Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi?

[fabiorem]

If theft of coins due to fatal flaws in Segwit does occur, then I think a new fork will become the new real Bitcoin... not Bitcoin Cash and not Bitcoin Satoshi. Similar to how Ethereum and Ethereum Classic split. Segwit will be fixed/removed from the codebase and the chain rolled back to before the attacks, and then due to Social Consensus Bitcoin (Segwit then minus Segwit)  will become the real Bitcoin, and Bitcoin Segwit will become an alternative cryptocurrency. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi will remain an ALT coin.

This. Theft happened within the ethereum network, so they forked it to a state before the theft and people received their coins back. The same would happen with bitcoin, in case it have a massive stealing.

But in the case of ethereum, it was hackers who stole it. In this case, this FUDster is saying that the miners would steal it. Theres no reason why miners would do that, as they receive fees and rewards, and are supported by the network. If they would steal, the network would collapse and so would their profits.

The only way for a massive stealing would be someone hacking the second layer, the LN itself. But for this, it would require a centralized structure, like the one on the ethereum network. Guess what, bitcoin is decentralized, and is continuing to be so even after SegWit. And I dont think LN will be centralized as anyone will be able to run its nodes.

Now try to run Mist. I tried to synch it some months ago, spent three weeks with computer turned on 24/7, and never synched. Even tried Geth, it never worked. Ethereum is a centralized network, my computer cant run a node on it, whereas I run BTC and LTC nodes pretty well.

[1714863030]

1714863030

[Hyperme.sh]

I’m going obliterate[debunk] CoinCube’s, CoinHoarder’s, and your myopia now … (no personal slander intended, this is just discussion, I hope all of you wake up)

But in the case of ethereum, it was hackers who stole it. In this case, this FUDster is saying that the miners would steal it. Theres no reason why miners would do that, as they receive fees and rewards, and are supported by the network. If they would steal, the network would collapse and so would their profits.

Note that the mining farms (especially in politically corrupt China or near dams where electricity is free or nearly free) have very low costs per BTC mined. Thus their profit tends to remain the same regardless of the price decline, because the difficulty drops as the marginal miners must quit.

Moreover, I keep seeing this argument and I had already explained why afaics it makes no economic sense:

Another very important factor to consider is that I explained why the miners are owned by the whales and others explained that mining is a horrible business to be in unless you have a plan for world domination. Tie that together with my exposition on why proof-of-work has to become run by a mining oligarchy else it fails to converge as transaction fees increase. Then you can analyse who is into mining and why.  

Fact is that control over mining is centralized from the foundation and unavoidably so (!!) even into the future:

Including the scam of “decentralized mining” which is utter nonsense given that there are only two 14nm custom ASIC fabs in the world, and they are both controlled by the powers that be (aka the banksters who run this world and who also control Bitmain). And please don’t give me that unresearched n00b nonsense about ASIC resistance and “we’ll just change the proof-of-work algorithm”, because I’ve done the research.

The only reason for anyone to be into mining is for world domination by taking control over the blockchain. Otherwise it is a horrible business to be in.

The whales (even the millionaire BTC kingpin over at Trilema.com) try to pretend to themselves that they have the power to keep the blockchain decentralized, but they do not. Someone has to control it, so ultimately the whales either need to destroy each other or form an oligarchy. They have no other choice.

If you do not understand this, then you understand nothing about blockchains. Ditto for proof-of-stake. (which is why my decentralized ledger is not a block chain)

The miners need to try to obscure this reality as much as possible to keep the sheep fooled. Your job as herded greedy sheep is to regurgitate the obfuscation and lies (mind programming) as much as possible so that the other sheep only look at the ass of the sheep in front of them. Lulz. So hilarious.  

They own you. You have no rights.

All this democracy BS about SegWit has won because everybody gets a community vote is complete nonsense. Cryptocurrency is not democracy. The economic reality is the whales decide and they use deception and take their time in harvesting as many sheep into the corral as possible before they pounce.

Bitmain cleverly pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes by feigning agreement to the NYA, but I presume it was always planning to let 2X fail so that the big blockers head into BCH (“Bcash”) and then that will give them the leverage against SegWit to at some point begin the mining attack to restore BTC back to purely a Satoshi protocol while stealing a lot of BTC from intransigent fools. The banksters have always been about profit and deception. And the intransigent sheep walk into the traps over and over and over again. Lol.

I already provided the link (and the link to the clarifying discussion) in my prior post to the research which shows that decentralized proof-of-work is a lie and it can not remain decentralized, because without an oligarchy in control then as revenue from transaction fees rises to greater than the revenue from the protocol block reward, then the economic incentives for the choosing one of competing orphaned blocks to arrive at a consensus are no longer aligned. The research models that without an oligarchy in control, then in the future every proof-of-work blockchain (not just Bitcoin, but also all altcoins based on proof-of-work) no longer converges and instead would diverge into a proliferation of every increasing number of forks!

[…]

Let’s see what you will say after all your recently acquired BTC is stolen by the blockchain. How will your cute community spirit fork off when the whales are getting rich on your unintended BTC donations?

How high will your confidence be then?

Might you end up being cross-eyed and bit confused about your former idealism, hubris, and overconfidence?

Technological research is very important for having a coherent perspective in our sector. You can’t make correct decisions if you’re a n00b.

I do research. Others talk out of their ass because they do not do enough research.

I’m crowd sourcing peer review of my thoughts+research now. That is the entire point of this thread. Can anyone cogently and coherently refute my points?

The only way for a massive stealing would be someone hacking the second layer, the LN itself. But for this, it would require a centralized structure […]

You need to re-read this thread and digest that the posited SegWit “pay to anyone” booty is a centralized funding for a mining cartel attack.

I think that you are underestimating the power of "Social Consensus". The market, press, and users have all already determined that Bitcoin Segwit is Bitxoin, and there can only be one Bitcoin. All others (Bitcoin Satoshi, Bitcoin Cash, etc.) are alternative cryptocurrencies, as decided by Social Consensus.

After that Social Consensus has been reached, there is no turning back (or reverting back) to Bitcoin Satoshi or Bitcoin Cash. This remains true even if the fatal Segwit flaws rear their ugly head on the real Bitcoin (aka. Bitcoin Segwit... as determined by Social Consensus).

As explained above, “How will your cute community spirit fork off when the whales are getting rich on your unintended BTC donations?”.

@CoinCube explained it well how sheep herd together for surety and think this somehow protects them from reality as they push each other over the edge of the cliff because they were only looking at the ass of the sheep in front of them and greedily copying each other:

Sheep Logic - This Is The Age Of The High-Functioning Sociopath

The determination to pursue any behavior that meets Hallmark #1 and #2 to absurd ends, even unto death. My worst sheep suicide story? The first year we kept sheep, we thought it would make sense to set up a hay net in their pen, which keeps the hay off the ground and lets the sheep feed themselves by pulling hay through the very loose loops of the net. Turned out, though, that the loops were so loose that a determined sheep could put her entire head inside the net, and if one sheep could do that, then two sheep could do that. And given how the hay net was hung and how these sheep were sensing each other, they started to move clockwise in unison, each trying to get an advantage over the other, still with their heads stuck in the net. At which point the net starts to tighten. And tighten. And tighten. My daughter found them the next morning, having strangled each other to death, unable to stop gorging themselves or seeking an advantage from the behavior of others. The other sheep were crowded around, stepping around the dead bodies, pulling hay for themselves out of the net. That was a bad day.

In both markets and in politics, our human intelligences are being trained to be sheep intelligences. That doesn’t make us sheep in the modern vernacular.

We are not becoming docile, stupid, and blindly obedient. On the contrary, we are becoming sheep as the Old Stories understood sheep … intensely selfish, intensely intelligent (but only in an other-regarding way) and intensely dogmatic, willing to pursue a myopic behavior even unto death.

If theft of coins due to fatal flaws in Segwit does occur, then I think a new fork will become the new real Bitcoin... not Bitcoin Cash and not Bitcoin Satoshi. Similar to how Ethereum and Ethereum Classic split. Segwit will be fixed/removed from the codebase and the chain rolled back to before the attacks, and then due to Social Consensus Bitcoin (Segwit then minus Segwit)  will become the real Bitcoin, and Bitcoin Segwit will become an alternative cryptocurrency. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi will remain alternative cryptocurrencies.

After losing their BTC, everyone is going to become a lot more circumspect about trading off security for transaction volume scaling.

