|
Sometimes you work, sometimes you sleep, that's the nature for everything in the world. To keep economy constantly going up is impossible
|
|
|
|
As long as money can be printed out of nothing, the minimum wage can be raised I'm printing myself several trillions, at mean time I would be glad to raise the minimum wage by $10  |
|
|
|
Yep socialism caused damage can be offset by money printing, because the food stamp and welfare caused by it, can easily be taken away by rationing and money printing.
What they got for 10 years will be taken away in the next 10 years, with interest!
If people don't understand how money works in today's monetary system, more money printing will always be a solution for any problem At least majority of the people I talked to, especially those with an economy degree, they have no idea how money creation works. They are full of misconceptions that they learned from those books In Greece's case, if their central bank lose the ability to create euro, then it is no longer a central bank, but a commercial bank People constantly say that commercial banks can create money when they issue a loan, then why in this case, Greece central bank can not create money by issuing trillions of loans to Greek government? Because commercial bank can not create money, they must first have money, then issue a loan, those books are all misleading. But you can imagine, even those people have economy degrees are all having a misunderstanding of what is really going on, how could they see the truth? Money printing will still work for decades |
|
|
|
Money and Bitcoin are essentially the same thing. The only difference is that money/gold is concrete while Bitcoin is abstract. Bitcoin's existence is completely dependent on man-made structures while gold will still be gold with or without human support. This might not seem like a big deal but incorporating a purely abstract element into the physical world poses some rather awkward(?) challenges. The problem is that you can't back something that's not real with something else that's not real. To make the intangible real, you will need to pledge something tangible from the physical world.
Anything's value to its root comes from the desire to acquire it, e.g. demand. Many things are based on pure information, like music, movie, game, and a long list of abstract financial products. Bitcoin's value is based on a desire to get out of the debt slavery spiral in current monetary system, and how each individual value this is vastly different In fact, the most important is the ability to exchange into other things. There are many things in the world which might have no use at all for you, or its use is totally beyond the reach of your understanding, but as long as there are some other people willing to pay for it, it will have some market value In fact all the type of money is backed by people that accept it: Fiat money is backed by the promise of government accepting it as your tax payment, but without merchant accepting it, it would also be worthless. So the promise of the government is just a way to convince people into accepting fiat money. Bitcoin is also backed by people that accept it, but with a promise of limited supply. And just with this promise, it can gain more and more support from merchant around the world, voluntarily |
|
|
|
Everybody likes Star Wars.
The whole generation grows up in fighting culture  That's why we had XT in the first place: We have been heavily influenced by the war 70 years ago and we accept that war is a way to reach a solution. In fact, vote is another form of war, achieving the same result: Winner rules the loser. The Gavin designed that voting mechanism in his XT code, this indicated that he have this "war mindset" Besides war, is there any other way that we can reach solution without fighting? I believe, if people are enough informative and be aware of the destructive nature of the war, they will avoid it at all costs If there are two countries each having enough nuclear weapon to wipe out the earth several times, they will never start a war, simply because they understand that every action that trigger a war is just suicide XT's voting is similar to such suicide, in the case of a fork without over 90% consensus, each side has enough coins to dump and wipe out the value of the other chain |
|
|
|
|
This article basically echo the Jeff Garzik's view
Unfortunately it is still too complex for majority of users to understand. At this level of complexity, any kind of explanation from one side will be claimed as biased by the opponents
Maybe that's the reason that war never ends in human's history. Human is just incapable of keep peace and work towards the same goal. Or to say, they will eventually develop a conflict of interest in the end, and start to fight against each other
|
|
|
|
It's like Szabo doesn't have any clue on how XT is being implemented. Which I think is very weird.
