Bitcoin Unlimited

[dinofelis]

The Dash pyramid scheme will continue to have an advantage in FOMO over any aggregate freer market, until the base of the pyramid can't grow fast enough to allow the earlier buyers to cash out:

The art of pumping, of course.  Actually, limiting the pump is a great time: you dump slowly on fresh blood streaming in  The best part of the game !  When you have a big reserve of cash and a big reserve of coins, you can steer this perfectly.  When you see people start to cash out, you buy with cash and pump the price, so that their FOMO stops them from cashing out.  When you see that there's a buying frenzy by FOMO that would pump too hard and make people take benefit, crumbling the pyramid, you dump on them.
People need to have the feeling that now and then, the market stabilizes, but that "the moon" is near.

If you do it right, you end up converting your stash of coins, by dumping on FOMO newcomers, into a huge pile of cash, which you need to use partially some times, to counter the feeling of crashing.  Small "corrections" you can allow for, that gives confidence to analysts that the price is "consolidating" ; you need enough cash to be able to counter any attempt at "taking benefits".

I think they are doing it like true masters.

When do you stop ?  When your stash of coins is exhausted

[1714189240]

1714189240

[1714189240]

1714189240

[1714189240]

1714189240

[1714189240]

1714189240

[1714189240]

1714189240

[iamnotback]

When do you stop ?  When your stash of coins is exhausted

It helps when the whale/cartel manipulator's (aka Evan Inc's) stash of both DASH and BTC is very large compared to base of the pyramid of non-cartel (aka the float of) DASH hodlers. And your stash never shrinks if the supply of new buyers is growing faster than the base of hodlers (who could compete with the manipulator by selling).

Also the masternode scheme further reinforces this in at least two ways:

1. The hodlers are not selling because they are earning ROI paid in newly minted DASH.
2. The non-cartelized hodlers are paid less minted coins ROI than the cartel, so the cartel is continually diluting their free market competition. (This is diminishing over time as their block reward shrinks although not if transaction volume x fees is offsetting increasing)

The only way the scheme is defeated is if the supply of new buyers becomes MUCH lower than those who want to cash out. Then the cartel has to expend their stash of BTC to prop up the price. So they would instead allow the price to crash, because their goal is to obtain BTC (which can be traded for real fiat money) for this worthless token DASH which they printed out-of-thin-air for themselves.

So from the crashed price, they could buy out all the bagholders and renew the pump process again (while not losing much of their BTC stash).

So that is why I say, that at nosebleed levels, Dash is likely to have crash event at some point, especially people stop believing Dash's InstantX offers anything worthwhile (e.g. when Ethereum and Bitcoin both get instant transactions). I had already linked to the math security errors and design flaws of InstantX, but the n00bs prefer their delusion and only a competing ecosystem with the same features and more adoption will defeat their technological ignorance and delusion.

We are not quite there yet, but at another 4 - 10X the current Dash price, it is possible depending on what happens with other developments interim.

The long-term death of Dash is when some project has moved on to attain millions of users adoption and Dash offers no features that aren't already provided by that mainstream project. Then no one will buy Dash's hype any more. It will be like Steem with a crashed price and loss of speculator confidence in their ability to FOMO pump it to fools again.

[Ayers]

Your debunking of DASH didn't stop the market from appreciating it.

Dash doesn't have a market. It is allegedly a couple of guys working for Evan Inc. running accounts at the major exchanges buying and selling from themselves. It is a greater fool pyramid scheme.

