controlled in some kind of meaningful and material way by their jurisdictions or 3) that the overall bitcoin system is not able to adapt in order to compensate for the problem in the event that #2 was either true or seeming to be true

How naive are you?

Yes, and you happen to be enlightened... Look I gave my opinion, and you disagree. Fine.

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  If it was anyone else I would assume they were joking, but it's you.

Me what? Have you noticed that nearly every point that you make is about me? Have you ever heard of the fallacy of an ad hominem attack? Seems like you are quite emotional about this whole topic and maybe even about me (merely because you don't like my opinions, or you have some other stupid ass reason for your inability to refrain from personal attacks?)

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  It's common knowledge for anyone who knows anything related to BTC and mining that China has an overwhelming presence in mining.


I'm not even going to post links, simply do a google search yourself if you are still skeptical. But you being the stubborn purist, I'm sure you still use Yahoo because it was the pioneer.

Looks a little bit fruitless to attempt to engage with you in terms of actual substance, when you continue to appeal to concepts like everyone knows.. blah blah blah.. when the fact of the matter is that no, everyone does not know the same things that you supposedly know. And, even some basic principles are not known by everyone or even shared by "everyone."

So, yeah, sometimes these kinds of discussions and threads can be repetitive when it comes to actual substance because "everyone" DOES NOT know certain things.

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Chinese are not controlled by their authoritarian government? What planet do you live on? If you don't think so, ask your Chinese friends if they can withdraw their BTC from Chinese exchanges. You do have Chinese friends right?

I think that the words of my previous post(s) speak for themselves and you seem to be engaged in a twisting tussle to get into the weeds about how are the Chinese and compare and contrast governments and any other baloney that you can think of to either distract or to put words into my mouth... I see little reason to engage on these kinds of attempts to reframe points, or get into near nonsense weeds.

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 08:47 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Sounds like you are just trying to spread meaningless FUD with your bullshit and your appeal to xenophobia.

I'm not spreading any meaningless FUD. I'm stating the facts, the BTC mining process is centralized in China by Chinese miners. Is this the de-centralization that was intended when it was created?

Facts. Yes. Now you are in touch with facts while others are not? go figure?

The fact of the matter remains that you give more weight to chinese influence and I give less weight to it. I don't give a shit about which one of us is correct about opinions that we have and our personal decisions regarding how much weight to give each kind of factor whether that be the chinese impact, the 75% consensus possibility impact, the possibility of seg wit getting implemented or any other impact that we want to consider.

We can still be civil while we have differing opinions regarding how much weight to attribute to various factors, beliefs and theories.

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Xenophobia, now you are getting personal attacks?

xenophobia is not a personal attack... it is a description of someone who is playing off of the fears of others. You can deny it, and it does not really matter because it was merely a passing observation of mine. At this point, I don't see any reason to retract it, merely because you seem inclined to get caught up in distractions.

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Where did you get this from. I find it quite odd considering my preferred avenue of sodomization is non-American girls. But hey xenophobia sounds cool.

I get the sense that you want to argue merely for the sake of it, and you seem to have an inability to control your desire to want to be right. Seems to be a bit ridiculous way of interacting, especially with RVF guys, but that seems to be your choice.

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 08:47 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  No. You are not trying to mislead anyone.

Your cited article from July 2016 is "very credible", I am glad that you rely on better sources for your information than my previous use of Coindesk for some other minor point that I was making.

Bloomberg is very credible, especially in financial markets, news, and trading.

I think that my post and criticism speaks for itself, an I was mostly referring to the problem of the time perspective in the article (outdated and partly based on some narrow events at the time)

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Ever heard of a Bloomberg terminal? I'd bet you haven't.

does not matter.

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  What a feeble attempt to discredit information. The date jab is trivial as well, since then the price of BTC has gone way up making mining more profitable. Chinese operations haven't exactly packed up since then let's be logical. Let me guess you get your Trump news from CNN?