I'm not sure if you actually read the whole thing. The attack goes as follows: If blocks were allowed to be ‘too big’ (big enough to add plausible delays to propagate to all nodes) then a miner would be incentivized to stuff the block they are mining full of txns that pay himself (or a cohort), up to the allowable block limit. I mean come on. tl;dr Szabo is afraid of the free market having a choice. Well guess what, it happens now and will happen countless of time in the future. I have lived in different continents and I have never seen anything that is close to free market idealism. The market is either controlled by the government like in eastern or by banks in western. If you know what is "Market Maker" from large banks then you know market is typically made by a specific institution, and that institution usually have total control over what market can do, they could even shutdown the market in case of emergency Take bitcoin for example, can free market decide what code goes into bitcoin protocol? Not as I know. Any code must be approved by core devs before they can be commited into GIT, otherwise they will just become an alt-coin. Someone must design and maintain the game rules so that others can play the game, but if someone is challenging the game rule maker, then it becomes politics |
|
|
|
The question is... can you make this to use to predict the price movements of bitcoin? I think that's the holy grail of every observation of the price development. So when you can put this to good use and your theory is right then you could get rich. Maybe i misunderstood what you mean too only too.  If bitcoin does not fork into pieces like we are risking to see now, then it is very likely its fiat price will just rise together with anything else, and a little bit faster due to fixed supply outlook |
|
|
|
|
Regardless of technology background, XT is a bad move. It demonstrated that it is easy to create a potential fork candidate without reaching enough consensus, and try to lobby/lure others to join their fork to do a take over later on. If this kind of practice succeeded, it will become a daily business for core devs to fork into their own version and lobby the miners to drive the bitcoin into their direction: If you can convince 75% of the miners to go for your fork, then you will get what you want, regardless of what other participants in the bitcoin ecosystem like
A major consensus will naturally form when there is really a problem, e.g. block size is not big enough and many users start to complain, it does not require early action like XT, since you only need to change one line in the code to increase the block size
|
|
|
|
Lets be sensible here ... if larger blocks starts to get more traction and lets be fair we already have 65%+ mining power voting for larger blocks (notice how I said larger blocks and not necessarily XT) then *business* like exchanges will prepare themselves to be on the right side of the chain (be it XT or whatever it is that supports larger blocks)
The interesting thing here which everyone seems to miss is that XT has started a process which the none-XT/larger block pro developers need to respond to with a solution. Miners and Exchanges (who seems largely in the larger blocks group) are not going to wait around forever.
Grab your popcorn and lets see how this all unfolds ... It is going to be interesting for sure.
The old wisdom is don't fix it if it ain't broken. I guest majority of the miners will take a wait and see stance. Recent stress test already showed that even every block is receiving more than 1MB of data, the network still works well I don't know your line of work, mine is Software Development and I never worked for a company that holds this old wisdom. If you are not innovative and see new trends before they happen, your company dies. There might be exceptions, when you are big enough or have political influence, but not everybody is Microsoft or a Bank. The larger the system the slower the change. Since every change in a large system would have a wide impact. You can't make a cruiser that holds 5000 people to turn like a water scooter |
|
|
|
How hard is it to mergemine?
I dont think miners will have to choose.
How hard is it to choose not to go bankrupt? I dont think many businesses will drop one coin over the other, they will just pretend they are both normal bitcoins. we will just have some growing percentage of bitcoins that are split and thus dramatically increasing the coin supply. not overnight, but over a period of 6 months, we will probably get to where the majority of dualcoins are split, just via normal transactions tainting the dualcoins into two.