You even stated that no one with large size dared tried to enter that market without a deal with Evan Inc.. So that tells you Roger Ver is in bed with the alleged "fraud" (aka dis-aggregate non-market) or he didn't buy much Dash.

how this can work without them losing money, if the price increase like it's happening? you can't manipulate and create value out of thin air, you need more money to raise the value, and other people like miners dump on their manipulation, so they are giving away money for free? this sound stupid to me and it's not what it's happening, i think dash is being pumped with bitcoin dumping, newbie move from one place to another with their silly trading

[iamnotback]

@Ayers agreed there is new greater fool BTC incoming. The key distinction is that allegedly there is only one coordinated whale/cartel in control (instead of multiple uncoordinated, competing whales) who will run away and let it crash to ~1% of its price in order to conserve their BTC stash in a stampede spiral event (which hasn't happened yet because there is sufficient supply of new fools incoming and the base of the pyramid of hodlers who could stampede is always being diluted relative to the cartel's percent of the money supply by the compounding asymmetrical masternode ROI scheme). Unlike in an aggregate market wherein bagholders could at least get out with say only -80% loss or something reasonable.

It is quite an elaborate scheme. You have to wrap your mind around it holistically. The masternodes are the cartel (technically a masternode isn't a hashrate miner, but because the masternodes are subsidized asymmetrically they can also be the miners then selfish mine and gain more asymmetric rewards).

Please read my post immediately before yours where I replied to @dinofelis's latest post.

Note ETH may be similarly structured but without the masternodes (unless someone has an unreleased more efficient implementation of the ETH PoW algorithm, which I saw someone allege) and with better ecosystem marketing and hype than Dash:

@r0ach did you ever figure out who controls Ethereum?

Ethereum is mostly just R3 subsidiaries who don't like bitcoin because they didn't get in on the ground floor and used Vitalik as a useful idiot front man while buying up the whole premine then using that premine as leverage collateral on Bologniex.  This is the moment cryptocurrency became a complete cesspit that should be avoided by the public entirely because they aren't even using real money to pump this thing.  They have a bunch of illiquid assets they can't even dump for profit because...they are the entire market themselves...so they leverage those illiquid assets to try and attract momentum traders and then dump on them.  Ethereum is a giant rat trap.

[FractalUniverse]

Ethereum is a giant rat trap.

yeah, but there are still people who think its soo awesome
Im not getting this hype

[iamnotback]

Spoetnik this is why your "developers should work for free" communist power vacuum doesn't work:

Re: SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon

To all Bitcoin Unlimited supporters, I am not against larger blocks. I haven't been following all the detailed developments, so the following might contain some errors.

My thought is reformulate your protocol to have some where between 2 - 8MB block size limit increasing with the Nielsen Law of bandwidth increase (slower exponential growth than Moore's law). Also you must adopt some of the bug fixes in SegWit, such as the new opcode which fixes malleability and enables Lightning Networks.

But do not adopt all the rest of the complexity of SegWit, including do not adopt the ability to softfork version changes as that hands too much power to Core.

Go do that, then maybe you can win. Because likely users will end up choosing to support your protocol because their transactions are not being delayed. But you need to build confidence in your competence to lead.

You can possibly win, if you get competent people working with you.

But you need to rein in these talking heads who are not sufficiently competent, i.e. Wu and Ver. They can talk when they cite competent developers. Those guys need to understand the limits of their role and competencies.

You are apparently competing against banksters who are funding the Core developers (paying their large salaries and incentives). Perhaps that may explain why you ostensibly can't attract the most competent developers?

I am not against what you want in terms of fixing the block size problem. I am just being pragmatic. Find a confidence building and realistic way to win. I don't like being on the losing side.

I highly advise that you all back down from your current ultimatum and reformulate and get the token holders on your side before you proceed. You really need a more capable leader than Wu or Ver. But don't enlist me, because I am too busy on my own "shitcoin" project and I am not interested in investing my effort in Satoshi's PoW. It is good to have those guys on your side, but not as the outspoken de facto leaders, because they have by now proven they are rash, irrational, and somewhat technologically incompetent.

[iamnotback]

Problem is Core is a diverse bunch of people without leadership, that is kinda what it means to be decentralized. They code and review and test, but they don't have someone pulling the strings or someone who can speak for the entire team. I'm sure other options have been reviewed within their team, but SegWit was found to be the best option for the moment as the other options would all require a hard fork and that would take more time to properly prepare for. Also at this point I don't think we'll be able to find a wide consensus for SegWit + 2MB hard fork, which is what some seem to prefer here. As SegWit already provides 2MB blocks, would the extra 2MB really be worth the trouble to do a hard fork for? I believe Core would like to prepare a much better hard fork later on to increase the blocksize limit together with other things that are on the hard fork wishlist. But I don't know, maybe you should try asking them if you're curious? Like nicely? The answer may be more technical than my explanation above though.

