@RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC.

[unamis76]

OP, BTU doesn't exist. It's nothing. But I guess that if you indeed own that many coins you know better than me where to put your money

[traincarswreck]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18207263#msg18207263
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18206954#msg18206954
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18206783#msg18206783
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18206438#msg18206438
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18202772#msg18202772
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18203026#msg18203026
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18203250#msg18203250
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18203397#msg18203397

I missed one.  Nonetheless here are post after post of carlton banks repeating and copy/pasting the same question over and over.  I kept explaining I don't agree with the premise so I cannot properly address the question.  But Carlton doesn't understand what a premise is.  He doesn't know what the word means and so he keep repeating the question.

Carlton is dumb and ignorant.  Not educated.  We need to keep the discussion to include people that at least have hope of contributing or gaining from it.

Carlton is a shitdiot.

Also I had a post deleted in that thread because it was apparently a derail when I simply confirmed that a poster had said something intelligent.  Who the fuck is the mod that deleted my post and ignored this fucking retard? Who is the idiot mod?

Where the FUCK are the mods and why is he allowed to do this and I can't make a simple fucking post confirming that someone said something intelligent???

[K128kevin2]

i can't understand what is the deal about? what are they betting to? is he just wanting 60k BTC for 60k BU? BU and BTC will end with the same value right if a fork happen so wha'ts the point of this betting from roger?

If Bitcoin Unlimited forks, it will be on a separate chain to people running other nodes that will classify the bigger blocks as invalid. Some exchanges say that they will list them as separate coins.
OP is betting that BU coins are going to be worth less than regular Bitcoins so in the event of a fork he wants to swap his coins on the BU chain for more coins on the main chain, effectively doubling then number of coins he owns. Sorry if that was a pretty terrible explanation, maybe somebody else can pitch in if you still don't understand it.

And why do you think that BU coins are going to end with the same value?

[notthematrix]

i can't understand what is the deal about? what are they betting to? is he just wanting 60k BTC for 60k BU? BU and BTC will end with the same value right if a fork happen so wha'ts the point of this betting from roger?

If Bitcoin Unlimited forks, it will be on a separate chain to people running other nodes that will classify the bigger blocks as invalid. Some exchanges say that they will list them as separate coins.
OP is betting that BU coins are going to be worth less than regular Bitcoins so in the event of a fork he wants to swap his coins on the BU chain for more coins on the main chain, effectively doubling then number of coins he owns. Sorry if that was a pretty terrible explanation, maybe somebody else can pitch in if you still don't understand it.

And why do you think that BU coins are going to end with the same value?

And more important BU looks imcompetent in building its software

the technical incompetency of #BitcoinUnlimited has made me lose confidence in their code
https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/844553701746446339

[traincarswreck]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18207263#msg18207263
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18206954#msg18206954
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18206783#msg18206783
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18206438#msg18206438
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18202772#msg18202772
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18203026#msg18203026
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18203250#msg18203250
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18203397#msg18203397

I missed one.  Nonetheless here are post after post of carlton banks repeating and copy/pasting the same question over and over.  I kept explaining I don't agree with the premise so I cannot properly address the question.  But Carlton doesn't understand what a premise is.  He doesn't know what the word means and so he keep repeating the question.

Carlton is dumb and ignorant.  Not educated.  We need to keep the discussion to include people that at least have hope of contributing or gaining from it.

Carlton is a shitdiot.

Also I had a post deleted in that thread because it was apparently a derail when I simply confirmed that a poster had said something intelligent.  Who the fuck is the mod that deleted my post and ignored this fucking retard? Who is the idiot mod?

Where the FUCK are the mods and why is he allowed to do this and I can't make a simple fucking post confirming that someone said something intelligent???

No, for real though, why the fuck is that idiot carton banks allowed to sully a thread based on a rational founded and significant argument and I am not allowed to simply confirm someone said something intelligent? 

Someone is putting up 60k btc betting Ver is an idiot, do we really think Ver would a bet that is based on him not being an idiot? 

