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

[Richy_T]

Is SegWit really just an ugly hack to accommodate LN? Is this true? Because nobody knows if anybody will use LN yet...

No. It fixes transaction malleability. Stupid.

Which killed Mt Gox. Are you saying you want more Mt Goxes? And dead puppies?

[CuntChocula]

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.

No difference than moving the decimal still. ...

Money creation is no different than moving the decimal point? Is printing filthy fiat out of thin air also no different from moving the decimal point?

If it is given to existing holders in proportion to their holdings, yes, it is the same.

If you print fiat out of thin air and give it to Jamie Dimon then no.

But mining doesn't distribute the money to existing holders -- mined coin goes to the miners. Or are we not talking about Bitcoin here?

25% of the remaining supply is designated to go to miners. It still does after any such fork (as long as the issuance rules are not changed).

If you one 1 BTC now, then you own 1/21m of the total that will ever exist. You still do if one such fork is created or 100 such forks. No difference. No dilution.

That's ... don't even know what to start.
Let's assume I knew the grand sum total of all filthy fiat to be printed before the universe succumbs to entropy is X. My $1 is 1/X, just like your bitcoin is 1/21m.
Does this mean that printing doesn't debase filthy fiat?
Does it also mean that my $1 is worth as much today as it will be in 2007, when the last dollar is printed?

[Richy_T]

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.

This is a legit concern. However, there will be plenty of notice. Anyone who is genuinely worried about this should ensure their Bitcoins are withdrawn to keys they hold themselves, as always (and as you say. Missed that bit).

[smooth]

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.

No difference than moving the decimal still. ...

Money creation is no different than moving the decimal point? Is printing filthy fiat out of thin air also no different from moving the decimal point?

If it is given to existing holders in proportion to their holdings, yes, it is the same.

If you print fiat out of thin air and give it to Jamie Dimon then no.

But mining doesn't distribute the money to existing holders -- mined coin goes to the miners. Or are we not talking about Bitcoin here?

25% of the remaining supply is designated to go to miners. It still does after any such fork (as long as the issuance rules are not changed).

If you one 1 BTC now, then you own 1/21m of the total that will ever exist. You still do if one such fork is created or 100 such forks. No difference. No dilution.

That's ... don't even know what to start.
Let's assume I knew the grand sum total of all filthy fiat to be printed before the universe succumbs to entropy is X. My $1 is 1/X, just like your bitcoin is 1/21m.
Does this mean that printing doesn't debase filthy fiat?

As I said, it does if it is distributed to you, meaning your 1/X remains the same.

It does not if it is distributed to Jamie Dimon, meaning your 1/X declines.

Example.

USD supply is $1 trillion. I don't know if that number is correct -- it is hypothetical.

Your 1/X for $1 is 10^-9

If that is increased to $10 trillion and you are given another $9, then your 1/X remains the same (now 10/10^-10 or still 10^-9) and you have not been diluted.

If $9 trillion is given to Jamie Dimon and $0 is given to you, then you have been severely diluted. Your 1/X is now at 10^-10.

[CuntChocula]

If $9 trillion is given to Jamie Dimon and $0 is given to you, then you have been severely diluted. Your 1/X is now at 10^-10.

When miners mine coins, how many of those coins go to me?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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.

This is a legit concern. However, there will be plenty of notice. Anyone who is genuinely worried about this should ensure their Bitcoins are withdrawn to keys they hold themselves, as always (and as you say. Missed that bit).

This might be a dumb question, but: have we ever had a contentious hard fork before? What will plenty of notice look like?

[Richy_T]

I really wonder when this damn blocksize shit is going to be solved. It's becoming retarded.

we are not even close to seeing the end of this imo. the fork will come and core, better said gmax/luke, will fight fiercely with the remining 25% hashpower or whatever hash they have. expect more "bitcoin is dead" press releases etc but this time from core-members...

Except they're planning to go nuclear with POW which will screw over any miners that would like to go with them.

Puts me in mind of that fox and the scorpion story.

[CuntChocula]

^Not frog? (my favorite story).

[smooth]

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.