I think they can not mergemine since they are mining on different chain by that time The coins are doubled, however the ecosystem can not double over night, if suddenly the money supply increased by 100% but there is no increased demand, we will get a zimbabwe coin Isnt NMC mergemined with BTC since they both use SHA256? isnt NMC a different chain than BTC? Mergemining is to just use the same calcs you use as you are randomly searching for the winning hash against multiple chains. The extra overhead of adding another chain is much less than double, so you basically get to mint extra coins for very little extra work. Based on this, the whole XT controversy could well be something FULLY backed by the miners Follow the money Due to the inertia of markets, this creates non-attack methods of double spending that isnt really double spending because we are all knowing that there will be two flavors of bitcoin. so by following the protocol, we can split our bitcoins. by knowing that markets dont do discontinuities, we can protect against the massive drop in BTC price this whole inventory explosion will create. Do you really believe that the BTC whales wont take the time to split their dualcoins? And then they wont bother to make a ton of money by trading both coins? James They can only merge mine if the protocol is specifically changed for that purpose There are huge risk from existing coin holders: We often talk about Satoshi's 1 million coins, many are afraid that those coin will come out one day and crash the market, and several days ago we have witnessed that a 80K sell order will knock down the exchange rate by 10% Imagine that you are a large bitcoin holder, when there is only one chain, the motivation to sell your coin is low, since they are all valuable. But once the coin forked, it is possible that core miners who controlls 25% of hash power are controlling 70% of the existing coins. They will dump the coins on the XT chain and destroy its value (Remember what Peter Todd have threatened with selling all his coins?). When XT coin worth nothing, miner will move their hash power back to core chain. Similarly, XT developers will dump their core coins, cause large damage there. A Mutual Assured Destruction fired up when XT went online 1.Jan. 2016, the end of bitcoin  So things will get really ugly if we allow a fork to happen |
|
|
|
The old wisdom is don't fix it if it ain't broken. I guest majority of the miners will take a wait and see stance. Recent stress test already showed that even every block is above 1MB, the network still works well
That does not work when you are trying to revolutionize sectors ... we do not want to stay in the stone ages Banks stayed in stone age for hundreds of years and that's the reason they become the master slaveholder. Value is all about stability and integrity |
|
|
|
Lets be sensible here ... if larger blocks starts to get more traction and lets be fair we already have 65%+ mining power voting for larger blocks (notice how I said larger blocks and not necessarily XT) then *business* like exchanges will prepare themselves to be on the right side of the chain (be it XT or whatever it is that supports larger blocks)
The interesting thing here which everyone seems to miss is that XT has started a process which the none-XT/larger block pro developers need to respond to with a solution. Miners and Exchanges (who seems largely in the larger blocks group) are not going to wait around forever.
Grab your popcorn and lets see how this all unfolds ... It is going to be interesting for sure.
The old wisdom is don't fix it if it ain't broken. I guest majority of the miners will take a wait and see stance. Recent stress test already showed that even every block is receiving more than 1MB of data, the network still works well |
|
|
|
How hard is it to mergemine?
I dont think miners will have to choose.
How hard is it to choose not to go bankrupt? I dont think many businesses will drop one coin over the other, they will just pretend they are both normal bitcoins. we will just have some growing percentage of bitcoins that are split and thus dramatically increasing the coin supply. not overnight, but over a period of 6 months, we will probably get to where the majority of dualcoins are split, just via normal transactions tainting the dualcoins into two.
I think they can not mergemine since they are mining on different chain by that time The coins are doubled, however the ecosystem can not double over night, if suddenly the money supply increased by 100% but there is no increased demand, we will get a zimbabwe coin |
|
|
|
So I see the thread growing, so I would like to ask for a summary please. What have we concluded so far? Will it be, or will it not be possible to double your bitcoins if the fork happens and we end up with 2 chains?
well you wont be able to directly double your bitcoins, but you can split all your bitcoins into winnercoins and losercoins. By trading them close to zerohour, you should be able to get roughly the same amount for each. Good traders will be able to sell winnercoin for more than losercoin and losercoin for more than winner coin by taking advantage of the market chaos. Now your single dualcoin is split into winnercoin and losercoin due to the fact that there are XT outputs that will invalidated a tx in the eyes of corecoin. The problem here is that we will end up with miners mergemining both (unlike normal merge mining where they are getting some sillycoin, they get losercoin) and there will be double the volume of sales so the price of both will be hammered. I would recommend to split your bitcoins into winnercoin and losercoin as soon as possible after zerohour, sell them (via limit orders) into something that will hold its value. then when one side reaches more than 50% value of the other in a stable way (ie not a spike) to purchase them. if you have the time, just make a ladder so that as one side gets worth more and more against the other you are shifting more and more capital into it. Done right you should end up with 50%+ more of winnercoin vs the number of dualcoins you have James From a value point of view, since a fork into two chains break the promise of limited money supply, it essentially killed bitcoin. I guess long before XT hashing power reaching 50%, the bitcoin value would already be single digits |
|
|
|
You can then decide to:
a. sell only your XTcoins
b. sell only your traditional bitcoins
c. sell both of them
d. sell none of them
Should there be demand for both kinds of coins (and it's looking like there will be), then the risk comes when you make the choice to economically back one side. You may sell all your XTcoins and traditional bitcoins become worth far more, or you may decide to sell all your traditional bitcoins and XTcoins become worth far more. Perhaps the community is divided enough that both chains will continue to exist far into the future and they will reach valuations based on the demand for either coin. Perhaps the split will cause a loss of trust in Bitcoin entirely and neither fork will hold their value. No one knows.