You are all over the place with your arguments.

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Coindesk is obviously fake news. You don't read through the lines very well do you? Did you even read my definition above? Hold it together, man.

I'm trying to follow your stream of consiousness.

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 08:47 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  That inability to change easily is largely what gives it value.

No. What gives BTC its value is that you can buy drugs with it, but that is practically impossible now with slow transaction times, high fees, vitriolic community in-fighting that will lead to a hard fork.

could be.

(03-20-2017 11:29 PM)Armogan Wrote:  You now have to go to east LA to visit the Mexicans. Nice people, but not exactly top-notch quality. Before you refute this with another straw man argument, just take my word for it.

There are all kinds of things that give bitcoin value, including but not limited to in person or online drug transactions... so I would not get caught up in trying to assert the value of bitcoin is largely one thing or some subset of things - especially when you are trying to emphasize micro-transactions - which seems to be an area that, currently, is less suitable to bitcoin rather than storage of value and larger transactions and even capturing the whole idea of a secure decentralized immutable means to secure and store value.. ..

I think that anonimity used to be a bigger idea about bitcoin, but there still is some skepticism regarding the extent to which bitcoin is anonymous, and for example in a drug transaction cash might work better for assuring some greater assurance of anonimity.

The fact of the matter is that folks can gravitate to whatever system works for them, and if bitcoin serves such purpose(s) great. If they find some other vehicle(s) to suit such purposes, then that is great, too.

If we want to accept bitcoin for what it is, then that is great also, but if we are inclined to prescribe what bitcoin should be and to impose that on other people, then that is another story in which I believe a higher level of consensus is necessary in order make those kinds of prescriptive changes. Bitcoin is currently not broken, even if some folks would prefer that it have better use cases in one direction or another... patience grasshopper, some of those changes will likely come the longer that bitcoin is around and the longer that bitcoin is being developed while considering the facilitation of use cases (some of which we may not even currently know).

Exchanges, wallets, venders and suppliers are likely to have different ways of communicating their plans in regards to any potential hardfork.

Here is coinbase's announcement that just came out today.

http://coinbase.us5.list-manage2.com/tra...ade69245f3

Looks like Coinbase will only recognize BTC in the event of a hard fork, at least initially.

I don't like the sound of it. I may consider selling all of my bitcoins and staying in cash until after the fork (or the prospect of a fork recedes), then get back in.

Problem is if bitcoin experiences a price spike when its either recognized as the dominant coin or the threat of a fork goes away, I would miss out on that.

It will be easy for Chinese miners to take over BTC hashing power, so if hard fork is decided on hash rate % alone, they can take it. If they don't have the power now, they can in due course. So if BU after a hard fork consistently receives majority hash rate to the point of BTC not being able to function and becoming obsolete, Coinbase and probably other exchanges would reserve the right to rename BU to BTC. This would undermine the confidence in BTC as a stable digital asset and knock a fair chunk off its value, in my opinion.

That's the bad news. The other elements involved include users, exchanges, services, and their recognition of BU vs BTC. If users, exchanges and other BTC related services do not use BU, and where users can use it, they just sell it for the more credible BTC, then BU will lose value, and miners would presumably be forced to start mining BTC again unless they wish to lose very large amounts of money.

Looking at it from this conflicting perspective, it seems that such a contentious hard fork would be destructive to both BTC supporters and BU supporters. When you suddenly split BTC, it would be very hard to "win" something where such a huge part of the value of the asset being fought over is the confidence people had in it. The BU mining conglomerate is taking a big financial risk if they decide to go ahead and fork based on their superior hashrate alone. BTC + BU value post split would very likely <<< BTC value pre split. It just seems to be instigated by a small number of dumbasses with more money than they know what to do with. The amount of nodes running BTC Core dwarfs the amount running BU, so the overall consensus is BTC Core by far, but the Chinese conglomerate has the hashrate and a few (so I have read) far, far inferior developers. If money does matter to them, however, BU miners need to be very, very careful in what they do because a hard fork could be the equivalent of to bite your nose off to spite your face.

