Do you think a coin design should be worried with quantum resistance, and if yes, does your design offer quantum-resistance / quantum-proofing? Is there any viable solution to be QC-resistant and not bloated at the same time?

Is it capitalism and a "free market" when banks fail and we pay the bill? It's bullshit, that's what it is.
Is it socialism when the governing oligarchy and their circle have extensive privileges over others?

The elite don't have economic ideologies. Economy is just one very important tool, out of many tools, to exercise global control. People fight over socialism, capitalism, and other 'ism's, when there are no such systems in existence. They are all bastard systems, customized to serve other agendas.

Nice to have contingencies in place

As for the bloat, I guess we'll have to wait for some kind of genius solution or workaround.

Fork a multi-billion $$$ currency, shatter confidence in crypto, potentially even destroy lives, because some people don't like some other people - who they don't even know and just read about them in forums, reddit, mailing lists etc? I mean, wtf?

We've gone from the pretense of urgency to ...social disagreements as reasons to destroy bitcoin. Yeah, let's fuck peter todd and lukejr by forking it... that will show them (!) - along with a few million users of BTC. lol?

Ah yeah, network and miners division, right... makes sense. There could be no invalidation from ...competing broadcasts. Ok got it.

China is intentionally low profile in terms of international "incidents". They don't want to draw too much negative attention.

Even if the western elite hate bitcoin with a passion, they will (hypocritically) crucify the chinese for such an attempt. They'll make it top news that "China is panicking and is now after Bitcoin and bitcoiners". The chinese have learned the western modus operandi, they aren't idiots. They have an attitude of "maintain a low profile and steady as she goes" particularly for things related to things which aren't exclusively domestic and/or have international reach. I feel the western elite tried to exploit them with the hearn article, by putting them on the spotlight, presenting them as some kind of "problem" so that they can then try to mitigate this "perception" and thus make them react like "we are not the problem, we'll increase blocksize" to preserve their low profile. Thus they were "played" to start getting out and supporting the "Classic" in order to ...prove that "we aren't the problem, we are easy-going miners, we only want peace and stability, all these stuff that were written about us are false"...

The western elite like to play chess and play everyone like a pawn... what is the chinese miner attribute? Low profile, we don't want any problems, we do what we do and don't really bother with anyone... so with a little bit of upsetting the status quo after the Hearn article => they are placed into the spotlight as a "problem" => this activates their instict to go back to low profile and say "yeah yeah 2mb it is, just leave us alone so we can go back to low profile mode where nobody notices us". However by doing that they are shooting themselves on the foot since forking bitcoin is destructive both for them and bitcoin.

I'm trying to think about this algorithmically and I don't see why...

a) You broadcast your intention to bump up the fee, the other clients are programmed to accept it.
b) You broadcast your intention to bump up the fee and change the address or the amount or something, and the other client is programmed to reject it / consider it invalid if you do that.

If a miner mines transaction (b) and does not consider it invalid => he is orphaned by those who are running the proper client and say "what the fuck did you include in your block? GTFO"

It sounds trivial to me, but then again I'm not a coder so... I suspect the complexities arise from the soft forking approach and trying to satisfy everyone and retain compatibility with all.

If the chinese can produce something domestically, they do.

Why "import" BTCs for dollars, from foreign miners, when they can produce them locally?

If Chinese production of BTCs can satisfy local BTC hunger (prevents USD outflows) or even be used for "export" (USD inflows), then it's a "profitable" activity for their economy.

Check http://cointape.com

Tell me those who are waiting, how much they are paying in fees.

To help you with the math: 1 satoshi = $0.0000040927

From what I see, most want to pay <30 satoshi per byte with a lot of transactions being in the <10 satoshi per byte or 0 satoshi.

Most txs right now who are waiting, are paying <0.05$ - with the bulk paying <0.02$

First block inclusion is at 0.08$ right now.

Such Fullblockalypse... Very fees... WOW

From a game theory perspective it doesn't make much sense for us to wait for the day where it is public knowledge that a QC exists. Given QC attributes as crypto-breaking machines, there's a history of similar crypto-breakthroughs remaining hidden.

If I were the US government / NSA, and I just had a QC developed, why would I disclose it to the world? It would go against my advantage to break cryptography, to have a bitcoin kill-switch, even to hack specific addresses or cold wallets that could disrupt the market, without anyone understanding what hit'em. People would just see money moving from a large address and suppose an exchange got hacked or the owner just took the money and run. "He probably stole the money or got hacked... What QCs? That's science fiction - they don't exist..." - kind of.

So my view is that the game theory is leaning (far) more to the side where a QC would remain undisclosed - at least for several years.

