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

[derpinheimer]

Can you expand on this? I dont understand how it would damage anything.

I mean, assuming we KNOW these 500k lost coins were Gox, why cant they be restored if the community supports it?

In essence it would break trust.
You trust that only 21 million coins will come into existence.
Forking bitcoin to change funds in any way would immediately break the trust that that what you own is actually yours.

Who is to guarantee that this change is a one time thing?
Who is to guarantee that no government gets access to unlimited coins?

Btw forking bitcoin is essentially like making an altcoin out of it.
Only one of the forks can be the "real" bitcoin. This is not to say that both can't survive.
But if such a major change were to be put through you can be certain that we'd end up with two bitcoins and
this would break just about all trust

Well, if 500k were deleted, then really the net amount is still the same. I mean, I dont think forking for small things or even individuals who send large amounts to the wrong address makes sense. But when its something as big as Gox, which may or may not, but for arguments sake, lost >500,000 coins? That seems worthy of a at least considering a fork to me.

To me, this is a big plus to bitcoin if something like this manages to happen. I dont see why anyone would lose trust that what they have is theirs.

Why guarantee it to be a one time thing? If in the future another mega-bitcoin company loses a million coins, they should have a fork considered then, too.

Not just that. You'd try to open pandora's box. I highly doubt the devs would ever put that into a protocol update.
And even if they did at least a majority of miners would then have to move to that change.

No miners would run the new code unless they got a cut of the coins.  That's all it would really take:  Offer 10% of the freed goxcoins as extra block rewards, and *ping* the coins are back.
The proof issue remains.  If it were directed by a court, I could see it happening.  Now *that* would be seriously dangerous to bitcoin:  An actual sovereign interference in the money supply.
We need to replace all the core devs with anonymous parties, untraceable by the court system.  Um.  That might not work out so well either.  Proof-of-Ethics protocol not yet implemented.

Never ever... I can understand people who have coins at gox would favor this, but like already said, this would undermine the fundamental priciples of Bitcoin. So what will be the next exception? I lost 1000coins back in the days, so why should gox people be compensated but me not? Ah btw, I don't can prove, that this address is mine...

The principle of bitcoin is decentralisation. Those adresses are proven to be owned by gox, since they deposited on them back in 2011 for a proof of liquidity.

If gox decides to appeal to the community it is up to the miners to decide if they want to fork or not. If you do not run a node, you have no say in the matter. If the community decides that it is better to recover 3% of the whole btc supply then they will do it, if not they won't. Easy as that. That's a decentralised majority vote and I would say it would be perfectly fitting in with the principles. If you don't want a fork, create your own node and run the old version. If 50% +1 nodes in the network join you, so be it.

That said, as long as they don't comment on it there is no way to know if those coins are lost or not.

No one can force you to join a fork. No one. Sure you may end up as the only user on your side of the fork, in which case, what is the point?

Ultimately, the economic majority has the power to decide. If all the devs and all the miners decide to fork for whatever reason, and the economic majority decides they don't agree, the economic majority sells it's coins and the devs and miners are playing with worthless tokens.

In the case of a fork, it's highly likely that only one chain will survive. There are far, far more coins that weren't lost in the Gox implosion than there are coins that were lost. If the devs and miners decide to fraudulently manipulate the code to "save" those coins, I'm sure we will see massive dumping of coins on this fork and only Bitcoin will remain in the end. I know I will be selling my forked coins and if anyone is stupid enough to give me something of value for them, I will immediately purchase more actual Bitcoins with the money.

So, I'd like to see it because I hope that I would end up with more actual Bitcoins once everything is said and done. Those who choose the wrong fork will most likely end up with nothing but a harsh lesson about why Bitcoin exists in the first place. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to try and bail out Gox with a protocol change though.

Why would anyone want both chains to survive? It seems to me, miners would want no Gox fork and just about every investor in bitcoin, ever, (assuming the 500k+ sum) would want the fork. I dont doubt a lot of the coins would be dumped causing a temporary decrease in price, but the trust something like this would generate for me..

[1715093262]

1715093262

[1715093262]

1715093262

[1715093262]

1715093262

[1715093262]

1715093262

[raid_n]

I'm almost sorry I brought up the Karpeles Fork idea, but it is an interesting question, and shouldn't be swept under the carpet. I personally am completely against the idea. But the danger comes as was mentioned previously in offering pool operators/miners a bounty for running the forked code. It could be argued that the Gox event is so significant in size 750k that an exception in some peoples mind could be made. What is the price of the miners... 50%? The next 500 blocks found running the modified code each receive a bonus 750BTC per block found.... Very scary

As I said I am against this... Just putting it up for discussion.

Look by that logic any entity with enough funds can change bitcoin through buying out the miners.
The point is that you would immediately and irreparably lose trust and the value of bitcoin would crash.