Overall, BTC Core staying as BTC core is clearly the best way going forward. There needs to be some compromises regarding how to handle fees, block sizes etc., but this won't be accomplished with a hash rate nuclear war which will end up heavily damaging both sides.

(03-21-2017 07:16 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  Looks like Coinbase will only recognize BTC in the event of a hard fork, at least initially.

You got that right. I think that it is good for them to clarify their position, and also recognize that the situation remains fluid.

However, merely because Coinbase (and likely other institutions, too) are covering their butts in order to prepare (and announce) for a variety of possibilities, does not cause the possibility (the hardfork) to become more probable. They just want to be covered.

(03-21-2017 07:16 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  I don't like the sound of it.

I think that Coinbase's acknowledgement of the hardfork situation causes the situation to seem as if it is more probable than it is, and even if the hardfork situation is more probable than the credit that i am attributing, that does not mean that an actual hardfork would be a calamity, overall - even though it would likely cause a considerable dip in prices that is less based on fundamentals and more based on bears taking opportunities to downward manipulate to the greatest extent that they can achieve.

(03-21-2017 07:16 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  I may consider selling all of my bitcoins and staying in cash until after the fork (or the prospect of a fork recedes), then get back in.

That sounds crazy. Consider some portion, maybe even selling 50% or 80% or some other comfortable number, but 100% seems to be a bit much. You may be overinvested, too, if you are thinking about all or nothing moves based on the current situation. You know that this fork FUD has been being spread since $200? Sure, sometimes it becomes stronger and more convincing and sure sometimes, it seems like a decent time to take some profits, but still some moderation may be a bit more prudent... but sure in the end, you gotta do what is comfortable for you, your outlook, your risk profile and your finances.

Accordingly, guys have to chose for themselves and gotta be careful about what anyone is saying on the inter-webs, including yours truly... hahahahaha

(03-21-2017 07:16 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  Problem is if bitcoin experiences a price spike when its either recognized as the dominant coin or the threat of a fork goes away, I would miss out on that.

Yep.. even you recognize the possibility that this could all be a bunch of bullshit to get regular people to sell their coins... then when you don't have coins, you may be kicking yourself at having to buy in at a higher price.

(03-21-2017 07:29 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  It will be easy for Chinese miners to take over BTC hashing power, so if hard fork is decided on hash rate % alone, they can take it. If they don't have the power now, they can in due course. So if BU after a hard fork consistently receives majority hash rate to the point of BTC not being able to function and becoming obsolete, Coinbase and probably other exchanges would reserve the right to rename BU to BTC. This would undermine the confidence in BTC as a stable digital asset and knock a fair chunk off its value, in my opinion.

I cannot really disagree with your reasoning and even some of the weight that you give to certain variables in order to project some possibilities that are reasonable; however, I really have doubts about whether the scenario is going to play out anywhere near to what you are saying.

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors with this BU baloney. They have suckie code and they have suckie developers and they are likely being financed by nut jobs, bank shills and others who want to sabotage bitcoin. therefore, any hashpower and/or support that they get may be somewhat fleeting - even though looking good on paper, from time to time.

Regarding Coinbase and other quasi-mainstream bitcoin platforms, if BU does take over as the main chain, they are not too likely to just throw BTC (or core) under the bus. They are more likely to recognize both coins (and BTC would be like an alt). Anyhow, BTC is not too likely to go away anytime soon, even if there ends up being a kind of hostile take over.

Yes, all of this is speculation, at this time, so it may take a bit of time to see how any of it plays out.

(03-21-2017 07:29 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  That's the bad news. The other elements involved include users, exchanges, services, and their recognition of BU vs BTC. If users, exchanges and other BTC related services do not use BU, and where users can use it, they just sell it for the more credible BTC, then BU will lose value, and miners would presumably be forced to start mining BTC again unless they wish to lose very large amounts of money.

