Bitcoin Forum

Hey my point is that SegWit is also an altcoin. And that only Satoshi’s protocol is Bitcoin. But please feel free to disagree. However, who amongst you will actually read all the linked discussion and blogs to get an in depth introduction to all of the factors involved?

http://archive.is/yPH9c (formerly https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2251762.msg22882066#msg22882066)

Follow-up:

http://archive.is/8TEFu#selection-20289.0-20289.23 (formerly https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2251762.msg22889412#msg22889412)

---

I`m more convinced than before that Segwit is an altcoin ,not an bitcoin improvement.
I don`t agree that BCH will kill Segwit,they both will continue to exsit ,but all those forked "bitcoins" are an obstacle for mass btc adoption around the world.How can you explain to a newbie which one is the real bitcoin-Bitcoin cash,Bitcoin unlmited,B2X...

If SegWit is stolen over and over by chain reorganizations making the miners ever richer, who is going to continue using SegWit  ???

However, I’m not even 80% sure the miners are going to do that long-range chain reorganization. We’ll see. My popcorn is ready. Could possibly be some months from now though, if ever.

But it’s difficult to imagine Bitmain doesn’t have something up their sleeve (in addition to the undetectable ASICBOOST which they pay no patent royalties on and in theory they with a chain reorganization could undo any protocol attempt by Blockstream to make ASICBOOST detectable). @Dorky pointed out that Bitmain seems to be perhaps affiliated with Israel as well. We also have the million BTC whale (who claims he was the DAO attacker) over at Trilema.com stating he will support the reorganization that steals SegWit. Roger Ver will probably throw his 300,000+ BTC towards BCH. Maybe BCH is folded back into BTC (retaining the larger blocks perhaps) with the chain reorganization, so it’s the official BTC again?

Note the follow up (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2251762.msg22889412#msg22889412).

If I follow your drift both segwit and BCH are altoins and Bitcoin has already disappeared.

I hold both BCH and BTC/Segwit and one is losing value fast while the other is climbing. So I don't expect BCH to replace anything anytime soon. When it is mined en masse, it is dumped en masse, it seems very few big players care about that coin.

I think the whales who are mostly anti-Blockstream and anti-SegWit, are just waiting quietly because they want to take your BTC, so they rather not alert you to how they are going to do it:

You seemed convinced before that Bitcoin would revert to 1x, what changed your mind on that?

Realpolitik (PoW is a plutocracy, big money decides, etc) aside, I have problems with this kind of attitude:Do you think most users are ideologues? Do you think punishing the ones who are ideologues is worth this? Maybe regular users don't have political power, but this level of not giving a shit about them on a personal level is baffling to me.

I think I was perhaps putting too much weight on Trilema.com’s million BTC influence. Rather now I am realizing that Trilema probably has to align themselves with other powerful groups such as Bitmain and Craig Wright’s claimed mining cartel. Seems that a moderate increase in block size is not a protocol item that is an anathema to Trilema to the extent that SegWit is. But honestly I have not really tried to figure this out. I’m just guessing.

However, TRB is tracking BTC minus the SegWit transactions, and BCH transactions are not replayable on TRB. So it’s not quite clear technically how these two forces will align themselves. Perhaps BCH is merely a decoy to use when attacking all other forks of BTC which are not TRB, and then Bitmain dumps BCH for TRB in the end game?

I’m not a 100% confident that there will even be a chain reorganization now. But I’m probably just lulled to sleep by the illusion of SegWit’s dominance in the community of n00bs who think SegWit solves scaling and doesn’t bastardize Bitcoin’s security model and Nash equilibrium consensus game theory in numerous ways.


It’s not about what I want in my dreams for a perfect nirvana, but about the reality. Rule by the mob is what you have in countries where the electricity and water doesn’t stay turned on.


I don’t think that people who don’t even understand that the security model of Bitcoin was that miners can’t steal Bitcoins for which they do not possess the private keys, can be trusted to have a vote. So to remove their vote, the whales may possibly take their BTC (or maybe not, we’ll see).

It isn’t like we didn’t try over and over and over and over to explain to them. But they drooled over SegWit any way.

I’m working on that altcoin for dummies. Perhaps they should head over to an altcoin where they belong.

Bitcoin will not scale for transaction volume until it becomes centralized. It will scale for whales until then. An oligarchy in control could decide to increase block size to any size needed. I think the fight for decentralization will remain for a while, so scaling block size may continue to be resisted for the time being.

I hope SegWit is killed else I will have to stop using Bitcoin! No way I will transact with that SegWit security hole that creates a “pay to anyone” booty for a mining cartel to steal.

I'm guessing you're the same person as iamnotback.  You have a similar posting style.
This can be objectively refuted with a simple point:  using SegWit is not on a separate chain or separate cryptocurrency, so it can't be regarded as an altcoin until that is the case.

I would rather that you suggested it's against satoshi's vision and actually backed up your point rather than making a meaningless and incorrect point to exaggerate yourself.

I took a look at the logs and they seem to think that Craig Wright is a joke, same goes for Bitcoin Cash. They also think segwit2x is a joke or don't seem too concerned about anything of what is going on, so im not sure what the deal is.

They seem to be ok with just ignoring segwit transactions with the TRB software. I don't see how they could remove segwit from the main chain and I don't think they are going to align themselves with an altcoin.

I doubt they are just going to sit back and watch how Barry Shillbert kills the main chain so I suppose they are already working to stop NYA somehow (and obviously they probably talk about that privately). I just saw how f2pool is not even signaling intention anymore. So the famous "95% hashrate" is not the case anymore, it will be less. Enough to survive? well we'll see. I hope so because if 2x wins it's going to be a clusterfuck.

B2X futures on Bitfinex are tanking heavily if that is of any guidance.

https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt2btc

1 B2X goes for 0.15 BTC right now.

I had written my prior post at ~10pm for me after being awake since 6am which is means I could barely hold my eyes open (recovering from liver disease at age 52 is like this). Upon awaking, I added the following to my prior post (because I was thinking about what I had written while laying in bed) before I read your comment:


Your research (I had not had time/energy recently to go back over the Trilema) seems to indicate that an attack taking BTC back to 1MB with Satoshi’s protocol might still be a possibility. Or as I was thinking recently, maybe such an attack removes SegWit (by stealing it so no one wants to run SegWit clients anymore) while adopting a larger block size. I doubt the TRB supporters would object to a reasonable increase in the block size, if it enabled the destruction of SegWit.

And I can contemplate that Jihan Wu may just be using BCH to gain more TRB (aka BTCSatoshi) in the end game (which was my original theory). When and if BTCSegWit is attacked with a rollback stealing all the SegWit booty (and my theory about possibly double-spending derivatives of BTC that had been spent by the attacking miners for buying BCH but not other BTC spent since ~Aug 4 where they do not have your private key), then presumably BCH will skyrocket enabling the attacking miner cartel to trade BCH for TRB at fire sale prices to reset a new bull market in the future. A pump of BCH could possibly start before any such attack.

My thought/theory this morning is that an illusion of consensus around BTCSegWit is I posit based on the fact that everyone who disagrees has STFU waiting for SegWit to blow up. Why not reap the benefits of the pump in the price first. I’m thinking that community consensus is tenuous and loses any foundation when the security flaws of SegWit become apparent in an emergency scenario wherein talking about community directed paths forward is impractical because that insecure trash would be under active attack. Additionally as I stated, I believe mostly only minnows supported SegWit and any whales who have been hoodwinked by Blockstream will quickly get a re-education about reality, wake up, and adopt a sane strategy that Bitcoin has no lasting value if it continues to fork-off. All contentious forks should fail, which means SegWit, BCH, and everything fails, then TRB wins. Of course those who want transaction volume scaling are appalled by such a proposition, but Bitcoin does not need transaction volume scaling in order for the crypto ecosystem to scale. The altcoins will provide the volume scaling and Bitcoin is the reserve currency and widescale unit-of-account that provides economic scaling. Destroying the security of Bitcoin to add dubious Rube Goldberg-ish offchain volume scaling does not make any sense (other than as a deception to pump up the price and enable the whales to buy back at fire sale prices and steal a lot of BTC from fools).

As I said, I do not have any particular affinity for BCH (or even TRB), but I will not continue to use BTC while that SegWit crap is on it. I will transition to holding a different token as my reserve currency (unless I can find a reliable way to buy and sell BTC without (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2251762.msg22932910#msg22932910) the BTC ever having SegWit nor BTC spent for BCH in its lineage). No way I am going to hold as a reserve currency a coin which an insecure transaction format which creates a massive booty incentivizing miners to fork off and steal it. And which alienates whales who want security to be the first priority. The ecosystem depends on BTC to be secure, as it is used for everything from holding ICO funds raised to being the backing for exchanges, etc.. Blockstream looks to me to be an intentionally planted Trojan Horse (even the devs might be oblivious to their role). Possibly that behind the curtain, the financiers of Bitmain are the same financiers of Blockstream, employing an Hegelian dialectic (aka manufactured crisis or false flag) to achieve their aims of aggregating most of the BTC on the mountain in Israel. (okay the conspiracy angle isn’t required, just a thought)


They expect the miners to steal the SegWit booty once it becomes large enough to finance a long-range reorganization of the BTC chain.

There seems to be some misunderstanding by some n00bs who think incorrectly that this means most BTC will be stolen. No. Only those foolish enough to send or accept SegWit transactions, and per my other theory, perhaps those who purchase BTC which has a BTC -> BCH trade in its lineage (which might possibly mean obtaining Bitcoin from exchanges is risky (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2251762.msg22932910#msg22932910)).

The attacking miners can’t steal that which they do not have private keys for. SegWit is different because ”pays to script hash” which means pay to anyone and the miner decides (if viewed from a Satoshi protocol immutability perspective).

The inability of 51% attack to steal is fundamental to Bitcoin security and SegWit breaks that. That so many n00bs do not understand this is IMO evidence of Blockstream’s deception.

I posit that Bitmain is a likely the player to orchestrate this, but perhaps in a surreptitious (plausible deniability) manner. Tangentially, I note @Dorky wrote he thinks the financiers of Bitmain may be in Israel, based on some news story he read.

Note Trilema is against centralization and they have been discussing a new hash function which employs an unbounded amount of DRAM memory to defeat ASICs, but afaics they are incorrect. That can’t be employed because it can be DDoSed to hell and/or asymmetrical advantage to miners who have more DRAM than other miners. Their technical acumen may not be as high as their boastfulness, although they do have some very smart guys over there. Blockstream apparently has some smart mathematicians, cryptographers and engineers (e.g. more expert than me in their specific areas of focus). But IMO those guys were given the wrong set of goals (e.g. transaction voluming scaling) and they lack adequate peer review on game theory and mechanism design. They’re moving too fast and in the wrong direction and they also do not adopt the K.I.S.S. principle. Bitcoin was designed by uber high IQ individuals with man-decades invested in design and modelling. It was not some Japanese guy in his garage who created Bitcoin.


Hey I appreciate the frank feedback and discussion. That is how we try to arrive at the truth. But sorry I do not see how you can claim you are objective.

BTCSegWit is not the same protocol as BTCSatoshi (aka TRB = The Real Bitcoin). Do you deny this fact?

My understanding is that SegWit creates transactions that when viewed from Satoshi’s protocol are “pay to anyone”. Do you deny this?

Since version 0.5.3, the same key developers who now mostly work for Blockstream have hijacked the protocol and added complexity and possibly insecure experiments without economic feedback from the whales. I argue that the economic feedback (slap down) is coming and it will be very harsh on those who fail to understand that SegWit is an altcoin. Up until SegWit it was apparently basically possible to run a TRB (v0.5.4) client and pretty much side-step the crap that Blockheads have done to basterdize Bitcoin. But SegWit crossed the line of no return in terms of the whales needing to take action. So I think this is why BCH was created as the leverage for what is coming.

Perhaps I am entirely mistaken about the level of immovable whale support for SegWit. And perhaps I am mistaken about the propensity for a mining cartel attack on the SegWit booty. That is why I said, I am not even 80% sure that any of this will transpire. But my popcorn is ready.  8)


P.S. note what prompted the creation of this thread was a thread in Altcoin Discussion about BCH bleeding to death and I was concerned that n00bs were going to sell all their BCH without having all arguments presented to them. So I decided to create a poll here in Speculation so that we can all collect the community thinking on this issue. Other than those who want to politicize this issue and will use any tactics they can to belittle discussion, I think most readers are interested in open and civil discussions. That is presuming we are mature adults around here. Ban then LTC goes from $6 to $80 as predicted. Ban again then the SegWit attack occurs as predicted?


EDIT: it should be pointed out that miners have an incentive to support a non-segwit chain even if there is no chain reorganization, because they can attempt to take that ongoing SegWit value for themselves, because as viewed from Satoshi’s protocol, this is a “pay to anyone” transaction. A chain reorganization is a way to capture historic booty and lock miners into the fork with the incentive of the booty to jumpstart the consensus around taking SegWit for the miners. So it is not quite accurate to state that SegWit requires a contentious fork. It merely requires that miners act in their best interests to protect Satoshi’s protocol and the immutability and security of Bitcoin for the maximum long-term value of their hardware investment, as well as maximizing their profit in the short-term. SegWit supporters argue that this is an attack on the community, but rather SegWit enemies argue it a protection against the SegWit attack on Bitcoin.

Another very important factor to consider is that I explained why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2251762.msg22889412#msg22889412) the miners are owned by the whales and others explained that mining is a horrible business to be in (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=201268.msg2121475#msg2121475) unless you have a plan for world domination. Tie that together with my exposition on why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=201268.msg2121475#msg2121475) proof-of-work has to become run by a mining oligarchy else it fails to converge as transaction fees increase. Then you can analyse who is into mining and why.  ;)

Here is a version of the Blockstream koolaid deception and lies:


The above is how a Blockhead would spread disinformation and propaganda.

The truth is that SegWit was a change that violated the immutability of Bitcoin if it is assumed that miners will not treat the transactions as “pay to anyone”. The Real Bitcoin refuses to honor that change because it demands we do not fall down that slippery slope of mutating Bitcoin. So stealing[accepting the donations] from the fools who “pay to anyone” is honoring the immutable protocol of Bitcoin. Yet a Blockhead would try to play politics and equate protecting the immutability with doing the opposite.

In-fucking-credulous!

And for a follow-up it, the propaganda gets even more twisted:


It is not a valid point. Those who make donations to miners in order to fund the blockchain are very generous and appreciated. Miners who honor Satoshi’s protocol gladly accept those donations. There is no lie/deception on their part. Blockheads are lying about the reality of what immutability means.

We can suppose his point is that two wrongs don’t make it right or that stealing is always immoral. But it belies an understanding of contract law and reality. The deception was initiated by Blockstream who made people believe that donations were transactions. Society can’t function if we reward deception by giving retards and rapefugees a vote. If the protocol says one thing, and some fools do another thing, they are culpable, not society.

---

n00bs have no clue.

They want transaction scaling on the reserve currency of crypto which makes no sense because it violates the immutability and sacrifices security which are the key attributes that gives the reserve currency its stature as compared to altcoins.

The transaction scaling is available on altcoins and on exchanges.

That n00bs think SegWit is better because it adds more features exemplifies how they are technologically ignorant sheep who wilfully (boisterously and even belligerently) want to be deceived into to making donations to the miners as I explained in my prior post.

BCH gave the n00bs what they wanted which is an increase in block size (some fixed amount of transaction capacity increase), without destroying the security as SegWit does. It is at a higher stature as any other airdrop, because it has the backing of the large mining cartels. It is probably just a decoy and not superior to the The Real Bitcoin (TRB = no SegWit), but it is certainly better than the SegWit insecure crapola which encourages users to spend their transactions to “pay to anyone” on TRB (aka BTCSatoshi) protocol which will probably ultimately prevail.


That is what they said when LTC was at $6 and they also said “WTF?” when Byteball was $1 million marketcap and I recommended nibbling on it.

