Sale pending.

I don't intend to sound contrarian.  Over time I've moved to hoping core wins in spite of their many missteps as they're obviously the more qualified candidates.

But we aren't being "forced" into anything.  Anymore than the big blockers yelling about how they were being "forced into high fees by greedy miners" a year ago.  The governance we've chosen is governing. 

If we don't like it, the only way to move is with our usage & money.  I've watched this entire thing go on since Bitcoin XT.  It began as a whisper, grew louder and louder.  I left for a year and came back with 40% of the hashpower directed at BTCU.  In addition to the btc reddit being almost as active as the bitcoin reddit (thank you censorship).  This is hardly some weird loudmouthed faction.  It has steadily grown into almost a consensus over a few years.

There is plenty of blame to go around in this entire debacle.  Both sides are so busy screaming it's almost impossible to figure out what's really going on.

http://xtnodes.com/#block_explorer


In the last 24 hours (144 blocks), Unlimited + Classic hashrate is ~1420 PH/s (45.1%) of the total Bitcoin network (3145 PH/s).

In the last 7 days   (1000 blocks), Unlimited + Classic hashrate is ~1214 PH/s (38.6%) of the total Bitcoin network (3145 PH/s).

Am I missing something?

Bitmex force sold my sort (thought I was crazy) while I was in profit.

Then I realized that they have a clause for auto liquidating to cover people who are forced to cover because the trade went the wrong way.

"If the liquidation cannot be filled by the time the mark price reaches the bankruptcy price, the ADL system automatically deleverages opposing traders’ positions by profit and leverage priority."

... and I noticed I'm at the top of the "to be liquidated to cover longs" priority list.  Kraken just allows 5X margin, Bitfinex just allows 3X.  Is there anywhere I can go to get 15X?

Thanks Smooth ... & thanks for letting the OT slide.

Ah yeah I hadn't thought about the majority hiking short rates into oblivion.  Makes sense.

Saw that reddit post from some poor bastard who lost it all - with "it all" being a helluva lot shorting it all the way to like $90

Edit:  Is there a way for me to see current interest rates on Polo?  Looks like Bitmex is just 2% annually. 

Good to see you back Anonymint.  You should get them to give you your old user back .

Bitcoin Ulimited has fallen to 38.5% of the previous blocks mined.  This is possible variance.  I understand that 75%+ of the mining power is in China but that doesn't necessarily mean all the mining lords agree.  Are we really confident there is going to be a fork?  

For the record - I've put my money where my mouth is and taken on a massive leveraged short several days ago.  "This is just FUD.  Buy and Hold.  Nothing to see here." when there are full blocks, and a goddamned civil war going on with 40% of the hash power threatening bigger blocks.  I think people are naive.  But I do have a few questions.

Why core won't agree to 2MB blocks + SEGWIT rather than the forkening alternative.  How is this not a likely outcome?

On a longer term scale - how can a PoW system provide sustainable security without all fees going to the miners when there is a future 0 inflation rate?

If 75% of fees are going to cheaper offchain transactions (which I think is likely - I haven't done the math but I assume a far larger amount of money is spent in lower transactions than higher transactions that would be onchain).  It's literally an upside down pyramid with the market cap being the top.  And the percentage of the market cap spent on securing the network on the bottom.

The larger it grows, the smaller the security to market cap ratio it gets.  I don't see anyone talking about this but I've been concerned about it for a few years.  How is this not ultimate doom for any crypto that takes it's fees offchain?

This is the third attempt for bigger blocks.  I am to the point of assuming if this one fails the miner cartels will literally hire their own miners and simply take over the bitcoin network.

So guys, I've been out of the crypto space for about a year. 

Came back to Monero's huge rise (congrats!), Ethereum's parabolic rise (not really a surprise) but Dash???

Figured it'd be dead or well below XMR by now.  Can someone give me the basic rundown on what's happened to it in the last year?  I'm aware of the premine, marketing as anon when it wasn't, masternodes, etc.  Has anything really changed?  I hear Roger Ver was pushing it?

Kinda contemplating opening a short against it against Monero or just fiat

Source on the miners saying this?  Did they mention what hash they wanted before they started?

Super curious about this situation.  There's something that just isn't adding up ...

I'm asserting that thruput needs to be more than 7tps.  A lot more.  With low fees for it to keep growing.  If I'd allowed my network get to choke points for years while knowing it would likely take 6 - 12 months to upgrade without pushing a viable solution while hard drive space & bandwidth price ratio had gone down 10x.  And then started pushing a controversial solution that would jack with the entire ecosystem of fees for security until just months ago - I'd be fired.  Especially if there was an alternate employee who was offering a network with 8x the thruput / lower fees if thruput not needed while trying to force my controversial change as the only alternative.