That seems like the more likely scenario... in my humble bumble opinion.

Furthermore, the hashpower of BTC is so enormous and the strength of the software is so solid that BTC could be very secure with even 10% of the current hashpower, and maybe if the BU folks fork off, then we will get a coin with Seg Wit.. that is BTC will be able to incorporate seg wit once the nut job saboteurs go off and play with their own little coin... haahahahahaha

(03-21-2017 07:29 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  Looking at it from this conflicting perspective, it seems that such a contentious hard fork would be destructive to both BTC supporters and BU supporters. When you suddenly split BTC, it would be very hard to "win" something where such a huge part of the value of the asset being fought over is the confidence people had in it.

Likely BTC is going to survive whether it has a price of $1200, $5000, or $200, so I would not get too worried about the split in the event that bitcoin continues to build and to keep its true intent on decentralized secure immutable value transfer and storage.

(03-21-2017 07:29 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  The BU mining conglomerate is taking a big financial risk if they decide to go ahead and fork based on their superior hashrate alone. BTC + BU value post split would very likely <<< BTC value pre split.

Sounds like a reasonable view of initial valuation and dilemmas.

(03-21-2017 07:29 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  It just seems to be instigated by a small number of dumbasses with more money than they know what to do with.

Yeah a bunch of whiners, bank shills and government folks and deluded persons.

(03-21-2017 07:29 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  The amount of nodes running BTC Core dwarfs the amount running BU, so the overall consensus is BTC Core by far, but the Chinese conglomerate has the hashrate and a few (so I have read) far, far inferior developers.

That's true, too.

(03-21-2017 07:29 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  If money does matter to them, however, BU miners need to be very, very careful in what they do because a hard fork could be the equivalent of to bite your nose off to spite your face.

Of course, money matters to miners, and like you say they are playing a kind of russian roulette.. that may end up screwing them, yet they believe that the play has upside potential too, in order to give more validation to miners and more validation to "on-chain" transactions, which they seem to partially fear about seg wit. I really doubt it is a good play, and it is possible that some of them are bluffing, leveraging and attempting to bargain a better position, yet when push comes to shove they are not going to want to play that card, necessarily. that remains a bit of the an interesting aspect of this whole thing.

(03-21-2017 07:29 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  Overall, BTC Core staying as BTC core is clearly the best way going forward. There needs to be some compromises regarding how to handle fees, block sizes etc., but this won't be accomplished with a hash rate nuclear war which will end up heavily damaging both sides.

I doubt that there needs to be any compromise. Core already has a system in place in which proposals to change are made, and if a change is proposed, it gets discussed, and if it seems like it could be a good change in terms that it is fixing a problem and not creating greater problems (benefits seem to outweigh costs), then it gets developed and then it gets tested and then it goes through the process of getting implemented, etc etc etc. I don't see any reason to compromise, merely for the sake of compromise if there is no reason for it either factually or logically.

The essence of the BU matter seems to be that the guys are politically motivated rather than technically motivated.

There was some kind of bug today in the BU code, and apparently BU folks are putting out private patches, and that has got some folks at reddit worked up about the whole BU secrecy matter.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comment...e_patches/

(03-21-2017 10:37 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  The essence of the BU matter seems to be that the guys are politically motivated rather than technically motivated.

There was some kind of bug today in the BU code, and apparently BU folks are putting out private patches, and that has got some folks at reddit worked up about the whole BU secrecy matter.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comment...e_patches/

After reading a bit more about the situation, apparently the "bug" in the BU code forced about 70% of the BU nodes to go off line, and the patch was meant to fix the bug.

BU have had several basic bugs, and the software is not vetted, so it is really difficult to conclude that BU is going to be inspire sufficient enough confidence to be taking over bitcoin any time soon, even if they are able to sustain some significant mining power and otherwise propagandize their supposed "imminent fork."

