More bribing by Roger Ver and co. He's paying people with twitter following to follow his altcoin, nothing new. We already saw this with McAfee etc. I mean look at this picture:  Do I need to add anything more? |
|
|
|
Do not transact B2X unless you want to lose your Bitcoin. There is no viable replay protection.
If we can't transact B2X to the exchanges, then how is a price for B2X going to be established? We need to be able to transact it in order to dump it, kill the price and force miners to come back to the legacy chain. If we cannot do this then how can B2X be beaten? Maybe they will beat themselves if people lose a lot of money because of they not adding replay attack protection, but this would fall into a legal level and legality may not apply or care in this case to do anything about it. Seems like a tricky situation where you must leave your coins in an exchange prior hardfork in order to dump them... not a good idea, specially whales that have tons of BTC ready to dump, it's a risk to leave them at the exchange. |
|
|
|
It looks to me like segwit2x has some heavyweight supporters, so it might be unwise to bet against it. I don't really know though. If you put it that way, I'd rather back segwit2x as well. I'm going to be on wait and see mode for a while.
Heavyweight supporters ? Really ? Segwit2x is as dead as it sounds. The only set of people supporting 2x now are the miners because it favors them which to me apparently leads to centralization, totally against why we are here in the first place. Still, the community decides and once they discover the 2x is as dead as it is, they won't have any choice falling back to core. Most users who do not understand this yet are beginning to, and the support is dropping drastically fast. Better spread the news now, if you do not want to leave your future in the hands of the miners to decide. Yeah but you NEED the miners in order for whales and us common folk to dump the forked coins in order to force miners to keep mining the legacy. If you don't have a certain amount of hashrate, then how are these transactions that would price in the fork be processed? You need enough hashrate to keep the legacy chain alive in order to dump, it's pretty simple. So this is the dilemma... will we have enough hashrate? will miners that are signaling "intention" really support the segwit2x chain? that is the only thing that matters now, and I think they are bullshitting and we will have enough hashrate to get this done. |
|
|
|
Ok, I know you're probably saying 'WTF man!', but here me out because it could be plausible.
I just saw the movie called 'American Made'. It's about this pilot named Barry Seal who smuggled drugs for Pablo Escobar, and then guns for the CIA. The thing is he made a lot of money that... Like 'he doesn't know where to put them' a lot... He buries bags full of cash in his backyard ffs, just like how Escobar did it.
Anyway, then I thought, it would be cool if Bitcoin was around during that time because they could easily store all that value in a USB drive. Lol.
Then it occured to me... Drug cartels today are bigger and better, what's stopping them from buying all the BTC they can get their hands on?
What do you guys think?
If you are a criminal you can't simply go to an exchange and buy $millions worth of bitcoin. They would need to find an OTC supplier ready to deal with criminals that has $millions in liquidity, not that easy of a task. Also these guys are most likely computer illiterates and BTC requires knowledge to attempt to have any decent amount of privacy. They have street smarts and have no fear to shoot anybody, but I don't think they can get their heads around BTC, so they would need to hire someone else to do it which adds risk. I think they will keep moving the good ol $ cash. But unfortunately it's a matter of time when BTC usage for criminal activity goes up (in fact it probably is going up permanently since the beginning). |
|
|
|
|
The fact that he says "but it could go to $100,000 before it crashes" is a typical way to save face from people that aren't sure of their predictions. It's like, "it is a fraud, but it could keep growing even after im dead..." yeah, nice prediction there. Might as well call your life a fraud if bitcoin outlives you.
|
|
|
|
What pump? BT2 still trading for even lower than the last time I looked at it. Highest buy order is around 0.14 BTC. We will see how relevant this is when it's all said and done, but it doesn't look good for B2X in the market. I just wish to get through this already. If segwit2x wins then bitcoin is dead, since corporations would have shown to be stronger than holders. I hope work is being done right now to stop the NYA scammers. So most people agreed to segwit2x, though core never did and now some people who agreed are dropping out. But still the vast majority as far as I'm aware are still supporting the 2x upgrade. And I can't understand why people are so against it, as obviously more scaling is needed and a 2x of block size if just simply a good thing. Unless people think there needs to be more time to test it, though I can't imagine why so much testing and development would be needed since it is simply changes one very small thing. The contention of this issue baffles me, seems to be a very straightforward good second step in scaling bitcoin, the negativity towards it shows the unreasonable toxicity of the bitcoin community and the refusal to prepare the technology for mass market acceptance.
Anyways, which do you guys think will be considered Bitcoin after the hard fork, the original chain or the 2x chain? I'm hoping 2x takes over since it can do twice the transactions with no downside so that is obviously better for bitcoin. Either way I will just be holding my bitcoin and won't move any bitcoin until this whole mess is over and we have a clear winner. But what do you all think?