How about we wait until the end game to take an accounting? By my book, I am already at 100X gains since the start of this year in terms of my speculation recommendations.

Btw, a phase transition mooning is the time to sell, not the time to buy. But please do buy more BTCSegWit at $8000, lol. (And please tell us about it boastfully while pounding your chest)

P.S. $5600 to $8000 is < 50% increase. $240ish to $1000 would be 300+% gain. Buy low, sell high.


Presuming the community of whales would not accept the TRB, then BCH is the closest to BTCSatoshi of any fork thus far.

SegWit is not even close to being Bitcoin, unless we assume the SegWit transactions are donations to miners. In which case, yes SegWit is Bitcoin and it is a donation system which Blockstream created so that all the n00bs can be stripped of their BTC in the form of donations to miners.

---

SegWit2X is probably deleterious. It splits the SegWit supporters probably causing some of them to fight each other and/or confusion. (getting them to split their mining resources probably helps with any future attack on one of the two forks)

Bitcoin Gold is not Bitcoin at all. It changes the proof-of-work algorithm which means it has no mining cartels of significance behind it.

BCH is the only semi-legitimate airdrop fork of Bitcoin. It provides a counter-correlated hedge against BTC peaking and then declining in price. LTC also provides this, and also offers SegWit for those who still think SegWit is important.

My expectation has been that BTC would moon first, then LTC, and then BCH.

SegWit will die a fiery death. And Bitcoin gold will be insignificant.

Hopefully at the end of all this BTC = TRB (aka Satoshi’s protocol with no SegWit). A block size increase or not is okay with me, but no increase is better for protecting immutability.

---

Wouldn’t that indicate it is the most counter-correlated to BTC  ???

Aren’t we supposed to buy what is panic sold and sell what is panic bought  ???


ftfy.

---

I agree all forks of Satoshi’s protocol must eventually die, including BTCSegWit and BCH. But the question is what happens between now and that final outcome.

Dash is a masternode obfuscated centralized controlled scam.

Litecoin is SegWit.

Neither of which have Bitcoin’s airdropped distribution.

BCH is pure Satoshi Bitcoin (no SegWit) except with an 8MB block size and a faster difficulty adjustment. BCH is supported by the largest Bitcoin mining concern.

BTCSegWit is at $5700 nosebleed and is polluted with SegWit, no longer a pure Satoshi protocol unless we assume all the SegWit transactions are to be double-spent as future donations to the miners.

Please be factual in your statements.


Are you going to take profits out of BTCSegWit at $6000+ into LTC, NEO, ETH, XMR which are all near an ATH or into BCH which is near an ATL  ??? Seems like a no brainer decision to me. I like to sell high and buy low.

The best speculators buy when everyone else is panic selling. I’m hoping for one more leg up in BTCSegWit and one more leg down in BCH.

Well, well, well, somebody understands what time it is:


And you know this was Bitmain’s plan all along to feign support for SegWit, but kill it in multiple steps.

The first step is yes killing 2x. The NY agreement was always a farce that fails in November. That was part of the plan.

The second step is attacking SegWit (http://archive.is/yPH9c).

Going to be a lot of shocked people around here when BCH hits $1500, just like when someone said buy LTC at $6 and it hit $85.

Can you give is the TLDR of why you think Segwit is 'also an altcoin'?  I think I may have missed that part of your thought process.  And I read your posts from time to time in the past. 

You have like how many accounts on here now...?  5 or so?

I don't agree with some of your opinions but they're fun reads for the most part.  Keep it up.

The mods already deleted it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2251762.msg22882066#msg22882066) (you’re not allowed to read it). And I am not going to write it again. Try clicking the link in the prior post, but note that archive.is appears to not be functioning properly at the moment.

SegWit isn’t even an altcoin. It is a donation protocol that rides on top of BTC that enables fools to donate their BTC to the miners (in a future double-spend) when ever they use a SegWit transaction. It’s a clever scheme your masters have devised to separate you from your BTC. Yet some idiots support this as if it is some ideologically correct community consensus or some other rapefugee logic.

Core will not tell you this, but the reality will end up vindicating me as it usually does. Did you also disagree with me when I said buy LTC at $6? How about when I said nibble on Byteball when it was $1 million mcap? When I said buy ETH at $45?

---

Following quotes are paraphrased to hide identity.


When the community decides to support a HF, that is also destroying immutability. But the 51% attack to take already confirmed SegWit donations is not even possible if users do not use a brain dead SegWit wallet which issues “pay to anyone” transactions. It is the creation of SegWit wallets which has enabled a booty to pile up which enables a 51% attack. That is why I said SegWit wallets are a security attack on Bitcoin. Yet you somehow think the drunk-on-koolaid community is important.

Your delusions about community are hilarious. You drink your slave masters’ koolaid.

There is no consensus until the whales have voted. The whales have not voted yet, they’re waiting for the SegWit booty to pile up.

There’s no damn way the whales are going to allow that SegWit crap. Absolutely zero. Blockstream is a gimmick to take BTC from fools who are fooled by the concept of democracy applied to cryptocurrency.

You claim you are for immutability but then you talk out two sides of your mouth in a duplicitous manner.

Are you for immutability or not?

The whales are. Go against them at your peril.

Do you really think those whiny faggots at Blockstream are relevant? The devil at Trilema who loves porn is in control (well he and other whales who hate democracy and love immutability). And you hate it don’t you because he is so immoral? Cryptocurrency is not about any one person’s morals. It is about protocol and game theory. Please. Understand. This.


There is no hardfork required for miners to take the SegWit donations ongoing. The hardfork is only to collect and double-spend the SegWit that was already confirmed in blocks. But even this “51% attack” is entirely legal in the protocol. A 51% attack is not an illegal outcome. The protocol is a competitive game theory and there is nothing illegal when adhering to the protocol. Not even immoral. Perfectly just.

You do not seem to understand that what ever is legal in the protocol is just and right and good. The law is the protocol, not your wishy-washy ambiguous idea of what the community decided.

The SegWit that is being issued is “pay to anyone”. Miners taking that while conforming to Satoshi’s protocol is not equivalent to mutating the protocol (in Satoshi’s protocol the SegWit transactions are “pay to anyone”). It is entirely within the protocol. Whereas increasing the money supply limit would change the protocol. So you’re incorrect to equate the two as functionally equivalent. One is protocol legal, the other is protocol illegal.


Incorrect. You can’t equate any fork to Satoshi’s protocol because no fork is ever final. This is why only Satoshi’s protocol can ever be the winner. Nothing else has any certain lasting stability. If the community idiotically approves a new protocol which creates a booty to fund a 51% attack, why are they surprised when their consensus is not stable? Lol. Really you’re smarter than this aren’t you.

You fundamentally do not understand that proof-of-work is never final. It is probabilistic. There is never any final community consensus.

You have some basic holes in your understanding of Byzantine systems. There are systems such as Byzantine Agreement which do reach finality but they have a liveness threshold and can stall. Proof-of-work is probabilistic and can never stall (unless there are no miners at all so we can say the liveness threshold is asymptotically ~0), but it is never final. My new decentralized ledger algorithm is also probabilistic but it is not proof-of-work and it is not proof-of-stake. It is something totally new which scales better, can’t be subverted by the whales, and which does not consume electricity.


No you fail to understand. The SegWit is going to be removed from BTC by miners taking it as donations, because flies go to honey and miners go to profitability of booties.

BCH is only going to benefit in that while BTC is being attacked, it will be a safe haven. And also for big blockers who do not want to return to 1MB as the SegWit scaling lie is totally obliterated.


Lol. Look at the Rube Goldberg machine they’ve created which is all for making donations to the miners and they’ve sold you the users on the idea that it is technologically astute.  :D  :D  :D


I also told everyone in my private group that BTC would go back up to $5100+ before the alts started moving back up. Which is precisely what happened.

---

Follow-up discussion excerpted only for the most important parts and also again paraphased to conceal writing style:



Well in the case of SegWit is very simple. The reality is that SegWit creates a booty that incentivizes (funds!) a 51% attack. The Bitcoin whitepaper states the security assumption that miners will not have the private keys to most transactions otherwise the security is destroyed. So SegWit is a direct attack on Bitcoin’s original security model.

Other bug fixes to Bitcoin which were apparently accepted by The Real Bitcoin, apparently improved security not weakened it.

My stance is that any other changes are altcoins and should not be marketed as Bitcoin. If we want to improve a cryptocurrency then airdrop it and fork it. But name it something else. Do not cheat like Blockstream did and force a contentious fight which to some extent arguably stalled the entire sector for 2 years.

Cryptocurrencies that have ongoing developers (and able to be exchanged for other currencies not just spent on goods & services so thus having an expectation of capital appreciation) are securities and have to be regulated. See the new SAFT whitepaper which I recently analysed for more on that.


If the initial protocol has not been designed to be secure against 51% attacks, then its not viable. And this is why I explained recently at the inception of this discussion about SegWit, that long-term proof-of-work is not viable.

My point is that the ability of the community to HF is design flaw of proof-of-work. And it will get worse as transaction fees rise relative to block rewards, for the game theory research reasons I recently shared.


SegWit was a HF. Any fork which continues where SegWit forked off, is Satoshi’s protocol. So the former is an altcoin and the latter is Bitcoin.

Actually afaik the “pay to anyone” aspect of SegWit is compatible with Satoshi’s protocol (and allows the miners to take them as donations) and thus really any fork containing SegWit transactions is not a HF, except that SegWit also included other changes which required a HF. In any case, a fork which accepts SegWit transactions as donations is not a fork of Satoshi. Thus no HF ever occurred. SegWit is the only HF here in this case.

Any HF which funds and basically forces economically returning to the former protocol is self-defeating and responsible for its own demise.

So the objectivity here is that the possibility of HFs remove all objectivity. Thus the ability of 51% attacks creates subjectivity and thus the only objective solution is that all HFs should be considered altcoins. No anointing by politics. All dispute is solved economically in free markets when all HFs compete against each other as altcoins.

Any one who wants to create new functionality can airdrop to an altcoin or create an altcoin with an entirely new distribution.

Otherwise all we have is discord. Creating altcoins enables the market to vote with its money. Nobody should be anointed except by the market. Blockstream employed deception and other tactics to try to subvert the free market process, but they are going to have their heads handed to them on a silver platter as they deserve for their inept and corrupt malfeasance.

The free market works.


True only because Rube Goldberg machines self-destruct.

In software adding complexity can never be slowed down (it is like a snowball that requires more and more fixes and changes) except by extricating the cancer. So your assumption was misplaced on the face of it, but you’re rescued by the fact that complexity bloat is complete failure in software engineering and will thus cause immutability by self-destruction.

Once we're past this airdrop mania, I guess focus will gp back to fees.

The mempool on bitcoin is rising again, and basically as long as the blocks are full, people will use other coins to move money and transact with.

I heard but did not verify that Bitcoin was hitting 7+ tx/sec recently.

Big blockers will swarm back into BCH and LTC.

Then SegWit gets killed and they will go bananas into BCH.

My scenario is playing out exactly as I expected. Tada.

Bitmain outsmarted the Blockheads as expected.

P.S. I’m so thrilled that 5 voters think I’m looney. Means I must be close to being correct.

So if your BTC ever went through a segwit transaction, even if you are holding it in legacy format address, it would still be vulnerable to this hypothetical attack?

For example you are holding BTC in address 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (1), then you send this BTC to address bc1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, then you send this to another legacy address 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2).

You are holding your BTC in legacy format, but it has a previous transaction in a segwit bech32 format. This means it's vulnerable to the miners stealing it?

Maybe if you send it through a couple other legacy format transactions it becomes unfeasible for them? (im just asking out of intuition since I don't know how this works tbh, but I guess the more legacy transactions in your BTC history after a segwit transaction the better, as in the further you get from it) or it makes no difference? because on that case It would be too much of a mess to survive. If segwit proliferates most people will hold BTC that went through a segwit transaction at some point in time except the BTC you are holding pre-segwit activation and freshly mined BTC from miners that I guess are spawned in legacy format and not bech32.

Also have you run the TRB software? does it do anything special to avoid BTC that has history of segwit transactions? or are they simply transacting with people OTC and never using any exchange?

Also is the HD format from Bitcoin Core considered safe? (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki)

I think if you tried to run TRB node with your wallet.dat in HD mode it wouldn't work.

TRB client is probably very slow and resource demanding. Core client loads so fast compared to years ago when I used to run Bitcoin-qt 0.7.0 or something which was my first ever used client I think, so on this department it's an improvement.

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 (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-shocking-crisis-coming-to-cryptocurrency-in-sept-20170814t065451341z) 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.

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.

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’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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=201268.msg2121475#msg2121475).

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 (https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e0c36e24344efba2d1f0d650cd94f1c7))

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.  :D


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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2259054.msg22961085#msg22961085) 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.)


I vehemently disagree with this.

The decentralized ledger’s consensus algorithm is absolutely critical. It impacts not only security, but also the type of applications that can scale, which impacts marketing and user adoption.

I have expended the past 4 years researching and designing my decentralized ledger algorithm, which I hope will replace proof-of-work, proof-of-stake, and Dan Larimer’s dPoS. I have a detailed document which compares my technology to those and also Byteball, IOTA, and SPECTRE (which is not the same as Spectrecoin). I am excited to release this document soon and my new project, during the coming crypto winter. Which has been my plan all along.

P.S. @CoinHoarder, you’re apparently skilled in website development. As a friendly suggestion, I hope you apply those skills to building an app on my project for others to use, and not make your commentary the focus on your future.


BTCSatoshi has never forked. There was an instance of some bug fixes only, which made the whales furious (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152027.0):

---

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.




https://i.imgur.com/g7HpYh6.jpg (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/training-tools/being-humble-is-required-for-trading/)

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

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


The n00b clown might possibly be in your mirror (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2268216.msg23031604#msg23031604).

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

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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 (https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/israel-s-mossad-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.

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



Martin, Bitcoin is the best tax tracking device ever created. The government will track everything on the blockchain. The DEEP STATE of the governments (and the Zionists who created it) very much want Bitcoin to succeed so as to help phase out cash which they can’t track.

Bitcoin is not supposed to be secure against government tracking. I already emailed you that the Zionists created Bitcoin. Have you reviewed the detailed evidence and arguments that Mossad did 9/11 (https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/israel-s-mossad-did-9-11)?


I already explained to you (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg22981129#msg22981129) that the governments even if they ban together can’t entirely ban cryptocurrency, because that would (analogous to the impossibility of permanently eradicating an endospore bacteria) require finding every private key and every copy of the ledger data spread out in numerous microSD cards distributed in cubbyholes all over the planet. Impossible.

Instead what governments will do is ban “black money”. Anyone who can’t show a ledger and/or paper trail for their money, will have it confiscated if they try to bring that money into the mainstream tangible economy which the governments control. This is one of the reasons Bitcoin is so important to them and why they love Bitcoin. Governments are in love with Bitcoin and will become more and more in love with it.

You’re really missing the train, because you are misunderstanding the entire point of who created Bitcoin and why they created it. Have you reviewed the detailed evidence and arguments that Mossad did 9/11 (https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/israel-s-mossad-did-9-11)?

Anonymous ledgers will not be a super threat to the governments, because anyone who uses them to create “black money” will find that their money can’t be brought back into the tangible economy that the government is tracking. Although Zcash (especially the new coming STARKs which don’t required a trusted setup) are theoretically more anonymous than Monero’s ring signature (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/is-monero-s-or-all-anonymity-broken), the Zcash technology is currently underused because of some serious performance costs.

Remember also that the DEEP STATE which controls the world’s major governments (CIA, etc) need anonymous cryptocurrencies for their own illicit activities. Their anonymous money isn’t “black money” because they own the regulators. So because of that, they will also allow anonymous cryptocurrencies.


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.