(03-22-2017 02:17 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 10:37 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  The essence of the BU matter seems to be that the guys are politically motivated rather than technically motivated.

There was some kind of bug today in the BU code, and apparently BU folks are putting out private patches, and that has got some folks at reddit worked up about the whole BU secrecy matter.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comment...e_patches/

After reading a bit more about the situation, apparently the "bug" in the BU code forced about 70% of the BU nodes to go off line, and the patch was meant to fix the bug.

BU have had several basic bugs, and the software is not vetted, so it is really difficult to conclude that BU is going to be inspire sufficient enough confidence to be taking over bitcoin any time soon, even if they are able to sustain some significant mining power and otherwise propagandize their supposed "imminent fork."

I am attempting to monitor the BU situation and finding new and interesting material to supplement some of my earlier posts in this thread.

The below link is a good website to look at raw data about nodes, the kinds of nodes, historical node data and even some explanations of the difference between kinds of nodes (and other informational links on the site too)

https://coin.dance/nodes

The "blocks" page of that site looks worrying for BTC, even if it is true that the BU hashrate is concentrated to ASIC farms of very wealthy individuals rather than the majority of BTC users. https://coin.dance/blocks

Hash rate is important, but all they've got is the hash rate. Their developers are nothing compared to those in BTC. Take away their hash rate and they are nothing.

But are you seriously saying that with 10% of current hashrate BTC could somehow survive and eventually beat BU to emerge as BTC with BU on the side as a shitty altcoin, while miners gradually come back to BTC as BU price tanks?

(03-22-2017 12:39 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  The "blocks" page of that site looks worrying for BTC, even if it is true that the BU hashrate is concentrated to ASIC farms of very wealthy individuals rather than the majority of BTC users. https://coin.dance/blocks

Thanks for pointing that out, Skank_H... I was going to link and mention some other interesting data point on that site - including some of their nice looking diagrams and charts... so I am glad that you pointed out another data driven center.

(03-22-2017 12:39 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  Hash rate is important, but all they've got is the hash rate. Their developers are nothing compared to those in BTC. Take away their hash rate and they are nothing.

I also think that some of their hashrate might be ephemeral, too, but it is really difficult to make those kinds of sweeping conclusions with much confidence and in that regard, we have to see how it plays out over time.

(03-22-2017 12:39 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  But are you seriously saying that with 10% of current hashrate BTC could somehow survive and eventually beat BU to emerge as BTC with BU on the side as a shitty altcoin, while miners gradually come back to BTC as BU price tanks?

Sure, each of us have various considerations that we have to make regarding why we like bitcoin as an investment and even how we see the future, yet I don't really think that it is too productive to assert that we want bitcoin to win on every front and that there might not develop a whole system of coin under BU that competes with bitcoin in a variety of ways in the future.

I am only saying that currently there seems to be a considerable amount of surplus hash power in bitcoin, and bitcoin could remain secure with 10% or likely even less of the current hashing power (maybe even 1%?). The various other ramifications would have to play out over time to figure out the extent to which bitcoin will keep its various network effect benefits including but not limited to developers, venders, nodes and price value. On the other hand, it would likely be quite easy to get seg wit implemented if the BUs fork off - whether they take 90% of the hashpower or not.

So, yeah, mining is not the only thing, and there could be a variety of scenarios in which miners don't really consider mining on BU to be profitable for them.. and the fact that BU does not really have good developers or even networking effects could all play into those kinds of decisions from miners concerning how to direct their mining power or what pools to join.

I am NOT trying to assert that forking would necessarily be a good thing, but I think that bitcoin core, its various networking advantages and even security could likely survive quite well in spite of the doom and gloom described in a fork - and whether it rebounds or not in order to be dominant may or may not matter so much..

As investors, we just play all of these scenarios and attempt to prepare our best for any scenario (and maybe even hedge a bit depending on how things seems to be playing out). It is not all doom and gloom, and I doubt that there is any real need to take all our marbles and go home, merely because matters may not be turning out either how we wanted or how we predicted. Furthermore, we all know bitcoin has been volatile and is likely to continue to be volatile until its market cap is in the 100x territory of its current level.

