Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Andre#]

Toomim on wechat (I think). Gives a little more insight to what has happened, and what he thinks, agree or disagree... worth a read if you can handle it... loooong.

http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ

Thanks a lot for posting this. Awesome (but long!) read.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin


Explanation

[BitUsher]

... There are many libertarians and crypto-anarchists who value other goals slightly more than simply using Bitcoin as a highly volatile speculative asset. ...

It's not about money... it's about sending a message

There are many things that motivate me , but I am definitely willing to risk or throw away my complete investment.
Study Maslov's Hierarchy of needs or research into the psychology of ideals or religion to understand what truly motivates many humans.

Toomim on wechat (I think). Gives a little more insight to what has happened, and what he thinks, agree or disagree... worth a read if you can handle it... loooong.

http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ

Thanks a lot for posting this. Awesome (but long!) read.

Yes, it clarifies the real differences at play are differences of governance and politics. Despite Toomin repeatedly claiming that the capacity increase is most important motivation, the clear distinction is democracy vs an open source anarchistic meritocracy.

I would suggest people consider where republics and democracies eventually lead in the longterm with their decision on the fork.

[rebuilder]

ClasSick is dead before it's even born.

Amazing how well the amount of denigrating puns in a post holds an inverse correlation with the attention the opinions expressed therein deserve.

[CuntChocula]

... There are many libertarians and crypto-anarchists who value other goals slightly more than simply using Bitcoin as a highly volatile speculative asset. ...

It's not about money... it's about sending a message

There are many things that motivate me , but I am definitely willing to risk or throw away my complete investment.
Study Maslov's Hierarchy of needs or research into the psychology of ideals or religion to understand what truly motivates many humans.

*Maslow [accepted anglicization, born in Brooklyn (Jewtown)] was a Jew.
'nuf said

[billyjoeallen]

total hashrate has increased 20% in the last 4 days, i think this is a good sign of organic growth too.

It's probably the bitfury 16nm miners coming online. If they can Get chinese hashpower to drop below 50%, this is a really good development. At present, We are in danger of the Red Chinese government either taking over Bitcoin or destroying it if they want to.

Unfortunately, the Chinese just completed a 14nm tapeout, so the majority of hashpower will continue to be produced by a handful of large mines in a country with a totalitarian government, pretty much the exact opposite of what Bitcoin was supposed to be.

[JorgeStolfi]

Your game theory strategy only takes into consideration the maximization of profit in the short term. There are many libertarians and crypto-anarchists who value other goals slightly more than simply using Bitcoin as a highly volatile speculative asset.

Even for libertarian and anarchists, a switch to classic should be indifferent or better.  Even if the LN works at all, it will be impractical to use it without going through a big hub; and hubs are going to be totally AML/KNC compliant, which means no anonymous payments, govenment blockades, temporary and even permanent freezing of funds, etc..

Moreover, most coin holdings are not in the hands of ideoologically motivated libertarians and ancaps, but in the hands of profit-motivated investors,
big or small.

We also really don't like a path forward where a democratic majority votes upon each feature as that is a sharp change in bitcoins traditional governance model of anarchistic consensus building based upon evidence and meritocracy.

I know that it is difficult to understand why democracy is "the worst system of government, excluding all the others".  It takes the ability to think socially: "Whatever I can think, do, want, or get, others can think, do, want, or get too".

Libertarians and anarchists are notoriously unable to think that way.  So, when they conclude that the choices of a minority should prevail over those of the majority, they always assume implicitly that it will be their minority, not some other minority.

[madmat]

Where are we at, are people just pretending Toomin-Coin is still happening?

As far as I can see (read) Chinese mining pools have rejected it & shown their support for Core?

Can we add Toomin-Coin to the list of failed take overs?

Chinese mining doesn't reject Classic. This is just FUD from C0re people.

ClasSick is dead before it's even born.

We will see next month. You don't have any power on that. Just telling your opinion to everyone in this forum manipulated by C0re won't change anything.

[JorgeStolfi]

Why would the big holders want to attack one of the chains?  Their holdings are in both chains, and they can keep, move and sell them independently.   Whatever value each branch of the coin has, attacking one branch will kill its value -- which will hurt the holders more than anyone else -- but is unlikely to raise the value of the other branch by the same amount.  

The holders should *pray* for a proposed hard fork will EITHER fail quickly to gather any support, OR quickly achieve majority support and end with a clean non-eventful hard fork.  Any fork attempt that does not resolve cleanly in one of these two ways can only harm the value of their holdings.

