Oh yes, that's another posibility... If Wu is a figurehead for someone with other interests, his actions will uncover him in the long term.
You say his actions will uncover him in long term... Isn't it already happening? Or happened? Have you already forgot the Unlimited fiasco? |
|
|
|
Use a public campaign claiming BTC is used for money laundering, funding criminals / terroists and unsafe. Oh, hang on, they have already been saying that for the past 5 years...
Anyone else agree we are already past the fight section?
I think we are now in the 'lets compete by making an authorised version' hence the big banks and government moving to blockchain technology whilst still ridiculing crypto-currencies in general.
Also you're confusing Bitcoin for Blockchain Technology. Two different things, Bitcoin was just the technology's first adopter. |
|
|
|
About the PBOC i am not 100% sure Bitcoin is not in their best interests. And I would guess they are also not sure. The macroeconomic implications of Bitcoin are so complex that I don't think no parties really know. And that's why no government has made any extreme move about it.
Bitcoin is a means to subvert PBOC policy so it is hard to see how they can be in favor of it. Wu will be a tool of PRC policy when the Central Committee decides it has a Bitcoin policy. China is a communist dictatorship. THANK. YOU. Finally someone is catching with how I see the way it works. |
|
|
|
If a billionaire attempted a hostile takeover, the proof of work could be changed rather trivially.
This is a point! This is why I believe in Core. But how fast it could be done until we need a massive rollback Buterin's style? It's going to cost a lot of money for such an attempt to take place. Usually billionaries are very wary on where and how they spend their money, otherwise they wouldn't be billionaries in the first place.  Actually you didn't answer my question. I don't care about what motivation would move a billionaire, just how fast the proof of work could be changed. |
|
|
|
The macroeconomic implications of Bitcoin are so complex that I don't think no parties really know. And that's why no government has made any extreme move about it.
Except for a few stupid congressmen moved by the smell of their asses. |
|
|
|
If a billionaire attempted a hostile takeover, the proof of work could be changed rather trivially.
This is a point! This is why I believe in Core. But how fast it could be done until we need a massive rollback Buterin's style? |
|
|
|
Breaking news 2018: Trump wants to take over bitcoins and orders all of America to fight the war on cryptocurrencies by developing their own super asic to beat the Chinese at their own game. Every American will have to buy an asic and join TrumoPool to enjoy their freedoms. 51% attack to follow.
That definitely would MAGA. If POTUS decide not to shut crypto down, we would get finally rid of Wu's evil empire. As much as I don't like Wu tactics, there's something your should consider. Wu is way more invested in Bitcoin than 99.99% so, no matter what tactics he employs in the short/medium term it is in his best interest that Bitcoin is a fucking success in the long term. You have a point, sir. Unless Wu is just a character played by People's Republic of China, which surely may not have the best interests. |
|
|
|
Breaking news 2018: Trump wants to take over bitcoins and orders all of America to fight the war on cryptocurrencies by developing their own super asic to beat the Chinese at their own game. Every American will have to buy an asic and join TrumoPool to enjoy their freedoms. 51% attack to follow.
That definitely would MAGA. If POTUS decide not to shut crypto down, we would get finally rid of Wu's evil empire. |
|
|
|
Use a public campaign claiming BTC is used for money laundering, funding criminals / terroists and unsafe. Oh, hang on, they have already been saying that for the past 5 years...
Anyone else agree we are already past the fight section?
I think we are now in the 'lets compete by making an authorised version' hence the big banks and government moving to blockchain technology whilst still ridiculing crypto-currencies in general.
This is a losing tactic. I believe Bitcoin is anti-fragile, public campaigns would only raise attention for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
1- Ok, let's take another example, Mark Zuckerberg does it to rekt the Winklevoss once again. It's not that easy to move the amounts of money needed without noone knowing. Less so to hire the needed personal (ASIC designers, etc), less so to make a chinesse factory produce them, less easy to transport, install and put all that ASIC's on a giant plant requiring HUGE amounts of electrical energy..... No, really, you can't do that something of that scale in a covert way.
Maybe I am wrong, then tell me how you would do it and I will try to find the failure on your plan.
2- Oh yeah, the goverments could do it with legislation, of course, but I guess that's not what we were talking about.
3- Yet they all have demonstrated to be a "fragile" pot sometimes/somewhere along the history. Nothing is 100% safe.
4- That's my main point.
