You're entirely right, except there is no "prophetic mysticism" or "gnosis", as you're implying. It was always just the logic of tyrannical merchants, the same instinct that led the early Machiavllians to suggest to monarchs that the meaning of money should be subverted with face values. This allowed the monarch and their advisers to control the supply, and use that mechanism to control the economy.




Like I've said up-thread, this wouldn't even matter if it were true (and you've provided no evidence, not even a reasoned supposition)

If big power-broking dynasties created Bitcoin with decades of research, which is entirely possible, they would create the end-game solution themselves, not mess around creating stages on the road to the end-game. It would be too tempting to take the greater share of the end-game crypto coin to begin with, and too risky to introduce a weakened concept only for someone else to alight on the end-game crypto coin without your being aware of the early stages so as to capitalise maximally.


And, for the millionth time, if you have a killer crypto currency design to free us all forever, provide proof. Anything at all. Which you have summarily failed to do thus far (and you've been doing nothing but talk about it for, is it 6 years yet?)

Is that a concrete proposal

Well, that's a whole load of wrong "thinking" they're doing (and I don't believe it. That's what jonald & trolls say, but they can only be thinking something completely different)


The devs cannot decide the blocksize without taking the users with them, it's that simple. External devs have tried to convince users to accept 2MB blocksize increases twice (XT & Classic), and no-one followed them. That demonstrates that the users are ultimately in charge, whatever the devs propose.

And why wouldn't BU want this?

If EC is the greatest idea ever, why would they pass on being the early miners earning 50 BTU per block? The early Bitcoin miners who enjoyed that are now mega-rich.


Their excuse has always been "I want to protect my BTC holdings, and the BTC of others". It's just bizarre reasoning, and (strangely) has the effect of doing the opposite, as they want to use hashrate to prevent the actual BTC chain from existing

Am I the only one who thinks they're lying from one side of their faces to the other, and that they're just trying to be as disruptive to Bitcoin as possible?

There might be sufficient numbers of users, developers and miners who don't want Bitcoin with Segwit, who prefer the status quo. You can choose to use that fork if it happens, or you could use both quite easily too (you'd own coins on both forks).

I don't accept that Segwit needs more testing though. Just saying "it needs more testing" isn't very convincing, eithre you have an actual reason, or you don't.

Segwit's been acitvated on Bitcoin testnet for a very long time now, something like 1 year. Lightning is already being tested out on Bitcoin Testnet as a result of that. If professional software engineers running specific tests, that include the more sophisticated use-case for Segwit such as Lightning, cannot convince you, it's difficult to imagine what could.


I agree with 1 point, BIP148 isn't quite what one would think of calling User Activated.

Who cares if they did?



I've already handled this before. It's irrelevant who created it in the end, it is what it is, and it cannot be stopped.

That's the whole point. People misunderstand these megalomaniac, they see them as evil incarnate. Sure they've been sordid as hell in the past, and one could argue that this demonstrates their human fallibility, not their omniscience.



But there's one thing these uber-whales seems to get right consistently: extra long term planning, based entirely on logic. Like their inter-generational wishlist to the Santa Claus of totalitarianism

Examples of Elites planning Long-Term

Monotheistic Religions

From the Pantheon (and Paganism before it), the flocks were led to monotheism. Monotheism was simple organisational logic, it put all the wisdom and authority into a single set of stories, administered by a single, internal hierarchical structure. The Pantheon couldn't confer the hierarchical structure that Monotheism did, simply because it was not hierarchical, the anthropomorphised forces of nature that each deity represented could contradict one another in power plays, as it was a oligarchy, not a monarchy. Monotheism took the power structure and the mythology, and placed it all under a single ruler, "One nation under god".