[jonald_fyookball]

 No, for real though, why the fuck is that idiot carton banks allowed to sully a thread based 

I put him on ignore a while ago. 

[dooglus]

I think the idea is that they would want to lock the coins in place before any fork happens. Your plan seems like it requires the fork to have already happened.

This is not possible without a replay protection, which BU refuses to include

It is possible to lock your coins in escrow before the fork. It isn't possible to do an atomic swap between the Bitcoin chain and an altcoin chain that doesn't exist yet.

From what I understand this wouldn't double his stash, lol.

After that happens Loaded offered him to trade up to 130k Unlimited BTC for Core BTC. So Roger would have double the amount of Unlimited BTC and Loaded would have double the amount of Core BTC.

I think the point was that adding 130k to Roger's stash wouldn't double it. In the same was that adding 130 to 400 doesn't double it.

Nobody really knows how many coins Roger has left, but there are rumors that it's around half a million.

[Peter R]

...

Here's my attempt at making the terms of my bet with RHavar unambiguous:

1. A "network upgrade event" is defined to have occurred if the blockchain (or one side of the blockchain should a split occur) contains a block larger than 1 MB and at least 72 blocks have been built on top of it.  These blocks must be built using the current PoW algorithm and with no reset or fork-based reduction in the difficulty.

2. Conditions where RHavar wins the bet:

   - A "network upgrade event" occurs, resulting in a blockchain split, and at least 2100 blocks are built on the "small block" side of the split (i.e, the blockchain branch that contains no blocks larger than 1 MB) within 4 months (120 days) of the splitting point.  The blocks must be built using the current PoW algorithm and with no reset or fork-based reduction in the difficulty.
  
3.  Conditions where Peter R wins the bet:

   - A "network upgrade event" occurs and the blockchain contains at least one block larger than 1 MB and no blockchain split occurs.
   - A "network upgrade event" occurs and the blockchain contains at least one block larger than 1 MB and 2100 full-difficulty regular-PoW blocks are not built on the small-block chain within the 120 day window.
   - Should the minority chain become unusable for whatever reason prior to reaching 2100 regular-PoW/full-difficulty blocks, thereby requiring a change in PoW or a reset or reduction in difficulty in order to keep it alive, then Peter R wins the bet provided the big-block side of the blockchain contains a block larger than 1 MB.    

4. Conditions for a draw (Peter R and RHavar receive their wagers back)

   - No "network upgrade event" occurs between now and 31 December 2017.  

[Loaded]

From my perspective at least, this is not a bet, it's a business transaction. My motivations are 90% profit and 10% because I do not foresee BU as it exists today succeeding with the lack of code review and still unsolved EC divergence. Nothing prevents a miner from switching to the Core chain and orphaning the entire BU chain if it becomes profitable to do so.

As for big vs small, I supported 2MB last year when there was no working implementation of LN. Today SegWit + LN appears to be ready to go. I believe that the BU miners are not looking at the bigger picture. On chain fees can continue to rise even while a large number of transactions move to LN. There is no issue paying a $10 fee to open a reusable channel, while the same fee for a single transaction is extreme. SW already offers 2MB, the only difference seems to be where the signatures are stored.

[Carlton Banks]

 No, for real though, why the fuck is that idiot carton banks allowed to sully a thread based 

I put him on ignore a while ago. 

Lol, you two are obsessed with me. Why not refute what I say instead of trolling (you can't)

[msin]

From my perspective at least, this is not a bet, it's a business transaction. My motivations are 90% profit and 10% because I do not foresee BU as it exists today succeeding with the lack of code review and still unsolved EC divergence. Nothing prevents a miner from switching to the Core chain and orphaning the entire BU chain if it becomes profitable to do so.

As for big vs small, I supported 2MB last year when there was no working implementation of LN. Today SegWit + LN appears to be ready to go. I believe that the BU miners are not looking at the bigger picture. On chain fees can continue to rise even while a large number of transactions move to LN. There is no issue paying a $10 fee to open a reusable channel, while the same fee for a single transaction is extreme. SW already offers 2MB, the only difference seems to be where the signatures are stored.