I already did that:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c192cedaed52ef11ef97acb239dc5986
https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/get-ready-for-a-world-currency


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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1665943.60) 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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg22981129#msg22981129), 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'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.

https://i.imgur.com/o4epxrQ.jpg

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.  :D

---

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=201268.msg2121475#msg2121475), 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 (https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c192cedaed52ef11ef97acb239dc5986#euro-is-a-monetary-enslavement-paradigm)).

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 (https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/israel-s-mossad-did-9-11).

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 (http://trilema.com/2017/qntra-sqntr-september-2017-statement/).

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:

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.

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 (http://trilema.com/2017/the-masters-textbook-why-do-girls-seek-you-out/#selection-127.0-127.426).

• 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 (https://steemit.com/psychology/@anonymint/social-courtesies-the-witless-and-pointless-example) 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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2268216.msg23210606#msg23210606) 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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg22701533#msg22701533), 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 (http://trilema.com/2017/the-masters-textbook-why-do-girls-seek-you-out/#selection-109.102-109.678).

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:

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

The timing is very uncertain (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2268216.msg23210606#msg23210606).

@mint

Ironically, most "truthers" get angsty when I start question their theories. Isn't that the point of being a truther... questioning what you've learned about everything everywhere?

I am saying that potentially you are wrong about who created Bitcoin. There have been so many different people that have been called Satoshi Nakamoto before, with all sorts of proof in each case. Now you think you've solved it? Think about how crazy you sound to the old timers that have heard the "Satoshi Was Found" story 100 times by now. You do appear to have some proof, but as far as I can tell, you and I both will most likely never know who Satoshi was. There is not a way to prove you wrong, just as there is not any way to prove that you aren't wrong. So please stop asking me to do so. Maybe you are right? I can't prove either way...

Same with the purported Segwit attack by the miners... that's way out in left field too. There is no way to definitively prove it right or wrong. I think it is more unlikely than the first theory, due to the amount of risk mounting an attack on Bitcoin Segwit/2x will have for the attackers, yet I still admit that it is possible. However, you claim Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash are safe havens if such an event were to occur, but I have deduced the opposite.

There will be many thousands of very angry people (real people, regular joe blows...) that got screwed, because a lot of people own only Segwit/Segwit2x tokens. I can imagine the "Bitcoin Was A Scam" news headlines scaring investors away from the crypto market in general, but even more so with Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. Litecoin has Segwit too, so it's susceptible to the attack they already did on Bitcoin, and is owned by Zihan's gang too. Why would the "sheep" in your scenario flock to Bitcoin Cash or Litecoin? To give more money in transaction fees etc. to the same mining cartel that stole your money in the Segwit attack? To pump the value of the guilty whales tokens? No, just no... all you have to do is let the other "sheep" know what happened. People are a little smarter than sheep brah. Just saying...

IMO, SHA256 (and possibly Scrypt) as a hashing method is done as far as I'm concerned if this attack goes down, and so is any cryptocurrency that uses it. If this attack happens, then I will sell every single SHA256 token I have, and I will spend a very long time trying to convince people of that being the only way to punish the thugs that attacked Bitcoin. Let the bag holder's (miners/whales) be stuck with useless and valueless bags (usless mining hardware or effectively valueless tokens).

Hopefully, we as a community can set precedence for such an event in PoW cryptocyrrencies... If someone amassed enough hash power to attack a certain hashing algorithm, then as punishment the cryptocurrencies using such hashing algorithm are sold off, never used again, and campaigned against. A true show of force from the community could prevent future similar attacks from rogue miners and whales. This is the only way in my mind to punish 51% attackers, and I would hope most people in the community will back me up.

I don't think that Litecoin would benefit as much as other cryptocurrencies, because Zihan and his gang are balls deep in Litecoin mining too. Bitcoin Cash is supported and owned by the same thugs that attacked Bitcoin too. Why would the speculators (aka. "sheep") flock there? I will not support any cryptocurrency in which its miners blatantly attack other cryptocurrencies, and I am sure many will support me here.

I think the biggest benefactors of such an event will be different forms of PoS, PoW cryptocurrencies that utilize a different hashing algorithm, and cryptocurrencies that had nothing to do with the attack. Ethereum, Ripple, Monero, etc... (all other let's say... top 50 alternative cryptocurrencies) would perform better post-attack, because community confidence in Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin will be shattered.

You don't want to anger the sheep herd, as they may just kill you to death with their cuteness! Oh... and they will make sure that the other sheep know Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin is a scam! You already have The sheep where you want them, why anger them uneccesarily and cause a potentially devastating amount of blowback? The social media pitchfork mafia will never rest.

I think that in this post I have elaborated on different dynamics of what I have termed Social Consensus in prior posts/bligs, and how I think it should ideally play out.

I welcome any person with a strong functioning brain stem and reasonably decent IQ to listen the PhDs and scholars I linked to (https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/israel-s-mossad-did-9-11) and the evidence and argument that Mossad did 9/11 and then I doubt none of them can rationally make good arguments against the theory.

Of course most people are too lazy/busy to expend 3 - 4 hours digesting the videos as I did, and also because they’ve seen so much crap in the past about UFOs, reptilians, and other diversionary disinformation crap that was ostensibly injected by Mossad to create confusion and discredit the truth.


Criminal investigators look for motive, capability, and strong circumstantial/corroborating evidence. I found all three. All other prior attempts to identify Satoshi were diversionary disinformation crap that was ostensibly injected by Mossad to create confusion and discredit the truth.


Technologically it is “right” (i.e. correct) to state the attack is technically plausible.


I believe the attackers will only do it if it a sure win-win. And so they must presumably wait until the accumulated SegWit (and possibly other miners’ spent BTC) booty is huge enough that it is impossible for them to lose.


Well I am expecting a possible boost in the 8MB BCH due to the failure of 2X before any SegWit booty attack.

And ditto LTC as it is 2X (i.e. 2MB) with SegWit.

But BCH might still benefit also from a SegWit attack because Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment is very slow at 2 weeks, so a crashing BTC price will make the BCH orders-of-magnitude more profitable to mine, thus potentially sending BCH mooning while BTC is collapsing.


They herd towards price movement which leads them though.


I don’t think so. BTC will become stronger (after some collapse in price and recovery) because it remained immutable as no Core thugs were able to monopolize the mutation of the blockchain for their bankster masters who funded them. Whereas BCH was an airdrop not a hard fork. The point being that the free market should decide which mutation is valuable, by making them all airdrops and not the anointing one over the others by some NYA of whales. Nevertheless, I think the entire Core thuggery is really just a Hegelian dialectic by design, to take BTC from sheep when immutability is ultimately restored. Again this is not a certain outcome nor is the timing certain. I reiterate this is a speculative interpretation of what I perceive may be the reality behind the curtain so to speak, although technological facts are in the open for anyone to analyse. Of course, my speculation could end up entirely incorrect or it could happen years from now when everyone has long since concluded I was smoking my own Koolaid.


My speculative perspective is that Core are the thugs and I will celebrate when this reality becomes apparent to everyone. Sheep are slow to learn, but the whales already know what is coming and why.

The SegWit theft will correct the thuggery and punish all those stupid enough to trust thugs.

Politics is rule by the manipulated sheep mob, i.e. thuggery by proxy. It is what we are trying to eliminate with decentralization.

Marting Armstrong explained:


There are those pesky Zionists always creating false flags Hegelian dialectics (i.e. their manufactured crisis requires their solution) by manipulating the willful ignorance of the sheep. Yet Armstrong turns a blind-eye:

---

The community of sheep was dumb enough to create a booty that forces miners to steal it otherwise it will always be a threat that some other miners will. It is a power vacuum.

The stupid community fucked up.

The very poor logic skills of most people is for me like someone scraping the chalk board with their fingernails.


Except all that other shit is mutable by thugs (whale circle-jerks) that control them.

The immutability of Bitcoin will demonstrate that it alone is unique and trustworthy.


The sheep created the damn booty which destroys the security. Sheep herd right over the cliff every damn time while only seeing the ass of the sheep in front of them.


I expect the only blowback will temporal such as the sound of all the sheep exhaling as they hit the valley floor after falling to their deaths from the cliff. And any possible crypto winter opportunity for whales to load up on more cheap BTC sold off by those who are marked-to-market by a hard (re)turn to reality.

Some conspiratorial speculation on how this may tie into the coming one-world currency:

---

---

The reason this is so important is because who ever controls the one-world reserve currency can basically turn the world into slaves via debt similar to what is happening to Greece now and what will happen to the entire world soon due to the short dollar vortex underway:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c192cedaed52ef11ef97acb239dc5986#euro-is-a-monetary-enslavement-paradigm

The closing wedge pattern prediction of mine was correct.

We have 50% gains off the bottom of $300 of BCH which I had stated would be the bottom if the wedge pattern broke to the upside. I took profits into LTC for 25% of my holdings of BCH. I was about 90% in BCH.

.05BTC seems to be a reliable entry price so far.Do you think it will dip lower or gradually increase with the 2x fork shennagins approaching?This Dr Wright seems to know some heavy doods with a lot of moolah so a good pump could be on the way.Of course they could be about to squat and take a big dump all over the place at any time.The psychological factor may very well be that the $350 price range is a good incentive for airdrop holders to sell their BCH while this price is a bit expensive for the lunchbox investor and moon monkey to jump in at leaving a sweet spot to hold the price at as BTC is converted into BCH for the big flip flop if there is going to be one.This way the dumpers who had BCH are decimated and the potential dumpers who failed to jump in are not going to be there.

@mint

I apologize, there was a death in the family this week and I've been preoccupied with that.

I've been thinking a lot about this the past week while watching the market. There are still some things bugging me about your speculation, but I am starting to see more and more people disseminate similar rhetoric (along with the recent market activity), which leads me to take it more seriously. I will share some new thoughts that have been running through my brain, along with regurgitating some thoughts that I feel have not (or can not) be proven wrong. The issues I still have with your speculation are as follows:

- There seems to be disagreement as to which chain is allegedly going to be attacked. Some purport that Segwit1x will be the target of the attack, but at the same time others purport that Segwit1x and Segwit2x will both be targets of the attack. Both seem just as likely.

- There seems to be much disagreement as to who the beneficiary of an attack on Segwit1x (or Segwit2x) would be. Some claim Segwit2x would be the winner, but at the same time some claim Bitcoin Cash, some claim Litecoin, some claim other ALT coins or ALT coins in general, and some claim that the entire cryptocurrency market as a whole will succumb to a crypto winter. Part of this depends on whether both Segwit forks are attacked, or if only one Segwit fork is attacked. If it is the latter, then the other Segwit fork is the likely victor- not Bitcoin Cash. If the former occurs, then Bitcoin Cash is not necessarily the clear victor. A solid argument could be made for each of the preceding bolded outcomes to be the most likely to occur.

- I am starting to see shills pop up and spread propaganda regarding the imminent attack you have theorized. I look at things through a very skeptical lens anytime there is a proliferation of shills. I'm not sure if you've realistically considered this, but there is a possibility that you are being used as a pawn in a plot to pump and dump Bitcoin Cash (and the purported attack is simply being used as a scare tactic to feed the pump and dump). How did you first come to your thesis on this attack? Were you nudged in this direction by someone, or something someone else wrote? Someone with your status and following would be an ideal pawn. Perhaps someone created the final piece(s) that helped you link everything together, and (unbeknownst to you) nudged you towards it? Perhaps you are in on the pump and dump yourself (I don't think this is true, but at the same time I will not eliminate it as a possibility)? It doesn't help anything that a very shady cast of characters seems to be somehow involved behind the curtains of this whole thing (Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Calvin Ayre, Craig Wright, etc...). Also, remember that this is not the first case of people spreading propaganda regarding what has been termed "the flippening". It has occurred at least twice previously with both Ethereum and Litecoin as being possible flippening candidates, but look at the scoreboard now...

- I am still not buying that Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin. Who's to say what Bitcoin is or isn't? Proponents of Bitcoin Cash seem to argue that Bitcoin Cash is most like the Bitcoin that Satoshi had originally envisioned. But at the end of the day, cryptocurrencies are software programs. They can evolve, and be upgraded for the betterment of the program. This has always been an answer to me (along with the concept of the Network Effect) for the argument against Bitcoin that goes like: "Won't Bitcoin become valueless if a better cryptocurrency is created?". Furthermore, do you think for a second that the sheep and speculators even care about some ideal cyberphunk-like Satoshi pipe dream? No- all they care about is profitable speculation, and this attack has the potential to kill the goose that will lay their golden eggs (in the whole cryptocurrency market succumbing to winter scenario). IMO, that is a risk that is not worth taking. Especially seeing as though everyone in the ecosystem (attackers, whales, miners, speculators, sheep, etc.) shares this risk equally.

- Another new more meta concept I've been tossing around in my head is that puppet masters require the existence of puppets/sheep for their puppet mastery to function properly. Wouldn't it be more advantageous for the sheep herders to weaken and possibly destroy the wolves that can destroy their flock (rather than weaken and destroy the sheep) to upkeep the status quo? Perhaps it is you, the wolf, that is being played here by TPTB? This would make sense if the alleged attack is indeed a simple pump and dump scam involving Bitcoin Cash at the core of the onion. Will the wolves be left holding valueless bags of Bitcoin Cash? As stated previously, the alleged attack has the potential to weaken and destroy sheep while empowering wolves. Wolves of which that are more dangerous to the sheep herders, much more so than the sheep at least.

- I still think that you are downplaying the risks of the alleged attack. As I have stated previously, the people speculating on Bitcoin are smarter than your average sheep. If you anger the Bitcoin "sheep", then I see a very real potential that these sheep mutate into wolves. Then TPTB are worse off than they started. TPTB already have a golden goose. TPTB are on track to becoming the richest and most powerful people in the world (if they are not already- as you purport). This will happen organically over time as Bitcoin becomes more popular. There is no need to force the issue with a risky attack. Why risk it? I just can't wrap my head around that....

At this point I believe the most likely outcome is that TPTB are pumping and dumping Bitcoin Cash. Meanwhile, they are using this alleged attack as a scare tactic to exponentially increase their gains on the dump. And Segwit1x or Segwit2x will remain Bitcoin. It is still unclear to me whether Social Consensus or Proof of Work will win out in the end, but if I had to pick one... I would go with Social Consensus and the Segwit1x chain for reasons I have already argued/blogged about. For a long term hodl-type portfolio, I see solid alternative cryptocurrencies as being a decent hedge against this whole Bitcoin clusterfuck, but FIAT/Metals/Stocks are probably the best way to hedge your bets at this time. I say ride the BCH pump for the time being if you are more into short term outlooks and trading, because the pump will not slow down until the Segwit/Segwit2x fork.

CoinHoarder, I will quote Vitalik:


From the results of the poll, it seems we have a balanced split of opinions.

Now we wait to see the outcome of the free market.

Btw, I never claimed Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin. TRB is Satoshi’s protocol with 1MB blocks.

---

1. The miners may have been sending BTC to exchanges to sell it, so they could possibly double-spend this BTC with the long-range chain reorganization and bankrupt the exchanges who attempt to fight the miners. Thus exchanges who want to survive will honor that the protocol is the law and not the centralized tyranny of Core-is-the-law. Miners can offer to share this loot taken from defecting exchanges, with other key players.

2. I presume millions of BTC whales understand that if centralized tyranny is the law, then Bitcoin is worthless as any other shitcoin. Thus whales will fully support the SegWit theft. We will probably get SegWit on Litecoin for offchain scaling and big blocks on BCH for onchain scaling, although neither of those will totally scale. Bitcoin will remain the immutable one-world reserve currency for whales that it was designed to be.

Bottom line is that the SegWit “pay to anyone” loot is an eventual $billions fundraising to pay for the immutability enforcement of Bitcoin.

Whoever created Bitcoin was a genius and had thought carefully the game theory.

Social Consensus prevailed?

https://www.coindesk.com/2x-called-off-bitcoin-hard-fork-suspended-lack-consensus/

Or... this is part of the plan?