The Book of Revelation

Written nearly 2 thousand years ago (i.e. not in the gnostic Bibles), predicted today's "mark of the beast" situation, not by divine inspiration, but by logic alone. The merchant's logic told the authors that a system where the control of who is permitted to buy or sell was the ultimate "key to the granaries". It took hundreds of years of refinement, but the ultimate such system is nearly upon us today, in the guise of the sleepwalk into the cashless society (and buttressed by ideas like the PRC's "social credit" system)


Crowleyism

Crowleyism was a smart invention of a British MI6 agent, Aleister Crowley. He basically parodied liberalism into such a cleverly devised caricature that even today people are being expected to believe it (not totally sure how widely believed it really is).

But even for those that do not believe it, Crowleyism is still very powerful, but used still used against disbelievers as a smokescreen. Classic British TV serial "The Prisoner" evokes Crowleyism subtly to associate individualism with Crowleyism (and conservatism). What did the first exhibitor of the JFK assassination Zapruder film footage underground cable news presenter Geraldo Rivera go on to cover in the 1980's? Crowleyism (by way of the "Satanic Panic"). What was Charles Manson associated with subsequent to the Tate murders? Crowleyism. Stanley Kubrick very subtly associates nationalism, liberalism and Crowleyism together in various films. What was British TV personality sir Jimmy Saville associated with shortly after the media coverage of his decades of paedophile rapes and sexual assaults? Crowleyism.

And last but not least, modern Libertarianism has already been conflated with Crowleyism by a veteran of the Libertarian circuit, Doug Casey. And the soft-fascist corporatism we know and love has been given double treatment, whereby soft-fascim is conflated with Liberalism (read the now popular "neo-Liberalism" buzzword), which in turn evokes Crowley's parody of Liberalism and Individualism.

Clever stuff. Essentially, whenever the establishment want to sweep something under the rug, or sully it, they invoke Crowleyism somehow. The world and the child-beings who inhabit it appear to accept this.


These people (like the Rothschilds) are not stupid. They plan very assiduously, and the idea that someone like the Rothschilds funded attempts to create a decentraised cryptocurrency is plainly very plausible. The cypherpunk mailing group discussions that people like Hal Finney, Adam Back and Nick Szabo contributed to were available for all to see, and the evidence that the establishment began to investigate the possibilities of cypherpunkism abounds. What does everyone think the ultra-rich powerbrokers do all day, sit around fingering each other's assholes? They plan. And if it's possible, they front-run it, so that they're always the ones who get there first, ready to take first spoils.

Is that proof that some lone individual wasn't Satoshi? No. But just blurting out "it waz The Rothschilds!!!1" is chilidish and without merit or reason. Sure they could have been behind Satoshi, they will have given themselves every opportunity. But one does not become an ultra-rich dynasty without being a realist, which means these people wear many hats, both ruthless and pragmatic alike.

Yes.

The fundamental value that Bitcoin presents doesn't change because a sub-reddit shuts, or some corporations stop accepting BTC.

The network is in better shape than it's ever been, resistant to all sorts of attacks launched against it by some interested party or parties over the years (I wonder who they could have been.... )


As long as Bitcoin holders do well at evaluating the risks we're presented with in the shape of this latest attack (BU), we shouldn't have a problem in the end.

It's a big if, but I believe we can do it. Weak hands will bail. But those who got it to begin with will use the same instincts to find the way out, as there is a way. BU is a serious threat, no doubt about it, but we can overcome it. On the other side, great things await.

Your fake libertarianism shines through once again Jonald.


I'm really pleased that large corporations who get unfair advantages in the marketplace from their politician buddies are no longer accepting BTC, I don't want to give them my Bitcoin anyway.

Meanwhile, smaller independent businesses still accept BTC, particularly in places with a liberal tradition (USA, Great Britain, Netherlands, Czech Republic etc). Even socialist places like Argentina and Venezuela are still into BTC for the right reasons.


Take your fakery elsewhere, you are not and never have been wanted

It's very simple (I know you're not capable of presenting things simply)


Big hodlings of whales does not = economic majority.

Economic majority = the number of economic actors multiplied by their hodlings. Because Metcalffe effect.


Now please, be quiet

And the true irony of it all?


iamnotback is making (one of his) conclusions the same as mine, but for the wrong reasons.