There could have been ways for bitcoin to get to 100x quickly, and for example an ETF - but even if it takes many years, then we just have to reconsider some of our previous thoughts and timeline. So, there are a lot of ways to invest, and even if you consider bitcoin as a long term investment, you still might play it in a certain way depending on how you see the shorter term ups and downs. Sometimes, it remains quite unclear about predicting what is going to happen in 5 years, when we gotta see how the next year plays out, first before our 5 year prediction can be more meaningful. Sometimes, also, we may get folks wanting to predict about 20 years or 100years or longer. Sure 20 years is more relevant and meaningful than 100year, but sometimes, guys might be considering how to invest today based on something that could happen 100years from now.. if you get my point?

Here's an interesting angle. I had not heard about BATS filing an appeal to the ETF decision.

I wonder if there is any chance that such an appeal could make any difference or reconsideration of the SEC decision to reject the ETF.

http://www.coindesk.com/bats-trying-over...rejection/

Never a dull moment in bitcoin, and I suppose at some point there will either be further explanation or maybe even some sharing of the actual appeal petition document.

The below linked article claims to be a beginners guide to a coinsplit.

Some guys may find some of the information helpful.


https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/beg...oin-split/

(03-21-2017 07:16 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  Looks like Coinbase will only recognize BTC in the event of a hard fork, at least initially.

I don't like the sound of it. I may consider selling all of my bitcoins and staying in cash until after the fork (or the prospect of a fork recedes), then get back in.

Problem is if bitcoin experiences a price spike when its either recognized as the dominant coin or the threat of a fork goes away, I would miss out on that.

I'm not trying to give any advice what so ever, however I don't think this is crazy at all and if I were holding BTC this is what I would do.

(03-22-2017 11:53 PM)Satoshi Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:16 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  Looks like Coinbase will only recognize BTC in the event of a hard fork, at least initially.

I don't like the sound of it. I may consider selling all of my bitcoins and staying in cash until after the fork (or the prospect of a fork recedes), then get back in.

Problem is if bitcoin experiences a price spike when its either recognized as the dominant coin or the threat of a fork goes away, I would miss out on that.

I'm not trying to give any advice what so ever, however I don't think this is crazy at all and if I were holding BTC this is what I would do.

Don't you have to at least acknowledge your own bias, and that you seem to have no tolerance for BTC at any price? - and you have been saying that you have no tolerance for BTC since the mid $200s all the way up to the present price for a bit more than a year and a half. No?

One thing is to be jittery and to have some tolerance for BTC, but your actions and your words show that you have no tolerance which makes your suggestion seem to be without much ability to relate to others who may have higher tolerances for BTC, no?

(03-23-2017 12:12 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 11:53 PM)Satoshi Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:16 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  Looks like Coinbase will only recognize BTC in the event of a hard fork, at least initially.

I don't like the sound of it. I may consider selling all of my bitcoins and staying in cash until after the fork (or the prospect of a fork recedes), then get back in.

Problem is if bitcoin experiences a price spike when its either recognized as the dominant coin or the threat of a fork goes away, I would miss out on that.

I'm not trying to give any advice what so ever, however I don't think this is crazy at all and if I were holding BTC this is what I would do.

Don't you have to at least acknowledge your own bias, and that you seem to have no tolerance for BTC at any price? - and you have been saying that you have no tolerance for BTC since the mid $200s all the way up to the present price for a bit more than a year and a half. No?

One thing is to be jittery and to have some tolerance for BTC, but your actions and your words show that you have no tolerance which makes your suggestion seem to be without much ability to relate to others who may have higher tolerances for BTC, no?

You seem quite uncomfortable about an potential hard fork yourself? So why do you think the market thinks otherwise? If the hard fork is unsuccessful the price will definitely fall.