Bitcoinocracy: If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC

[gijoes]

Most upvoted statement on Bitcoinocracy right now:
"If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC, driving price into the ground"

http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground

[megadeth]

There needs to be a market where they can put their money where their mouth is.

[gentlemand]

Yeah.

Right.

 I'll believe it when I see it. Everyone's willy swinging will grind to an immediate halt when the bottom line catches it mid dangle and gives it a squeeze.

And perhaps the self extermination of major holders will bring further fresh blood and progress. You can only sell once.

[gijoes]

There needs to be a market where they can put their money where their mouth is.

Actually, I agree. There needs to be a futures market of Classiccoins vs. Corecoins. At the very minimum, it'll be much easier to see where the real economic majority is. I think Eric Voorhees proposed something like this recently.

[7788bitcoin]

This might really be the case. However, once bitcoin survived this crisis, I am very sure the momentum will be unstoppable. Let the time tells.

[1Referee]

Let them sell. Perhaps that will cause the Bitcoin spread to be much better and more fair. Instead of 1 person with thousands of coins, there will be 50-100 people holding these coins. It's just big talk. Action speaks louder than words!

[Amph]

more cheap coins for us i guess, i really don't see the issue, about, the non-core guy are only implementing something really needed not like xt that were adding unecessary crap

if they simply increase the capacity that's it, i'm all for it, i understand the issue with hard fork

but in the end even with seg wit you will be forced to hard fork, because it's not a final solution, and lightining network is not going to be a final solution either

and besides all this, it's not like we did not face any hard fork in the past, so why all the hate aginst it?....

[gijoes]

the non-core guy are only implementing somethign really needed not like xt that were adding unecessary crap

You need to learn more. Part of this "New Bitcoin" is democratic vote on any features and limitations of Bitcoin system. Thought New Bitcoin will have 21M coins hard cap? Think again. Their main developer said so much: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4326ya/jonathan_toomim_on_bitcoin_classic_everything_can/

[indiemax]

Those top addresses voting could be the same person for all we know

just sayin 

[BellaBitBit]

This might really be the case. However, once bitcoin survived this crisis, I am very sure the momentum will be unstoppable. Let the time tells.

Bitcoin does seem to survive many things and I am sure it can handle soft or hard fork.  This kind of talk only promotes FUD and that is not what is needed.  Focussing on a solution would be best at this time.

[MatTheCat]

Tell u what:

https://blockchain.info/address/12JKDhDJfux3VjpRbDYQj81JAZNEyn2nfq

5 BTC transaction made over 1 hour ago. Still ZERO confirmations (and I need to wait on 6).

...lets face it, we have all been through this sort of shit, many many times with Bitcoin......and unless something is done to change this, you would have to think that Bitcoin's days are indeed numbered.

With a USD value that fluctuates so wildy, this sort of delay in a digital transaction is un-fucking-tenable.


Would Bitcoin XT change this? If yes, then it needs to go ahead. If  not, then move over Bitcoin, hello (............) Ethereum?

[Wexlike]

You can only sell once.

Just repeating the main point. Let them sell.

[Denker]

the non-core guy are only implementing somethign really needed not like xt that were adding unecessary crap

You need to learn more. Part of this "New Bitcoin" is democratic vote on any features and limitations of Bitcoin system. Thought New Bitcoin will have 21M coins hard cap? Think again. Their main developer said so much: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4326ya/jonathan_toomim_on_bitcoin_classic_everything_can/

Thanks for posting this link. I was about to post this.
Absolutely crazy. To me this this statement makes him not being more than just a joke.
The 21M coin cap is and should continue to be inviolate, or it isn't bitcoin anymore. Having it out there for a vote makes the entire Classic project looking totally foolish.

[afbitcoins]

the non-core guy are only implementing somethign really needed not like xt that were adding unecessary crap

You need to learn more. Part of this "New Bitcoin" is democratic vote on any features and limitations of Bitcoin system. Thought New Bitcoin will have 21M coins hard cap? Think again. Their main developer said so much: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4326ya/jonathan_toomim_on_bitcoin_classic_everything_can/

Thanks for posting this link. I was about to post this.
Absolutely crazy. To me this this statement makes him not being more than just a joke.
The 21M coin cap is and should continue to be inviolate, or it isn't bitcoin anymore. Having it out there for a vote makes the entire Classic project looking totally foolish.

I dont know why but reading that link reminded me of lord of the rings where all the fellowship of the ring are arguing until Frodo says he'll bear the ring

erm... anyway..

i'm not a major holder but i'm worried about implication of non-core winning

[gentlemand]

You need to learn more. Part of this "New Bitcoin" is democratic vote on any features and limitations of Bitcoin system. Thought New Bitcoin will have 21M coins hard cap? Think again. Their main developer said so much: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4326ya/jonathan_toomim_on_bitcoin_classic_everything_can/

I seriously doubt this proposed fork has any credibility. The question is would these overlords do the same regarding a fork that was unquestionably carefully put together and overwhelmingly attractive to the majority? Is it purely a case of Core being usurped no matter what supersedes it?

[johnyj]

It does not make any sense, any fork is non-core, if you want to keep core forever then you should not do any fork, thus any change is forbidden

Or you could say, any fork is a core hard fork since it is forked from core, but once you move to the new fork, core is dead

And there have been several non-core hard forks winning in the race, but I did not see major holders selling bitcoin

The amount of misinformation is really astounding regarding how blockchain works. I guess at this stage, no change can be done on bitcoin any more. Let's just freeze the code and prohibit any future change to it so that people get some peace in mind   

[gijoes]

The amount of misinformation is really astounding regarding how blockchain works. I guess at this stage, no change can be done on bitcoin any more. Let's just freeze the code and prohibit any future change to it so that people get some peace in mind

I don't think it's such a bad idea, actually. At least, this is a preferable alternative to a split breaking the system and the community beyond repair. There is an old sysadmin saying: "If it works, don't touch it!"

[dropt]

I doubt many, if any, of these people will actually dump their coins.  And, if they do, be prepared to catch the falling knife.

I'm pro core and classic, but for now I'm throwing my chips on classic.  I've fired up a Classic node and turned on all of my old mining HW to Slush to vote in favour of the HF.

If the HF destroys Bitcoin, then so be it.

[RyNinDaCleM]

The amount of misinformation is really astounding regarding how blockchain works. I guess at this stage, no change can be done on bitcoin any more. Let's just freeze the code and prohibit any future change to it so that people get some peace in mind

I don't think it's such a bad idea, actually. At least, this is a preferable alternative to a split breaking the system and the community beyond repair. There is an old sysadmin saying: "If it works, don't touch it!"

The problem is, there isn't much room for growth as it is now. Add to that, that it is fairly trivial to create spam attacks to fill blocks to capacity and slow confirmations to a snails pace. So I wouldn't just call it "working" because it isn't broken yet. If you expect Bitcoin to take flight to the next level, it needs some work.

This whole scalability issue should have been addressed years ago. Long before the growth phase began. That would have been the only way to cleanly fork and forget about the issue. Now we face civil wars on the subject and one side left butt hurt in the end.

[dropt]

This whole scalability issue should have been addressed years ago. Long before the growth phase began. That would have been the only way to cleanly fork and forget about the issue. Now we face civil wars on the subject and one side left butt hurt in the end.

+1  And it should be said that people have been trying for years.  At present, a good compromise would be Core saying that they'll validate SW and then HF to include it, along with a block size increase (in some capacity) in proper fashion.  Leave LN off the table until they actually have a proper way forward.