This is a legit concern. However, there will be plenty of notice. Anyone who is genuinely worried about this should ensure their Bitcoins are withdrawn to keys they hold themselves, as always (and as you say. Missed that bit).

This might be a dumb question, but: have we ever had a contentious hard fork before? What will plenty of notice look like?

No the only hard forks have been uncontroversial development issues or bugs.

[coins101]

Splitting a currency unit into two does not dilute the currency any more than moving the decimal point does.

In order to dilute you would need to create new units and issue them to someone other than existing holders.

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.

Alex, what have you been smoking dear boy? I'd like some.

Exchanges would be in court for years, well the ones that didn't have their doors smashed in, if they tried a slight of hand like that

[Richy_T]

AlexGR raises an excellent point. If there is an upcoming contentious hardfork scheduled then the first things people are going to do is withdraw ALL their coins off the exchanges and out of any custodial services.

They could also purchase filthy fiat, depending on their preference.

Given how easy Bitcoin is to move around, only lying scumbaggy exchanges need worry. Which may not be all that comforting depending on your level of cynicism.

[biggus dickus]

Splitting a currency unit into two does not dilute the currency any more than moving the decimal point does.

In order to dilute you would need to create new units and issue them to someone other than existing holders.

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.

Alex, what have you been smoking dear boy? I'd like some.

Exchanges would be in court for years, well the ones that didn't have their doors smashed in, if they tried a slight of hand like that

How can anyone take btc-e to court over a slight of hand like that? Nobody knows who they are, what country they're from, or what country btc-e operates from. If nobody knows the slightest thing about them there's no legal recourse for anything they do.

[CuntChocula]

How can anyone take btc-e to court over a slight of hand like that? Nobody knows who they are, what country they're from, or what country btc-e operates from. If nobody knows the slightest thing about them there's no legal recourse for anything they do.

Hey, everyone knew where Cryptsy was, and who was behind it, and yet

[Richy_T]

This might be a dumb question, but: have we ever had a contentious hard fork before? What will plenty of notice look like?

Good question. I believe the plan for classic is to go straight to 2mb but I'm sure there will be a notice period and there may be a trigger. They plan to release end-of January so that's fairly short. BIP101 had a trigger and then a wait to give the network chance to catch up. Unlimited is a bit of a wildcard as it's designed to follow the network.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

This is a legit concern. However, there will be plenty of notice. Anyone who is genuinely worried about this should ensure their Bitcoins are withdrawn to keys they hold themselves, as always (and as you say. Missed that bit).

This might be a dumb question, but: have we ever had a contentious hard fork before? What will plenty of notice look like?

No the only hard forks have been uncontroversial development issues or bugs.

According to BitcoinHistory, a hardfork occurred March 12, 2013.


http://historyofbitcoin.org/

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Richy_T]

^Not frog? (my favorite story).

The fox and the frog?

[billyjoeallen]

Does anybody know which exchanges offer cryptographic proof of reserves? It seems like an obvious selling point to any that want to gain market share.

[Richy_T]

How can anyone take btc-e to court over a slight of hand like that? Nobody knows who they are, what country they're from, or what country btc-e operates from. If nobody knows the slightest thing about them there's no legal recourse for anything they do.

Which is also exactly true of the current point in time. They could walk away with all the funds any time.

If you don't control the keys, you don't control the coins.

[coins101]

Splitting a currency unit into two does not dilute the currency any more than moving the decimal point does.

In order to dilute you would need to create new units and issue them to someone other than existing holders.

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.

Alex, what have you been smoking dear boy? I'd like some.

Exchanges would be in court for years, well the ones that didn't have their doors smashed in, if they tried a slight of hand like that

How can anyone take btc-e to court over a slight of hand like that? Nobody knows who they are, what country they're from, or what country btc-e operates from. If nobody knows the slightest thing about them there's no legal recourse for anything they do.

well, lets treat them as a basket case....who would use them again if they tried a slight of hand? But if they did, then some of the users of btc-e have the capabilities to find the owners.

I agree with the general point that Alex makes - if you don't control your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.  But most exchanges use accounting records for trades, Bitcoins can be put on ice for a small period of time while forking takes place.