Major DUMP incoming due to upcoming BUChina hardfork

[notme]

BU doesn't need any signaling.  It will control the longest chain today if 51% of mining power supports it.

Also know as a 51% attack.

I see what you're attempting with your rhetroric.  Clever.

People need to wake up and stop living in denial. China is trying to take control of Bitcoin. Anyone who agrees with BUChina does not believe in decentralization and supports the hijacking of Bitcoin.

huh?

So if China does the most work in a proof-of-work system, that means Bitcoin is hijacked?  Sorry i'm confused what you're saying here.

People don't seem to understand bitcoin.

From the abstract of the whitepaper (see my sig).

The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.

Without trusting in majority hashpower, the entire basis for the functioning of the bitcoin network falls apart.  If you'd rather trust a privileged group of people, stick to traditional banks/fiat money.

[Sundark]

Why Chinese miners want to change something? I thought that situation when they are dictating fees and are acting as tyrants is what they waited for.
They can grab transaction fees and and the same cry about Bitcoin Core team's inability to come up with viable solution to scaling problem, a perfect situation to be in.
Don't tell me they suddenly realized that there is something called longevity of the network what is at stake here.

[jonald_fyookball]

miners aren't stupid.  Network congestion is going to get ugly if allowed to continue.

[SaShiRaJaVu]

miners aren't stupid.  Network congestion is going to get ugly if allowed to continue.

The so called miners has invested a large chunk of money in it and it is highly unlikely that they would risk to see the price of bitcoin fall as they are the ones who will be affected by the price fall. I am not sure there will be a major dumb at the moment but we could see a correction after a big rally and that is inevitable in every market.

[quake313]

BU doesn't need any signaling.  It will control the longest chain today if 51% of mining power supports it.

Also know as a 51% attack.

I see what you're attempting with your rhetroric.  Clever.

People need to wake up and stop living in denial. China is trying to take control of Bitcoin. Anyone who agrees with BUChina does not believe in decentralization and supports the hijacking of Bitcoin.

huh?

So if China does the most work in a proof-of-work system, that means Bitcoin is hijacked?  Sorry i'm confused what you're saying here.

People don't seem to understand bitcoin.

From the abstract of the whitepaper (see my sig).

The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.

Without trusting in majority hashpower, the entire basis for the functioning of the bitcoin network falls apart.  If you'd rather trust a privileged group of people, stick to traditional banks/fiat money.

You're the one supporting centralization, not me. You're just another BUChina sock-puppet.

[UsernameNumber7]

The Globalist West decided to make a Chinese General in charge of Interpol for first time. 

[jonald_fyookball]

You're the one supporting centralization, not me. You're just another BUChina sock-puppet.

So anyone who supports BU is a sock puppet and wants China to take over Bitcoin.

Just want to make sure I understand your position.

[swogerino]

there is no way this can go to $200 anymore, if you understand how the market work, do you think any person in his mind would sell his bitcoin bought at above $200 or above just because there is a little panic for something that is not certain?

and add to this that going at 200 will destoy mining profitablìily, do you think miners will want this? they want to any move that can lead to a disaster in their business this is guaranteed, that's why they are not deciding anything yet

What is this mentioning of $200 for?
Were well above $1000 so can not got down that far over night even with ETF not being approved
can it?

[quake313]

You're the one supporting centralization, not me. You're just another BUChina sock-puppet.

So anyone who supports BU is a sock puppet and wants China to take over Bitcoin.

Just want to make sure I understand your position.

Do you support centralization, yes or no? If no, how can you justify supporting BU? Please explain this to me.

[jonald_fyookball]

You're the one supporting centralization, not me. You're just another BUChina sock-puppet.

So anyone who supports BU is a sock puppet and wants China to take over Bitcoin.

Just want to make sure I understand your position.

Do you support centralization, yes or no? If no, how can you justify supporting BU? Please explain this to me.