I just created another topic to discuss it, you're welcome there. |
|
|
|
Yes, you could probably take over Bitcoin with around $1Billion. That would destroy Bitcoin AND your billion. Now.. why some individual like Bill Gates would feel like doing that? What would be the impact in PR for doing it? How much more would he lose?
Bill Gates was just an example, but we can think about some Bankers willing to do that. Would it necessarily have to be in the clear? I mean, I can think about some ways to do this undercover, so no PR impact. Now let's see one goverment (USA?) does it. The economical cost is almost negligible but.... again... a government destroying something that is not ilegal, fucking millions of people all around the world for no reason and, probably, with no way to cover/hid the action?
Why no way to cover/hid it? And I think it's STILL not illegal, Congressmen are taking their time to corner OTC trades and harden AML/KYC regulations. Is the pot "fragile"? Maybe... now let's compare it with how fragile are other pots:
- FIAT (well, you know).
- PM's (See Executive Order 6102)
- Stocks (see the large liss of crashes over time)
- Real state (safe most of the time, but it can also be easily confiscated as its absolutely not mobile)
All you listed above are known to have huge Big Players participation (a few families, Banks and the government itself) So, nothing to lose dream at night, but as I always say, follow the Triple D: Diversify, Diversify, Diversify.
I can agree with that. |
|
|
|
The main threats to Bitcoin are widely known, like 51% attack, Quantum computing breaking criptography, etc. But based on this:  Although we all wish Bitcoin will some day be the #1 in value exchange worldwide adopted, it's easy to see that economically speaking Bitcoin is still a dwarf. I can imagine many reasons Bankers and/or Governments would want to shut down and forbid decentralized trustless criptocurrencies. So what is stopping them to do this? You'll say: 1st they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then (maybe) you win. In my opinion Bitcoin economic size puts it in the "they laugh at you" level, as we can see MSM is doing in this: https://news.bitcoin.com/mainstream-journalist-makes-bizarre-attempt-at-living-for-a-week-using-bitcoin/If I'm right, the next step is "they fight you". How do you fellows see weapons and tactics to take Bitcoin over by a powerful agent? Don't even need to bring a counter-attack tactic, just how would you smart guys do that if you had unlimited economic power. |
|
|
|
So it says that if someone with Bill Gates net worth (there's a bunch of guys dirty rich like him, isn't it?) or any government feels like investing in create an ASIC more powerful than the actual Antminer then secretly building some mining farms, the whole Bitcoinland could be easily taken over? How much fragile is the pot where we're putting our money? Because I can think many reasons a government or some powerful banks would want to shut all this down. Apologies if I'm sounding naïve, I'm not a scientist, I'm only a curious Average Joe. |
|
|
|
I just realised Stamp has around 500 coins in sell orders. While Finex has 5700+. I never had a clue about the size discrepancy of these two exchanges.  ? Stamp has 2250BTC up to $3000, whilst bitfinex has around 3000BTC. There's not that much difference... At cryptowat.ch I'm grouping the orders in 10 BTC steps and last value shown is $2760.00 at Bitstamp summing around 500 BTC. While at Bitfinex grouping in 50 BTC the last relevant step is $3400.00 summing 5100+ BTC. Am I doing something wrong? I don't use cryptowatch. I use bitcoinwisdom. There's more than 2000BTC up to $3000 at Bitstamp. P.S.: Oh, so you are comparing how many coins are in Bitstamp up to 2760 vs how many in Bitfinex up to $3400? Well, that explains the discrepancy. No, you got it wrong. The last value shown for Bitstamp is $2760, which made me believe there weren't no more orders over it. But since you told me another tool (bitcoinwisdom) shows more orders over this value I believe cryptowat.ch is buggy. Try grouping orders in a scale of 10 BTC and tell me if it's different of what I'm seeing here. I think you gave the solution in your own question. You are grouping sell orders for Bitstamp in $10 blocks while for Bitfinex you are using $50 blocks.... Maybe there is a limit in rows displayed? I am sure both exchanges have orders up to the very high thousands (ppl camping for a flash spike/crash). So there's much more than what you are seeing displayed. I don't think it's due to a limit in rows displayed, if that was the case a larger number of coins would be shown at Bitstamp's book, but it does not show a relevant number of coins being sold over $2770 right now. Anyway, I believe maybe cryptowat.ch is bugged. |