Theoretically, if they are trying to anoint Bitcoin Cash as the true Bitcoin, then keeping the Segwit chain with as small of blocks as possible plays in their favor... since having big blocks is their selling point.

Possibly (and ironically), the only sure way for the Segwit chain to squash Bitcoin Cash like a bug is to raise its block size. Sending the big blockers that have backed Bitcoin Cash home with their tales between there legs. A small increase in block size will not effect many people as far as decentralization, because people mostly use hosted and light wallets. Raising the block size can provide a temporary relief while things like the Lightning Network can be worked out.

It is getting annoying to me that Bitcoin Cash shills keep comparing Bitcoin Cash transaction capacity and fees as they exist today to Bitcoin (the Segwit chain) without The Lightning Network. It is a short-sided and unfair comparison, and I think in at least some cases, this is done specifically in order to be intentionally misleading, to pump Bitcoin Cash's value, and/or to promote the herein purported "flippening conspiracy".

Furthermore, the more I think about it... claiming that Segwit is flawed and insecure due to the "anyone can spend" vulnerability is almost like telling a half truth. Especially when Bitcoin Cash or another cryptocurrency is championed over Bitcoin (the Segwit chain). Why? Because the purported attack is effectively a simple 51% attack, of which other chains are vulnerable to as well. Someone with enough money and resources to perform such a 51% attack on Segwit can instead initiate a double spend attack any chain- whether it has Segwit or not. Double spending large sums of money to a dozen large Bitcoin companies and causing such economic loss and chaos would surely crash the price and confidence in Bitcoin (or any other cryptocurrency for that matter- Segwit or no Segwit).

https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/its-said-never-to-argue-with-an-idiot-because-they-re-incapable-of-comprehending-when-they-ve-8318290a3b0a

The recent pump of Bitcoin Cash proves nothing about you being right about your overall hypothesis in this thread ("Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi?"), and you should be smart enough to know that. The market can stay irrational for long periods of time, and day-to-day, week-to-week and even month-to-month value functions are practically meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Sure, there are a lot of shills/FUD/money pumping Bitcoin Cash lately, but that does nothing to disprove my claim that Bitcoin Cash is simply a pump and dump scam, or prove your hypothesis. Ironically, you are here beating of your chest about how 1337 your speculation skills are when all you are is simply a participant (and propagator of the pump) in a pump and dump... congratulations I guess? I don't participate in such practices, because there are victims... the eventual bag holders.

Bitcoin Segwit tied with the Lightning Network tied with Atomic Swaps tied with other ALT coins with the same (Segwit; LN; Atomic Swaps... for alternative payment channels and additional features like privacy etc.) is an infinitely better road map. Not only is it a better scaling road map, but it is also a better overall road map because you get all of the features of the alternative cryptocurrency chains via atomic swaps. Most FUD and Bitcoin Cash hype I have been seeing lately compares Bitcoin Cash to Bitcoin as it is now (without Segwit widely used and without the LN), which is an unfair, short sided, and deceptive comparison. Not to mention most of the FUD (high Bitcoin fees and slow Bitcoin confirmations) can be easily manipulated by perhaps the biggest Bitcoin Cash supporters... the Bitcoin miners that have patented ASICBoost (which ironically  ::) only works on Bitcoin Cash). Since they mine transaction fees, such manipulation would be super cheap.

I know you'd like to think you're always right by simply categorizing others as dumb (nothing new there...), but you will learn eventually that speculation is not a black and white subject... there is a lot of grey area. Congrats on scamming greater fools though!  :-*

I voted No.

It was beautiful attack, but i'm happy it failed. IMO this is not a good approach and a good way to show the world what are crypto currencies.

Charlie Lee directly answered someone asking about a 51% segwit theft
https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/930539604897173504

Charlie Lee [LTC]‏ @SatoshiLite
"En réponse à @TheEscapening

That's fud. Miners cannot steal from Bitcoin or Litecoin SegWit addresses even with 100% hashpower. This is because users are now enforcing the softfork. Please educate and stop spreading misinformation."

He mentions ressources to read further. I am not technical enough to comment.

I must say I have changed my opinion about BCH. I still don't like it, but I take it more seriously, and I have decided to hold as much BCH or more as I hold BTC, fear of being poor as they say.

I replied there and told him why he is incorrect. I also stated there is nothing in the 3 part series he cited which supports his argument. Feel free to ping me if he replies. I do not monitor Twitter.


You should be smart enough to see that the thread title is a question. The post of mine which you quoted, claimed nothing about whether the thread title’s question had been answered.


Incorrect (https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/bitcoin-with-segwit-is-not-the-austrian-fork-9efd890489b0).

I’m not going to participate in a detailed technical argument with you right now about all the various problems with SegWit, Lightning Networks, side-chains, etc.. Not a priority focus of mine to convince or argue about it in great detail at this time. In short, I have more important things to do.


I don’t like SegWit and Lightning Networks. So I dislike BCH less than I dislike that insecure shit they are attempting to destroy Bitcoin with. That is not to say that I like Bitcoin at all, because it is political clusterfuck of whale and miner control. But I need Bitcoin to be a reliable reserve currency for our crypto arena. So insecure shit is the worst of the worst.

Bitcoin scales fine with 1MB blocks because it is a reserve currency (pay enough to play, or get off to an altcoin or an exchange to play). We have plenty of altcoins for transaction volume. I need a reliable reserve currency, not all this bastardization. Trust me that whales understand this. And they will definitely sell all the forks and buy Satoshi’s BTC when the SegWit attack comes.

The tail does not wag the dog. The idiots who fail to understand the power-law distribution of wealth, are going to learn it the hard way by losing their BTC.

It does not matter how many times idiots ban the messenger. His messages will still continue to prophetic as always.

If whales are smart they have cashed out enough of their coins to live off comfortably for the rest of their lives. So I don't think there is a huge number of whales coordinating to screw everyone else.

And I don't think it would work out anyway, what it would do is kill cryptos.

Bitcoincash is much more usable that bitcoin (because lower fees and less hoarding).

For example archive.org is fundraising at the moment and has received more donations in bitcoincash than bitcoin:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7gsigz/archiveorg_donations_btc_vs_bch/

(And if you look at the archive page, they've received donations from zcash too).

Lol at some random fundraiser is your proof that there are less BCH hoarders. That is a rediculous conclusion to jump to based off one fundraiser no one's heard of. I bet it was Roger Ver that paid it... lol

I still see no evidence that BCH will overtake Bitcoin, or even challenge it. It seems like Bcash has lost some of its steam the past week or so, but we will see in the future. The price increase several weeks ago was probably just Roger Ver and his millionaire buddies buying up all the supply. Everything about it is so sleezy, so I have a hard time believing the Bcash takeover theories. The free market will hopefully reject the scam at the end of the day.

The more and more Bitcoin forks that are made only helps prove that Bcash is an ALT coin with little value. 1/ Something like Monero is a better cash and (store of value) than Bcash. Its way more fungible, private, and it has a "tail emission" (a small percentage of inflation in perpetuity... so there's mathematically less incentive to hoard and more incentive to secure.) Ring Signatures and RingCT shields both whom is sending/receiving and how much. Instead of raising the block limit by hardforks, there is no block limit. It is only throttled by bandwidth, memory and processing limitations. Yet, since Bcash uses Bitcoin in its name and was promoted by a few whales it is championed, lol.

I have read at least two research papers that state on-chain scaling by perpetually increasing the block for eternity can not scale due to network propogation, network latency, and bandwidth issues (unless completely redesigned, which does not seem to be on the Bcash road map... thus it's a "scalable" sham):
http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~prateeks/papers/Bitcoin-scaling.pdf
https://github.com/bellaj/Blockchain/blob/master/Bitcoin-NG%20A%20Scalable%20Blockchain%20Protocol.pdf
http://vukolic.com/iNetSec_2015.pdf

Once Lighning Networks make there way to existence, then I predict it will drop like a stone. There have already been successful payments through Lightning Network payment channels on the main chain (not on Testnet)... it's just a matter of time.

"Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi?"

That is so laughable LOL.

Bitcoin is KING!

No one is dethroning it anytime soon, if ever.

What are ALL alts pegged to? BTC, not bcash.

I don't see people rushing to copy bcash and cash in (on Bitcoin's name like bcash did).

No one really cares about bcash or uses it for that matter outside of pure speculation.

bcash = peon, Bitcoin = KING!

What is so funny is you think that the abomination which violates Satoshi’s immutable protocol and enables SegWit to “pay to anyone” (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/segregated-witness-part-how-a-clever-hack-could-significantly-increase-bitcoin-s-potential-1450553618/) is somehow named “Bitcoin”.

You’re easily fooled by the optical illusions of a magician or politician.

Who anointed that SegWit shit to be the official Bitcoin? The economically irrelevant lunch money investing tyranny-of-the-mob users and the tyranny of bankster financed Core? Core might be just a misdirection plan to suck in all the fools who believe in democracy and tyranny-of-the-mob. In the end, the whales and miners will decide which fork is the real Bitcoin. Perhaps they patiently wait for the SegWit “pay to anyone” loot to pile up, get their new CME, CBOE, and Nasdaq futures markets ready for that SegWit shitcoin so they short the hell out of when they plan their massive theft of BTC and anoint the real Bitcoin while the tyranny-of-the-mob-believing fools with unwarranted high pride lose everything. My popcorn is still waiting…

I would never design a crypto project wherein the individual users (aka the tyranny-of-the-mob) could vote or otherwise be involved in mutating the protocol. The users should only be able to enforce the protocol, and never mutate it. Because users are dumb and have many conflicting needs they want to meet, which may have nothing to do with objectivity, i.e. the reason democracy is a clusterfuck. Satoshi designed proof-of-work such that the miners and whales decide. Period.

---

On the mcap dominance chart, clearly BCHBTC is the most bullish over next months of the Top 10. Near-term this week, LTCBTC has already made its move headed back up to test 0.01 while BTC stalls < $11.5k for a couple more days at least. Looks like ETHBTC is also going to turn up and test its prior Nov peak as well, but not as certain. Over the next months, ETHBTC looks very bearish unless it has found a firm bottom in November, which is dubious. LTCBTC has to prove it can breakout over 0.01, else it too is not that bullish (although not as bearish as ETHBTC). BCHBTC might turn up a a little bit here, but looks like it is still in near-term bearish correction mode. At some point BCHBTC will find a bottom and reassert its aggressively bullish mode, but it could also launguish and decline much more first. So this is why at this time I hold mostly LTC and BTC, with a little bit of ETH and BCH. Eventually I hope to buy more BCH once I sense it is clearly closer to a correction bottom. I suspect LTC could move very quickly to $150 now especially if BTC stalls.

---

You were wrong when I predicted in this thread that buying BCH at $300 would soon go to $1500. And you will be wrong again. BCHBTC is the only token in the Top 10 other than BTC (note I have not analyzed BTG yet) which is bullish over the next months relative to BTC, in terms of the current chart picture.

How many of you ignored me when I said buy LTC at 0.006 and then it went to 0.022, and ditto again here in this thread for BCH at 0.05 just days before it went to 0.3+. That is like 24X more BTC y’all could have had if you had listened to me. So who is loony?

Heck even I dislike the EOS $2 billion money grab, I said to buy it at $1 a few weeks ago and now it is at $3. Add this trade and that is 72X more BTC if you’d not diversified (or still significantly more BTC even if you had diversified).

Core is no less sleazy. Core does have more expertise, but we do not need fucking expertise and instead need wisdom. We need for the mofos to stop mutating the protocol and bloating the reference code base with endless shit. The ecosystem should bit all those fancy wallets and shit. The reference implementation of the protocol should be as simplistic as possible so that more the protocol is clearly implemented. Then more sophisticated (e.g. more performant) versions in the free market ecosystem can test themselves against the reference protocol.


Once LN is live then not only with the SegWit loot of fools who will lose everything pile up much faster, but also all sorts of new attacks on Bitcoin because possible, such as flooding the system with transaction volume when settling in LN channels delayed and all-at-once by the Mt. Box nodes. More opportunities to front run the shorting on the upcoming CME, CBOE, and Nasdaq futures markets. You see the entire Bitcoin ecosystem system is yet another financial means for TPTB to steal everything from the people.

Democracy is a lie. Democracy exists to fool the masses into thinking they have rights. You have no rights. They own you. (https://youtu.be/acLW1vFO-2Q?t=9)


Satoshi’s proof-of-work does not scale decentralized. Period. Not with LN nor with big blocks. The fight is over who will control it. Miners want big blocks and banksters want LN so they can do fractional reserve banking and take control over it.

It doesn’t matter to me who will control it. I just want to make the correct investment decisions. And I would much prefer the stability of Satoshi’s immutable protocol than the potential creative self-destruction chaos (REKTing) of those Rube Goldberg machines created by Core in order to violate the entire principle of Satoshi’s protocol.

As for the idealism of a truly decentralized protocol (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg25377291#msg25377291)…

I have never argued that trading in BCH wouldn't be profitable, but I have argued extensively that it will not overtake Bitcoin. I am not a day trader... I am a longterm investor. The market can stay irrational for long periods of time, and it's ridiculous that I have to keep repeating this to a "genius", but BCH price movement does nothing to prove your point.

Effectively, I think most of the run-up in BCH price was Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Calvin Ayre and Craig Wright (and likely the PBOC) buying up a large portion of the supply. All of them are billionaires with a large war chest, and they all have been shilling BCH non-stop too.

Calling Bitcoin's network of developers collectively "Bitcoin Core" as a derogatory term is simply Bcash propaganda speak. Anyone can suggest and debate the merits of protocol changes, and also submit pull requests. Where were you when they were debating the merits of Segwit? It seems you are scared to tussle with the big boys for a reason... perhaps your FUD train would be derailed by the real geniuses?

Segwit is not "shit". It solves many issues that Bitcoin had. Technology, software, and protocol are all bound to evolve over time. People who assume Satoshi Nakamoto was omniscient as to each and every game theory and technical aspect back in 2008 is utterly ridiculous. He could not tell the future as to how big Bitcoin would get, or how it would scale best. If he did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The protocol needed to change.

Re: Segwit Booty
As you stated, Bitcoin developers as a whole have the most expertise in the space. If they see no merit in your purported doomsday attack theory, then there is likely a good reason for it. Notice you are the only one pushing such a narrative. I think you must have a very basic misunderstanding of how everything works. At this point, I have completely discredited this argument.

Re: LN Attack Vectors
BCH's on-chain scaling roadmap comes with its own set of pros and cons. No technology or protocol is perfect. Also, you cannot judge LN attack vectors properly because a specification for LN does not exist. Do you not realize there are at least 5 competing LN implementations which all work a little differently? That is what will take the most time for LN to come to fruition... arguing over specifications... there are already working LNs on testnets and mainnets (although still in a development environment). Also, who's to say that a LN couldn't be crowdfunded, decentralized, and autonomous with funding from an ICO?

I think you misunderstand who the miners are. They are likely banksters themselves... the PBOC has probably been balls deep in mining since 2013. Jihan Wu is just a talking head. By spamming the network and mining their own transaction fees, then they can then force as high of fees as they want.

The difference though is that there will be competing implementations of the LN which compete with different fee structures. There will be many banksters with the LN instead of one with BCH. The LN banksters will have to compete with each other, and the users will win from the resulting economic efficiencies. The banksters will have to compete with venture funds will have to compete with ICO-backed ventures.

To transact on the PBOC payment channel is mandatory with BCH, but to transact on the bankster/venture/ico payment channel of your choosing via LN via Bitcoin is optional.

The LN roadmap resembles much more of a free market than the BCH roadmap.

I was there debating @nullc (Gregory Maxwell) at Reddit.

You’re the one who started the name calling by declaring BCH sleazy. I’m just reminding you that the entire paradigm is sleazy. You seem to not understand the big picture of crypto is a system for the TPTB to rape the masses yet again.