The mining cartel will be doing the right thing and everybody who still has any BTC will (eventually) realize that. Those who (because of their greed, intransigence, and foolishness) have no more BTC are irrelevant.

Thus we will have BTCSatoshi and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) remaining. BTCSatoshi for maximum security, and BCH (which is not a Rube Goldberg machine) for those who still believe we should scale transaction volume on proof-of-work. SegWit or extension blocks experimentation may continue on LTC.

That is why in my group we hodl BTCSatoshi (no BTC acquired after late July), LTC, and BCH as our core holdings. Eventually we may dump LTC and BCH for BTCSatoshi when it becomes safe to acquire “BTC” again (after the SegWit and other double-spendable shit has been already taken by the mining cartel). We may also speculate on various other altcoins.

(Note I would caution about acquiring LTC at $68 as it has run up very fast. BTC probably has another leg up still and LTC is highly volatile thus could possibly correct a bit before moving higher. Patience. I sold at $80 and repurchased at $44. I sold BCH at $800 and repurchased at $450 and $350, but I was a bit premature.)

Yet, a lot of people still use this as a measuring "measuring stick" when judging whether or not to invest in (or support) a certain cryptocurrency. It is high time that this changes. All major cryptocurrencies' consensus algorithms are practically equally sufficient for providing what I term "Day-To-Day Consensus" of a decentralized blockchain. That is evidenced by the years of secure transaction histories accumulated by the major consensus algorithms. Other than analyzing the economic and social impact of each consensus algorithm, I suggest not worrying too much about the security of such when analyzing them. (Note: I am referring only to established and practiced consensus algorithms- not newer and untested ones)

[…]

In summary, the next time you find yourself considering the security of different consensus algorithms, or which branch of a fork you should support, stop and ask yourself... does it even matter?

I vehemently disagree with this.

The decentralized ledger’s consensus algorithm is absolutely critical. It impacts not only security, but also the type of applications that can scale, which impacts marketing and user adoption.

I have expended the past 4 years researching and designing my decentralized ledger algorithm, which I hope will replace proof-of-work, proof-of-stake, and Dan Larimer’s dPoS. I have a detailed document which compares my technology to those and also Byteball, IOTA, and SPECTRE (which is not the same as Spectrecoin). I am excited to release this document soon and my new project, during the coming crypto winter. Which has been my plan all along.

P.S. @CoinHoarder, you’re apparently skilled in website development. As a friendly suggestion, I hope you apply those skills to building an app on my project for others to use, and not make your commentary the focus on your future.

The most established and longest running cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin and Litecoin, have forked many times.

BTCSatoshi has never forked. There was an instance of some bug fixes only, which made the whales furious:

Again a rule-of-thumb in software engineering is complexity kills. And the founder of Trilema had a scalding thread on BCT explaining his anger about how the Core devs were incompetent, adding unnecessary complexity, and not developing a specification (the code was the only specification) formalism. He was pointing out that getting the foundation perfected and clean was a higher priority than attaching bells & whistle experiments.

There are an endless amount of examples of Social Consensus trumping actual autonomous consensus algorithms. Another example is when Ethereum rolled back their blockchain after the DAO hack, and the resulting fork was established as being the "main chain".

Ethereum is an experimental blockchain.  It’s not a secure store-of-value nor the reserve currency of the crypto ecosystem.

Equating Zimbabwe’s (or even China’s) relatively shallow liquidity currency and Treasury bond market, to the USA dollar and US Treasuries is not a cogent analysis of reality.

China to Open Bond Market to Foreign Investors

Without a viable bond market, no currency can become the reserve currency and compete against the dollar. It does not matter what you price in yuan, it still requires a trustworthy place to park your money. This is basis fundamental international economics 101. Schools teach domestic economics and are generally ignorant of international economics.

Until debt ceases to be money that simply pays interest, the dollar will not vanish as a reserve currency. There is no replacement as of yet. Even when China becomes the largest economy, that will not displace the “reserve” status of the dollar until there is a deep market to park cash. That is separate and distinct from trade being conducted in a variety of currencies. We have to revise the world monetary system. When we reach that point, then we can deal with creating an alternative for a “reserve” currency that is entirely distinct from trade currencies.

Some comments are saying that China follows every word I say. I think that is an exaggeration. Yes, before my ordeal, we entered into an arrangement with China to do the forecasting for about 1,000 government entities. Yes, I was invited to the Central Bank when the Asian Currency Crisis hit. Yes, I recommended going to the US Treasury and demanding to buy bonds directly circumventing the New York bankers. True, our services are not blocked in China.

[Denker]

Oh Geez!
Another thread by that clown!
Absolutely waste of time man.
But continue spreading your crap if it satisfies you. 

[Hyperme.sh]

Another thread by that clown!

That is not a rebuttal. I’m still waiting:

I await your “rebuttal”.

The n00b clown might possibly be in your mirror.

I’m disappointed. I was hoping for moar “you’re looney” votes. Only 5?  

[jubalix]

I think you have kinda confused original vision and the effect of having the most and best devs on one coin.....

[Hyperme.sh]

I think you have kinda confused original vision and the effect of having the most and best devs on one coin.....

Lol. The whale who owns a million BTC explained what he thought of the Core developers. They have hence created what is alleged to be a Rube Goldberg machine to fool users into issuing SegWit “transactions” which are donations to “pay to anyone” in Satoshi’s protocol:

BTCSatoshi has never forked. There was an instance of some bug fixes only, which made the whales furious:

Again a rule-of-thumb in software engineering is complexity kills. And the founder of Trilema had a scalding thread on BCT explaining his anger about how the Core devs were incompetent, adding unnecessary complexity, and not developing a specification (the code was the only specification) formalism. He was pointing out that getting the foundation perfected and clean was a higher priority than attaching bells & whistle experiments.

But just to make it clear to the kids following along at home-- the consequence of all that is you were evicted from the channel, apparently to the reasonable satisfaction of "my betters".

This is actually untrue. The two bans quoted are the only bans MP ever had in -otc, and there was no "eviction", he simply stopped showing up. Which makes you a liar. Again, if anyone were counting.

Not to worry, I'm sure the consummate scammers of BTC will be more than willing to vouch for your "gold star" reputation. Like the people that shilled for Pirate. Or like the people that shilled for BFL. Or you know, all those respectable folk you hang out with. GLWT. For anyone else "keeping score at home" you're still an untrustworthy, duplicitous piece of shit.

At least you're enough of an idiot to manage getting yourself caught in your own lies within the space of a single forum page. Always good for a chuckle, such intellectual performance.

Recently Bitcoin came close to unmitigated disaster, in the following way: Gavin diplomatically suggested that miners increase their block size, from the previous magic number of "250k" to something they themselves pick. This approach is flawed: the solution to the problem of having a magic number in the code is not passing the responsibility of choosing it to a larger group. It may work politically, in the sense that where large, vague groups are responsible for a bad move nobody will ever be hung. It does not work practically.

This point does not begin to get sufficient emphasis: stop thinking politically, stick to thinking practically. The political importance, usefulness or competence of a dev is nil. This is not your job, and more importantly this is one of the things you suck at the most. A casual skim through the -dev sessions is ample proof for this, more ridiculous dickwad posturing and knowshitism has never before been seen (outside of the mailing lists of some meanwhile failed open source projects). Snap out of it. Stick to writing code.

But we digress: as a result of a number of miners implementing their own version of a magic miner, a number of large blocks were created and mined by them, as long as they ran 0.8. Miners running 0.7 failed to mine these same blocks, and a fork developed.

The reason is that Bitcoin code sucks. It's not that "the blocksize", it's not that "the database", it's not that "nobody could have foreseen their using a plane like a rocket". That shit does not belong in this discussion, passing the buck is not and cannot be accepted in Bitcoin. The reason is that Bitcoin code sucks, and Bitcoin code sucks because people want to be Bitcoin devs, people want to call each other Bitcoin devs, people want to participate in idle irc chatter as if they in fact were Bitcoin devs, but those same people do not have either the ability or intellectual resources to write dependable, usable, good, clean code.

This is a problem, and this problem needs to be resolved, preferably by the people who are causing it. You know yourselves, I won't name and shame. Fix your heads. You won't be getting much more warning.

Today will go down in history as the day when Bitcoin nearly died, and its fate depended on BTC-Guild staying online. Stop and think for a minute. What are you doing here? Why are you here, really?