Didn't you kind of answer your own question? An unresolved fork would be bad for holders, so attacking the minority chain to destroy it would make sense if it's not  too expensive.

With the first alternative in the second paragraph I meant "fail to gather any suport BEFORE the change is activated, so that the fork never happens and no one seriously thinks that it will happen". 

The first paragraph applies if the fork happens, but is not a clean non-event (i.e., if there is a significant fraction of the hashpower still mining the old chain after the change is activated, in spite of the alerts and grace period).

Sorry for the confusion.

[hmmkay]

Why would a big drop in mining power be harmful? They adjust difficulty downwards/upwards within 1000 blocks or something. That's a week.

[Richy_T]

with an ASICproof algo behind the coin.

Good luck with that.

[CuntChocula]

Why would a big drop in difficulty be harmful? They adjust 4x downwards/upwards within 1000 blocks or something. That's a week.

A week only @ current hashrate. As much as forever after a "big drop."

[rebuilder]

Why would the big holders want to attack one of the chains?  Their holdings are in both chains, and they can keep, move and sell them independently.   Whatever value each branch of the coin has, attacking one branch will kill its value -- which will hurt the holders more than anyone else -- but is unlikely to raise the value of the other branch by the same amount.  

The holders should *pray* for a proposed hard fork will EITHER fail quickly to gather any support, OR quickly achieve majority support and end with a clean non-eventful hard fork.  Any fork attempt that does not resolve cleanly in one of these two ways can only harm the value of their holdings.

Didn't you kind of answer your own question? An unresolved fork would be bad for holders, so attacking the minority chain to destroy it would make sense if it's not  too expensive.

With the first alternative in the second paragraph I meant "fail to gather any suport BEFORE the change is activated, so that the fork never happens and no one seriously thinks that it will happen". 

The first paragraph applies if the fork happens, but is not a clean non-event (i.e., if there is a significant fraction of the hashpower still mining the old chain after the change is activated, in spite of the alerts and grace period).

Sorry for the confusion.

The answer to your question of attacking one of the chains seems to be valid, still.

[BitUsher]

Even for libertarian and anarchists, a switch to classic should be indifferent or better.  Even if the LN works at all, it will be impractical to use it without going a big hub; and hubs are going to be totally AML/KNC compliant, which means no anonymous payments, govenment blockades, temporary and even permanent freezing of funds, etc..

Moreover, most coin holdings are not in the hands of ideoologically motivated libertarians and ancaps, but in the hands of profit-motivated investors,
big or small.

You don't seem to understand the attack or the p2p LN which will have many decentralized hubs without KYC/AML.
I agree , we will be using both chains temporarily, that is the nature of the attack, but you are insane for suggesting we would be happy with a centralized paypal 2.0 with AML/KYC.

I know that it is difficult to understand why democracy is "the worst system of government, excluding all the others".  It takes the ability to think socially: "Whatever I can think, do, want, or get, others can think, do, want, or get too".

Libertarians and anarchists are notoriously unable to think that way.  So, when they conclude that the choices of a minority should prevail over those of the majority, they always assume implicitly that it will be their minority, not some other minority.

Ahh, you clearly don't understand how consensus is found in anarchistic systems. It is a gross misrepresentation you are making to those unfamiliar with anarchistic politics. I don't have time to give you a whole lecture (and don't think you even care to learn) but for the edification of others-

Anarchism does not mean chaos. Most Anarchists believe in a society of laws. These laws are just devised through other consensus mechanisms than democratic or republic forms of representations. The minority doesn't prevail over the majority, as we are all individuals and a group/state/society doesn't actually exist in reality except as a concepts. This means we understand that there is no evil illuminati or group of lizard people controlling our own fate but we are collectively responsible for both the good deeds and crimes in society and we must have solidarity with each other.  

[Richy_T]

Your game theory strategy only takes into consideration the maximization of profit in the short term. There are many libertarians and crypto-anarchists who value other goals slightly more than simply using Bitcoin as a highly volatile speculative asset. we also really don't like a path forward where a democratic majority votes upon each feature as that is a sharp change in bitcoins traditional governance model of anarchistic consensus building based upon evidence and meritocracy.

You cannot be anarchistic when you have an arch in the form of core.

[BitUsher]

with an ASICproof algo behind the coin.

Good luck with that.