Very well said, I think we should hold a poll for these 4 options to increase people's understanding of the fork and its consequence In fact that means the amount of coin doubles, which broke the promise of limited money supply - the biggest advantage of bitcoin. People will understand that when core devs have a conflict of interest, there will be 100% inflation in bitcoin monetary system... And people will start to drop the game. I guess miners would try their best to avoid that extinction level events by sticking to one side, which is what they are currently running. It does not matter how advanced XT is, a fork will kill bitcoin, so that is to be avoided at all costs |
|
|
|
 A lot of people own bitcoins but only few understand how Bitcoin XT drama will unfold and what should be done to survive the aftermath. Both the sides (Mike+Gavin tandem VS other coredevs) are bad guys. They have economic (and psychological) incentive to push their plan through and they do NOT care about us. We, ordinary bitcoiners, should help each other so below you will find a guide how to save your money.1. Move your bitcoins to a wallet controlled only by YOU. If it's a webwallet like BlockChain.Info it's still strongly recommended to download original Satoshi's wallet software and start downloading 40 GiB of the blockchain. If you leave your coins somewhere on the Internet you may be unable to double them once the fork happens. 2. Wait for the fork. Try to enjoy this time, the price will likely go down and down and down, but as long as it's above 50% of the price you paid you are safe. While you have nothing to do install software which works with Bitcoin XT. 3. After the fork find someone who owns coins not existing on the both blockchains and ask them to send few satoshis to your account, do it for the both blockchains. Those lucky owners of coins that don't exist on the other blockchain will likely be miners or guys who managed to get their transaction not included into the other chain. I expect that the market will react to the fork by selling such special coins slightly more expensive than their face value. 4. Find exchanges that work with different blockchains and send your coins TWICE by combining your original coins with coins obtained on the previous step. This will prevent a transaction on one blockchain from inclusion into the other blockchain. 5. Sell your bitcoins on the both exchanges for fiat and watch market reaction. Once the market decides which blockchain wins send fiat money to the corresponding exchange and buy bitcoins. If you are a skilled trader you may try to exchange BTC for LTC or another altcoin instead of fiat. Do it at your own risk, I don't dare to predict how altcoin markets will react to the fork. PS: Once again, it is very important: your bitcoins must be controlled only by you when the fork happens, otherwise the wallet hoster will do the explained trick by himself and will feed you with a legit looking excuse.After the fork, you can get coins from each chain by mining on the pools that support each chain |
|
|
|
What makes me always calm is that even there is a fork, you would always be able to spend pre-fork coins on both chains At this stage, talk does not mean anything, if anyone really want to support XT, they have to purchase enough hash power to let that side grow to 75% |
|
|
|
|
This kind of discussion is useless due to the complexity is out of reach of majority of users
If you have been here enough long, you will understand that bitcoin protocol was 100% centralized in the hands of a few core developers. Although everyone can submit their code, but core devs have the right to decide what code goes in and what should not go in
In early days, they even have support of the large mining pools, thus they could easily direct majority of the hash power to kill an unwanted fork during 2013
But now the political landscape has changed. Hash power has mostly moved to industry miners, this dramatically increased their political power in deciding where bitcoin is going. And since industry miners mostly care about making profit through mining, any change that could hurt their profit will not be accepted by them. So we can imagine that even core devs are lobbying the industry mining guys to accept their vision, if any change that could potentially cause the bitcoin's value to drop, they will not consider it
Money's value comes from trust, and trust comes from integrity and stability
|
|
|
|
In need of new rigs, come on bitmain spondoolies, get some new fancy products for christmas!  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