|
|
|
I just realised Stamp has around 500 coins in sell orders. While Finex has 5700+. I never had a clue about the size discrepancy of these two exchanges. ? Stamp has 2250BTC up to $3000, whilst bitfinex has around 3000BTC. There's not that much difference... At cryptowat.ch I'm grouping the orders in 10 BTC steps and last value shown is $2760.00 at Bitstamp summing around 500 BTC. While at Bitfinex grouping in 50 BTC the last relevant step is $3400.00 summing 5100+ BTC. Am I doing something wrong? I don't use cryptowatch. I use bitcoinwisdom. There's more than 2000BTC up to $3000 at Bitstamp. P.S.: Oh, so you are comparing how many coins are in Bitstamp up to 2760 vs how many in Bitfinex up to $3400? Well, that explains the discrepancy. No, you got it wrong. The last value shown for Bitstamp is $2760, which made me believe there weren't no more orders over it. But since you told me another tool (bitcoinwisdom) shows more orders over this value I believe cryptowat.ch is buggy. Try grouping orders in a scale of 10 BTC and tell me if it's different of what I'm seeing here. |
|
|
|
I just realised Stamp has around 500 coins in sell orders. While Finex has 5700+. I never had a clue about the size discrepancy of these two exchanges. It's probably why the exchange is higher than other exchanges. Not sure why people don't sell as much there though if prices are indeed higher. A few months ago we were calling it Bearstamp because Bitfinex's prices were $100+ over Stamp. |
|
|
|
I just realised Stamp has around 500 coins in sell orders. While Finex has 5700+. I never had a clue about the size discrepancy of these two exchanges. ? Stamp has 2250BTC up to $3000, whilst bitfinex has around 3000BTC. There's not that much difference... At cryptowat.ch I'm grouping the orders in 10 BTC steps and last value shown is $2760.00 at Bitstamp summing around 500 BTC. While at Bitfinex grouping in 50 BTC the last relevant step is $3400.00 summing 5100+ BTC. Am I doing something wrong? |
|
|
|
I just realised Stamp has around 500 coins in sell orders. While Finex has 5700+. I never had a clue about the size discrepancy of these two exchanges. |
|
|
|
Could we stay on topic gentlemen? ^^
Note that I don't mind discussing politics but there is a part on the forum dedicated for that. Especially as I don't see how Trump is linked to BTC price... He won't do anything to make the dollar stronger: I don't think he wants to, he doesn't care at all about his country or its economy, and even if he wanted to I'm not sure he could do anything.
And on topic: Did you see how the price is on the rise again? Do you think there is a link with the segwit2x increasing support?
Typical globalist/MSM brainwashed trying to ignore POTUS Donald Trump importance in taking back power to people comment. |
|
|
|
Yeah, but what code is going to be run?
Will it be the segwit tested code or some inferior variation?
It will be hopefully be SegWit activated via Bit 91 which makes SegWit2x and BIP141 (Core Segregated Witness) compatible. BIP91 activates at an 80% hash threshold and rejects any non-SegWit signalling blocks and is signaled via bit 4 per the Silbert Accord. Once BIP91 activates it functions like the USAF reject any blocks that do not signal support for SegWit through bit 1. Thus it is compatible with BIP148. BIP141 is activated through the activation method defined by BIP9. This means that 95 percent of all blocks within a two-week period need to include a piece of data: bit 1 Following BIP91 the longest valid Bitcoin chain will consist of SegWit-signaling blocks only, and all regular BIP141 SegWit nodes will activate the protocol upgrade as the 95% threshold will be activated. The only folks who would potentially not fall under the umbrella of BIP91 would be miners who opposed both Core SegWit and SegWit2x. There is a good and detailed writeup in bitcoin magazine by Aaron van Wirdum. BIP91: The SegWit Activation "Kludge" That Should Keep Bitcoin Whole https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bip91-segwit-activation-kludge-should-keep-bitcoin-whole/I had seen that Bitcoin magazine article soon after it released; however, your above description seems to bring some additional clarification to this matter, and maybe in the end, the segwit portion of the code is going to be fairly solid and implemented from the already tested versions.... and then we just have to wait for the next portion to see whether some uncertainties evolve from the rest of it, that involves the 2mb testing, implementation and whether there is sufficient consensus in regards to the hard forking of that... Accordingly, we might be able to get through a few months before the next crisis hits, no? OctoBEAR-ish? FTFY EDIT: IMO OctoBULL-ish. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