Mistake, most miners agreed to that fork, people are still supporting overwhelmingly bitcoin core and no other coin, there is no question which is the real bitcoin, segwit2x is just another altcoin that has nothing new to offer, the 2MB fork is not necessary at all and I see as a good sign that support is slowly diminishing for such a useless coin. Well thats not true at all. Bitcoin is going to need A LOT MORE SCALING in the future, so an increase to 2MB is just the second step on what will no doubt be a lot of steps toward scaling to meet a global mass market demand. Sure it doesn't need the 2MB fork in November, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if segwit blocks are full within a year, at which point it will need larger blocks, so why are you people against it so much when it is obviously needed for the future? And my first sentence wasn't a mistake. Not only miners but many many bitcoin companies agreed to segwit2x. Only after that did miners jump on board leading up to the segwit upgrade. So why do some of you people refuse to want bitcoin to be able to scale?? Are you intentionally hoping for its demise and wanting to sabotage it? Or are you just very shortsighted and refuse to look into the future to see that more solutions are needed to scaling. When segwit blocks are full and transaction fees have skyrocketing again and wait times have skyrocketed again will you only then start to think oh maybe we do need 2MB blocks or more!? The poster directly above this post even said he would want the fork that is better to win, and he claimed it is the original chain hahaha. That is straight up delusion. Current chain can do half the transactions as 2x can, thats the only difference. It's black and white, 2x is twice as good as current chain. I'm sure there will need to be additional hard forks in the coming years to increase the block size further, why are you people making this very obvious upgrade so contentious? The question is do you want bitcoin do be able to do the current amount of transactions, or double the amount of transactions? It's pretty simple: if you want bitcoin to eventually fail to meet demand then obviously you want to hinder its progress and keep the current chain, if you want bitcoin to handle more transactions and scale better and its price to rise then you support 2x as well as other scaling solutions. Seems to me this irrational denial of needed scaling is some misguided attempt to pay homage to Satoshi and not hard fork away from his code. You'd rather see Satoshi's dream for bitcoin fail than fork from his code. Transactions are cheap. Being able to run a node is worth more money than doubling blocksize with a rushed hardfork. You can't just say "2x is twice as good as current chain", that's just dumb, there are tradeoffs to this. There's no point in this hardfork, other than Jeff Garzik's 5 minutes of fame and everyone involved in the takeover getting a paycheck. |
|
|
|
|
My Bitcoin Core node is still crashing during startup at random times. Sometimes it loads just fine, other times the start screen becomes not frozen with the "not responding" message and i have to close it.
The faulty module seems to be ntdll.dll. I thought the 0.15.0.1 fix was supposed to fix this but it still crashes.
|
|
|
|
I disagree. Sure, he doesn't understand bitcoin at all beyond how it can be used for illegal activities, but I think he genuinely doesn't care and thinks it's a joke. You are looking at a guy that has a fund that moves trillions of dollars a day while BTC is still a drop in the sea of money.
He is just looking at it from the perspective of a power drunk guy that can't see any treats to the status quo as realistic.
His comments aren't the comments of someone who doesn't care. He may not completely understand Bitcoin from a technical standpoint but he understands it takes the power out of the big banks hands and puts it in the hands of the people and that is enough for him to be totally against it. What he also knows is how fragile the international banking system is. It's based on derivatives of derivatives. For every real earned dollar that goes into a bank they put between 100 and 1000 on their books. So the underlying real asset is only between 0.1 and 1% of whats on their books. They also do the same thing for money that they haven't even received yet but are owed. When people don't make new deposits or pay debt the results to the banking system are exponential as we saw in 2008. Since then they've actually gotten even more aggressive with fiat creation through the fractional reserve system. Plus as big as Chase is, it's still only one of a handful of major banks. The gross domestic product for the whole world is only estimated to be about 75 Trillion for 2017. So when Dimon talks about moving 16 trillion around per day (5,840 Trillion per year), the vast majority of that is money the banks have created out of thin air based on the fractional reserve system. Even calling it a house of cards is generous. If Bitcoin takes even just a few percent of the global currency market everything collapses. We can only speculate if he really thinks is a joke or not. At least it's important enough for him that it's under his radar. The real threat I see is the fact that Jamie Dimon wants to run for president of the FED to then influence whatever POTUS at the time to deploy an huge ban on BTC, not only on exchanges but possible possession of BTC being illegal as well. If China crashed the market like that with exchanges only, an USA ban on both exchanges and possession could be pretty brutal for the price. The good news is Bitcoin recovered pretty quickly from an exchange-only Chinese ban, this is a demonstration of power, but like I said, a full blown USA ban could be bad. I wonder how the price would react. Im sure it would recover, the question is, for how long would it be crashing? |
|
|
|
|
I disagree. Sure, he doesn't understand bitcoin at all beyond how it can be used for illegal activities, but I think he genuinely doesn't care and thinks it's a joke. You are looking at a guy that has a fund that moves trillions of dollars a day while BTC is still a drop in the sea of money.