My sentiments exactly and why I'm willing to make a similar business transaction with Roger via a pool if available.

[QuestionAuthority]

From my perspective at least, this is not a bet, it's a business transaction. My motivations are 90% profit and 10% because I do not foresee BU as it exists today succeeding with the lack of code review and still unsolved EC divergence. Nothing prevents a miner from switching to the Core chain and orphaning the entire BU chain if it becomes profitable to do so.

As for big vs small, I supported 2MB last year when there was no working implementation of LN. Today SegWit + LN appears to be ready to go. I believe that the BU miners are not looking at the bigger picture. On chain fees can continue to rise even while a large number of transactions move to LN. There is no issue paying a $10 fee to open a reusable channel, while the same fee for a single transaction is extreme. SW already offers 2MB, the only difference seems to be where the signatures are stored.

Let me ask you a question just to satisfy my own curiosity and discover the reason for your recent "business transaction" proposition to Ver. You are "loaded". I assume you live in a beautiful home with all the modern appointments. Surely you must have fine automobiles at your disposal and take worldwide vacations with the same frequency that other people change their underwear. In essence, you want for nothing. Your stake in the "business transaction" you're proposing is worth upwards of $60 million. With that kind of money, why would you not simply cash out, retire, and enjoy everything the world has to offer? Instead, you leverage your millions to prove a point? I don't get it.

[viajero]

I'd like to join and swap my future BTU for BTC. I have way less than loaded but still a significant amount. I can provide further proof in private.

I'd like a clarification from MemoryDealers if he is willing to accept further offers.

[notthematrix]

From my perspective at least, this is not a bet, it's a business transaction. My motivations are 90% profit and 10% because I do not foresee BU as it exists today succeeding with the lack of code review and still unsolved EC divergence. Nothing prevents a miner from switching to the Core chain and orphaning the entire BU chain if it becomes profitable to do so.

As for big vs small, I supported 2MB last year when there was no working implementation of LN. Today SegWit + LN appears to be ready to go. I believe that the BU miners are not looking at the bigger picture. On chain fees can continue to rise even while a large number of transactions move to LN. There is no issue paying a $10 fee to open a reusable channel, while the same fee for a single transaction is extreme. SW already offers 2MB, the only difference seems to be where the signatures are stored.

Let me ask you a question just to satisfy my own curiosity and discover the reason for your recent "business transaction" proposition to Ver. You are "loaded". I assume you live in a beautiful home with all the modern appointments. Surely you must have fine automobiles at your disposal and take worldwide vacations with the same frequency that other people change their underwear. In essence, you want for nothing. You're stake in the "business transaction" you're proposing is worth upwards of $60 million. With that kind of money, why would you not simply cash out, retire, and enjoy everything the world has to offer? Instead, you leverage your millions to prove a point? I don't get it.

I guess loaded wants to test if ver puts the money where is mouth is
verry simple notting more notthing less.

[2dogs]

With that kind of money, why would you not simply cash out, retire, and enjoy everything the world has to offer? Instead, you leverage your millions to prove a point? I don't get it.

Because with traders, it is all about being in the game.

[Loaded]

Let me ask you a question just to satisfy my own curiosity and discover the reason for your recent "business transaction" proposition to Ver. You are "loaded". I assume you live in a beautiful home with all the modern appointments. Surely you must have fine automobiles at your disposal and take worldwide vacations with the same frequency that other people change their underwear. In essence, you want for nothing. You're stake in the "business transaction" you're proposing is worth upwards of $60 million. With that kind of money, why would you not simply cash out, retire, and enjoy everything the world has to offer? Instead, you leverage your millions to prove a point? I don't get it.

Why does anyone with a high net worth continue to work? I'm in it to protect and grow my investment.

I am only entering this from a win-win-win perspective.

If a fork occurs are things are, the vast economic majority is with Core and those coins will be more valuable. Win.