The early adopters will profit. The masses will be fleeced. I explained how in my prior post.

Your foolish idealism about the lie of democracy and user supported soft/hard forks is being utilized against you.



Backsplaining again. Review the thread. You railed pretty hard against BCH in this thread. If you want to spin that as not arguing, then so be your spinmastery.

This thread is not about BCH replacing/overtaking BTC, so do not use that lie as an excuse. Read the thread title again “Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi?”, it is not that many words. Surely you can comprehend the thread title if you read it multiple times?



Just because some hyperbolic nonsense pops into your brain, doesn’t make it a sensible estimate of reality. You’re trying to paint a picture that there is no widespread speculation participation in BCH.

You’re reasoning is emotionally influenced by your desire for a community driven idealism. You really believe the community of fools could achieve decentralized governance and that this would make a better world. Ah to be age 20-something and delusional again…


The entire point of Taleb’s antifragility math is that the fragile systems overcommit to the past and thus lack degrees-of-freedom to handle the reality that was unseen. The unseen reality is for example the fragile timebomb of SegWit and LN. As well, the futures markets on Wallstreet being created presumably first for BTC and not BCH, meaning although a lot more liquidity also a huge incentive to front run manipulation of the BTC price.

Remember the majority always has to be slaughtered in financial markets. That is simply the way markets for passive investing/speculation function. The experts steal the candy from the fools.

None of you entirely understand LN. I’m not going to argue the deep technical issues of LN with someone such as yourself who is incapable of having such a discussion. LN undeniably will create a Mt. Box scenario and the fragility (https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/bitcoin-with-segwit-is-not-the-austrian-fork-9efd890489b0) I have alluded to.

Satoshi (i.e. the Zionists) entirely predicted LN. In fact, he was the first one who explained conceptually about hashed time-locked contracts (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hashed_Timelock_Contracts) for Bitcoin. They (the Zionists writing under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto) knew damn well why he had set the block size at 1MB and various other aspects in the game theory and design of Bitcoin.

Who do you really think controls the national security agencies apparatus throughout the world?


And that you do not even understand that is also what I wrote in the post you were replying to, speaks volumes…

I will tell you again that TPTB (i.e. the Zionists) pulling the strings are in control of (or funded) both Core and Bitmain (i.e. both BTC and BCH). The entire Hegelian dialectic crisis is a dog & pony show to make us fools believe we have something new and innovative. We don’t. It’s just another speculation and enslavement paradigm to fleece the majority.

This entire notion of BCH being evil and Core being the savior, is so naive. We’re being played from all directions.

Some amongst us will reap some monetary gains in the process. The vast majority who come into crypto will be fleeced.

The entire reason the Zionists created proof-of-work is so they can create a globalized monetary system they can control technologically in order to enslave the nation-states and move towards the NWO, and of course they will set up futures markets which they can front run. Of course the feigned resistance from the nation-states is part of the deception (although that resistance is easy to make appear to be valid via the compartmentalization¹ employed, i.e. bureaucrats and politicians may actually believe they’re important). The truth about politicians and beaucrats (i.e. those who run the nation-states, ignorant that they’re compartmentalized and controlled like puppets by the leverage of the Zionists):


I repeat (since it is now buried on the prior page):


Also I want to reiterate that on the prior page I cautioned against reentering BCH too soon.

1	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security)) https://www.truthcontrol.com/articles/compartmentalization-lie-different-every-level

I still have a hard time believing that 100s of competent developers, researchers, and interested parties can't at least admit that your doomsday Segwit booty theory is a possible (no matter how slightly possible) attack vector. You are not going to convince me that your theory is possible without convincing at least SOME people that have a high amount of knowledge as to the inner workings of Bitcoin and Segwit. We might as well stop arguing about it.

I consider my "expertise" to be more on the side of cryptocurrency economics with a heavy focus on the game theory of such. At least, that is where I have spent most of my time researching and debating about with cryptocurrencies over the years. Yet, my technical merit is sufficient enough to understand almost all technologies (if I invest the time to understand them fully) based on my technical background since my teenage years. Reading "Happy Hacker" and "Steal This Book" at 15, and going down that rabbit hole. Earning an A+ certification at 17. Learning Java and C++ at 18. Building and running large mining farms. Self taught HTML/CSS/Javascript, Etc... Although I have never had a job in such because the money I used to make in the oil industry lured me away from computer science (you can't say no to $350 a day at 18 years old). I know you like to peg me as clueless when it comes to technology, but I'm not nearly as clueless as you think.

Yes, BCH is sleazy because:
1. It's riding off of Bitcoin's coattails. If an alternative cryptocurrency can't stand on its own two feet without using the Bitcoin brand in its name, then it is likely not as great of an idea that it's proponents think.
2. Piggybacking off of #1, it is confusing to noobs. With every "hype wave" (a new term for bubble, because the word bubble infers to something that pops and never rises again), noobs enter the space at orders of magnitude more than the last. Having 20 cryptocurrencies with Bitcoin in their name is confusing, and economic losses due to errors will be had as a direct result of having Bitcoin in the name.
3. Piggybacking off of "noobs entering in orders of magnitude more so than before": those noobs are buying Bitcoins. They are not buying BCH, and nor are they buying any other alternative cryptocurrency in any meaningful amounts. Bitcoin's supremacy is secured by The Network Effect. There have probably been more Noobs brought onboard in the past months since BCH split off compared to the entire existence of Bitcoin before that fork. These people are Bitcoin's army. These are the people that will ensure Bitcoin will never die. Bitcoin's Network Effect will never ever be trumped by the much lesser network effect of BCH (or BTCSatoshi for that matter). These people, the majority of users, will be fleeced if your supposed doomsday actually happens. Thus, the wishful thinking that BCH will kill Bitcoin is indeed sleazy.
4. There are many ALT coins that have existed long before BCH that could perform the same functionality as BCH, and there was no need to create the BCH alternative cryptocurrency fork. IMO, the only reason why it was created was that the Bitcoin whales wanted a large stake in a cryptocurrency that operates similarly to the aforementioned already existing ALT coins without risking much of their own capital. Thus, they forked Bitcoin and keep their Bitcoins (or more likely spend a small percentage of their Bitcoins to pump BCH and bring it relevance), resulting in a lot of valuable yet free new tokens when similar scaling tech has existed in other ALT coins for years. At least the speculators in alternative cryptocurrencies have had to use a large amount of capital to speculate on the value of such technology. BCH just printed the value out of thin air.
5. It's not even the best design for the peer-to-peer electronic cash that they champion it to be. For example, I think something like Monero is a much better design. It's more fungible, more private, tail emission reduces longterm hoarding incentives, tail emission increases longterm security by further incentivizing it, and there are no arbitrary block size limits that have to be changed via a hard fork... only bandwidth/latency/propagation issues inherent with a distributed network.
6. It is backed by a shady (all for different reasons) cast of characters. Fake Satoshi Wannabe (Craig Wright), ASICBoost Owner (Jihan Wu), Grey/Black Market Online Gambling Tycoon (Calvin Ayre), and Bitcoin Brand Theif (Roger Ver).
7. Their proposed way of scaling by infinitely raising the block size in perpetuity is a centralized dead end due to network propagation, network latency, and bandwidth issues, but they champion it to be a form of decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash. Decietful...
8. Competing LNs ran by different parties with different fee structures are much more of a free market solution than a big block monopoly. BCH is promoting a roadmap with more anti-free market tendencies (a communist agenda... it is mandatory to transact on the PBOC payment channel) than Bitcoin's free market driven LN roadmap (a capitalist agenda... with multiple competing parties with whom it is optional to use, and you can still make on-chain transactions via the PBOC payment channel if you wish.)
9. It is an obvious pump and dump (see below).

And this is just off the top of my head... I'm sure I'm forgetting something, or at least I feel like I am.



You contradict yourself regarding forming a democratic utopia when it is convenient to do so to support your arguments. In the above quote in a separate thread, you compose an argument for what I have been arguing all along ITT... leveraging Social Consensus (https://www.decentralized.tech/blogs/part-2-bitcoin-core-bitcoin-cash-bitcoin-gold-and-bitcoin-2x-oh-my) to keep a protocol static. If you believe such Social Consensus can be obtained to keep a protocol the same (IE. BCH), then surely the same Social Consensus can be reached to change a protocol for the betterment of the protocol (IE. Bitcoin). You can not castrate political influence altogether, because cryptocurrencies are a contract (https://www.decentralized.tech/blogs/economic-change-ethereum-will-splinter-once-more-into-ethereum-casper-and-ethereum), and political influence is baked into the contract at the time of inception. That remains true regardless of any changes that may be made in the future (or not.)


BS. Don't put words in my mouth. I have extensively argued three points ITT:
1. You can't prove who did or didn't create Bitcoin, and therefore any argument you form off of any assumptions as to who created Bitcoin are purely speculatory hubris-fueled diatribes.
2. Bitcoin will not be attacked by your purported Segwit Booty doomsday theory.
3. Bitcoin will remain Bitcoin, BTCSatoshi is long since dead and buried, and BCH in the longterm (because that's all I care about) will be a worse investment.

I would never ever argue that there aren't profits in trading cryptocurrencies, no matter how bad/scammy I think a certain cryptocurrency is, because I realize that the markets can stay irrational for long periods of time. I have realized for a long time that trading BCH would likely be profitable because of the FUD/propaganda the BCH supporters are spreading everywhere relentlessly, and also because of the backing of the shady billionaires. I chose not to do so because I think it is a pump and dump scam, and I can't on a good conscience knowingly participate in such. Fleecing greater fools is not in my wheelhouse.

LOL.

Step 1: Own a lot of Bitcoins
Step 2: Create a fork that leverages Bitcoin's brand
Step 3: Spend a small percentage of your Bitcoin stash to create a large amount of value out of the low value forked tokens
Step 4: Hodl
Step 5: Spread propaganda and FUD
Step 6: Slowly dump the forked tokens on the masses whenever you're happy with the value of the scheme.

It is a very easy to understand and sensible plan, and a very well orchestrated pump and dump. There may be some speculation from greater fools that the whales have fooled, and some participation from people that don't have any moral culpability for participating in a pump & dump, but there's no one else sensibly speculating on Bcash.

And your reasoning is emotionally flawed by your stubbornness, and by your conflating of technical analysis & facts with speculation based on incomplete information...

There are ways to profit greatly off of Bitcoin (and the cryptocurrency ecosystem) without destroying Bitcoin. You have failed to realize that in this entire thread. The masses will never trust or use cryptocurrencies if the elites go through with your purported doomsday theory. Practically 80% of the poll's respondents agree with me on that. They can profit off of the pumping and dumping of Bitcoin Cash greatly, and they will still be able to keep their Bitcoin stashes very valuable while doing so as a bonus.

The doomsday theory doesn't seem to have any technical merit to it anyways, because if it did then there would be more people yelling it from the rooftops.

More hubris-filled speculation based primarily on conspiracy theories...

What do you mean I don't understand it? I explicitly stated so in my reply. Just replace Zionists in your post with Bankers in mine, and we effectively came to the same conclusion. The only difference is that I reject the conspiracy theory that the Zionists control everything in the world, and that they are the one's that created Bitcoin.

I disagree with you here. You completely ignored the last part in my previous reply about multiple LNs resembling more of a free market than BCH (which was IMO the most sound argument in my reply). That on top of the aforementioned sleaziness makes BCH much sleazier.


I can agree with you there- but on a different basis. Those that promote and participate in the pump and dump of BCH will certainly make some monetary gains. Those that invest in BCH for the long haul will certainly take some monetary losses.

Many of them know it’s technologically possible, but they don’t want to publicly admit it because it would make them look irresponsible, they think it’s implausible (because they presumably believe in the same democracy and miners/whales won’t dare do it BS you do), and because of the peer/group-think phenomenon:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand[admit] something, when his salary depends on his not understanding[admitting] it.” ― Upton Sinclair

That is precisely an example of fragility in the aforementioned Taleb’s antifragility math sense of overcommitting to top-down error.

I’m not predicting the SegWit “pay to anyone” (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/segregated-witness-part-how-a-clever-hack-could-significantly-increase-bitcoin-s-potential-1450553618/) loot mega-theft (chain rollback) will happen. However, I’m wary of hodling BTC that have any SegWit/LN lineage as the SegWit booty grows in value.


Disagree. Bitcoin Cash is not anointing itself to be the official Bitcoin. It forked from Satoshi’s protocol. Whereas, Core forked Satoshi’s protocol and attempted to anoint their fork as the official Bitcoin.

The truth is that both BitcoinSegWit and Bitcoin Cash are not Bitcoin. They are both forks of the real Bitcoin.

Bitcoin Cash is for big blockers who have a valid argument that to gain more near-term transaction volume scaling and keep transaction fees low, then a block size increase is more sensible because:

• Proof-of-work will end up as a centralized oligarchy any way (https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e0c36e24344efba2d1f0d650cd94f1c7), no matter what we do we can’t prevent that outcome!
• LN is an insecure Rube Goldberg machine in many ways which will end up crashing Bitcoin and causing a great amount of losses. It’s not just the SegWit loot, but it’s also the garbage collection spike attacks on the block chain that the Mt. Box enables (https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/bitcoin-with-segwit-is-not-the-austrian-fork-9efd890489b0). None of the LN variants can avoid this outcome. None. It’s fundamentally baked into the fractional reserve banking economic centralization of the paradigm of off-chain time locked contracts.

Also the miners/whales are just creating a circus on purpose so they can teach of all you a lesson about being a greater fool.

They will of course teach you in the end that Satoshi’s protocol is immutable (thus BitcoinSegWit is also a fork) and that they control it and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. Welcome to the NWO. But of course, they will wait for the right timing. Have to maximize the effect first.

I’m looney in the eyes of greater fools. And of course they’re witless and will fall into woodchipper (https://busy.org/psychology/@anonymint/social-courtesies-the-witless-and-pointless-example) from my perspective. The experts win and the idiots lose. That’s the way life works.

Your Core “experts” are actually often witless (and/or in groupthink mode) when it comes to the big picture. They’re experts in narrow technological fields but otherwise mostly naive in terms of real-world understanding. For example, an analogous example that reminds me of Adam Back or Gregory Maxwell, there is the child prodigy genius Luboš Motl who is knowledgeable about the field of theoretical physics, but doesn’t seem to comprehend (https://motls.blogspot.com/2017/11/semi-jammed-cryptoexchanges-may-be.html#comment-3639545753) (archived (http://archive.is/JZq4G#selection-1603.0-1623.410) in case he deletes it) that the debasement paid to miners in proof-of-work is not equal to the market cap. I’ve caught Gregory Maxwell making obvious errors like that (I’ve linked to it numerous times, so no need for me to link it again). That doesn’t mean I’m perfect (and I do often make mistakes but I’m always willing to accept corrections). It means exactly what I wrote, that Core is in a delusional trap bolstered by their non-antifragile estimate of their own power. The bankster/Zionists put them into this position by funding them (go look who funded Blockstream!) and helping to anoint them, but I’m seeing that as usual bankster/Zionists are constructing a future false flag effect and employing the concept of compartmentalization¹ (i.e. they’re maintaining leverage for the future).

1	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security)) https://www.truthcontrol.com/articles/compartmentalization-lie-different-every-level

They don’t control everything, such as the climate or what you ate for breakfast.

The Zionists control all major monetary systems of the world. All. No exceptions.

Unless you think Bitcoin is some silly shit that will have no significant impact, then the Zionists control it. Period.

If they didn’t control, they would take control of it, which they can do given they control every national security agency (NSA, CIA, GCHQ, etc) in the world.

Who the heck has the power to keep “Satoshi Nakamoto” anonymous from the NSA, CIA, GCHQ, etc? Duh.

---

That’s the plan. The miners/whales take all the money from the greater fools. I already told you that is the way all passive speculation markets work.