I intuitively expect Core masterfully justified the necessity of their takeover (as funded by the banksters). The influential leaders can influence the flock of followers.

But I don't have time to go argue that. But I bet you I could.  

So now both BU and Core hate me. Perfect.  

I also expect you have factions who are fighting to have the control over the centralization inherent in PoW. I expect there are powerful entities behind BU (and Core) that the useful idiots aren't aware of it.

I am not saying this because of being in love with conspiracy theory. It is because I know as a technical fact that PoW can't be decentralized. So I expect it to be factions fighting over the control.

And so now all you hate me. Sorry. Nevertheless I continue to think Bitcoin is important and must be protected for as long as we can. But I also accept the Invisible Hand is in control.

[JeffBrad12]

Is that true that we have to move all our coins to a bitcoin core wallet so that in case of a fork to Bitcoin ulimited we have our coins also there? I heard that it is not good to leave the BTC at exchanges because they won't deposit these BTU 1:1 to BTC. Anyone knows more?

Here is my opinion. To get your BTU you must move or keep your bitcoin on the direct wallet which means you're using the software wallet. BTU will be running on the different chain or in this time I will be believing about the forked chain from the original bitcoin itself. So, you must wait until the forked chain will be fully activated. And the bitcoin unlimited dev will make an announcement or a method for you to get your Bitcoin unlimited.

About the distribution of the bitcoin unlimited by the exchange site is depending on the exchange site itself. I think they will try to distribute the bitcoin unlimited coin with same equal to the original bitcoin.
If you're having 2 bitcoin on the bitfinex wallet and you will get 2 bitcoin unlimited and you can manage it on the token manager. I think you must read the bitfinex announcement and it's a reliable source for you.

[iamnotback]

Is that true that we have to move all our coins to a bitcoin core wallet so that in case of a fork to Bitcoin ulimited we have our coins also there? I heard that it is not good to leave the BTC at exchanges because they won't deposit these BTU 1:1 to BTC. Anyone knows more?

Here is my opinion. To get your BTU you must move or keep your bitcoin on the direct wallet which means you're using the software wallet. BTU will be running on the different chain or in this time I will be believing about the forked chain from the original bitcoin itself. So, you must wait until the forked chain will be fully activated. And the bitcoin unlimited dev will make an announcement or a method for you to get your Bitcoin unlimited.

Afaik, the problem is that without replay protection (which apparently BTU refuses to add), you would end up transferring your BTU when ever your transfer your BTC (and vice versa if BTC doesn't have replay protection). This was apparently a problem during the ETH/ETC split wherein some people tried to sell one or the other, but ended selling both as the transaction got relayed to both forks.

You can't even be sure an malevolent actor won't send your transaction from one peer network to the other.

I actually haven't studied this technical detail, so I might have an incorrect understanding.

[iamnotback]

It is probably time to sell some BTC and move to an altcoin for the time being:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819153.msg18284974#msg18284974

I would seriously consider making that hedging move asap.

[batang_bitcoin]

Is that true that we have to move all our coins to a bitcoin core wallet so that in case of a fork to Bitcoin ulimited we have our coins also there? I heard that it is not good to leave the BTC at exchanges because they won't deposit these BTU 1:1 to BTC. Anyone knows more?

No we don't have to move our bitcoin core to BTU it will be automatically doubled / replicated. And besides that is still on debate and this is just politics. As of now, there's no real deal on this BTU however there are a lot of people that wants to migrate on this "rogercoin" but you don't have to worry about it.

[rigel]

How can we know if the fork  is going to happen?