He is just looking at it from the perspective of a power drunk guy that can't see any treats to the status quo as realistic.
|
|
|
|
|
This is amazing. He has talked about BTC 3 times a in row lately. He used to take years between his public declarations on bitcoin, now it's been all over the place.
He acts a like bully against bitcoin, and don't underestimate his power. This guy will run for the FED presidency. If he gets it, he will try to convince the POTUS to destroy BTC, and can cause a great deal of damage. Im sure BTC would survive long term, but an USA ban wouldn't be pretty.
|
|
|
|
@jaytiesto. I want Conor vs Tony Ferguson. Fighting Nate would be entertaining but that will not reinforce Conor's position as the lightweight champion.
Also who is the best of the 3 for you, Nate, Tony or Khabib?
I don't know I think all of them are interesting and will have huge drama behind it which is always fun for the build up. Khabib is probaly the hardest fight and would be a big show if it's in Russia. Nate because of the trilogy thing. Ferguson because Conor would prove if he can defend a belt. So all good fights in my book. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4agZ5u9F6DgDana White says that Nate Diaz trilogy against Conor McGregor is internet bullshit. The match that makes sense now is going to be Tony Ferguson vs Conor McGregor. Of course McGregor has enough power in UFC now to choose who he fights so he might disagree with that. To be honest any of the 3 fights will be fun to watch.
|
|
|
|
You seemed convinced before that Bitcoin would revert to 1x, what changed your mind on that?
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. 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. Realpolitik (PoW is a plutocracy, big money decides, etc) aside, I have problems with this kind of attitude:
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 find it very exciting. I would love to see so many people lose their BTC. It is a perfect way to teach people to stop disrespecting people who try to be helpful and who are knowledgeable. 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 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 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/bt2btc1 B2X goes for 0.15 BTC right now. |
|
|
|
But isn't "BTCSegWit" and TRB or BTCSatoshi or however we want to call it on the same team effectively? Even if they don't like each other, since both share the legacy chain (and both MP's crew and Core don't want to hardfork the legacy chain, so that is a huge stake against hardforkers because Core devs are pretty loaded too and ready to dump on forks, plus control bitcoin.org which is the highest ranked website for "bitcoin" and warn noobs about hardforks), as long as you are holding BTC in legacy addresses and not segwit addresses, you will not have any BTC stolen in case SegWit ever goes south, and you will keep recieving any further hardfork-coins (like Bitcoin Gold coming soon, 2x or whatever). So I don't see the problem. Just hold BTC in legacy chain in legacy format addresses for max protection against this type of events. This is another test of strength for BTC. It should survive 2x, if it does then I don't think any of the forks will have much relevancy. We will find out soon. I think enough hashrate will be mining legacy chain to survive a potential attack. f2pool is signaling "intention" for 2x for example, but they will not actually mine it. I don't know what the super whales are doing, but they should also be working to incentivize miners into keep mining the legacy chain so I predict other miners that signed the NYA will keep mining legacy. What they aren't going to do is support any fork just because it doesn't have segwit. PS: I didn't dump 100% of my BCH so if it pumps then cool. Left some basically because I know Roger and co have a ton of money too and figured they would try to pump it too eventually. But they may jump ship and join 2x at least temporarily to cause damage on legacy chain and try to market BCH as a safe place, with these guys you never know. In fact this seems to be the case already with Roger saying he will list 2x as BTC on his website: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1835#issuecomment-334869248PS2: The damage of segwit going south would indeed be brutal for the whole ecosystem and yet to be seen if BTC as a whole would survive it if there is a ton of segwit adoption. Let's hope it never happens. Like I said I will be holding my main stack on legacy format so im not worried, but the price crash would be obvious and pretty much everyone on Core would be on suicide watch after a such a fuck up. As a non programmer, I never understood why all these people which are supposed to be super smart, would all gamble with the project they've put endless hours at, their entire careers, and potentially their lives because there would be a lot of pissed off people at them if it happens. So I assumed the chances of segwit fucking up are unrealistic, otherwise I just fail to understand it. Why would they all be for segwit if the fuck up is a realistic scenario? |
|
|
|
I'm surprised no one is comparing Tony Ferguson to Nate Diaz. They both have similar toughness and durability. McGregor couldn't finish Nate. There's a chance McGregor won't be able to finish Tony Ferguson either. If that's the case, it could be another 5 round war like the 2nd Nate vs Conor fight was.
