|
Title: Mircea Popescu opinion on segwit UASF Post by: danielW on May 26, 2017, 08:36:25 PM I dont wanna give his opinion too much weight but he is a significant holder and might also be representative of a very fundamentalist 'immutable bitcoin' position.
Anybody knows what his position on segwit UASF is? Title: Re: Mircea Popescu opinion on segwit UASF Post by: Last of the V8s on May 26, 2017, 08:47:45 PM He's against all that kind of nonsense.
Don't expect he cares much, though, as he has his own bitcoin Title: Re: Mircea Popescu opinion on segwit UASF Post by: ebliever on May 26, 2017, 08:52:51 PM He's against all that kind of nonsense. Don't expect he cares much, though, as he has his own bitcoin Evidence? Title: Re: Mircea Popescu opinion on segwit UASF Post by: Last of the V8s on May 26, 2017, 08:59:52 PM He's against all that kind of nonsense. Don't expect he cares much, though, as he has his own bitcoin Evidence? http://log.mkj.lt/trilema/today or http://btcbase.org/log/ http://trilema.com/ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077621.0 http://thebitcoin.foundation/index.html https://www.google.co.uk/#newwindow=1&q=trilema+segwit Title: Re: Mircea Popescu opinion on segwit UASF Post by: ebliever on May 28, 2017, 12:50:45 AM He's against all that kind of nonsense. Don't expect he cares much, though, as he has his own bitcoin Evidence? http://log.mkj.lt/trilema/today or http://btcbase.org/log/ http://trilema.com/ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077621.0 http://thebitcoin.foundation/index.html https://www.google.co.uk/#newwindow=1&q=trilema+segwit That's a lot of weird stuff.... OK... Title: Re: Mircea Popescu opinion on segwit UASF Post by: 25hashcoin on May 28, 2017, 02:56:17 AM UASF is a failure already
Title: Re: Mircea Popescu opinion on segwit UASF Post by: thejaytiesto on May 28, 2017, 12:03:33 PM So my guess is they think it's a joke. But if they think it's a joke, they'll have to put their mouth where their money is, which means they will have to dump legacy for 148 coins, risking being left on the wrong chain that reorgs and disappears if UASF gains traction. Let's see.
Title: Re: Mircea Popescu opinion on segwit UASF Post by: dinofelis on May 28, 2017, 12:08:43 PM So my guess is they think it's a joke. But if they think it's a joke, they'll have to put their mouth where their money is, which means they will have to dump legacy for 148 coins, risking being left on the wrong chain that reorgs and disappears if UASF gains traction. Let's see. But it also works in the other direction. This is the fundamental problem also of PoW change propositions. At a certain point, you need to dump your original bitcoins. That takes a lot of balls, and you might as well make the wrong move. So thinking that the big whales are going to dump the original chain for any new chain, is a dangerous bet - especially if they want to rip off one another too in this game. The smartest move is to keep your double coins, and wait until the dust settles. But if everybody does that, you get an even value split of the market cap. Title: Re: Mircea Popescu opinion on segwit UASF Post by: thejaytiesto on May 29, 2017, 12:28:30 PM So my guess is they think it's a joke. But if they think it's a joke, they'll have to put their mouth where their money is, which means they will have to dump legacy for 148 coins, risking being left on the wrong chain that reorgs and disappears if UASF gains traction. Let's see. But it also works in the other direction. This is the fundamental problem also of PoW change propositions. At a certain point, you need to dump your original bitcoins. That takes a lot of balls, and you might as well make the wrong move. So thinking that the big whales are going to dump the original chain for any new chain, is a dangerous bet - especially if they want to rip off one another too in this game. The smartest move is to keep your double coins, and wait until the dust settles. But if everybody does that, you get an even value split of the market cap. The 148 chain can't reorg, so it's not a total wipeout risk scenario. Sure if 148 doesn't pick up traction, you can end up with a coin that crashes hard, but notice how even useless bitcoin unlimited tokens in bitfinex still have a price, so you could dump them for cheap and still get some out of it. On the other hand legacy can reorg which means you end up with literally 0. So legacy is under this constant pressure of a potential snowball effect happening on 148. It takes only like 20% hashrate on 148 and the rest of miners should start getting very nervous. Notice how if Core allows 148 support, bitfury said they will mine it. Title: Re: Mircea Popescu opinion on segwit UASF Post by: European Central Bank on May 29, 2017, 12:59:14 PM I have no interest in what this person's opinion is after reading some of that weirdness.
time has moved on. I'm sure he's got a few thousand coins. great for him. Title: Re: Mircea Popescu opinion on segwit UASF Post by: dinofelis on May 29, 2017, 01:18:36 PM So my guess is they think it's a joke. But if they think it's a joke, they'll have to put their mouth where their money is, which means they will have to dump legacy for 148 coins, risking being left on the wrong chain that reorgs and disappears if UASF gains traction. Let's see. But it also works in the other direction. This is the fundamental problem also of PoW change propositions. At a certain point, you need to dump your original bitcoins. That takes a lot of balls, and you might as well make the wrong move. So thinking that the big whales are going to dump the original chain for any new chain, is a dangerous bet - especially if they want to rip off one another too in this game. The smartest move is to keep your double coins, and wait until the dust settles. But if everybody does that, you get an even value split of the market cap. The 148 chain can't reorg, so it's not a total wipeout risk scenario. Sure if 148 doesn't pick up traction, you can end up with a coin that crashes hard, but notice how even useless bitcoin unlimited tokens in bitfinex still have a price, so you could dump them for cheap and still get some out of it. The problem is more probably that if it doesn't get traction, miners mining on it will abandon it, and with the slow bitcoin difficulty adjustment, this chain will simply stop, because too few blocks are generated. So the risk on the 148 chain isn't zero either. (and yes, exchange IOU are independent of what block chains do, or even whether they exist). Of course, if the separation is long enough, it would be prudent for the legacy miners to make a small HF change to make the split bilateral. Pushing out such thing would of course be accepted by all legacy coin users, who don't want to see their chain disappear. The simplest thing to do would be to push out a Core version with a recent check point in it after the split. |