Like I said I will be holding my main stack on legacy format so im not worried, but the price crash would be obvious and pretty much everyone on Core would be on suicide watch after a such a fuck up.

Lol. Great. Couldn’t happen to nicer group of Hitlers who hijacked Bitcoin with deception. Why didn’t they just go create their own altcoin like the rest of us are doing? Because they are special Hitlers.

As a non programmer, I never understood why all these people which are supposed to be super smart, would all gamble with the project they've put endless hours at, their entire careers, and potentially their lives because there would be a lot of pissed off people at them if it happens. So I assumed the chances of segwit fucking up are unrealistic, otherwise I just fail to understand it. Why would they all be for segwit if the fuck up is a realistic scenario?

[…] I wasn’t the only person who noticed this schizophrenic, wolf-in-sheepskin wannabe-overlord mentality (some Redditard threads about it) […]

Code:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The approach proposed is fundamentally flawed in multiple places.

First and foremost, the only reasonable authority in Bitcoin is derived through the working of 
contracts. Put another way this states that the power of "a collective", ie a group of users no
 matter how large to dispose for the future is nil. Put in yet another way, Bitcoin is not a 
democracy, but a republic. 

Consequently, to propose that MPEx breach its contract with SatoshiDICE because you would like 
me to is a waste of breath : you are not a party to that contract, and consequently you have no 
standing whatsoever in that relationship. The contract specifies clearly how it works, and it 
will work as such.

Secondly, and just as importantly : the current codebase is broken beyond belief. As explained 
in an earlier Trilema article, the main problems Bitcoin faces currently come from the general 
inability and ineptitude of the de facto dev team. These problems are a. that users can not 
create arbitrary size transactions up to the size of one full block ; b. that the client does 
not correctly select the best possible combination of available inputs to feed a list of 
arbitrary outputs. More generally speaking the codebase is replete with magic numbers, which is 
no way to code. The fact that a 7Gb download takes an hour if we're talking a movie and a week 
if we're talking the blockchain - especially considering that the average torrent rarely has 
over 100 seeders and the Bitcoin blockchain rarely has under 1k - is further testament to the 
utter inability of the core team.

Consequently, the correct approach is for these people to either fix the codebase - which will 
require serious work - or else step down and let other people do it. The early enthusiasm of 
"everyone's welcome and we're glad to have you" may have bridged us between Bitcoin being worth 
nothing and Bitcoin being worth 1/10`000th of a pizza, but we are now playing in the grown-up 
league and as such we need grown-up code. It is certainly not acceptable to proceed as proposed, 
from a "this is what the codebase can do, we will pretend to limit usage of Bitcoin to that" 
perspective, as is contemplated here. The only acceptable and the only correct approach is, 
"this is how Bitcoin can be used, therefore this is how Bitcoin should be used, therefore this 
is what our code must accomodate, let's get to work on it."

The fact that a number of people - such as Luke-jr, Gmaxwell, Mike Hearn etc - feel inclined to 
compensate for their modest technical ability with a disproportionate and unwarranted political 
preocupation is of course to be expected : the marginal and the stupid have tried to propel 
themselves in the position of populist "leaders" for as long as humanity existed. This will not 
work in Bitcoin, because that is not how Bitcoin works. It is specifically designed to foil the 
very common alliance between the stupid but lazy and the ambitious but inept that regularly 
wrecks fiat ventures of all sorts, from small business to entire countries. It will work as 
intended for that purpose.

Please you idiots, fix the codebase. If you can't do that, go away.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
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=THL3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[CoinHoarder]

It is silly to say that miner's "profit tends to remain the same regardless of the price decline". If they were to initiate an attack on the real Bitcoin (Bitcoin Segwit- as decided by Social Consensus), then the public perception and confidence in cryptocurrencies will be shattered.

Everyone's not going to simply throw in the towel, eat the economic losses, and move to an alternative cryptocurrency (Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Satoshi- as decided by Social Consensus).

The whales' bags are worth next to nothing if no one is willing to buy them at decent prices. Miners and whales are smarter than this... they will not risk killing the good thing they have going. They are already well on their way to becoming the richest of the rich. They can do so by doing nothing, and letting this whole Bitxoin thing play out naturally.

Bitcoin has indeed forked numerous times. There have been at least two hard forks and numerous soft forks. A simple Google search will prove such, but this is a good place to start:

8th August 2010 - 92 billion BTC into existence

On 8th August 2010 bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik wrote what could be mildly described as the biggest understatement since Apollo 13 told Houston: “We’ve had a problem here.”. “The ‘value out’ in this block is quite strange,” he wrote on bitcointalk.org, referring to a block that had somehow contained 92 billion BTC, which is precisely 91,979,000,000 more bitcoin than is ever supposed to exist. CVE-2010-5139 (CVE meaning ‘common vulnerability and exposures’) was frighteningly simple and exploited to the point of farce by an unknown attacker. In technical language, the bug is known as a number overflow error.So instead of the system counting up 98, 99, 100, 101, for example, it broke at 99 and went to zero (or -100) instead of 100. In layman’s terms, someone found a way to flood the code and create a ridiculously large amount of bitcoin in the process.

The fix was the bitcoin equivalent of dying in a video game and restarting from the last save point. The community simply hit ‘undo’, jumping back to the point in the blockchain before the hack occurred and starting anew from there; all of the transactions made after the bug was exploited – but before the fix was implemented – were effectively cancelled.

How serious was it? Bitcoin’s lead developer Wladimir Van Der Laan is pretty blunt about it, telling me: “It was the worst problem ever.”

Source1: http://www.coindesk.com/9-biggest-screwups-bitcoin-history/
Source2: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0

11/12 March 2013 - Chain Fork Information
What happened: A bitcoin miner running version 0.8.0 created a large block (at height 225,430) that is incompatible with earlier versions of Bitcoin. The result was a block chain fork, with miners, merchants and users running the new version of bitcoin accepting, and building on, that block, and miners, merchants and users running older versions of bitcoin rejecting it and creating their own block chain.

What is being done:Large mining pools running version 0.8.0 were asked to switch back to version 0.7, to create a single block chain compatible with all bitcoin software.

Questions & Answers

I'm not a miner or a merchant, what should I do?
Nothing. Your bitcoin software will switch to the correct chain automatically, no matter which version you are running.

Are my bitcoins safe?
Yes.

What will be done
The core developers have investigated what caused the old versions to reject the new blocks, and have released a 0.8.1 version that avoids creating blocks that are incompatible with older versions. A full post-mortem document has been published.

Source1: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork
Source2: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/3668/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork/

I also found this list: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures
but i'm finding hard to identify the ones that had a hardfork / rollback...

I don't think anyone is arguing that mining is decentralized. It has been common knowledge in the community since at least 2013 that due to economies of scale ASICs bring,  proof of work (and all other consensus algorithms for different reasons) tends toward centralization.

But the miners work for us. We are not slaves. This is the beauty of the free market. Whales and Miners are effectively bag holders. Their mined coins are worth nothing if no one is willing to buy them. Their transaction fees tend to 0 if no one wants to transact on their blockchain, and they are left with expensive paper weights. What you theorize is a suicide mission. They are smarter than that.

At the end of the day, the community owns Whales and Miners... It is not the other way around. You will come to realize this come mid November. Judging from the market, I guess yoy have already lost at least some money on this theory, but I hope you don't lose too much more money on this looney Bcash/Bitcoin Satoshi suicide mission.

[Clairvoyance]

If I follow your drift both segwit and BCH are altoins and Bitcoin has already disappeared.

I hold both BCH and BTC/Segwit and one is losing value fast while the other is climbing. So I don't expect BCH to replace anything anytime soon. When it is mined en masse, it is dumped en masse, it seems very few big players care about that coin.

Indeed. BCH keeps going down and I don't see it surviving from this bleed. The pricing also didn't gain over the past few month but rather it really keeps stooping down. BCH is dead and they are trying to make a new coin to replace it that is why Segwit2x will be implemented.

[MarketMagic]

There is definitely some reason for BCH/to remain floating around this price while offering little or no profit for miners and hashrate sometimes leaving it vulnerable to a 51% attack by any reasonable sized mining operation at certain times yet high enough to offer plebs an incentive to sell whatever they have.It seems to be a balancing act played out by major players until it is revealed wht the end game is for this fork.

[Hyperme.sh]

Bitcoin has indeed forked numerous times. There have been at least two hard forks and numerous soft forks.