Its actually not hard to accomplish if you either perform a hardfork to a slightly different algo in a random way every year and use asic resistant algos. This can even be done in a automated way where there only needs to be one hardfork. There is a tremendous amount of investment and lead up time to creating ASICs where you only need to stay ahead to make their implementation impractical.

You cannot be anarchistic when you have an arch in the form of core.

Huh?

[CuntChocula]

...
Ahh, you clearly don't understand how consensus is found in anarchistic systems. It is a gross misrepresentation you are making to those unfamiliar with anarchistic politics. I don't have time to give you a whole lecture (and don't think you even care to learn) but for the edification of others-

Anarchism does not mean chaos. Most Anarchists believe in a society of laws. These laws are just devised through other consensus mechanisms than democratic or republic forms of representations. The minority doesn't prevail over the majority, as we are all individuals and a group/state/society doesn't actually exists in reality except as a concept. This means we understand that there is no evil illuminati or group of lizard people controlling our own fate but we are collectively responsible for both the good deeds and crimes in society and we must have solidarity with each other.  

Anarchism is so poorly defined that no two "anarchists" agree on exactly what it means. That's why no one else knows what it means/how it works either.
Case in point: enter "anarchist venn diagram" in Google image search

[Richy_T]

Its actually not hard to accomplish if you either perform a hardfork to a slightly different algo in a random way every year and use asic resistant algos. This can even be done in a automated way where there only needs to be one hardfork. There is a tremendous amount of investment and lead up time to creating ASICs where you only need to stay ahead to make their implementation impractical.

You either manage that in a somewhat predictable way which ends up still being subject to being dominated by specialized hardware or you do it in a completely freeform way which is a lot of work and is a huge security risk if you make a mistake.

[BitUsher]

Anarchism is so poorly defined that no two "anarchists" agree on exactly what it means. That's why no one else knows what it means/how it works either.
Case in point: enter "anarchist venn diagram" in Google image search

It is great that there are many different schools of anarchism. There are similarities between all groups as well.

You either manage that in a somewhat predictable way which ends up still being subject to being dominated by specialized hardware or you do it in a completely freeform way which is a lot of work and is a huge security risk if you make a mistake.

One does not need to switch to completely different algos with different risks to make something ASIC proof. Small changes to a variant of ASIC resistant SHA3 without compromising or changing the fundamentals of security could be implemented in a random matter. You understand that all ASIC's would be worthless if we switched to 3 rounds of SHA256(1 example of many) but a gpu would merely need to upgrade its software, right?

More details --
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359323.0

[JayJuanGee]

Blocks are full. Let's see what happens.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41whvw/maximum_of_transactions_second_that_bitcoin_can/cz5v60m

It's the FULLBLOCALYPSE_TM

I think I'm done arguing. It just has to play out now.

(I was actually going to use that word but couldn't remember it exactly.)

big blocker capitulation is close ... they have no logical ground to stand on and the whole edifice is crumbling, Crassic was just the Hearn echo swansong

You don't seem to understand. Bigblockers will win if we crash the price far enough to persuade the miners to switch. If we fail in that, it's because the price is going up and they have no reason to listen to us. (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). So it's simple. Just keep pumping until we go away. That's how you'll get us to capitulate.

This is stupid thinking, and probably similar to Mike Hearn's raging tantrum.  Let's just try to destroy things until others listen and we get our way...  

Makes a lot of sense.





NOT.


Only makes sense if you are childish and unable to attempt to work with others by appeals to reason and fairplay.



On the other hand, why don't you get all your supposed  coins out of cold storage and lead the way to dumping them all?  Except you likely only have less than a couple hundred coins, so won't have too much of an effect anyhow.

ya only need to be in the ten bitcoins club right

Sure.  10 bitcoins is fine for those of more limited means.  .. and sure the cost of 10 bitcoins, even at todays prices, may be quite exorbitant for some people to be able to set aside, given their financial situation. 

In my last little dig at BJA, I am merely attempting to refer to his ongoing big baller bragging of his supposed power and his threats to leave and do damage to bitcoin.  To some degree, it seems that it would be nice if he would just cash out all of his bitcoins and leave bitcoin to others.... though in reality, he is likely mostly talk regarding his quantity of coins and his willingness to leave because there really is likely going to be no other investments that are going to be as good as bitcoin over the long term even though it still remains prudent to have some diversification of assets by investing in some other areas, as well.. and there may also be several short term investments that may beat bitcoin's performance for risk takers (and bitcoin is certainly not free from risks).