And there she goes........
Any idea what just caused the crash ? Doesn't looked like a correction to me
what crash? Just see the bitfinex movement buddy. Price dropped down by $40 oh i see down -1.5% seems like blind selling. pretty sure random blind selling will break support at these high levels then at -5% people will get nervous at -15% they're gonna panic and then i can finally buy back, before the forking. |
|
|
|
And there she goes........
Any idea what just caused the crash ? Doesn't looked like a correction to me
what crash? oh i see down -1.5% seems like blind selling. pretty sure random blind selling will break support at these high levels then at -5% people will get nervous at -15% there gana panic and then i can finally buy back, before the forking. |
|
|
|
Any marketplaces opened up to BTU coin yet?
hmm sorta, BTC is BTU, you can go buy some now on coinbase or whatever. the BTC we hodl today is valid coins for any future chain split that will EVER occur. |
|
|
|
what is the separation process for dividing them off of the BTC?
if you hold a BTC private key, this key will be valid on both chain this will effectively double your coins, because, using that private key, you will use a BU client to move the coins on the BU chain, and use a Core client to move the coins on the Core chain |
|
|
|
first unlimited block size, second unlimited coins amount. Andressen or Ver wrote that they will increase amount of coins if they or their chinese host would like...
you got a link? Or this is just pure bullshit? This can't be true? My god if they did said that... Please provide a link, outright lies should result in banishment from Bitcointalk. Viscount is trolling at this point everyone SHOULD know the BU != unlimited blocksize, but unlimited freedom. |
|
|
|
Let's support the network and give voice to our opinion on how to scale Bitcoin by running a full Core node each. It is probably one of the best investments we can do in our BTC investments. Be sure to check that your node is reachable here. If it is not, then you have to open your 8333 port and try again. If you can mine, then even better! Be sure to join a mining pool that is positive to SegWit. I, for one, have done my part from this day.  https://bitcoin.org/en/download+1 everyone should do what they feel is best for the network, and there is no better way of participating in the debate , then what you describe. altho i would call on all the BU supporters to run BU nodes. |
|
|
|
I'm expected to trust these people with the Bitcoin network?
this is the problem... you shouldn't have to trust anyone with the Bitcoin network, the network should be able to choose what it wants, not what one team wants. you're looking for someone to trust, obviously its easier to TRUST core more than BU devs, this is perfectly rational, they have dozens more devs, and these devs have been at it for twice as long as BU devs. but we shouldn't trust any of these people( BU or Core), we should trust in the network to be able to pick and choose between BIP these teams produce, and NOT trust a team to choose whats best for the network.we need dev teams with competing interest to produce different proposals, the more we have to choose from the better! |
|
|
|
my BU NODE IS BACK UP BITCHES  Can I interest you in a Chevrolet Corvair? Ooh, I know. How about a nice Ford Pinto? ya classic is nice too but, i'm feeling DANGEROUS so ill go with the cheap as shit box |
|
|
|
Yes. You seem to be giving considerably greater odds to the possibility of a fork than me.
But, sure, I could see some of the passionate nutjobs attempting to pull such a trigger and even pulling such a trigger way too prematurely.
the chain split is very likely at this point because both sides seem to have = pull but if no one ever "pulls the trigger" we're doomed. at this point the only real question is how bad is it gonna be 50/50 being worst case 95/5 best case |
|
|
|
my BU NODE IS BACK UP BITCHES |
|
|
|
what a shame.
for who? even the most fervent unlimited supporter might not be very impressed if the entire system seized up. i'll bet there are many more surprises hiding too. they shouldn't have put their heads above the parapet until their game was 100% immaculate. if you want to influence a 20 billion dollar deal expect to have your every move gone over with thousands of microscopes. this ain't play time any more and this is more than an internet spat for the lulz. its a shame that BU does not have as much peer review and scrutiny. I dislike the idea of having one team ( mostly all employed by 1 company ) having so much leverage. no just stop it with the bullshit please. I really resent the insinuation that all Core are employed by Blockstream (or the banks by some crazy extension) ... some asshole was on reddit saying all Core devs are paid by AXA (the banks) ... I mean what a complete asshole lying thing to be saying in public. If he was saying that to my face he would be out cold on the ground in under a minute, guaranteed. 1 company does not "have so much leverage", that's just wrong and lies. If BU guys had any confidence in their ideas they would have submitted a patch to core for review, like everyone else and argued their merits in an open court..... they are free to try and propagate their own code but they better be prepared for an even more rigourous test (the real world) ... but they are better off putting it up on the Core repo and getting real feedback and testing first, not in some BS echo chamber full of emotional, butthurt, raving idiots. i guess i should apologize for the conspiracy theory. and also apologize for my past speculations that BU was safe to use, i'm sure I've somehow stipulated that somewhere. **BU is an experimentally beta with known security hole, use at your own risk**  |
|
|
|
its a shame that BU does not have as much peer review and scrutiny.