I see unlimited hash power is about 37%, way below 51%

[dinofelis]

As far as I understand, BU is an unilateral hard fork, meaning they still accept, on their chain, "old style" blocks (and even Segwit blocks).  In as much as that is right, it would be extremely careless for them to fork with a very small majority, because they could be orphaned if ever their majority gets lost.  If it were a bilateral hard fork, no such danger exists of course, they could even fork at 20%.

But BU cannot fork at 51% (technically, they can, but it is suicide), because the slightest bit of loss in hash rate makes their big blocks being orphaned, maybe a few weeks from now: imagine the disaster !  All BU transactions gone, as if they never took place !

Moreover, the exchanges listing BU as an alt coin, BU would lose the only thing bitcoin has going for it: its brand name.

However, if BU forks at 75%, they are pretty sure to survive for at least a while, the time people "vote in the market".  Moreover, the OTHER bitcoin, left with only 25% of hash rate, would be in serious problems: only a block every 40 minutes, and only hope to get it fixed 2 months from now, UNLESS they hardfork too and change difficulty "by hand".  Major cluster fuck for "normal bitcoin".

All normal bitcoin users would see their wallets come to a halt until they upgrade to the latest, hardforked version of "true bitcoin", with a hard fork !

Exchanges might reconsider their stance if the "true bitcoin" is a minority chain with a lot of technical difficulties and no transactions, and BU, majority chain, happily running, and call BU "bitcoin".

So BU would kill itself with a small majority, but would have serious chances to get the brand name and kill off the old chain if they had a LARGE majority.

Which miners will never give them.

[cryptogear]

AFAIK It will be like it was at ETH when ETC was released. You will get BTU in proportion with your BTC holdings.

[Chikito]

awesome, BTU is solving the problem of BTC, BTC can be possible if syncor with BTU it will be better, so that BTC is the BTU and BTU is BTC. or BTU is the largest number of BTC contract, this will not eliminate the BTC price is too much.

[Golftech]

AFAIK It will be like it was at ETH when ETC was released. You will get BTU in proportion with your BTC holdings.

same thing will go and what will be the benefits of this to bitcoin holder aside from acquiring benefits with its value? its barely
needed to keep an eye from this debate for us not to be left behind.

[iamnotback]

It is a clusterfuck. I bought ETH. LTC and XMR are other options.

ETH forking history is kinda worse though  

At least the attacker fork failed.

hard to know which one was the attacker fork  

right i was just ganna say "ehhhh ya attackers won out in the end" lol

For a moment I got confused and I thought you were referring to which of BTU or BTC is the attacker fork.  

I was on the side of Bruce Wanker and immutable protocols too back then.  

Roger Ver shorted BTC by getting into bed with Dash right before BU attack began. Then we have the Chinese mining cartel ostensibly leveraging electricity paid for by Communism attacking to maintain their hegemony of mining $1000 tokens for $50 in costs. And on the other side, we have the banksters who want to be able to get the bulk of transactions delegated to centralized hubs on Lightning Networks and Bitcoin onchain will become exclusive for them to use (only for very high valued transactions).

cooperation.
comprimise!
sanity!?
Bahahahahahaha!

no.

i think 90% of users and just everyone in general would want some kind of cooperation, comprimise, and sanity.
but i could be wrong.
in anycase, it doesn't seem likely

It is really easy to see that we the token hodlers are caught in the middle of a fight between Godzilla and King Kong. Because PoW is not decentralization!

Core tries to make it seem like they are the more rational ones with the softfork, bug fixes, enabling LN, etc.. but their agenda is clear if you really step back and compare who is fighting and the reason they can't compromise.

[LabaDaba]

It doesn't really matter at what hasrate they fork. BTU will still be an alt and Polo said they might not even list it. And they can fork at at any %. They don't need to wait until 51% or 76% or any other number.

[Civil]

Mate you still have time to think about this. Look where we are at now
https://blockchain.info/fr/charts/bitcoin-unlimited-share

[dinofelis]

It doesn't really matter at what hasrate they fork. BTU will still be an alt and Polo said they might not even list it. And they can fork at at any %. They don't need to wait until 51% or 76% or any other number.

Not with an unilateral fork.