When the network is (openly) attacked, there should be an option (for RBF) where everyone running nodes should be able to disable rbf through some kind of flag until a QC transition is complete. At least that way some transactions involving addresses with 100% unspent coins can still go through without getting attacked, although the first target will definitely be the addresses with spends that are idle / not transacting.

QC-contingency code / different algos should also be ready for deployment, just as alternative pow code has been written for other nightmarish scenarios (as I've read recently). Ideally it should be implemented before the danger is in the open but then again, I read that QC-resistant algorithms are severely bloated - so some kind of smart implementation must be found to bypass the bloat (?).

When money is concerned, perhaps we should not be basing our assumptions on the best-case scenario (?).

Either way

-will the new client have a parameter to disable RBF?
-would it be difficult to make RBF only relevant for a "I made a mistake by insterting a low fee, I want to raise it and skip the queue" scenario and nothing else, like sending money elsewhere or back to yourself?

I just realized something about RBF - please correct any misunderstandings I may have, I'm not a btc developer.

We are all operating under the assumption that a quantum computer doesn't exist - but I'm not so sure that there isn't, or that there won't be pretty soon. In any case, the greatest safeguard we have against such a possibility is storing coins in addresses that have no prior spending in them. So when a QC is on the loose, the best one can do is to spend the full amount in order to not leave any coins behind for priv. key extrapolation and hacking. But this is based on a first seen-first serve scenario. RBF would allow an attacker to see a transaction, extrapolate the priv key and issue a respending with a higher fee, hijacking one's money.

So, from what I understand, RBF reduces the futureproofing / quantum resistance of BTC. Is there a way where it can only be implemented by honoring the initial transactions, plus a higher fee - for those desiring to jump the queue - and reject any other attempts to change the destination?

That part aint very reassuring though:

"We'd have to see how it goes.. maybe we would give people the option to choose their chain, or automatically put them on to one or the other if no action is taken by a certain date."

To sum it up: In the possibility of a hard fork, pull your coins way ahead of time to be sure 100%, with no "we'll see", "maybe", "or", etc. Ahead of time is crucial in case anyone is running a fractional reserve scheme and you want to avoid getting cryptsied in the process with all possible obstacles being thrown your way. That's how bank runs work. First ones get money those late at the bank get nothing.

Darksend implementation back in june '14, was a bucket of 3x3 of 10 DRKs, mixing while sending, only 10 DRK denomination.

V2 a few months later = multiple denominations, multiple laundering cycles, 2 mixing parties, sending and (pre)mixing at different stages for instant sending when needed. This was later upgraded to 3 mixing parties to reduce sybil vector, per Kristov Atlas review.

What news?

1. There's plenty of incentive for an exchange to support btc, btcc or both - as these will have tremendous volume post fork, if the fork materializes. It will definitely be an order of magnitude greater compared to any altcoin action.

2. That's up to you. Just make sure, prior to the fork, to take custody of your coins from any exchange, pool, etc.

In USD terms, naturally as BTC rises. In BTC terms nothing important: https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/btce/ltcbtc

Unless exchanges commit to offering both BTC and BTCC trading, with dual wallets, dual market engines etc, any BTC coins that remain in an exchange that "shifts" to BTCC can (and probably will be) "confiscated" and users will be given only ...gavincoins / BTCCs. Exchanges will have all sort of excuses to offer about how they are not obligated to do dual wallets for every different chain other than the dominant one, etc etc. They can even cite the protocol specifications and claim that the BTCCs are actually the real bitcoins and that BTCs are just an invalid shorter chain or something - so why would they even keep track of them, etc etc.

The fork can easily be a heist tool. Don't leave any coins on pools, exchanges, etc etc before any hard fork. If you own the keys, you'll get btcs AND btccs, so you can then dump whatever you don't like. Don't let exchanges take them and dump them for THEIR profit.

Any exchange that is on the bitcoinclassic.com page, essentially has a stated intention of turning your deposited BTCs into gavincoins / BTCCs and keeping your BTCs - unless they explicitly offer both BTC and BTCC trading options.

Even if one is a BTCC supporter, he'd rather have his BTCs for dumping (or HODLing) instead of the exchange who will keep the profit of the BTC-chain.

Karpeles got away with 700k BTCs and said "oops, malleability bug".

They could easily say "well... you know... hard fork... force majeure! Not our fault".

Why would anyone risk this instead of pulling their money out.

Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.

Regarding existing holders, if you have your own keys you are relatively ok (minus the obvious destruction of USD value), but the situation with coins in online exchanges and wallets will be "problematic" if say an exchange with 500k BTCs, say 'ok my clients, now you have 500k BTCCs because we adopted this fork' (and we are keeping 500k BTCs of the other fork for ourselves). It would be like stealing BTCs and exchanging them for Gavincoins.

People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.