I will repeat again, you have only provided examples of bug fixes, not forks:

BTCSatoshi has never forked. There was an instance of some bug fixes only, which made the whales furious:

Again a rule-of-thumb in software engineering is complexity kills. And the founder of Trilema had a scalding thread on BCT explaining his anger about how the Core devs were incompetent, adding unnecessary complexity, and not developing a specification (the code was the only specification) formalism. He was pointing out that getting the foundation perfected and clean was a higher priority than attaching bells & whistle experiments.

The following is not the way I wish the world works. Fact is that herding behaviour of the masses is always a manipulation by some whales who are in control of the (action of) organization. Decentralization is only plausible wherein (the action of) organization is not required, i.e. no power vacuum that demands top-down control.

It is silly to say that miner's "profit tends to remain the same regardless of the price decline". If they were to initiate an attack on the real Bitcoin (Bitcoin Segwit- as decided by Social Consensus), then the public perception and confidence in cryptocurrencies will be shattered.

Temporarily only. And they would continue to mine the same or more BTC at roughly the same profit margins because the difficulty adjusts down as the price declines.

Remember I pointed out to you (the math and examples that show) that mining is a stupid business for any large entity to be in, and the only reason these large entities are financed to be in mining is because the-powers-that-be want to control Bitcoin.

It’s all about control. Bitcoin is the 666 plan. It was designed that way by the Zionists that created Bitcoin (who via their Mossad clearly did 9/11 which no one with a brain stem could deny if they listen to the detail exposition of the evidence). But it is not necessary for you to believe this, the technological and economic facts are clear enough.

Heck even Edward Snowden realizes this:

Edward Snowden has pointed out that BitCoin is not as safe as everyone believes. He said:

“Obviously, Bitcoin by itself is flawed. The protocol has a lot of weaknesses and transaction sides and a lot of weaknesses that structurally make it vulnerable to people who are trying to own 50 percent of the network and so on and so forth.”

Everyone's not going to simply throw in the towel, eat the economic losses, and move to an alternative cryptocurrency (Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Satoshi- as decided by Social Consensus).

Correct. The sheep will continue with Bitcoin. This is preordained in Revelation because sheep will be sheep.

But in any case, that point does not add any support to your argument that miners will not do the SegWit attack. The whales know damn well the sheep have no fucking choice but to be sheep. Attack or no attack, Bitcoin will not be stopped, as you admit. You’re supporting my argument.

The sheep do not manage the farm. The rancher decides to raise and harvest the sheep and sell them at the meat market. Learn how the world works. Your fantasies are only in fairy tales. If rather we indeed have decentralization, then social consensus also does not exist. If you need social consensus, then you need centralization and thus your social consensus is a power vacuum controlled by some whales.

I don't think anyone is arguing that mining is decentralized. It has been common knowledge in the community since at least 2013 that due to economies of scale ASICs bring,  proof of work (and all other consensus algorithms for different reasons) tends toward centralization.

You seem to fail to read the links I provide. I provided links to research that models that the blockchain will not even converge any more and will fork off into innumerable forks once the transaction fee revenue is more significant than the block reward revenue due to maligned incentives.

The miners+whales have no choice but to form a centralized control over mining in the future, else Bitcoin will stop functioning!

Please read. I do not like repeating myself.

But the miners work for us. We are not slaves. This is the beauty of the free market. Whales and Miners are effectively bag holders.

Sorry. You apparently do not understand how economics works.

The sheep are just fodder for the whales to compete to enslave/control/harvest. The organizers of the economy make the economy, until the sheep individually each become their own organizer which is precisely why decentralization is so critically important.

Because unless there is true decentralization, someone has to be the organizer. This is a power vacuum.

Their mined coins are worth nothing if no one is willing to buy them. Their transaction fees tend to 0 if no one wants to transact on their blockchain, and they are left with expensive paper weights. What you theorize is a suicide mission. They are smarter than that.

Nope. The ranchers trade between themselves which creates the liquidity. The sheep are their slaves. The ranchers must buy inputs from other farmers to produce their crop/product/meat. The slaves are just sheep-like (herding) creatures that consume inputs and get harvested.

At the end of the day, the community owns Whales and Miners... It is not the other way around. You will come to realize this come mid November.

Lol. My popcorn is ready.

Remember that is what you predicted that community will rise up about Steem(it) and you were wrong. It is entirely controlled by the whales who (scam the voting by voting for their sockpuppet bloggers) are now fighting it out to see which whales will take control.

Judging from the market, I guess yoy have already lost at least some money on this theory, but I hope you don't lose too much more money on this looney Bcash/Bitcoin Satoshi suicide mission.

Pride cometh before thy falleth. I will enjoy the lulz.

That is ridiculous to assume that every trader buys the precise bottom of every swing before making profits. LTC went from $6 to $85 after I said buy it at $6, but not in a straight line nor as a monotonically increasing function.

[Hyperme.sh]

To have a correct perspective on what is going on with Bitcoin, requires understanding who created Bitcoin and why they created it:

QUESTION: I concur with your findings that Govt’ will ultimately try to ban or regulate to tax crypto currencies. It really is all about tax. nothing else. I really don’t see how it can have anything to do with terrorist funding and the need to track all transactions, considering that as far back as 1996 the Federal Reserve that “ about $200 billion to $250 billion of U.S. currency was abroad at the end of 1995, or more than half the roughly $375 billion then in circulation outside of banks.” So how do the track this cash?

ANSWER: This means they can be used for tax avoidance and the government can use its Terrorist Card. They will not allow cryptocurrency to defeat taxes and BitCoin is not secure enough in that manner.

Martin, Bitcoin is the best tax tracking device ever created. The government will track everything on the blockchain. The DEEP STATE of the governments (and the Zionists who created it) very much want Bitcoin to succeed so as to help phase out cash which they can’t track.

Bitcoin is not supposed to be secure against government tracking. I already emailed you that the Zionists created Bitcoin. Have you reviewed the detailed evidence and arguments that Mossad did 9/11?

QUESTION: But what happens if the people just ignore the gov’t(s) attempt to ban crypto? What then? Is it likely, or even remotely possible that most gov’ts would work jointly and simultaneously to ban crypto currencies? Will there always be several countries that will ignore / not join this movement to benefit from the flow of currency – even if this inflow is crypto currency or not hard currency?
What will happen if the people just revolt and ignore the gov’’s efforts to tax crypto or ban it?

ANSWER: Zcash is far better than BitCoin for to remain equally interchangeable, units of Zcash are unlinked from their history so that one unit is as good as any other unit and this makes them really fungible in the to cryptocurrency world. They have unlinked shielded coins from their history on the blockchain.

I already explained to you that the governments even if they ban together can’t entirely ban cryptocurrency, because that would (analogous to the impossibility of permanently eradicating an endospore bacteria) require finding every private key and every copy of the ledger data spread out in numerous microSD cards distributed in cubbyholes all over the planet. Impossible.

Instead what governments will do is ban “black money”. Anyone who can’t show a ledger and/or paper trail for their money, will have it confiscated if they try to bring that money into the mainstream tangible economy which the governments control. This is one of the reasons Bitcoin is so important to them and why they love Bitcoin. Governments are in love with Bitcoin and will become more and more in love with it.

You’re really missing the train, because you are misunderstanding the entire point of who created Bitcoin and why they created it. Have you reviewed the detailed evidence and arguments that Mossad did 9/11?

Anonymous ledgers will not be a super threat to the governments, because anyone who uses them to create “black money” will find that their money can’t be brought back into the tangible economy that the government is tracking. Although Zcash (especially the new coming STARKs which don’t required a trusted setup) are theoretically more anonymous than Monero’s ring signature, the Zcash technology is currently underused because of some serious performance costs.

Remember also that the DEEP STATE which controls the world’s major governments (CIA, etc) need anonymous cryptocurrencies for their own illicit activities. Their anonymous money isn’t “black money” because they own the regulators. So because of that, they will also allow anonymous cryptocurrencies.

Has the introduction of cryptocurrency  been displacing gold as the alternative currency?

Indeed. And that is a good thing. We had discussed in great detail why gold is a barbaric relic whose time is coming to an end.

Some old guys still take Bitcoin profits into gold or silver, but the younger (and even GenX) guys realize gold is dying.

We will issue a special report on the coming One World Currency.