I don't support centralization.

As I explained in another thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1803307.msg18064768#msg18064768

Additionally, development is completely centralized when you allow one corporation to dictate their scalability roadmap to the community.

[quake313]

You're the one supporting centralization, not me. You're just another BUChina sock-puppet.

So anyone who supports BU is a sock puppet and wants China to take over Bitcoin.

Just want to make sure I understand your position.

Do you support centralization, yes or no? If no, how can you justify supporting BU? Please explain this to me.

I don't support centralization.

As I explained in another thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1803307.msg18064768#msg18064768

Additionally, development is completely centralized when you allow one corporation to dictate their scalability roadmap to the community.

I do not support any proposal that would centralize control of Bitcoin to any entity. I also do not support any proposal that could cause a contentious hardfork threatening to split Bitcoin's blockchain into multiple competing chains. Can you say the same?

FYI: Core Devs are more than just Blockstream.

Its fallacy saying ALL Core Devs are bad because a few work for Blockstream.

I wish you BU supporters would stop with the Blockstream conspiracies and see what is really happening here with China.

[BartS]

China miners are about to hijack Bitcoin and cause a contentious hardfork splitting the Bitcoin blockchain.
Think the ETF rejection will be bad? Wait for the massive dump due to the Chinese!

Prediction: ETF rejection dump, MAJOR BUChina hardfork dump, hello $200 my old friend…

I know, I know, I sound like the duckmeister…

It always amazes me how stupid people can be. Thinking giving more control to miners than they already have is a good idea. With mining centralizing in China, that is just giving Bitcoin over to the Chinese. I have no idea why anyone would think that is a good idea…

When China destroys Bitcoin, everyone will wish they stuck with Core but it will be too late!

PS. I hope I am wrong.

Wow!
So much nonsense in one single post.
Very poor and lame attempt to spread FUD.
That's all what you are trying here.
China hijacking Bitcoin? How? Come on man! Give me a break!
Antpool is bluffing! Jihan Wu is pissed and scared of UASF! now he tried to threat back. That's all!
And no major dump will happen! A shit ton of people are just waiting to buy back at 800 or 900. So we will bounce back pretty fast and ~1000 will be the bottom after that.

Basically this, I think many are prediction that ETF is not going to pass but this will bring good new since the price will get lower and we will be able to buy more bitcoin for less.

[jonald_fyookball]

You're the one supporting centralization, not me. You're just another BUChina sock-puppet.

So anyone who supports BU is a sock puppet and wants China to take over Bitcoin.

Just want to make sure I understand your position.

Do you support centralization, yes or no? If no, how can you justify supporting BU? Please explain this to me.

I don't support centralization.

As I explained in another thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1803307.msg18064768#msg18064768

Additionally, development is completely centralized when you allow one corporation to dictate their scalability roadmap to the community.

I do not support any proposal that would centralize control of Bitcoin to any entity. I also do not support any proposal that could cause a contentious hardfork threatening to split Bitcoin's blockchain into multiple competing chains. Can you say the same?

FYI: Core Devs are more than just Blockstream.

Its fallacy saying ALL Core Devs are bad because a few work for Blockstream.

I wish you BU supporters would stop with the Blockstream conspiracies and see what is really happening here with China.

It's already under centralized control and by supporting core you are supporting that.  
Who published the 'core scalability roadmap'?  Greg Maxwell, who is also the CTO and cofounder of Blockstream.  Draw your own conclusions.

Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't avoid contention while at the same time take a stand against entrenchment and centralization, which unfortunately has already crept in.

[romero121]

You're the one supporting centralization, not me. You're just another BUChina sock-puppet.

So anyone who supports BU is a sock puppet and wants China to take over Bitcoin.

Just want to make sure I understand your position.

Do you support centralization, yes or no? If no, how can you justify supporting BU? Please explain this to me.

I don't support centralization.