I dislike the idea of having one team ( mostly all employed by 1 company ) having so much leverage.
i get where you're coming from but they shouldn't have brought a knife to a gun fight. they needed to have brought a howitzer. right, "howitzer" wasn't available i guess.  |
|
|
|
what a shame.
for who? even the most fervent unlimited supporter might not be very impressed if the entire system seized up. i'll bet there are many more surprises hiding too. they shouldn't have put their heads above the parapet until their game was 100% immaculate. if you want to influence a 20 billion dollar deal expect to have your every move gone over with thousands of microscopes. this ain't play time any more and this is more than an internet spat for the lulz. its a shame that BU does not have as much peer review and scrutiny. I dislike the idea of having one team ( mostly all employed by 1 company ) having so much leverage. |
|
|
|
that BIP reeks of desperation. This comment is interesting, and may foretell the future. how low will they go....? There's no need to rush this. If segwit fails to activate by the deadline, we can try again with a lower activation threshold.
its the first i hear of this bip, idk if it comes from a core contributor, but i do believe most of core is not liking this bip. but i think its a viable way forward for core, in fact its probably the only way they can get segwit activated without the hashrate backing them. at this time it seems very unlikely any reasonable activation threshold will make segwit pass. another very promising way for core to get segwit activated is to rework it. if they strip away all the blocksize/weight stuff, and segwit simply becomes a different way of calculating TX_ID, it would probably pass. we'll see. |
|
|
|
Thats true. I hodl. I think that the Segwit vs BU is the last horde that bitcoin has to take before it moons.
^we just got to find a way to find a middle ground ~ piss EVERYONE off ! :-D lol yeah, if it was a political debate that would be the way forward ... except it isn't, it is about the best technology to function as money on the Internet. This latest ploy by the political animals is a contentious Miner Activated Hard Fork - MAHF which is probably the most dangerous way forward imaginable as it is essentially indistinguishable from a hostile miner 51% attack, even if the idiotic participants are completely genuine in their desire for a 'better' bitcoin, the way they are going about it is crazy ... and it has probably already been co-opted by those wishing to stir up more trouble and mischief, if not yet then it will be. The poor well-intentioned BU crowd have become the poster children for 'useful idiots', seriously. A less than palatable User Activated Soft Fork- UASF is less dangerous but even so not the ideal way forward to increasing bitcoin's native capacity, on or off chain. There is a slim hope for a white knight, 'third way' marvel of technology, solution to emerge from the mist but that window is closing. What are the odds of a hardfork anyhow, let's say in the next 3-6 months? One thing is to talk of a hardfork, but another is to actually have the mechanisms to carry it out. Probably the odds currently are less than 20%, no? Maybe I am being too generous with giving it too high of odds? i'd place the odds of a full on chain split within a year at 70% but, i think the odds are very high it will be a very uneven split like 25/75 worst case, bitcoin(BU ) might drop 20% and not recover the next day, but hey we'll have CoreCoins as a consolation prize. |
|
|
|
Although I prefer to believe that the status quo will prevail, there is one thing that makes me think segwit could actually get adopted. It is the default behavior in bitcoin releases since v0.13.1. In software, defaults are super powerful because most people never bother to change them. Even further, the recommended way to NOT use segwit is to not upgrade. So any new user installing recent versions of the software will get it. Soon (if not already) this would include any linux user installing bitcoin from their distro's package repository. It is unclear to me what will happen if segwit is not adopted within 1 year, because supposedly the code has a 1 year window for activation. But there's no reason developers couldn't extend that indefinitely in future releases. If that happens, then somebody would need to fork the non-segwit code and begin releasing and promoting and maintaining it to prevent a sort of adoption-by-default effect. I imagine that core devs are relying on this default effect to kick in eventually, but are keeping quiet about it. That's what I would do anyway in their shoes. interesting to watch... #3 appears to be where we are headed... which is probably why altcoins are doing so well these days.
its not exactly as you describe, but this "adoption-by-default" without minner consent is probably the rout they will take. core will create a minority fork... https://gist.github.com/shaolinfry/743157b0b1ee14e1ddc95031f1057e4c |
|
|
|
|
oh shit we have movement!
|
|
|
|
|
with the ETH ETC chain split, the combined value of your coins was greater than the value before the split.
its different with bitcoin, but not that much.
I do see how a 50/50 split would mean ~500-600$ for Core and BU Coins but thats not the end of the world
anyway i think a 90 / 10 split is more likely, this wont mean more then a 10% drop for bitcoin, but STILL you'll have these extra CoreCoins as a consolation prize.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