It is a fact that you can fork bitcoin at any point in time changing anything and everything. You don't even need a majority for that.
Altcoins are usually created with their own genesis block. You could also make an altcoin that uses the current bitcoin blockchain as a basis.
Here comes the important bit: you as a user determine what the "right" protocol is. This isn't even a mining question btw.
Such a profound change would likely split the community in half.
You'd literally end up with some users supporting the "old" protocol and some with the "new"
Of course I don't need to point out that this would crash bitcoins value and completely break the trust.

[aminorex]

Think of losing the keys as a theft by the Devil (or by God). 

Depends on your worldview, I guess.

[fluidjax]

the guberment have their tricky paws on this...

+1
Silkroad related

[derpinheimer]

I'm almost sorry I brought up the Karpeles Fork idea, but it is an interesting question, and shouldn't be swept under the carpet. I personally am completely against the idea. But the danger comes as was mentioned previously in offering pool operators/miners a bounty for running the forked code. It could be argued that the Gox event is so significant in size 750k that an exception in some peoples mind could be made. What is the price of the miners... 50%? The next 500 blocks found running the modified code each receive a bonus 750BTC per block found.... Very scary

As I said I am against this... Just putting it up for discussion.

Look by that logic any entity with enough funds can change bitcoin through buying out the miners.
The point is that you would immediately and irreparably lose trust and the value of bitcoin would crash.

It is a fact that you can fork bitcoin at any point in time changing anything and everything. You don't even need a majority for that.
Altcoins are usually created with their own genesis block. You could also make an altcoin that uses the current bitcoin blockchain as a basis.
Here comes the important bit: you as a user determine what the "right" protocol is. This isn't even a mining question btw.
Such a profound change would likely split the community in half.
You'd literally end up with some users supporting the "old" protocol and some with the "new"
Of course I don't need to point out that this would crash bitcoins value and completely break the trust.

Only if people support the change. Its not like some entity decides that we're going to give me a million BTC. People would have to support that. Where is trust lost when people vote for how their currency works?

[KeyserSoze]

Senator Joe Manchin  (who wants to BAN BTC) Was at the Yellen Hearing just now.

He asked Yellen of this was possible.

Yellen replied that there is no central issuer and no central bank, and it is decentralized, it is hard to regulate and the FED has no plans to do that.

source?

I'm listening the live stream:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-27/yellen-testifies-senate-live-stream

thx for that!

Also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/yellen-on-bitcoin-2014-2

[delphic]

Jorge, are you aware that the UK economy used to be modelled by the Treasury by an actual water analog computer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC_Computer

How cool! Thanks!

Correction: It seems it was a research and teaching aid, but wasn't actually used by the UK Treasury. Although, by the way they run the economy, one would think they do.

[Chang Hum]

I think twobitidiot got news of the gag order and took full advantage of it to manipulate the market knowing his story couldn't be disputed.

[aminorex]

In a fork, it doesn't ultimately matter which branch the majority of miners join, until the majority branch fails to compete in the market.  When that happens, suddenly there is a huge motivation to initiate a double-spend attack on the chain which retains economic value, but has minority hashing power.  

Basically, it's never going to happen because miner's would fear the risk.  Again, unless a court order...

[MAbtc]

I'm almost sorry I brought up the Karpeles Fork idea, but it is an interesting question, and shouldn't be swept under the carpet. I personally am completely against the idea. But the danger comes as was mentioned previously in offering pool operators/miners a bounty for running the forked code. It could be argued that the Gox event is so significant in size 750k that an exception in some peoples mind could be made. What is the price of the miners... 50%? The next 500 blocks found running the modified code each receive a bonus 750BTC per block found.... Very scary

As I said I am against this... Just putting it up for discussion.

Look by that logic any entity with enough funds can change bitcoin through buying out the miners.
The point is that you would immediately and irreparably lose trust and the value of bitcoin would crash.

It is a fact that you can fork bitcoin at any point in time changing anything and everything. You don't even need a majority for that.
Altcoins are usually created with their own genesis block. You could also make an altcoin that uses the current bitcoin blockchain as a basis.
Here comes the important bit: you as a user determine what the "right" protocol is. This isn't even a mining question btw.
Such a profound change would likely split the community in half.
You'd literally end up with some users supporting the "old" protocol and some with the "new"
Of course I don't need to point out that this would crash bitcoins value and completely break the trust.

Only if people support the change. Its not like some entity decides that we're going to give me a million BTC. People would have to support that. Where is trust lost when people vote for how their currency works?

Exactly. I'd simply dump all forked bitcoins immediately and advise all others to do the same. Never, ever, ever would I support such nonsense. This is a lesson in counter party risk -- we will not let the core devs destroy bitcoin. And if we do -- I'm out.

[empowering]

I think twobitidiot got news of the gag order and took full advantage of it to manipulate the market knowing his story couldn't be disputed.