As I explained in another thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1803307.msg18064768#msg18064768

Additionally, development is completely centralized when you allow one corporation to dictate their scalability roadmap to the community.

I do not support any proposal that would centralize control of Bitcoin to any entity. I also do not support any proposal that could cause a contentious hardfork threatening to split Bitcoin's blockchain into multiple competing chains. Can you say the same?

FYI: Core Devs are more than just Blockstream.

Its fallacy saying ALL Core Devs are bad because a few work for Blockstream.

I wish you BU supporters would stop with the Blockstream conspiracies and see what is really happening here with China.

It's already under centralized control and by supporting core you are supporting that. 
Who published the 'core scalability roadmap'?  Greg Maxwell, who is also the CTO and cofounder of Blockstream.  Draw your own conclusions.

Along with them few other blockchain giants too hand together on the scalability support to the core. Finally China holds the control, if the same debate continues to happen without finding a common solution to sought out the problems.

[gijoes]

Most people don't really understand what's really happening here and now: https://medium.com/@lukeparker/the-trust-attack-a6241a08a9cd

[RoommateAgreement]

why are we even discussing this and calling it "fork" as in it is a bad thing.
aren't we supposed to give in to the majority vote? if majority voted for Segwit or BU then accept it?

sorry to ask this but i just don't get it, one mining pool showed a tiny bit of interest in showing support for another proposal and this topic shows up here calling the doomsday? why? it is still a very long way to (i think it was 75%)!

[quake313]

You're the one supporting centralization, not me. You're just another BUChina sock-puppet.

So anyone who supports BU is a sock puppet and wants China to take over Bitcoin.

Just want to make sure I understand your position.

Do you support centralization, yes or no? If no, how can you justify supporting BU? Please explain this to me.

I don't support centralization.

As I explained in another thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1803307.msg18064768#msg18064768

Additionally, development is completely centralized when you allow one corporation to dictate their scalability roadmap to the community.

I do not support any proposal that would centralize control of Bitcoin to any entity. I also do not support any proposal that could cause a contentious hardfork threatening to split Bitcoin's blockchain into multiple competing chains. Can you say the same?

FYI: Core Devs are more than just Blockstream.

Its fallacy saying ALL Core Devs are bad because a few work for Blockstream.

I wish you BU supporters would stop with the Blockstream conspiracies and see what is really happening here with China.

It's already under centralized control and by supporting core you are supporting that.  
Who published the 'core scalability roadmap'?  Greg Maxwell, who is also the CTO and cofounder of Blockstream.  Draw your own conclusions.

Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't avoid contention while at the same time take a stand against entrenchment and centralization, which unfortunately has already crept in.

There you go again with Core = Blockstream, not true but I will tell you what is true, BU = Chinese control.

And let me tell you something else, Satoshi never envisioned centralized mining in China or mega mines with ASICs when he wrote the white paper. He envisioned decentralized mining, with people mining in their homes on PCs. It is an unfortunate flaw of Bitcoin.

[quake313]

why are we even discussing this and calling it "fork" as in it is a bad thing.
aren't we supposed to give in to the majority vote? if majority voted for Segwit or BU then accept it?

sorry to ask this but i just don't get it, one mining pool showed a tiny bit of interest in showing support for another proposal and this topic shows up here calling the doomsday? why? it is still a very long way to (i think it was 75%)!

How long do you plan to wait to speak up? 30% (almost there), 40, 50, 60?? Now is the time to stand against the hijacking of Bitcoin

[jbreher]

And let me tell you something else, Satoshi never envisioned centralized mining in China or mega mines with ASICs when he wrote the white paper. He envisioned decentralized mining, with people mining in their homes on PCs.

At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

[notme]

And let me tell you something else, Satoshi never envisioned centralized mining in China or mega mines with ASICs when he wrote the white paper. He envisioned decentralized mining, with people mining in their homes on PCs.

At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

Here is the source of that quote in context:
https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09964.html