Your idealistic youth is clouding your objectivity. You’ll get more jaded with age, or you’ll swallow the blue pill like most of the masses.


The network effect is all those greater fools piling in to be fleeced by sheep. Bitcoin is a giant Tulip bubble.

But at the end, perhaps it will actually be used for some real use cases, analogous to the aftermath of the Dot.com bubble. Decades hence we actually have profitable Pets.com type website.

All of you sheep are far too idealistic. Bitcoin is destined to have $10,000+ per transaction fee and be used as a reserve currency of the elite. The rest of us will be pushed off on to fiat electronic currencies, which is what LN is all about.

Bitcoin was created to help bring about the NWO.


No big blocker fork of Bitcoin was supported by the major Bitcoin miners before. And again, you’re missing the point that entire circus is a manipulation of the idealism of the greater fools. Split you two into camps and fleece you both in different ways.

Both Bitcoin Cash and BitcoinSegWit will perish in the end game (I do not know how many months or years away that is) and give way to Satoshi’s Bitcoin which is what the whales will use.


Monero has even worse transaction scaling due to the huge transactions. And it’s tail reward and algorithmic block size scaling doesn’t ameliorate the fundamental irreparable problems of proof-of-work (https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e0c36e24344efba2d1f0d650cd94f1c7). And it’s probably a honeypot of the Zionists as I explained and defended successfully in great detail in my Steemit blogs and in the blog comments discussion therein (and there was a thread in Altcoin Discussion that covered many of those arguments).

Note I’m not trying to say Monero is worthless. I don’t trust its anonymity against the NSA, but that’s not the only use of privacy.


I explained (and successfully defended) some where in my archives that Satoshi intentionally designed ASICBoost into Bitcoin.

The origins of Bitcoin are sleazy, so don’t be surprised that even the banksters are the financiers of Blockstream.


Ditto LN as a scaling method. It also requires continuous ongoing block size increases.

Why do you think I work still on my Bitcoin Killer altcoin project (meaning I’m still not too late).


I’m delighted you went scouring in another thread and brought this up. Because you’re advertising for me. Thanks.

You correctly rebutted yourself. The key distinction is using social consensus to keep a protocol immutable, not for changing it. And to do that requires that each individual can act independently to defect from mutations. Also of course it requires that the protocol meet the needs of most users and not need changes.


I can’t prove who did 9/11, yet I’d have to be a complete idiot to believe the Zionists didn’t do it after reviewing all the evidence. Most people just don’t have the time to catch up with all the presentations by PhDs in the past several years.

Ditto about who created or controls Bitcoin.


Are you willing bet your entire crypto networth on that? I dare you to hold all only BTC with SegWit lineage. Put your money where your mouth is.


The entire crypto ecosystem is for fleecing humanity, including BitcoinSegWit and Core.


The masses are not supposed to end up using Bitcoin. My stance is your foundational assumption is incorrect. I don’t have this idealistic view of Bitcoin. Yet I also see Bitcoin as helpful in other ways and part of a process. My perspective is more nuanced.

The masses are supposed to be fleeced in a massive Tulip bubble.


I had sent you in the past the links to my explanation and successful defense of the evidence that Satoshi intentionally designed Bitcoin to enable ASICBoost.

Do I also need to send you the link to where Satoshi explained to the world the idea about time-locked contracts?

You know... I've been thinking a lot about this today.

You could be right, and you could be wrong. It doesn't matter really.

There is no use fighting against BCH. There is no virtue in the crypto world.

Dash - premined centralized scam worth $5,928,105,783
Bitcoin Gold - premined scam fork worth $5,400,901,809
Bitconnect - centralized ponzi worth $989,740,286
Tether - fractional reserve peg worth $812,719,804
Bytecoin - premined scam worth $356,343,828

I will cease and desist, and withdrawal from the "war". It is futile.

I read multiple posts on Twitter that all of the new sheep Coinbase is onboarding are all saying something along the lines of:
"I didn't know which coin to buy, so I bought all 3"
"I bought Litecoins because they are cheaper"
Etc.

Well, guess who will be right there with them in January? That's right... BCH.

Furthermore, it is stupid not to hedge your crypto portfolio. Therefore, owning some BCH will be a decent hedge against a Bitcoin doomsday or BCH flippening.

I still think you are way off on your BTCSatoshi theory though. It is dead and buried IMO.

Can you even run a node for it? Is anyone mining it? Is it being traded anywhere?

I haven't seen any evidence of it, just a few mumblings about it here and there from maybe 3 people total...

I’m not predicting there will be a SegWit theft. I’m intending to raise awareness of the (possibly small) possibility. I would need to do a lot more in depth study if I wanted to attempt to compute the probability and potential timing. I do not have time to waste on that.


I’m trying to influence you to be a bit jaded, but not totally so. There’s still virtue (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2498748.msg25601995#msg25601995) (i.e. method in the madness) in the process which will fleece so many. Remember the big fish don’t control the climate or what we eat for breakfast (i.e. the minions matter but only decentralized (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7771), they’re never organized).

Here’s one philosophical stance (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg25470157#msg25470157):


My quoted response above is to some extent a restatement or example of the aphorism: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

---

Those mumbling at TMSR (trilema.com) represent millions of BTC.

It actually doesn’t matter who is running their client now. What matters is that millions of BTC believes Bitcoin has no value if it can be mutated, because the smart people understand that Bitcoin is more valuable as a reserve currency of the wealthy, because the wealthy matter and the masses (sheep to be harvested) do not (in a paradigm that is not decentralized, which proof-of-work can never be (https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e0c36e24344efba2d1f0d650cd94f1c7)!). That is just economics. Even Trump understands it:


However, the “bigger fish eat the little fish” paradigm doesn’t scale to only one big fish that ate everything (https://blog.jim.com/economics/throne-altar-and-freehold/) (this is why the Zionists ultimately fail), i.e. even though wealth is power-law distributed, still 50% remains with the minnows (but they can’t organize themselves politically and thus precisely why we need true decentralization). Thus I still continue working on my altcoin protocol.


Congratulations on a discussion that managed to not go off the rails and afaics actually stimulated both of us to write down points that may be interesting for other readers.

were on the same boat. at first ive always hated bitcoincash and i think it was a worthless coin that came from a bitcoin fork but after i see that it was  pump recently i instantly changed my mind and im loving it now due to the fact that bitcoincash has also some advantages and advance features that bitcoin dont have. that is why there were still majority of people and miners are supporting and backing the bitcoincash. though i dont think it can kill btcsegwit because segwit has been a part of bitcoin phoenomenon. segwits can add innovation and upgrade or improvements to bitcoin, in order to make it faster , better and stronger.

SegWit and LN (Lightning Networks) makes Bitcoin insecure and fragile (https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/bitcoin-with-segwit-is-not-the-austrian-fork-9efd890489b0). That insecurity and fragility forces Bitcoin towards an oligarchy of mining (wherein the Mt. Box and the miners are in the oligarchy), which is quite ironic since that is precisely what Core claims it’s focused on preventing.

Just because most of you are ignorant about technology and thus believe any lies you’re told by the deluded, doesn’t make any of you correct about your irrational idealism about Core.

Search this page and the prior one for the term “Mt. Box” (not Mt. Gox) for more about this. Actually click “All” search the entire thread, which contained some links to the some of the technical arguments about that.


Irrational emotions and inferior comprehension of reality/markets/details is how greater fools get fooled and fleeced.


And that doesn’t include that the only microcap altcoin I ever recommended was Byteball when it was $1 million marketcap. So 72 x 250 = 18000 BTC for every 1 BTC you had put to work following my insight. I understood what made Byteball’s consensus protocol very unique, because I read and understood entirely the whitepaper. Technological expertise matters.

Oh but I’m looney.  ::)

P.S. The term “Mt. Box” was first used as best I can tell by one of the original inventor or key people involved with the development of Lightning Networks.

I still don't get how (if the supposed segwit hack/attack/thieft happens) the transition into BTCsatoshi would be like...

Considering that "the most serene whales" aren't for sure going to support BCash or any other altcoin, and considering we aren't going to simply roll back to August 1st and act as if nothing happened... I assume that if you just avoid storing and accepting segwit addresses you are good to go? that's what I've been doing.

I also assume after such a disaster nobody would use segwit ever again, so we wouldn't even need to remove it from the network. In any case, how could it be removed? through another softfork? or maybe it cannot be removed? (and I doubt a hardfork to remove it would happen). It is a real clusterfuck of a situation to be honest. Let's just hope nothing happens, im enjoying the bull market.

Bruh... saying stuff like this is really misleading. You're so anti-core, and probably still holding BCH bags, so it almost seems like you're doing it intentionally.

All cryptocurrency's eventually lead to oligarchies (if they don't start out that way). BCH is no different and nor is BTCSatoshi for that matter. ASIC mining oligarchies own all of them. Please don't say "but my super secret design doesn't" because we will never know for sure without you publishing it to be peer-reviewed...

The LNs bring additional oligarchies to the mix.... at least 4 of them (ACINQ, Blockstream, Lightning Labs, Blockchain's Thunder). There will be more LN implementations, and at the end of the day... you can still use the PBOC payment channel (on-chain transactions) if you wish. That is a good thing because competition breeds economical efficiencies. With BCH or BTCSatoshi... there is only one payment channel, the PBOC on-chain payment channel.

Atomic Cross Chain Swaps will become normal in 2018 and beyond, which will generate even more competition. Instead of competing against only LNs and on-chain transactions, these payment channels will also be competing against ALT coins. If an ALTs can do transactions cheaper, then Bitcoin's transaction market share will dwindle. Since miners will be relying increasingly more on transaction fees in the future, they will eventually be forced to keep fees as low as possible. Right now until LNs and Atomic Swaps are normal, they can pretty much charge whatever they want... and they have been by spamming the network and raising the fees.

Thanks, you too. I still don't feel like either side budged, but we at least we both got to explain our arguments. It will indeed help others understand all of the dynamics because I think we brought up a few things that haven't really been talked about much.

Yet Core lies and tries to convince everyone that we need SegWit and small block size because they’re fighting for decentralization. It’s the lies and bullying.

No we sold the free BCH at $800. Then repurchased from $450 down to $300, wherein in this thread I wrote it would go to $1500. We sold at $1500 as predicted. Now we’re nibbling again with BTC at $14,500 and BCH at $1400 (i.e. below 0.1 BTC again and right at the upward trendline on BCH-USD chart as support, i.e. not likely to go much lower unless that trendline fails or I’m it drawing wrong).

I’m looking for 0.3 - 0.5 BTC again on a moonshot when the BTC difficulty resets at these higher prices, so then as BTC corrects, I presume the big blockers are going to pump BCH again, and it will more profitable to mine BCH than BTC so a self-feeding moonshot cycle again.

I had two scenarios last week (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2485096.msg25531777#msg25531777) (if you read my other posts in Speculation). One was BTC would stall after recovering to $11k, and alts would run up. Or BTC would moonshot to $20k in December (because the CME and SBOE futures markets launch this month) and alts would pause first. So looks like the second scenario was the correct one. Remember I cautioned some days ago that it might be too soon to buy BCH. So now we’re getting closer to the time to buy BCH again.


At least Bitmain doesn’t lie about it. They make it quite obvious in fact. And they don’t try to lie and claim they are the official BTC. Instead they forked and let the market decide without putting blinders on n00bs and newbies with all that BS you and the Core jerks are shoveling. (But thanks to y’all for doing that obfuscation, because it has enabled the meteoric bubble, so thank you Core!)


Yet all the Mt. Box all have to settle onchain and thus they can overload the chain anytime they want to. Combine that with CME futures and the ability to short BTC to hell, they can have lots of fun fucking with the difficulty recomputation, transaction fees, and slowness of blocks, etc..

You’re not really thinking this out clearly from a technological and game theory perspective.


I will need to study the technological security of those instant offchain  “cross chain” swaps. I expect to find security weakness of the sort of game theory attacks I mentioned about Mt. Box settlement spikes on chain. In any case, any altcoin which enables Lightning Network (LN) is going to subject to the threat of volume spikes due to Mt. Box. If an altcoin is not threatened by that (because it can handle nearly any volume such as the design I am working on), then it doesn’t need LN any way!

Yes altcoins can already do transactions much cheaper than Bitcoin and that doesn’t matter. Bitcoin’s transaction volume demand will always continue to increase because BTC is the reserve currency of crypto and so everyone wants to bank their profits in their unit-of-account which is BTC.

Bitcoin’s transaction market share will drop precipitously, but its share of the economic pie of crypto will remain very significant and grow because of the reason I stated. BTC miners/whales do not care about transaction volume, they care about value of the transactions and thus the amount of fees that those whose transacts fit within 1MB block size can afford to pay. For example, when every BTC transaction is $10 million, then a $5000 fee per transaction will not be a problem.

---

Presumably only transactions with had SegWit in their lineage would be at risk of being stolen with a massive chain reorganization.

And obviously its cheaper to only reorganize back in time to the point where enough BTC could be stoken to pay for the cost of the proof-of-work mining cost.

Also there is my crazy theory that BCH whales (who also include BTC miners) may have been trading BTC for BCH on exchanges, and they could also steal back those BTC while keeping the BCH, thus wrecking havoc on exchanges and on anyone who withdrew BTC from those exchanges.

I do not think there is any safe BTC unless you’re obtaining it from an address from before August. And if you trust that payer to not be colluding with the miners/whales who will steal BTC with the hypothetical chain reorganization.


That may not be sufficient if the theft occurs (which is granted possibly a small chance or maybe a large chance, I dunno).

After selling out of BTC to alts and the alts moon, then maybe better to buy gold and wait for this matter to be settled?

I‘m thinking a max price for BTC before any such theft to be in the range of $25 – $40k (although someone I know threw out an outlandish possibility for $100k).

So if I can take profits into gold at after trading that to alts (from BTC at $20k) for another double or so (so $40+K effective selling price), then I will not feel like I’ve lost any opportunity on a risk vs. reward basis.

Looks like the regression chart indicated BTC should be about $10K right now (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2485096.msg25531777#msg25531777). So according to that theory, we’re already above the level it needs to correct back down to after it peaks. Apparently long-term support for BTC is around $4 – $6K right  now.


Well what if the SegWit attack never happened on Litecoin. Maybe Litecoin would become the offchain scaling coin, so all that potential insecurity of Mt. Box attacks on the chain (https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/bitcoin-with-segwit-is-not-the-austrian-fork-9efd890489b0), aren’t burdening BitcoinSatoshi any more.

However, there are other chains coming which scale to very high transaction volume such as EOS and my own project.

Also there is Raiden for offchain on Ethereum and perhaps they did not design it to have the same “pay to anyone” flaw.

We’re enjoying the clusterbubblefuck actually. Been fun trading back and forth between BCH, LTC, BTC and compounding the gains.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.  :P

What would the price of BTC need to be for such an high fee ($5000) to make it viable? I presume it would need to be really high, otherwise at some point even the rich would find other ways to move the wealth?



It looks like news of LN transactions on mainnet happened yesterday when the pump started, I wonder if it's related. The video got a lot of views:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a73Gz3Tvx3k

15,300 views, same as current price lol, and in less than a day. Must have created buzz and pumped the price further.

Im not gonna lie tho, it looks pretty slick.

What if it ends up working well? Let's say it catches on and the average Joe end user happily can buy coffees with BTC finally (they don't care about any of the technical details anyway), and there is no segwit attack and we all get rich from holding BTC? It's a possibility.

Also the problem from going from coin to coin is that if I want to put $50k worth of BTC in some altcoin to hedge, and this altcoin pumps and you double your money... you are going to need some serious verifications on the exchange to withdraw $100k worth of money. Poloniex only allows $2k daily, so you would be withdrawing daily one month and a half. Not looking forward to give my dox to some exchange, I don't trust them. There's also the taxes problem from trading between coins (if you want to buy some real estate you are going to need to explain how did you made all that money, and in some countries trades increase the tax). I just get an headache thinking about it and decide just hold through it, maybe some minor altcoin trading but nothing that would leave me months of withdrawing on exchanges. Too stressful considering exchanges can disappear at any time.