Changing the Proof of Work is the ultimate answer to BU, but the whales just don't have the network effect to make it happen. Who's going to accept the PoW algo they choose, if it benefits them and their rich buddies? Not the real economic majority.

Wrong

I'm making a point which renders your 9 page "argument" null and void, and you therefore cannot refute it.

You've refuted nothing, not once.

You've simply made a bunch of unbacked assertions, forcefully. Because you're (gasp) wrong


Refute what I've said with something you can actually substantiate

How will the whales shortsell BTU if their BTC is already at the exchanges?


They must withdraw before the fork, the exchanges aren't going to just gift them their BTU doublings when the blockchain forks.



Again: How, then, will these whales get their BTC to the exchanges to shortsell with, in those circumstances? BTC chain won't work under BU hashpower attack, therefore they won't be able to


Again: Which exchange can the whales trust in those circumstances? It's a very dicey move

This all started with you claiming that "longest chain wins no matter what", now you're changing your story to "whales win no matter what"....

Which? And why are you replying in the wrong thread, is it to give you and your thread much craved attention, or just trying to confuse the reader? hmmmmm?


Seriously, sort yourself out

Wait, there is no evidence of Vermin's BTC wealth, apart from him flapping his mouth? And there never has been......

Interesting

The way I imagined it was:

Maintain the opt-in checkbox on the Send form, and create an overridden/inherited version of the right-click contextual menu that only presents "RBF" option for those transactions for which the opt-in had been stipulated in the Send form.

I think I see what you're getting at with chains of zero-confs though, but is it not the case that doing it as I describe would force the user in such circumstances to figure out for themselves which dependent tx is holding the others up? i.e. it would force the user to take responsibility for setting their own fees, and discourage bad practices, like creating chains of dependent tx's with insufficient fees?

Would making it easier in one way, yet making it harder feature to discover and understand in others, achieve less abuse of the RBF feature in practice?

What iamnotback (aka AnnoyMint) is missing....

• The whales have the BTC & BTU.
• BU has the hashpower.

Hashpower wins. With a combination of the BU design, and >51% nodes (sybil nodes) and >51% hashpower, the BTC price would go to hell, along with the network.



Explain, Annoymint, what difference will it make that BTC whales can shortsell BTU, when the BU chain can just drive the BTC chain into the ground, courtesy of it's design making it like a weaponised blockchain?

With USD/BTC dropping fast, fiat whales can inflate BTU price, while the BU chain can stop the BTC chain dead in it's tracks, killing USD/BTC.



Analysis fail. Give everyone their 9 pages of reading back, IMO

I know all these things.

What you're failing to appreciate is the amount of trust required to handle huge sums of BTC in such fraught circumstances. If you don't own the keys, you don't own the BTC, and depositing thousands of BTC to exchange-owned addresses is not going to be a comfortable move at a time like that.

Where are these whales going to deposit to sell or short? Coinbase? Shapeshift? BTC-e? Bitsquare? MPeX itself? The potential for losing in all sorts of ways, both internal to those exchanges or by external forces are too risky in a post hardfork cirmcumstance.


And how, oh how, will the whales get the BTC to an exchange, when BU miners are actively DoS'ing the BTC chain, as they've stated is their intention?


Details do matter.

That's a lot of ifs, so maybe your "important work" should begin with getting a proper sense of perspective

Everything you're saying is a diversion anyway


Longest chain, most PoW, does not matter once the 2 chains are separate, they're separate coins at that point. And that is the point.

So, saying miners are compelled to follow the longest chain is meaningless. By that logic, there would be no altcoins in existence, as they would all have to observe the chain with the most PoW. Which is demonstratively untrue, to wit: a thousand altcoins.


You made 2 false claims. I've demonstrated them false.

Apologise.

Why not make it more direct? i.e. Right click eligible zero confs in the main tx window, a new (and probably simpler) dialog handles the fee bumping.

Presumably bumping the fee on some inputs and not others is meaningless, as all inputs are children of the overall parent transaction, for which there is a single fee applied for every byte? Makes sense to me, especially now that age-related priority is deprecated and on it's way to retirement.