Kevin Lee's boxing was much improved in his fight with Ferguson. Kevin Lee sparred with Floyd Mayweather to help him prepare for Conor's MMA style of boxing. Tony Ferguson didn't look as good as he normally does, its because Kevin Lee is very good & underrated in a lot of the things he does.
Tony Ferguson has actually a reach a bit longer than Nate Diaz. It's 76.5 in (194 cm) for Ferguson and 76.0 in (193 cm) for Diaz. Ferguson is 5'11'' and Nate is 6'0''. I think the extra reach for Ferguson is the best physical advantage. Height is good for extra weight and ground game but with Conor I don't see it going to the ground. I think it may be a similar fight with Nate Diaz, but Ferguson may try to get a takedown and end it up like the first Diaz fight.. it is a tricky fight. I want to see Khabib or Ferguson fight Conor, both are good. |
|
|
|
I haven't read the article yet, from what I have researched previously. I support 2X 100%. I think it is just what Bitcoin needs. I support 2x for two reasons, 1)the scaling solutions it brings. This is long overdue. 2) to stop these bullying tactics by core. Now let me go read the article. It's not needed. Look at the mempool, it's pretty empty: https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/Transactions are fast and cheap now that Roger Ver stopped the spam because he is running out of money. Also there's already 10% of segwit transactions, going for like 10 cents and pretty fast. Why do we need to risk a hardfork with stupid devs again? stop being emotional about Core. Hardfork is not needed from a technical perspective, period. Any other opinions are invalid and attack to Bitcoin. Look at Bitfinex futures, B2X is going for 0.21 https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt2btcSegwit2x is another dead on arrival hardfork sorry. |
|
|
|
NYA has much more money, power and scientists on board than you might know
That's strange, I don't see any scientists supporting segwit2x. In fact, most of the "scientists" in Bitcoin (i.e. the developers and technical community) do not support segwit2x. Looks like big blockers might be confused by Gavin Andresen calling himself "Chief Scientist" while supporting every single bitcoin hardfork under the sun https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=224He has literally supported everything since Bitcoin XT, confusing newbies into thinking these hardforks are legit and supported by the smart people. Very sad! segwit2x can fork off and find that no one is actually using their coin.
Indeed. The problem is when attackers list their altcoin as "BTC" on their bribed exchanges because they are scared to find out what people really want on the market. More confusing of the noobs strategy. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Gold will start oct 25 but we know Bitcoin Segwit2X HF in november. So is it same or not?
It's not the same project, the developers and services behind each one of them are different. I don't support 2X but Bitcoin Gold is far from being anything serious, there is not even enough info about it. Bitcoin Gold is a "friendly" fork because 1) It does not claim to be BTC. Uses its own token tag and it's own address format to not confuse noobs into sending real BTC into other blockchain, like what happened with BCash since the address format is identic. 2) It does not use the same hashing algo as BTC, meaning that they are not trying to steal hashrate from the real Bitcoin. 3) They have replay protection Notice how segwit2x is the worst hardfork ever since it doesn't comply with none of the above. |
|
|
|
I miss to watch the fight but my prediction and analysis favor to Ferg for a win. I have no doubt that Tony would win this fight, based on the fight result
it lasted for 3 rounds via submission,good job Tony ! But i doubt that Ferg and Mcgregor match would not gonna happen earlier next year. Ferg is inferior for McGregor's fighting skills.
I did watch previous fight of Tony Ferguson, although he is a freak of nature, he has also this ability to be hit just like in the Abel fight. If Conor hits him like that he will be KO for sure. I think Conor is leaning towards Diaz fight again. So I doubt that Conor - Ferguson will happen. However, I favor Conor to win if they face in the ring. Conor stand up skills will overcome Tony's aggressiveness. Both of them are tall and awkward, but Conor is just above them all in terms of skills. I'm sure that Conor will KO Tony. I watched Tony Ferguson vs Lee live, IF Ferguson fight McGregor, McGregor will win 100%. Ferguson is like no def on that match against Lee, Lee is good on the first round but gassed on 2nd round and dead on 3rd round. Ferguson is good on recovery and ground battle though. But if he fight against McGregor, pretty sure mcgregor win. Kevin Lee did pretty good. I wonder to what extent that infection on his chest was draining his energy. I would like to see a rematch, but for sure, the big match right now is McGregor vs Fergusson. He called him out, the drama is now ready for this match to happen. McGregor said that he wanted to fight again this year and he wanted Khabib tho, so im not sure if we will see this fight happen before Khabib. I hope McGregor still shines in the UFC after getting beaten in boxing by TBE. Hopefully there was no brain damage on the boxing match because he got hit a bunch of times on the late rounds. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