I already did that:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c192cedaed52ef11ef97acb239dc5986
https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/get-ready-for-a-world-currency

bitcon transactions are not blinded and the system has built-in middlemen (transaction validators/miners).  If I have a gold or silver coin on my table, I'm not required to ask anyone permission or pay anyone extortion fees in order to be able to spend or trade with it.  Bitcon is the exact opposite.  In order to be able to do anything with a bitcon (since transactions aren't blinded), I'm not only required to ask permission to a centralized transaction validator, but also required to pay extortion fees to them (which they can artificially raise to the moon) to do anything with it.

Taxation is a similar issue in the area of theft/extortion:

Bitcoin is not blinded because it is designed to be a tax tracking ledger. Agreed proof-of-work has some flaws.

You can’t trade gold and silver for anything (with any decent liquidity) without the government regulated market makers. We already had this detailed discussion and I am not going to repeat. You tinfoil hats will all end up being destroyed and your children with throw your shiny metal into the streets as the Bible predicts, because cryptocurrency has superior utility and liquidity.

If you don’t want to pay taxes, then change your citizenship to a country which does not tax you. Refusing to pay the IRS is likely to not work out well for you.

As I explained to Armstrong, the government can’t realistically/plausibly tax the nanotransaction virtual economy. So render unto Caesar what is his, and render unto God what is his.

[Last of the V8s]

I've never bought your assertion that miners and whales are one. Not that it matters what I buy. Let me muddle through:
Yes, in the past, the bear market 2-3 years ago Chinese miners were dumping onto exchanges keeping dollar price low.
But nowadays that doesn't seem to be happening much if at all. The debate on that seems to be between a small @Bitfinexed camp and @MrChrisEllis camp
who works at Bitfinex and claims that that sort of thing isn't happening.

Anyway I think you started using 'whales' in a slightly different sense, not as someone who dominates an exchange, but merely as someone who controls a vast sum of btc.
And yes going back there is this Roger Ver/Wu Jihan axis that is a miner/largish holder axis.
But no other miners can possibly even have 100,000 to their name. So not really 'whales' or large holders to my mind.

Mr Popescu certainly has nothing to do with miners or mining. Indeed they unwisely crossed him once. (and Mr Datskovskiy often calls mining 'a bug'.)

centralisation of mining is not a great problem, there's even a 'core'-camp article on this. miners just don't matter, they mine or get bricked. someone will always mine.

The Zionist stuff is silly. satoshi designed it, but couldn't quite understand all its ramifications. Guess who could get the differences between the whitepaper and 0.5.3.
Who started a republic of individuals actually contributing to bitcoin in its final form, and following its ramifications wherever they lead.
wants young men with backbone to become real, important people (the recent piece on how to get rich)

the tax tracking stuff you just posted is silly. i told you before there is no taint or title in bitcoin. read my dad's (tardigrade) few questions in the logs. and there's already a tax system in place for bitcoin.
the tangible economy stuff too. we defeated the nazis before with russian blood and western tears and leaders. you think the incomparably less efficient cia will be a problem?

Anyway look there's no point you or me or anyone discussing any of this here. we have no skin in the game.
but, you think you have a better bitcoin. great. discuss it with bitcoin, the most serene republic. they too want that.
they will easily see where you are right or wrong and they will help you if you are right. they know it's not perfect
but you'll never get anywhere on your own like this telling us fleas to read your material when you refuse to discuss theirs with them.

say your coin is actually better. bitcoin's prime mover advantage is vastly underrated, not least backed by massive independent research. and look at all the big teams behind the other coins especially the few that aren't scammy, they can't get anywhere. yours will not be perceived any differently even if that is unfair.

[bones261]

Why on Earth would Wu implement this attack on the mainnet? It would likely end up killing his goose that lays golden eggs for him. With the low liquidity in the markets, he would likely only gain a small morsel of foie gras from this. Even if he tried to implement this attack on the down low, since his company is the one most likely to implement such an attack, he would be under extreme suspicion and become anathema to the community.
It would probably be more prudent from him to demonstrate that this attack is possible on a testnet. After releasing his demonstration, he would be seen as the hero; confidence in Core would be shaken; and people would likely buy up BCH and anoint it as the true bitcoin.
I suppose that it is possible that even if he demonstrated it with a testnet, the people that have swallowed the Blockstream Kool-Aid would discredit it, even if valid. Perhaps a black hat demonstration on the mainnet would be the only demonstration that would get through to them.  

[Hyperme.sh]

Guys I appreciate your feedback. I am busy doing errands. Will reply later and delete this post.

Hey Satoshi was not some Japanese nerd in his garage. Get a grip on reality. Bitcoin subjugates the nation-state central banks to a global ledger. And thus control over that global ledger is control over the world.

Proof-of-work will not converge to a decentralized consensus any more once the revenue from transaction fees exceeds the revenue from the protocol block reward. Thus Satoshi designed it such that it must become centralized, else it dies in a forkathon.

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!” — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

Come on guys, the logic is straightforward. Present cogent rebuttals please.

Why on Earth would Wu implement this attack on the mainnet? It would likely end up killing his goose that lays golden eggs for him. With the low liquidity in the markets, he would likely only gain a small morsel of foie gras from this. Even if he tried to implement this attack on the down low, since his company is the one most likely to implement such an attack, he would be under extreme suspicion and become anathema to the community.

Does the current minuscule community really matter in the larger scheme of things?

Do the masses really care what Theymos or any other Legendary BCT member wrote?

It would probably be more prudent from him to demonstrate that this attack is possible on a testnet. After releasing his demonstration, he would be seen as the hero; confidence in Core would be shaken; and people would likely buy up BCH and anoint it as the true bitcoin.

That is an interesting theory.

My popcorn is ready to watch the drama over the next months and years.

I've never bought your assertion that miners and whales are one.

When fees rise due to a limited block size and competition (and when fees are the only revenue/reward for mining blocks), whales can pay themselves their fees by being a miner, so that only the dolphins pay fees to the whales.

I posit that Mr Popescu’s error when he correctly did the math on why mining is a horrible business to be in, is that he didn’t consider the benefits of monopolizing mining in that whoever controls the mining, sets the fee level to the maximum the market will bear (and in the distant future when nobody can realistically mount a competitive fork, also can print new coins out-of-thin-air and otherwise use this 666 system to bring the nations to their knees analogous to how the EU brought the member nations to their knees employing the Euro).

Afaics, the foundational flaw in Trilema’s outlook is that they expect they can keep the mining decentralized amongst a group of non-defecting whales, but research indicates that proof-of-work does not provide decentralized consensus when the protocol block reward diminishes. Academic peer-reviewed research shows that as transaction fees rise, proof-of-work becomes incentives incompatible with consensus.

I posit the Zionists have outwitted you all. They have designed the perfect monetary weapon which at the end game they control completely. You are all deceived and I think that is quite hilarious.

Do you think with all their money over the past centuries that they have not been able to hire 180 IQ geniuses to map out their (Satan’s or whatever shit you want to believe) strategy for the end times?

I see no cogent rebuttal, yet some clowns anonymously vote “you’re looney” (without making any argument in the thread) because this is the Internet where useful idiots think their vote means anything.

The Zionist stuff is silly. satoshi designed it, but couldn't quite understand all its ramifications.

[…]

the tax tracking stuff you just posted is silly. i told you before there is no taint or title in bitcoin. read my dad's (tardigrade) few questions in the logs. and there's already a tax system in place for bitcoin.
the tangible economy stuff too. we defeated the nazis before with russian blood and western tears and leaders. you think the incomparably less efficient cia will be a problem?

And also refute the compelling evidence and arguments that Mossad did 9/11 presented by PhDs and scholars.

I remember a qntra.net page and Trilema log about how Mr Popescu seemed to be claiming that the TMSR had wrecked Hellary’s presidential bid because she threatened to make encryption illegal, yet it was Wikileaks who wrecked Clinton and the ties between Julian Assange and the Rothschild family are documented. They installed the buffoon Trump so they wreck him in the public eye. Now I see Qntra.net has been down since Sept. 25.

So if this TMSR is so powerful and is going to destroy the Zionists who created Bitcoin and who have their fingers significantly in control of global finance, geopolitics, and Five Eyes (G5) national securities agencies, why can’t they keep their website online?

Nobody defeated the Nazis. Come on you guys are hallucinating. The entire thing was a dog & pony show created by the Zionists to justify the creation of the Jewish homeland which they would control per Revelations. The Zionists created the Bolsheviks, etc, etc.