There is less network latency, less bandwidth requirements, and less hard drive space requirements with smaller blocks. Those three things combined result in a more decentralized network. Small block solutions being more decentralized than big block solutions once they are both massively scaled is not a lie, and not worth debating as there's a lot of research (plus simple common sense) that backs up that reasoning.

Although you are harping on small blocks, it sounds like you ultimately have more of an issue with Segwit/LN. Where things get a little murkey is when you start comparing The Lightning Network with big block solutions, but IMO arguing that the centralized PBOC on-chain payment channel is more "decentralized" than multiple LN payment channels ran by many entities is a lie.

Even if LNs end up not working (which I don't think will be the case), or even working but not being the most ideal solution, there are also payment channels available by utilizing Atomic Swaps and ALT coins. A small block solution plus alt coin payment channels via atomic swaps is extremely more decentralized tham any big block solution (no LN is necessary). Point Blank. Period. It is alarming to me that you are claiming to have everything all figured out, but you haven't even looked into Atomic Swaps... c'mon man.

There are two sides to the argument, but I personally see more merit in Core's roadmap than Bitcoin Cash's road map when it comes to decentralization (even if it's dumb luck that atomic swaps end up being more fruitful than the LN). To call them liars when there is legitimacy to their claims and bullies when they (at least think) that they are acting in Bitcoin's best interest is rediculous.

Saying that Core is forcefully anointing its roadmap while the big blockers are noble and peacefully protesting in support of their roadmap's legitimacy is naive. Sure, the big blockers solution was defeated by the small blockers , but it wasn't for lack of trying. They tried multiple times to take over with Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic. These efforts were largely rejected by the community. On the other hand, Segwit/LN was mostly embraced by the community. At the end of the day it was the community that had the final say through Social Consensus. Just as Social Consensus killed Segwit2x, it embraced the Segwit/LN roadmap. Blaming that wholly on Core is disingenuous. The users and community should share in the blame, because at the end of the day they had the final say.

You must not visit Twitter very often. You should because that is where most of the crypto debate is taking place. Twitter even patted themselves on the back (https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/insights/2017/Cryptocurrency-The-Discussion-on-Twitter-Keeps-Growing.html) for it.
You act like Bitmain is the most vocal proponent of Bitcoin  Cash... he is not. Although Jihan is probably the most reasonable and level headed person on both sides of the debate (probably because he will be just fine no matter which SHA256 chain thrives), but he himself can acknowled (https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/928998708405977089) the propaganda that is being spread, and the attacks BCH proponents have waged. BCH proponents have claimed (https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/938483024169226241) that BCH is the real (https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/932349315019935744) Bitcoin (https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@crypt0/bitcoin-cash-is-the-real-bitcoin) on numerous occasions across multiple platforms (https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/craig-wright-cash-was-never-gold-neither-was-bitcoin/). Roger Ver, Craig Wright, and John McAfee are probably the most prominent and vocal propogators of the attacks, but there are also 100s of shills doing so as well. Maybe you are living under a rock?

Furthermore, the BCH proponents are spouting off lies themselves by claiming BCH is peer-to-peer decentralized cash, and arguing that scaling via raising the block size infinitely does not eventually centralize the network too... even more centralized than multiple competing LNs. That is deceiving, and those are lies or ignorance. Either way, the BCH can not take the high road here... they have no grounds to stand on.

Core has stated that they are not opposed to raising the block size if it has to be done. Just that raising block size infinitely like big blockers want is not ideal, and that Bitcoin should be made to be more efficient with as small of blocks as possible.

I do not deny that vulnerabilities and doomsday scenarios exist, however unlikely they may be, but you are acting like similar attack vectors don't exist on BCH too by only arguing one side of the argument. That is misleading to your readers.

Furthermore, you have always overstated the relevancy of extremely low chance attack vectors that no one else really worries about. Most of the vulnerabilities with dPoS for instance that you claimed would kill Bitshares and Steem remain a non-factor. You are effectively a blockchain technology hipster. Nothing is ever good enough or secure enough. Don't get me wrong because that is good to a point, but you need to be realistic when it comes to practical expectations of the tech and its algorithms. All facets of technology (not just cryptocurrency tech) have vulnerabilities and pitfalls.

You need to understand that at the end of the day cryptocurrencies are distributed software programs, and if these problems that all cryptocurrencies face collectively are solved, then they will be updated to address the new twchnological breakthroughs. You've got to deal with what you got though. You can't live in fantasy land where everything is legit decentralized and no vulnerabilities exist...

This is the real world, and the revolution can not wait for an ideal state of perfectness because such perfection will never exist. If we wait for such unobtainable perfection, then the revolution will never occur.

Looks to me that BCH is going to bottom around $1100. But there is a lesser chance it could decline to as low as $850. Difficult to buy the exact bottom or top when trading.

I am basing pricing on alts.com or coinmarketcap.com which is similar to the weighted average pricing employed by ShapeShift and Changely. Asian exchanges have higher prices.

Afaics, ShapeShift.io and Changely don’t have any daily limits. Limit per transaction is about $5K or so. But the problem is taxation differences.

The USA has something called like-kind exchange, meaning no capital gains tax event if trading between liked-kinded assets.

https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/74789/do-altcoin-trades-count-as-like-kind-exchanges-deferred-capital-gains-tax

So 99.9% gold coins are like-kinded with 99.9% gold bars. But coins with some copper and gold are not like-kinded.

https://klasing-associates.com/possible-1031-exchange-bitcoin-ethereum-electroniccrypto-currencies/

https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/3632491-is-an-exchange-between-bitcoin-and-altcoin-considered-like-kind-exchange

Here is the key phrase: A truck cannot be exchanged for a car without going through fiat.

So the theory is that when trading on an exchange everything is an IOU that is exchangeable without going through fiat. Even the fiat balance on the exchange is an IOU issued by the exchange (even if it is USDT), thus not really fiat. And the tokens are not really tokens just an IOU, as evident by the fact that exchanges often fail to pay those IOUs (e.g. Mt. Gox). So there is no actual differentiated (potentially non-like-kinded) exchange until withdrawing from the exchange an actual token or fiat. For those willing to keep their investment on tokens and risk the losses if the exchange blows up. In short, all trading within an exchange is trading fungible IOUs in an online game and there is no taxable event until some crypto or fiat is pulled out of the exchange. Exchanges only issue IOUs (e.g. Mt. Gox). Unless you have the private keys or the fiat at a bank in your name, then you have only IOUs. (Note; IANAL and I am not providing tax advice)

However, apparently FinCEN requires all transactions within the exchange to be tracked else the cost basis will be the one that maximizes tax burden.

But when trading on ShapeShift and Changely, you immediately exchange tokens, thus potentially a taxable event unless the tokens exchanged are correctly construed to be like-kinded. It’s not clear whether trading between tokens on different ledgers is like-kinded or not. The IRS has not ruled on that yet.

If the 99.9% gold content makes coins fungible with bars (i.e. you can trade them fungibly without going through fiat because they have a common basis of purity which is not fiat), then does having the same original source for the case of competing forks of Bitcoin make them fundamentally fungible? I think not. :( However, if we can trade them in pairs without going through fiat does that make it a like-kinded exchange and essentially fungible? I think no. :( Meaning I deliver payment in BTC but pay with BCH because there is an instant liquid exchange between BCH and BTC. This works the same with forex and barter, but afaik we still must pay taxes on barter and exchanging foreign forex without involving our nation currency. For those jurisdictions where Bitcoin is ruled a currency (e.g. Germany but only if held over a year (http://www.nomoretax.eu/bitcoin-taxation-developed-countries/) presumably before cashing out of the currencies not just trading between currencies, but not available to corporations (https://www.winheller.com/en/banking-finance-and-insurance-law/bitcoin-trading/bitcoin-and-tax.html)), then when buying another altcoin, then the purchase is not a taxable event, but when selling the forex (i.e. the alt which is not ruled a currency), then it could be a taxable event. Since the EU has ruled that Bitcoin is a currency (http://www.nomoretax.eu/bitcoin-taxation-developed-countries/) (not an asset), thus if trades between currencies within an EU country are not a taxable event then only when cashing out to an asset would a potentially taxable event occurred depending how your nation taxes gains on the value of currency. Note I heard that a high ranking official in Finland stated that trading between altcoins in Finland is not a taxable event.

The tax implications of exchanges for those who are in tax jurisdictions that require assessing taxes on trading between different tokens. So if hodling a token on a wallet, then transferring the token to the exchange is a taxable event because the token has been converted to an exchange IOU. To avoid taxation, according to our aforementioned rationale that exchange trading is all like-kinded IOUs, the tokens would have to have been held on the exchange the entire time and not withdrawn in order to avoid a taxable event. Bummer!


We can’t have it both ways. If we argue that exchange holdings are only IOUs and not actual tokens and fiat, then the taxable event is when entering and exiting the exchange. If we argue that the tokens and fiat inside of the exchange like-kinded to the actual tokens and fiat outside the exchange, then the taxable event is upon trading within the exchange.

Those who pay 0% CGT (short or long-term capital gains) don’t have to worry about this, such as in Italy (https://blockonomi.com/cryptocurrency-taxes/) and maybe Switzerland. As another example US citizens can move to Puerto Rico and stop paying capital gains taxes on gains from outside the USA and Puerto Rico.

Yeah I agree that delaying when taxes are assessed is a huge factor in planning the strategy for investment.

I had not been factoring this tax concern into my analysis of which tokens to hold or trade. Many of you would prefer to long-term hold and not trade because of tax concerns.


Note USA citizens who have their primary place of work (http://archive.is/aBzYO#selection-521.0-525.274) (even if self-employed) abroad can qualify for the annually inflation-adjusted ~$103k foreign earned income exclusion, and they’re apparently not liable for paying income taxes in (http://archive.is/aBzYO#selection-525.275-525.412) the country where they are if that country taxes foreign “residents” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation#Individuals) (which in my case, the Philippines doesn't tax resident foreigners even if I were a resident, yet I’m only officially present on a tourist visa anyway). But the self-employed must still pay self-employment tax (http://archive.is/1gnBj#selection-689.0-691.336) which is 15.3% (to fund Social Security retirement benefits which I will never receive any benefit from and which the government raids for general budget appropriations). Yet the AMT also applies to expats (https://www.greenbacktaxservices.com/blog/us-expat-taxes-amt/), and kicks in at $42 – $54k depending on if married filing separately or single, although the Trump tax plan may (http://www.savingtoinvest.com/alternative-minimum-tax-amt-and-exemption-amounts/) raise those thresholds significantly or eliminate the AMT.

---

A controlled demo really says nothing about the game theory of Mt. Box centralization of the hubs of LN (https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/bitcoin-with-segwit-is-not-the-austrian-fork-9efd890489b0). And the fact that most users will simply choose to have an account with a hub and thus be given fractional reserves. And the failures of hubs like we have failures of exchanges  now. And the runs on the bank. And the surge spikes of settlement load on the main chain. Etc..

We’re a long way from knowing which electronic currency people are going to want to use to buy coffee. Even if LN worked perfectly it would not necessarily win the adoption race for uptake.

I can’t predict whether SegWit will be a failure mode for BTCSegWit. We’ll have to wait and see.

CoinHoarder I will reply later to your most recent post.

First, I’m going to start another thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2550946.msg26004003#msg26004003) about the whether a crypto winter (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2268216.0) is now impossible or not. Interested to discuss analogous to the DOW stopped having deep, drawn out crashes after 1929 Great Depression and only goes to new plateaus with minor, short-leveled corrections. Will BTC stop having crypto winters? I will start a new thread to discuss this.

I would hold no less BCH than I hold BTC if trading for maximum short-term gains (and at current price ratios I would want much more BCH than BTC for short-term trading). But if wanting a HODL forever strategy (such as because of tax implications discussed in the prior post), then I am not sure how much BCH I would hold, probably much less. But I absolutely would not hold BTC long-term that was obtained after July. SegWit theft risk is not small enough.


The CME/CBOE futures markets just launched could enable the miners to make a hell of a lot of money when/if they attack BTCSegWit. They could earn profits on (and finance their massive chain reorganization with) massive shorting, on “stealing” (partaking the SegWit “pay to anyone” (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/segregated-witness-part-how-a-clever-hack-could-significantly-increase-bitcoin-s-potential-1450553618/) donations of) BTC, and on the rise in their BCH bags which they trade back for cheap BTC being dumped like scalding potatoes.

They could consolidate much the BTC taking it from inexperienced/naive fools into the hands of the experienced wise elders (which thus increases the value and reliability of the reserve currency), and ride off into the sunset as kings, because crypto will not die and not go away because of such an attack would be justifiable to restore immutability to Bitcoin so we do not have this insecure SegWit shit (https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/bitcoin-with-segwit-is-not-the-austrian-fork-9efd890489b0) on the reserve currency. SegWit can run on Litecoin instead. We do not need it on Bitcoin because Bitcoin is a global reserve currency not a medium-of-exchange for the masses as explained below:

It doesn’t make any sense to argue that small blocks are more decentralized when you justify small blocks by pairing it with an insecure offchain protocol that settles onchain.

As I already stated upthread, that doesn’t mean I am arguing that BCH is more decentralized. They’re all centralized.

All proof-of-work and proof-of-stake blockchains will be run by oligarchies. Period.

So at least I prefer that Bitcoin be immutable and secure during the time the “Zionists” are building it to be their NWO reserve currency.

Because I need my BTC to not be stolen while I am working on a better blockchain design that could possibly remain decentralized while volume scaling.

Any way, this forkathon circus is just part of the process. I don’t really care that much other than the annoyance of not being able to HODL Bitcoin with 100% confidence of it not being stolen by the a reorganization. I don’t have a preference for the personalities of Core or BCH. Yet I do have a preference to see all those who believe in the lie of democracy (tyranny of the mob) to be destroyed and lose everything. As I explained upthread, I think the only social consensus should be to maintain immutability. If you want to experiment with a new design, then fork an airdop as BCH did.


It will “work” technically in terms of demoing payments but the Mt. Box game theory means it will be fraught with manipulations we do not want on the reserve currency.

Let LN run on LTC. We can use LTC for payments for coffee.


More insecure shit. Please you’re not a technological expert.


Incorrect as usual.

Sorry I do not have time to refute more of your naive ramblings.

You realize I have programming work to do, which is much more important than arguing with you. Could you at least stop repeating the same things over and over. I already understand you’re infatuation with technobabble buzzwords that you don’t understand the technological and game theory implications of deeply.


They are both lying. There will be no decentralization.

You’re just sticking your finger in the wind and guessing because you do not know how to create these technologies. You are not down in the trenches. You lack detailed understanding.

So what you see merit in, is irrelevant.

You’re not stupid. You read a fair amount. You’re somewhat informed (and probably read more current events than I do). But you lack technological depth. That is a big handicap, and you should be slightly more circumspect when throwing around proclamations about technology + game theory which is very detailed and complex.


That has been my point all along.

They will be punished by having their BTCSegWit “pay to anyone” donations stolen by the blockchain. Lol. Just what they (and you) deserve for believing in Core’s lies.


BCH does not donate all the SegWit transactions to “pay to anyone”.

They did not mutate Satoshi’s protocol in egregiously insecure ways with ridiculous BIPs!


Quoted for the (story of (http://trilema.com/2013/the-story-of-pointless-and-witless/) the) ”witless and the woodchipper” (https://steemit.com/psychology/@anonymint/social-courtesies-the-witless-and-pointless-example) outcome.


The whales are destroying STEEM (https://steemit.com/eos/@anonymint/re-paullintilhac-re-anonymint-re-primerz-re-dan-in-defense-of-consortium-blockchains-20171207t225219027z) just as I predicted.