Yes, from what I have seen thus far of Two Bit I have 0 bit respect.

[White Lion]

Do you guys think twobitidiot is holding something back? Or he might be in on it somehow..

[derpinheimer]

No one can force you to join a fork. No one. Sure you may end up as the only user on your side of the fork, in which case, what is the point?

Ultimately, the economic majority has the power to decide. If all the devs and all the miners decide to fork for whatever reason, and the economic majority decides they don't agree, the economic majority sells it's coins and the devs and miners are playing with worthless tokens.

In the case of a fork, it's highly likely that only one chain will survive. There are far, far more coins that weren't lost in the Gox implosion than there are coins that were lost. If the devs and miners decide to fraudulently manipulate the code to "save" those coins, I'm sure we will see massive dumping of coins on this fork and only Bitcoin will remain in the end. I know I will be selling my forked coins and if anyone is stupid enough to give me something of value for them, I will immediately purchase more actual Bitcoins with the money.

So, I'd like to see it because I hope that I would end up with more actual Bitcoins once everything is said and done. Those who choose the wrong fork will most likely end up with nothing but a harsh lesson about why Bitcoin exists in the first place. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to try and bail out Gox with a protocol change though.

Why would anyone want both chains to survive? It seems to me, miners would want no Gox fork and just about every investor in bitcoin, ever, (assuming the 500k+ sum) would want the fork. I dont doubt a lot of the coins would be dumped causing a temporary decrease in price, but the trust something like this would generate for me..

I never said anyone would want both chains to survive.

As I said, there are far, far more non-Gox-lost coins than Gox-lost coins. Why would the majority of holders (non-Gox coins) want to bail out Gox users for failing to understand the implications of letting a third party hold your "bitcoins".

Because the sheer quantity of it. Nothing more. Doesnt matter who, why, or where. If 500k coins were lost for some other reason, I dont see why people wouldnt support getting people their funds back. All this "trust loss' stuff isnt making even the slightest bit of sense to me. Sounds like people are getting boners on the thought of 6% less coins, for a whopping... 6% increase in value each?

[delphic]

I'm almost sorry I brought up the Karpeles Fork idea, but it is an interesting question, and shouldn't be swept under the carpet. I personally am completely against the idea. But the danger comes as was mentioned previously in offering pool operators/miners a bounty for running the forked code. It could be argued that the Gox event is so significant in size 750k that an exception in some peoples mind could be made. What is the price of the miners... 50%? The next 500 blocks found running the modified code each receive a bonus 750BTC per block found.... Very scary

As I said I am against this... Just putting it up for discussion.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Let's put this theory to the test!

To get miners to support a fork that 'recreates' the 'lost' Goxcoins, you would have to persuade them that the coins have been lost.

Logically, the loss cannot be proven.

So the fork ain't gonna happen.

[raid_n]

The irony is if that forking question were to ever come up at all (which i am 100% sure will not happen) then the second chain might survive as GoxCoin (tm)  

[empowering]

This whole thing is a Byzantine generals problem  (GOX)

edit: and I would still love to know the story behind the sketchy as fk email I got from "Mt Gox" yesterday withh the .pif attachment

[KeyserSoze]

Those who choose the wrong fork will most likely end up with nothing but a harsh lesson about why Bitcoin exists in the first place. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to try and bail out Gox with a protocol change though.

I don't see this as much of a legitimate "forking of Bitcoin" as I do a creation of another alt coin which someone has the intent of pumping until explosion. Either way, always fun in Bitcoinland.

[greenlion]

The notion of forking for reasons that relate to establishing certain balances is the most dangerous idea imaginable and will completely kill Bitcoin dead. Arbitrarily adjudicating the status of certain parties' coins turns the Bitcoin userbase itself into a centralized counterparty and leads down the slippery slope of deciding winners and losers in fork bailouts.

[rebuilder]

I'm almost sorry I brought up the Karpeles Fork idea, but it is an interesting question, and shouldn't be swept under the carpet. I personally am completely against the idea. But the danger comes as was mentioned previously in offering pool operators/miners a bounty for running the forked code. It could be argued that the Gox event is so significant in size 750k that an exception in some peoples mind could be made. What is the price of the miners... 50%? The next 500 blocks found running the modified code each receive a bonus 750BTC per block found.... Very scary

As I said I am against this... Just putting it up for discussion.

I don't follow - who's going to pay the miners? Not Gox, we're assuming they lost the coins, right? So what leverage do they have? And if a cartel of miners decided to create a fork with, essentially, counterfeit coins, why would they give any to Gox?

[empowering]

Do you guys think twobitidiot is holding something back? Or he might be in on it somehow..

I am not sure... but it seems to me he has little regard for the Bitcoin community and was behaving in his own self interest...

ˌäpərˈt(y)o͞onizəm/