@CoinCube had an interesting post on how the mud defeated the Nazis on the Eastern front, not the Russians.

Anyway I think you started using 'whales' in a slightly different sense, not as someone who dominates an exchange, but merely as someone who controls a vast sum of btc.
And yes going back there is this Roger Ver/Wu Jihan axis that is a miner/largish holder axis.

Jihan Wu refers to his clients. His clients are anonymous. We do not know how many BTC they have. I now believe the Zionists were mining from the start and control all of Satoshi’s million BTC hoard and a lot more than than I bet. I expect they will not move those coins until they are ready to demonstrate their power some decade or so from now.

But no other miners can possibly even have 100,000 to their name. So not really 'whales' or large holders to my mind.

Indeed the whales control the miners, not vice versa. The whales can mine them own blocks if need to, so the other miners no longer  get paid, once the block reward declines and all revenues come from transaction fees.

Tthe Zionists will still have control over most commerce even after the monetary resets (including the rise of the Bitcoin they created and they control surreptitiously). Mr Popescu seems to think he is only battling against the USG and nation-state fiats, lol. He has been fooled. He is battling against Satoshi.

Of course most people will be deceived, even the venerable Mr Popescu.

Mr Popescu certainly has nothing to do with miners or mining. Indeed they unwisely crossed him once. (and Mr Datskovskiy often calls mining 'a bug'.)

Thanks for confirming that.

centralisation of mining is not a great problem, there's even a 'core'-camp article on this. miners just don't matter, they mine or get bricked. someone will always mine.

Afaics, this is an oversimplification which then thus arrives at the incorrect conclusion because it fails to incorporate the most salient facts.

Fact is that the whales will control the mining (when the protocol block reward diminishes) because they pay (a power-law distribution) more transaction fees. In other words the top few percent of whales hold more than 50% of the money supply and thus will pay more than 50% of the transaction fees.

Additionally, peer reviewed academic research has modelled that as the block reward diminishes, then consensus is no longer incentives compatible, thus the whales MUST take control of the blockchain, else it will diverge into chaos of ever increasing number of long-lived (not quickly orphaned) forks.

So yes the whales can control the miners (i.e. the whales and miners are the same economic entity ultimately) and thus the blockchain will be controlled by a few people at the end game.

It is quite a brilliant deception that the Zionists have hoisted on all of us. Am I the only one here capable of not being deceived on this?

If I happen to be entirely incorrect about this, I will be most grateful to the person(s) who can explain to me why so.

Off-topic:

Anyway look there's no point you or me or anyone discussing any of this here. we have no skin in the game.
but, you think you have a better bitcoin. great. discuss it with bitcoin, the most serene republic. they too want that.
they will easily see where you are right or wrong and they will help you if you are right. they know it's not perfect
but you'll never get anywhere on your own like this telling us fleas to read your material when you refuse to discuss theirs with them.

I do not know if what I have designed is really going to solve the decentralization problem. And the security model requires a WoT for objectivity. I have not gone over to the TMSR freenode chat yet because my liver is still causing me to have brain fog. I don’t think I am in a cognitive state to match wits with them and be able to pull from long-term memory when sometimes I do not even have the mental energy to remember where the door is. I’m trying to pull everything together and my higher priority at the moment is to get an altcoin project launched than it is to thresh out the peer review of what I have in mind for the decentralized ledger algorithm. Besides I can not discuss it publicly until I have already first mover advantage. I will just note that my design goal was to eliminate the power of control over the money supply to dictate objectivity. Yet if the whales also control most of the transactions in my design, they could still subvert the objectivity. This is why transaction fees are burned. And to solve the problem about losing consensus when block reward diminishes (my design doesn’t have blocks).

I have my doubts about whether stored monetary capital is going to be as useful in the coming Knowledge Age. We seem to be at any epochal shift in human evolution. Thus I am thinking the Zionists are destroying themselves and monetary capital and finance. I think perhaps we are moving towards an Inverse Commons future. I am attempting to reduce the utility of monetary capital and thereby reduce the malfeasance of the the power-law distribution of monetary wealth. Thus empowering bottom-up knowledge creation and collectivized objectivity to hopefully counter-balance the power of finance.

Btw, my design has a perpetually shrinking money supply.

say your coin is actually better. bitcoin's prime mover advantage is vastly underrated, not least backed by massive independent research. and look at all the big teams behind the other coins especially the few that aren't scammy, they can't get anywhere. yours will not be perceived any differently even if that is unfair.

Agreed. I am not even trying to challenge Bitcoin. I am going for a different market. The one spoken about in the Bible for those who survive the Tribulations.

The sui generis aspect should be quite clear at the launch due to the fact it will be “illegal” to sell the token.

We have to paradigm shift. Monetary capital is never going to be decentralized, because its generative essence is top-down Theory of the Firm power vacuum enabled control. True decentralization would require destroying monetary capital and elevating knowledge capital. It’s about elevating the creativity and knowledge generation capabilities of humans, not dumbing them down into fungible slaves.

I’m thinking decentralization will be an ongoing profitable forkathon:

Republics are what we are trying to kill with decentralization, but so far nobody has been able to design a ledger that is truly decentralized. So thus far, the axioms stated hold. I will propose a new decentralized ledger technology (which scales even better than DPoS) which I posit can remain decentralized if the majority of the participants are not politically motivated to defect or who can’t be manipulated. So what I expect is the the intelligent minority will fork off and run their own decentralized ledger on this technology. If the majority attacks it and necessarily raising its value, the intelligent majority will take the gains and fork off again. By eliminating the mining, I make this plausible. More on this is coming soon…

[CoinHoarder]

Come on guys, the logic is straightforward. Present cogent rebuttals please.

No, it is not. This is a reocurring issue when I've entered into debates with you over the years. You combine speculation with conspiracy theories with technobabble with facts, then pass it off as fact using logical fallacies. Mainly, the argument from ignorance fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Since you use enough of the latter (technobabble and facts), people assume you are correct and have a hard time debating you. To make it even harder, you link to long diatribes (that link to more diatribes that link to more diatribes), which in turn require a massive amount of effort (days to weeks worth) just to understand your argument and respond thoroughly. But by tying in speculation and conspiracy theories, it is impossible to argue the opposite side, due to the fact they are speculation and conspiracies.

Theres nothing wrong with speculation, as other people and I speculate on different dynamics of the crypto world all the time, but it becomes a problem when you refuse to admit that your speculation is just that... speculation. Most people can admit they are speculating, and not preaching purely factual information.

I still feel like you are overlooking the very basic macroeconomic principle from which cryptocurrencies garner their value... supply and demand. The bag holder's (including whales' tokens and miners' hardware investments) bags which are worth nothing if no one wants to buy them. The purported scheme you are claiming is happening blatantly under everyone's nose will shatter confidence in all forks of Bitcoin, and thus kill the demand also. If the people you speak of are indeed behind Bitcoin, then surely they are smart enough to realize this.

On the off chance that your SPECULATION happens to be right, then I will reconsider repurchasing some of the Bitcoin Cash I've already dumped (at a huge profit nonetheless). I suggest that you hedge your bet as well.

[Hyperme.sh]

Come on guys, the logic is straightforward. Present cogent rebuttals please.

No, it is not. This is a reocurring issue when I've entered into debates with you over the years. You combine speculation with conspiracy theories with technobabble with facts, then pass it off as fact using logical fallacies. Mainly, the argument from ignorance fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Your (what I presume to be) failure to assimilate all the facts conveniently makes my exposition a “conspiracy” and “argument from ignorance” only in your lazy mind. Or should I write more respectfully: your preferences for priorities in the use of your available time.