Bitcoin Unlimited is the third employee offering a solution.  They are currently sitting at almost 40 of the 100 directors voting yes.

Absolutely - we agree.


We agree.


Absolutely hilarious.  People have been clamoring for more & cheaper thruput for three iterations over two years.  And your analysis of all of them AND the 40% & counting of the hashpower holding up your 20 bil project is "a bunch of loud mouthers".

51% is needed before you have enough leverage to start convincing people.  It's by design.  Social 99.5% consensus is preferred but not needed.

It opens up side channels.  A few years ago I was super stoked about this.  But I did some math on the fees, transaction levels needed to market cap ratio to maintain a high enough hashrate for the network to make it financially difficult to short / fork / profit.

As fees are taken offchain, rewards go away the miner security to market cap ratio will plummet.  I don't *think* it's sustainable - need to go back and do more numbers on average transaction amounts, what will likely be taken offchain, etc. 

But keep up the smug attitudes towards the miners. 

I think this is the most likely.  But XT, Classic, Unlimited - it's only a matter of time before there is a fourth shot. 

Most likely miners who hire their own dev team.  Solve the block problem without SEGWIT, disallow side channels, make the masses calling for lots of capacity / cheap on chain transactions happy & wrestle control of the code away from the trolling developers who've pissed them off.

This is just as accurate as saying "2MB blocks are mostly exactly like SEGWIT but simpler - so everyone should support that."

That is to say, entirely inaccurate. 

Time for bitcoin to go back to GPU's 

Ok then I must have mis characterized.  Essentially you don't think there's any type of serious threat of either BU forking, or not being able to implement SEGWIT on the current timeline?  I guess this explains the situation - if a lot of people think that this BTCU / demand for bigger blocks is just a misnomer then it explains why the core side is acting the way they are.  Should be interesting times.

I assumed 2MB + SEGWIT would be win all around and fairly non confrontational for all sides.  The side that just wanted 2MB gets a bigger block.  The side that wants SEGWIT gets it.  Everyone gets to keep core.  2MB no big deal since internet & hard drive speeds have increased by like 800% since inception.  Etc.  Guess I was wrong.

Thanks for your reply tho - things make a little more sense to me understanding that core & supporters think forking the blockchain is simply never going to happen and that SEGWIT will get implemented with or without the bigger block carrot.

Look.  I'm not thinking in terms of "right" or "wrong".  Just that 40% of the hash power is threatening to upgrade to non core.  You can pop on your fedora & wax eloquent about moral high ground all day if you want.  I literally have no opinion on right/wrong as I'm just a casual buttcoin observer.  

But it is pretty curious that you're about to destroy your coin by allowing all the leverage to be taken from the most qualified developers (which is going to launch my leveraged popcorn futures into oblivion) by being too stubborn to compromise on a little (2mb) to get a lot (SEGWIT + not losing control of the longest blockchain to a bunch of amateurs).  People have been begging for higher thruput / lower fees for the last two years.  So I assume that doesn't live up to whatever justification means in your book.

Because adding a 2mb blocksize in excange for SEGWIT would keep the chains & communities from splitting in two and destroying both sides.  Even if it's not necessary by luke-jr's opinion - if it is 2MB blocks or 2 chains which one is really worse for bitcoin?

This is the third time around.  BitcoinXT, Classic & now Unlimited.  I fully expect this one to die out due to Unlimited's lack of professionalism & experience.  Then continued gridlock on SEGWIT.  At some point the industry will decide it's tired of waiting for > 7tps

Lol, Flat Earth at the top of off topic on bitcointalk.  Why am I not surprised?

Better anonymity.  More elite (and more) devs - like the best in the space.  

I can't remember about the blockchain size.

XMR has more projects because it's been around for 2+ years.  Right now it's purely driven by speculation.  And low supply due to coin release schedule similar to bitcoin (vs XMR releasing all upfront.).

I should have added.  Scamming is 95% of the altcoin space.  So even though Spoetnik is ineffectual.  Everyone squealing should just STFU.  I like Monero and it wasn't a scam (sorry buddy).

But we should have THOUSANDS of more people like you yelling about what they think are scams and maybe this shithole would have a tad more legitimacy

Their anonymity features are different.  Ring signatures vs essentially a ring signature back to every transaction back to the beginning of time.

Zcash = better privacy technology.  paid heavyhitting bets. 
Monero = Fairer / no presale launch.  Been around longer.  Less stress on the blockchain from tons of transactions.

Should I take a shit or eat a cheeseburger?