If it pressures BU into not forking, win, because the combined value of the post-fork coins is very likely to be below the pre-fork value.

If it pressures BU to make improvements, I reserve the right reevaluate the transaction. Win because at least the combined value will be higher.

[rizzlarolla]

The only way Roger can "lose" in this chain split swap is if BU forks with too low hash power.
(Roger must be sure that BU will not activate before "hash power is high enough", and will not be "activated" by rogue actors with ill intent)

To illustrate, if a chain split occurred with BU having 99% hash power support at activation, Core 1%, there is no conceivable way Roger can "lose".
A 1% chain is insecure and untrustworthy, right, that is how Bitcoin works?

Now, a 99% / 1% split is "unrealistic" IRL for any consensus mechanism, so Roger may well assess hash % with achievability IRL, and decide 80% hash power supporting BU is both achievable and workable consensus. (and in a fight, 80% hash power should beat 20% hash power, no?)

If BU never achieve 80% and therefore never activate, no split will occur, bet is void.

I guess loaded wants to test if ver puts the money where is mouth is
verry simple notting more notthing less.

Yes maybe, but is now putting in "no further development" opt out clauses?

BU as it exists today

Is Loaded now saying BU must launch "as it exists today" seemingly because "today SegWit + LN appears to be ready to go".
Shouldn't it be "BU must split the chain before segwit adoption" as "SegWit + LN appears to be ready to go"?
That is fair consensus timescale. I thought this bet was about whenever BU split the chain, Core btc would still be more valuable?

All bitcoiners have to trust the miners to not activate dodgy code, weather that be BU or Segwit.

[jonald_fyookball]

The only way Roger can "lose" in this chain split swap is if BU forks with too low hash power.  

Well , not exactly.  OP believes Core will have economic majority even if the miners disagree.
Roger presumably thinks otherwise.

[rizzlarolla]

The only way Roger can "lose" in this chain split swap is if BU forks with too low hash power.  

Well , not exactly.  OP believes Core will have economic majority even if the miners disagree.
Roger presumably thinks otherwise.

That maybe what Loaded thinks, but is not true.

As i have shown in my example situation of 99% / 1% hash power. Does Loaded still think he can win?
(i know it wont happen like that)

If Loaded is correct, then we don't need miners anymore?

[muyuu]

...

Here's my attempt at making the terms of my bet with RHavar unambiguous:

1. A "network upgrade event" is defined to have occurred if the blockchain (or one side of the blockchain should a split occur) contains a block larger than 1 MB and at least 72 blocks have been built on top of it.  These blocks must be built using the current PoW algorithm and with no reset or fork-based reduction in the difficulty.

2. Conditions where RHavar wins the bet:

   - A "network upgrade event" occurs, resulting in a blockchain split, and at least 2100 blocks are built on the "small block" side of the split (i.e, the blockchain branch that contains no blocks larger than 1 MB) within 4 months (120 days) of the splitting point.  The blocks must be built using the current PoW algorithm and with no reset or fork-based reduction in the difficulty.
  
3.  Conditions where Peter R wins the bet:

   - A "network upgrade event" occurs and the blockchain contains at least one block larger than 1 MB and no blockchain split occurs.
   - A "network upgrade event" occurs and the blockchain contains at least one block larger than 1 MB and 2100 full-difficulty regular-PoW blocks are not built on the small-block chain within the 120 day window.
   - Should the minority chain become unusable for whatever reason prior to reaching 2100 regular-PoW/full-difficulty blocks, thereby requiring a change in PoW or a reset or reduction in difficulty in order to keep it alive, then Peter R wins the bet provided the big-block side of the blockchain contains a block larger than 1 MB.    

4. Conditions for a draw (Peter R and RHavar receive their wagers back)

   - No "network upgrade event" occurs between now and 31 December 2017.  

 

HAHAHA dream on.

If BTC trades as BTC and it's understood to be BTC, it's BTC.

So this is what they are going to use to backtrack?

Unsurprising I guess.