• I ask you to go watch the videos from PhDs and scholars (proving that Mossad slaughtered 2700+ sheep at 9/11) that was linked several times and I get in return as a “rebuttal” is the usual Baaaa moan from the witless sheep about how they do not have time to watch the evidence because they preordained that everything they do not want to believe must be a conspiracy. Because it doesn’t match their fantasy about the way their grazing corral should be.
• I linked (in the OP) to where I had explained in technical detail citing peer reviewed research from PhDs that Satoshi designed proof-of-work such that it forces centralization into an oligarchy as the revenue from transaction fees rises and the protocol block reward diminishes (a separate technical issue from the fact that proof-of-work is dominated by ASIC mining). Yet somehow you think this is a conspiracy. Do you also see the ghosts and moire patterns aliasing error in your hallucinations that sampling below the Nyquist limit causes?
• I linked within those discussions to where I had explained in debates with @dinofelis that Satoshi designed ASICBOOST (which provides ~30% performance/efficiency boost) intentionally into proof-of-work. Implicitly gifting it to Bitmain who would have the advantage of not paying any patent royalties to employ it. And I reminded everyone that there is no way to detect when it is being employed.
• I linked to a long list of objectives the Zionists could achieve by having been the ones to create Bitcoin. Can you even cite for me the post I am referring to? If not, then how can you claim anything about my argument when you refuse to even know what my argument is in detail.
• I pointed out the economics and math that the only logical reason for major capitalists to be into mining (unless we presume they’re incompetent), is world domination.

Even if the assimilation of the various facts into a holistic theory about Bitcoin is speculation, that does not make the logic not straightforward. If you want to disagree with the speculation, it still does not make the logic difficult to understand. The point of my statement which you quoted, is a challenge to those who want to make a rebuttal, then please actually address the logic and make your rebuttal germane to my argument. Which you utterly failed to do yet again. Instead you entirely side-stepped the points of my argument and wrote about my personality or reiterated your argument about social consensus (and so I repeat my rebuttal below).

Do you really think that Zionists who have shown they are capable of massive deception would not have intentionally made Satoshi’s work appear to be amateurish while the main salient design goals where never changed from what Satoshi delivered at the inception.

I do not have sufficient time (nor energy) to repeat myself to those who are determined to promote herding behavior (e.g. labeling something a conspiracy or diatribe to avoid having to delve into it) instead of having a debate on the issues. They should continue to follow the ass of the sheep in front of them. Carry on.

I'm not claiming others should not present their arguments. My point is that I've provided rebuttals point-by-point to their/your arguments, yet you/they just dismiss my points as conspiracy or diatribe.

but it becomes a problem when you refuse to admit that your speculation is just that... speculation. Most people can admit they are speculating, and not preaching purely factual information.

Whoa. Where did I state there was no element of speculation in my thread? In fact, I have indicated several times that I am open to the possibility of being shown that my thought process is incorrect. Even stating I would be grateful to anyone who can show me why I am incorrect.

But labeling everything I have presented to be a conspiracy, is a convenient buzzword signalling device to the other sheep who are looking only at your ass, to continue to do so.

In fact, there are no such thing as absolute facts, but the irony of our inability to conclude absolutely that there are not absolute facts on our pitiful existence. We only have partial orders in this perceivable universe. And thus every fact is open to being disproved.

Our life is a speculation.

I still feel like you are overlooking the very basic macroeconomic principle from which cryptocurrencies garner their value... supply and demand. The bag holder's (including whales' tokens and miners' hardware investments) bags which are worth nothing if no one wants to buy them. The purported scheme you are claiming is happening blatantly under everyone's nose will shatter confidence in all forks of Bitcoin, and thus kill the demand also. If the people you speak of are indeed behind Bitcoin, then surely they are smart enough to realize this.

Destroying SegWit on Bitcoin would not necessarily shatter confidence in Bitcoin Cash nor in Litecoin. Instead I believe it would boost both of those. And also provide renewed confidence that Satoshi’s Bitcoin will remain immutable.

It will shatter confidence in sheep, UAHF, Core, and other nonsense that should never have had confidence in the first place. But sheep will be sheep.

It will pop the current bubble and reset for the steady rise of BTC at about ~50% per annum (or probably slowing down slightly because larger things grow slower than smaller things do).

Bitmain and its clients will continue to mine the same number of BTC that they did before (or even more), and their Bitmain and Litecoin chains will continue to grow in stature as the mutable (and more experimental) scaling solutions.

Sorry your presumption that Bitcoin will suffer everlasting doom just because we cast off the idiots, does not seem cogent to me.

However I can not predict when it will happen or even if it will surely happen. The future may end up being more complicated than my simplistic analysis.

I was hoping that we could crowd source some thoughts about various scenarios:

erm TRB as pimped by MP is not for scaling but for 500k+ transaction fees for unpopular doods and zero by kickback to miner for cool doods etc but is it true Dr Satoshi has now tested 10TPS on BCH/BCC.If that is the case then it would be BCH who should go to moon zone.

The IXcoin whitepaper has one such solution

..IXcoin uses different genesis block to bitcoin and has a different reward scheme. So Bitcoins will not be valid in the Ixcoin blockchain and vice-versa.I think TRB is rumoured to be earlier bitcoin version.

As it stands:

[Spratan]

Would Omni Assets be rekt in case of a chain reorganisation too ? I have tetherUSD, which so far is a good means to hedge.

[Hyperme.sh]

The timing is very uncertain.

[CoinHoarder]

@mint

Ironically, most "truthers" get angsty when I start question their theories. Isn't that the point of being a truther... questioning what you've learned about everything everywhere?

I am saying that potentially you are wrong about who created Bitcoin. There have been so many different people that have been called Satoshi Nakamoto before, with all sorts of proof in each case. Now you think you've solved it? Think about how crazy you sound to the old timers that have heard the "Satoshi Was Found" story 100 times by now. You do appear to have some proof, but as far as I can tell, you and I both will most likely never know who Satoshi was. There is not a way to prove you wrong, just as there is not any way to prove that you aren't wrong. So please stop asking me to do so. Maybe you are right? I can't prove either way...

Same with the purported Segwit attack by the miners... that's way out in left field too. There is no way to definitively prove it right or wrong. I think it is more unlikely than the first theory, due to the amount of risk mounting an attack on Bitcoin Segwit/2x will have for the attackers, yet I still admit that it is possible. However, you claim Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash are safe havens if such an event were to occur, but I have deduced the opposite.

There will be many thousands of very angry people (real people, regular joe blows...) that got screwed, because a lot of people own only Segwit/Segwit2x tokens. I can imagine the "Bitcoin Was A Scam" news headlines scaring investors away from the crypto market in general, but even more so with Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. Litecoin has Segwit too, so it's susceptible to the attack they already did on Bitcoin, and is owned by Zihan's gang too. Why would the "sheep" in your scenario flock to Bitcoin Cash or Litecoin? To give more money in transaction fees etc. to the same mining cartel that stole your money in the Segwit attack? To pump the value of the guilty whales tokens? No, just no... all you have to do is let the other "sheep" know what happened. People are a little smarter than sheep brah. Just saying...

IMO, SHA256 (and possibly Scrypt) as a hashing method is done as far as I'm concerned if this attack goes down, and so is any cryptocurrency that uses it. If this attack happens, then I will sell every single SHA256 token I have, and I will spend a very long time trying to convince people of that being the only way to punish the thugs that attacked Bitcoin. Let the bag holder's (miners/whales) be stuck with useless and valueless bags (usless mining hardware or effectively valueless tokens).

Hopefully, we as a community can set precedence for such an event in PoW cryptocyrrencies... If someone amassed enough hash power to attack a certain hashing algorithm, then as punishment the cryptocurrencies using such hashing algorithm are sold off, never used again, and campaigned against. A true show of force from the community could prevent future similar attacks from rogue miners and whales. This is the only way in my mind to punish 51% attackers, and I would hope most people in the community will back me up.

I don't think that Litecoin would benefit as much as other cryptocurrencies, because Zihan and his gang are balls deep in Litecoin mining too. Bitcoin Cash is supported and owned by the same thugs that attacked Bitcoin too. Why would the speculators (aka. "sheep") flock there? I will not support any cryptocurrency in which its miners blatantly attack other cryptocurrencies, and I am sure many will support me here.

I think the biggest benefactors of such an event will be different forms of PoS, PoW cryptocurrencies that utilize a different hashing algorithm, and cryptocurrencies that had nothing to do with the attack. Ethereum, Ripple, Monero, etc... (all other let's say... top 50 alternative cryptocurrencies) would perform better post-attack, because community confidence in Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin will be shattered.

You don't want to anger the sheep herd, as they may just kill you to death with their cuteness! Oh... and they will make sure that the other sheep know Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin is a scam! You already have The sheep where you want them, why anger them uneccesarily and cause a potentially devastating amount of blowback? The social media pitchfork mafia will never rest.

I think that in this post I have elaborated on different dynamics of what I have termed Social Consensus in prior posts/bligs, and how I think it should ideally play out.