I’m very busy trying to beat EOS to launch, so please stop.

Let’s both go quiet and work. We’ll observe what happens.

You can have the last word for now.

---

I don't care for having the last word. I think both of us have explained our thoughts on the matter thoroughly. We are effectively just wasting time here, but this is historically how I have learned everything I know since I joined the crypto world in 2012... by debating intelligent and knowledgeable individuals like yourself. So thank you for that. I have learned some things, started considering some things that I hadn't before, and have adjusted my thoughts accordingly. Admittedly, the latter takes a while for me because I am somewhat stubborn (and smarter than most people I debate... but probably not you), but I usually come to a realization eventually if I am wrong on something.

You are correct that we both have better things to do, such as working on our own projects. Good luck with everything- I'm sure we will be debating something or another sooner or later again.  ;)  :D

Okay then you were attacking Roger Ver in your comments, but in the following video he articulates a very compelling and simple reason why BCH is superior:

https://youtu.be/cJAAMtqXc5I?t=181

It’s a fact which I have stated many times. LN payer can’t send to everyone who has a BTC address. First the recipient must open+maintain a channel (which doesn’t scale well and will essentially end up as fractional reserve Mt. Box hubs). BCH payer can send to anyone who has an address and it has MUCH lower fees right now.

Pontificate about future scaling as much as you want (neither scale decentralized!) but here and now, Ver is factually correct.

---

Users will signup at Mt. Box banks for a fractional reserve account.

And imagine when all that SegWit shit is stolen and all the fractional reserve accounts go poof! Will teach that n00bs about the death of the fractional reserve banking system, so they can learn what cryptocurrency really is!

Regarding everyone supporting Core, thus Core must win. The majority has to be wrong most of the time. The question is just when do they get pushed over the cliff. For Europe, that is coming very soon. For SegWit, maybe not until 2019 or so.

Do you now understand why my project is still not too late?


They’ve committed to being the scaling coin, so they don’t anticipate political problems with increasing the block size. Of course if true, that means it’s centralized, but so is every coin. Who cares about the future. Everything will change. Here and now, BCH has lower fees (and doesn’t have the one confirmation block period slowing down to MUCH higher than 10 minutes, irreparably for more than two weeks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2559465.msg26104987#msg26104987)).

It’s the only exact Satoshi protocol blockchain (except for the larger blocks) with major miner support.

Meh, I don't know why you insisted on dragging me back into this debate...

Roger Ver is a scam artist that stole the Bitcoin brand name to springboard his Bcash altcoin. That is why he gets so offended when people take the word Bitcoin out of the name because it takes the power away from the "bait and switch" scam. My criticisms of Roger Ver have nothing to do with the non-"superiority" of BCH.

There are also many ALT coins have the same "superior" properties that are being argued in support of BCH (big enough blocks that are empty enough which results in cheaper transaction fees). Yet, here you are championing Bitcoin Cash. Why are you not championing any alt coins too?

He said Bitcoin no longer has transactions "basically for free", but such transactions are unsustainable. There is no such thing as free transactions. They must be paid for with transaction fees, or paid with inflation. He is living in fantasy land if he thinks "basically for free" transactions are sustainable. Once the block subsidy decreases enough let's see how his "basically for free" transaction fee model works...

And anyways... on-chain Bitcoin transactions are still really cheap. I sent a transaction the other day with a $0.50 transaction fee. The only thing that isn't cheap is if you want your transaction confirmed really quickly. But Bitcoin is not ideal for such transactions anyways (IE. buying coffee). See below...

A lot can and will change between now and then. Looking that far into the future (especially with how fast things move in the crypto world) is useless. It is a possibility that the market will have effectively killed BCH by then, and killing Bitcoin would be financial suicide by the miners. Thinking everyone will just cut their losses and switch to BCH after such an attack is wishful thinking on your part. Bcash is just an ALT coin, and whose to say another ALT coin will not be the main benefactor? You certainly can not tell the future, and cannot argue so with speculating on what MAY happen in the future.


If you really want to talk about the HERE and NOW....

Who cares about making transactions via cryptocurrencies, really? They are a speculation vehicle based on their future utility once major adoption occurs. No one wants to buy their coffee in a neutral-inflation (or deflationary) cryptocurrency when they can buy it with the inflationary capital they have. Inflationary capital (FIAT) of which is necessary to own in order to survive. It doesn't make any economic sense to spend an asset that is rapidly appreciating in value (cryptocurrency) when you can spend an asset that is slowly depreciating in value (FIAT). Try to live off of cryptocurrency only for a while and tell me how that works out. Hint: using a debit card or other service that converts crypto to FIAT is not living off of only cryptocurrency.

Only Bcash FUDsters want to buy their coffee with cryptocurrency. That is the HERE and NOW. And as you said in your own words... no use in worrying/caring about the future because everything will change. The HERE and NOW is that Bitcoin's Network Effect will reign supreme in the short term. Bcash holders that want to buy their coffee with cryptocurrency will miss out on the huge gains Bitcoin will receive due to the Network Effect. The Bcash "idealists" have effectively already spent their war chest pumping Bcash from $300 to $1500. Notice it has been effectively stagnant since...

It’s always a power struggle nearer to the top. He obtained the Bitcoin.com domain by some means (seems there was drama about that also). He is monetizing his assets, including his stature of being a BTC whale and a very early adopter.

Why are y’all not criticizing Adam Back for coming into the scene much, much later than Ver and doing the same bait-and-switch fooling everyone into thinking that they must have insecure SegWit instead of larger blocks, so that Blockstream/Core could remain relevant? (who needs Core if we only need to increase the block size!)

Ver takes the stance that Bitcoin is partially his baby and he is pursuing the more straightforward design which is closest to Satoshi’s protocol. Why do those arrogant jerks such as Gregory Maxwell get a free pass? Is it because you can’t see who are the million BTC opportunists who are behind Core, i.e. Maxwell makes you less jealous because he does not have that much BTC?

There’s actually a psychological reason that (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/monekys-marxism/) most of the fools would prefer Core. Jealously. Monkeys eat cucumbers without problem until another monkey gets grapes, then they go fucking crazy due to jealousy. So having Jihan Wu (the evil China man with ASICBoost hiding on every Bitmain miner), Craig Wright (the Satoshi imposter), and technological neophyte Roger Ver(ifried) as the Mt. Rushmore Three Stooges figureheads on BCH makes everyone feel about the same as they feel about Trump leading the USA. They’re jealous socialists who want the pie to be shared with everyone as Marxist, and obfuscate it as they are embarrassed or offended. Don’t you realize your emotions are being played like a fiddle. Push all the greater fools onto Core by inciting the jealousy and Marxist tendencies of the most people, then fleece those sheep. It’s always the same outcome for humanity.

I’m not arguing the opportunists behind BCH are any more noble than those behind BTC(Core/SegWit). I’m against your emphasis about personalities/motivations as a justification for speculation, investing, and such. We know that everything in crypto is corruption and opportunism.


BCH is the only one I know of which has the support of major miners and which is basically Satoshi’s protocol with an increased block size (and a faster difficulty readjustment to compete in the mining profitability war versus BTC’s slower adjustment).

I don’t champion BCH as a long-term or the best solution. I just think it is 3 - 5X better speculation at this time than BTC (especially now below 0.1 and at 0.07 recently, although it could possibly decline to $850 and 0.05 as the bottom which would increase the upside to 6 - 10X more than BTC).

I don’t champion any altcoin at this time. Everything has too many technological and game theory flaws. All I do is try to pick good speculations.


I think transaction fees on my project will decline to near 0, i.e. the cost of actually validating them! (But the game theory of this design needs to be peer reviewed)

It’s ridiculous the transaction fees of proof-of-work. I had to pay $30 to get my BTC transaction today to be confirmed within an hour. And the fees will be much higher before this BTC bubble is done. The issue of high fees is going to be another of the reasons the BTC bubble will collapse (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2541889.msg26054375#msg26054375) into a crypto winter.


Your $0.50 fee transaction would delay a day or more to confirm and this will get much worse soon.

You’re misleading the readers using the same sort of obfuscating deception that Core employs.

There are many reasons that we need our transaction to confirm within the 10 minute per confirmation period, such as doing a trade that the counter party has hedged and thus demands timely payment.

0-confirmations for coffee is not the only type of transaction that is hindered by an overloaded block capacity.


Nobody is going to successfully attack Bitcoin. Only SegWit donations would be taken (which are not Satoshi’s Bitcoin protocol) with a smile and thank you to all the retarded mofos who idolized Core.

Bitcoin will just keep humming along fine. No one that did not use an exchange nor SegWit, will ever have their BTC stolen by the miners. Only the willfully vulnerable mofos who use exchanges and allow SegWit lineage in their BTC are at risk, as they should be. They’ve been warned in this thread. No excuses any more.


I already told you upthread to read the thread title correctly. I never predicted that the SegWit attack would anoint BCH as Bitcoin.

The speculation on BCH is about its relative price rising as a consequence of for example BTC’s transaction fees skyrocketing and block period slowing to an hour.


BTC(ore) is also an altcoin. The benefactor will be Bitcoin(Satoshi), which can be downloaded at The Real Bitcoin Foundation (http://thebitcoin.foundation/). (No it’s not a joke, remember what Google’s website looked like at its inception, it’s designed to deceive viewers so they’ll remain willfully ignorant sheep they prefer to be)


Agreed. Which is why this entire scaling nonsense from Core has just been a power grab.

As I wrote upthread, I’m very grateful for the drama and trading opportunities.

Yet there’s one group that does care about making transactions with cryptocurrencies. Specifically those who are using tokens for something they want to participate in. They’re not in it for investment; yet maybe the investors also want in it.

And that’s why we’ll not quickly get significant adoption (other than speculation on the future) without onboarding to the masses onto some activity (which requires cryptocurrency) other than just speculation. Steem has been a very illuminating experiment and now a Top 1000 website, but the details are mucked up a bit (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1558366.msg26063410#msg26063410).


The most significant potential use cases of tokenization aren’t to pay for things I normally pay for with fiat. Rather for new paradigms that fiat can’t be used to pay for. The ChangeTip Must Die argument (http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/12/17/changetip-must-die/) is incorrect, because who wants to maintain 100s of subscriptions!

But tipping is stupid. Steem tried to workaround the problem by making tipping free, but of course it is impossible to make free what is not free (https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/blog-rewards-can-t-be-widely-distributed). So users need to get something of great value they need, when they tip. Ah I’m tell you too much about my project design.


Sorry incorrect. Many reasons needed to send crypto transactions. I need fast and reliable crypto transactions. When BTC transactions slow down to an hour or more for the first confirmation, there will be a mad rush into BCH. We’ll see the price spike, and so goes the life of taking candy from babies.


Satoshi’s Bitcoin yes. SegWit I highly doubt it. It will die stillborn or die in a massive fiery donation festival.


Wishful emotions, not rational analysis. They of course are earning more REAL Bitcoin all the time on the game. Account for all that BTC they’re spending on the exchanges, which they will take back in the chain reorganization and bankrupt the exchanges they wish to. Do you think the Zionists don’t have a plan on how they will crater the exchanges which refuse to delist ICO tokens when they go for the collapse of BTC with coordinated SEC+G20 securities regulators to collect their CME shorts and take millions of BTC. The new EU securities laws go into effect Jan 1, 2018. The massive contagion is being prepared.

Lol. Observe the next months.

I've seen a lot of people that got liquidated badly during the past few hours:

https://twitter.com/bitmexrekt

Some lost $millions because they thought, "oh futures are up, just go to short this all the way down below $10k with my wall street buddies", instead massive liquidation ensues as we almost hit ATH. Now waiting to see where this ends. 6h candle keeps going from red to green.. still many hours to see what happens (double top then pullback or pop to new ATH)

Did you ever get around syncing a trb node? it must be so slow to do it from scratch, I think it could take a month. Does it have a wallet? what's the difference from using a regular node and just ignore segwit transactions?

Quite a lot of people, which is why silicon valley poured money into creating apps that interfaced with business checkouts.

The whole fee debacle caused Steam to stop bitcoi payment because of the fees:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42264622

The race is now on for Bitpay to enable BCH (and perhaps other alts) - and if they can then win Steam back as a customer, we are set for bitcoin being excluded in payments but alts being enabled. Which should boost alts a lot.

My point was that people wanting to spend a highly appreciating asset are a large minority amongst people looking to hoard it.

Especially when 9 out of 10 times they can just use a depreciating asset like FIAT.

Well there are still advantages to using crypto for transactions, but yes I guess if you hoard BTC/BCH, then you need so keep some on an exchange so that you can convert to a more usable coin when you need to transact.

I sold some BTC during the ATH last week and had to pay incredibly high fees to get my coins moving (more than 200€ in fees). No regrets though as I really did sell at the top, and sold enough to recover 100% of the fiat I've ever invested into crypto (including fees).

segwit is only altcoin or fork of bitcoin : other solution because network fee is so high and take long time than normal.

we need solve about time problem

I'm not saying high transaction fees aren't a problem (because they are... a problem that will be solved eventually), but if you spent 200 euros on transaction fees then you probably aren't using Bitcoin properly.

1. Use wallet/services that have implemented Segwit.
2. Use a wallet where you can specify what fee to use because most wallets currently suck at estimating fees.
3. Use https://estimatefee.com to estimate the fee you need
4. Try to plan ahead.. because the quicker you need your transactions confirmed the more you can expect to pay.

...

I told you so. Exactly what I predicted yet again.

Are the goals for BCH and LTC still 0.(0)3-0.(0)5? Then cash out because segwit theft risk?

A much needed correction, nothing out of ordinary price action.

BCH is another scamcoin, wouldn't hold it for long!

SegWit is only solve for bitcoin problem and you can say it is bitcoin+.

bitcoin cash also is altcoin of bitcoin

1. I won't use segwit as long as it isn't even the default for Core. If they don't believe in it, I don't believe in it.
2. I did. I specified the fees needed to move my coins before the mempool got worse, then much worse, then insanely worse. I timed it quite well.
3. I use https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/ . Problem is the situation was deteriorating so fast that people who used average fees recommended by such sites actually got stuck transactions.
4. I was still only realizing that Bitcoin has a massive problem and the price was right to hedge my bets, it wasn't planned at all.

Overall I'm satisfied with what I've done, I still hold BTC, but I'm no longer a strong BTC believer, I'm diversifying.

Buying BCH at $300 (as stated in this thread) and selling it at $2500+ proved to be yet another very prescient and lucrative trade (that was after selling the freebies for $800 on the first ramp). That was a 20 bagger compounded on top of gains already attained in BTC and LTC at the time of the airdrop fork.

Ditto buying LTC at $6 and selling at $80, repurchasing in the $40s and selling at $300. Another 50 bagger in less than a year.

We’re in a severe correction now (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg28343322#msg28343322).

Any more tips for us plebs?

I’m limiting my posting so please don’t expect any follow-up.

I don’t have free time to study all the altcoin charts at this time (in INTJ “head in sand” mode as a developer (https://github.com/keean/zenscript/issues/3#issuecomment-358154261), not my dominant ENTP personality trait). My thought is that BTC may lead out of this dip as difficulty resets much lower and much more profitable to mine (although I haven’t looked lately at the transaction delays factor, yet that may not matter). Also BTC tends to lead on moves up. So we (not me) traded BCH back to BTC at $2500+ (not expecting the SegWit theft yet).

If BTC gets far ahead of the alts, we will trade back into alts. I still think LTC may go to $500 for example. And BCH probably $10+K. All the alts eventually catch up, even Steem recently breached $6 (which I traded for BTC).

Note that for those in the USA, you can’t trade any more without short-term capital gains (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2239874.msg28300826#msg28300826) (unless you relocate to Puerto Rico and avail of Act 22):

Also you may or may not want to keep your eye out on this potential development of mine (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg28397592#msg28397592).

^^ A gentleman and a scholar.