[Hyperme.sh]

@mint

Ironically, most "truthers" get angsty when I start question their theories. Isn't that the point of being a truther... questioning what you've learned about everything everywhere?

I welcome any person with a strong functioning brain stem and reasonably decent IQ to listen the PhDs and scholars I linked to and the evidence and argument that Mossad did 9/11 and then I doubt none of them can rationally make good arguments against the theory.

Of course most people are too lazy/busy to expend 3 - 4 hours digesting the videos as I did, and also because they’ve seen so much crap in the past about UFOs, reptilians, and other diversionary disinformation crap that was ostensibly injected by Mossad to create confusion and discredit the truth.

I am saying that potentially you are wrong about who created Bitcoin. There have been so many different people that have been called Satoshi Nakamoto before, with all sorts of proof in each case. Now you think you've solved it? Think about how crazy you sound to the old timers that have heard the "Satoshi Was Found" story 100 times by now. You do appear to have some proof, but as far as I can tell, you and I both will most likely never know who Satoshi was. There is not a way to prove you wrong, just as there is not any way to prove that you aren't wrong. So please stop asking me to do so. Maybe you are right? I can't prove either way...

Criminal investigators look for motive, capability, and strong circumstantial/corroborating evidence. I found all three. All other prior attempts to identify Satoshi were diversionary disinformation crap that was ostensibly injected by Mossad to create confusion and discredit the truth.

Same with the purported Segwit attack by the miners... that's way out in left field too. There is no way to definitively prove it right or wrong.

Technologically it is “right” (i.e. correct) to state the attack is technically plausible.

I think it is more unlikely than the first theory, due to the amount of risk mounting an attack on Bitcoin Segwit/2x will have for the attackers,

I believe the attackers will only do it if it a sure win-win. And so they must presumably wait until the accumulated SegWit (and possibly other miners’ spent BTC) booty is huge enough that it is impossible for them to lose.

yet I still admit that it is possible. However, you claim Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash are safe havens if such an event were to occur, but I have deduced the opposite.

There will be many thousands of very angry people (real people, regular joe blows...) that got screwed, because a lot of people own only Segwit/Segwit2x tokens. I can imagine the "Bitcoin Was A Scam" news headlines scaring investors away from the crypto market in general, but even more so with Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.

Well I am expecting a possible boost in the 8MB BCH due to the failure of 2X before any SegWit booty attack.

And ditto LTC as it is 2X (i.e. 2MB) with SegWit.

But BCH might still benefit also from a SegWit attack because Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment is very slow at 2 weeks, so a crashing BTC price will make the BCH orders-of-magnitude more profitable to mine, thus potentially sending BCH mooning while BTC is collapsing.

No, just no... all you have to do is let the other "sheep" know what happened. People are a little smarter than sheep brah. Just saying...

They herd towards price movement which leads them though.

IMO, SHA256 (and possibly Scrypt) as a hashing method is done as far as I'm concerned if this attack goes down, and so is any cryptocurrency that uses it. If this attack happens, then I will sell every single SHA256 token I have, and I will spend a very long time trying to convince people of that being the only way to punish the thugs that attacked Bitcoin. Let the bag holder's (miners/whales) be stuck with useless and valueless bags (usless mining hardware or effectively valueless tokens).

I don’t think so. BTC will become stronger (after some collapse in price and recovery) because it remained immutable as no Core thugs were able to monopolize the mutation of the blockchain for their bankster masters who funded them. Whereas BCH was an airdrop not a hard fork. The point being that the free market should decide which mutation is valuable, by making them all airdrops and not the anointing one over the others by some NYA of whales. Nevertheless, I think the entire Core thuggery is really just a Hegelian dialectic by design, to take BTC from sheep when immutability is ultimately restored. Again this is not a certain outcome nor is the timing certain. I reiterate this is a speculative interpretation of what I perceive may be the reality behind the curtain so to speak, although technological facts are in the open for anyone to analyse. Of course, my speculation could end up entirely incorrect or it could happen years from now when everyone has long since concluded I was smoking my own Koolaid.

the very nature of an “agreement” between a few parties in a decentralized consensus protocol can be interpreted as an aggression against the network.

My speculative perspective is that Core are the thugs and I will celebrate when this reality becomes apparent to everyone. Sheep are slow to learn, but the whales already know what is coming and why.

The SegWit theft will correct the thuggery and punish all those stupid enough to trust thugs.

Politics is rule by the manipulated sheep mob, i.e. thuggery by proxy. It is what we are trying to eliminate with decentralization.

Marting Armstrong explained:

The Silver Democrats virtually bankrupted the nation because they were paid off by the silver minors who had them overvalue silver at 16:1 to gold when in fact the ratio was more in the area of 133:1 at that time (1884 211,080 $20 gold coins v 28,136,000 $1 silver dollar coins).

[…]

If we look at the entire imports of gold and silver from America to Spain as reported by Earl J. Hamilton, we see 5.8 million ounces of gold compared to 545.4 million ounces of silver. This shows the real silver to gold ratio was 93.31 to 1. Indeed, just after World War I, this ratio soared to 120:1.

[…]

If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

The Silver Democrats, led by William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925) and his famous speech against the Gold Standard, overvalued silver on a ratio to gold at 16:1, which led to massive arbitrage. Silver poured into the country and gold fled. This
unsound finance led to the virtual bankruptcy of the USA by 1896.

This is when JP Morgan came to the rescue and arranged for a gold loan to bailout the US Treasury. It was Morgan who made every effort to raise the stature of the United States in dealings in London. Indeed, by 1914, that was the final peak in the pound and thanks to World War I, Britain had found itself deeply in debt. The British pound had collapsed in value against the dollar significantly moving into 1920.

There are those pesky Zionists always creating false flags Hegelian dialectics (i.e. their manufactured crisis requires their solution) by manipulating the willful ignorance of the sheep. Yet Armstrong turns a blind-eye:

There has been a longstanding view that the Bible warns of a One-World-Currency. It has been a prophecy that many expect to unfold. This report is not based upon the Bible or any such prophecy. Nevertheless, if this report tends to warn of this possibility, keep in mind it is purely based on politics and economics and nothing more. Presented here is an economic review, not a conspiracy theory nor a religious prophecy.

[…]

Whatever the government needs to do to retain power, they will do without any comprehension of the long-term implication of their actions. Many people attribute way too much to those in power with their grand conspiracy theories. What they fail to understand is what is there is nobody in charge, and we are merely riding a train with no engineer? That is the real outcome of government action going forward. It’s worse than any conspiracy theory for we head into the unknown even for government and the elite.

Hopefully, we as a community can set precedence for such an event in PoW cryptocyrrencies... If someone amassed enough hash power to attack a certain hashing algorithm, then as punishment the cryptocurrencies using such hashing algorithm are sold off, never used again, and campaigned against. A true show of force from the community could prevent future similar attacks from rogue miners and whales. This is the only way in my mind to punish 51% attackers, and I would hope most people in the community will back me up.

The community of sheep was dumb enough to create a booty that forces miners to steal it otherwise it will always be a threat that some other miners will. It is a power vacuum.

The stupid community fucked up.

The very poor logic skills of most people is for me like someone scraping the chalk board with their fingernails.

I think the biggest benefactors of such an event will be different forms of PoS, PoW cryptocurrencies that utilize a different hashing algorithm, and cryptocurrencies that had nothing to do with the attack. Ethereum, Ripple, Monero, etc... (all other let's say... top 50 alternative cryptocurrencies) would perform better post-attack, because community confidence in Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin will be shattered.

Except all that other shit is mutable by thugs (whale circle-jerks) that control them.

The immutability of Bitcoin will demonstrate that it alone is unique and trustworthy.

You don't want to anger the sheep herd, as they may just kill you to death with their cuteness!

The sheep created the damn booty which destroys the security. Sheep herd right over the cliff every damn time while only seeing the ass of the sheep in front of them.

Oh... and they will make sure that the other sheep know Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/Litecoin is a scam! You already have The sheep where you want them, why anger them uneccesarily and cause a potentially devastating amount of blowback? The social media pitchfork mafia will never rest.

I think that in this post I have elaborated on different dynamics of what I have termed Social Consensus in prior posts/bligs, and how I think it should ideally play out.

I expect the only blowback will temporal such as the sound of all the sheep exhaling as they hit the valley floor after falling to their deaths from the cliff. And any possible crypto winter opportunity for whales to load up on more cheap BTC sold off by those who are marked-to-market by a hard (re)turn to reality.