Crypto winter is coming again …

[thejaytiesto]

I wonder why no one has come up yet with a bitcoin hardfork that goes back to no-segwit and continues with 1MB and keeps same hashing algo etc, so you get the original bitcoin, and maybe keep all the good work that Core has done optimizing the client because it's fast as fuck compared to older versions (you got to admit that). Not sure if there have been any compromises to reach that speed in validating the blockchain tho, I just talk from an end user experience. Back in the day, I remember running Bitcoin-qt and it was so much resource consuming to load, maddening actually. It would constantly crash. I think in around 0.13 when they switched to secp256k1 it became way faster. Eventually the resource consumption went down and now I have no problems.

This way we would have a pre-segwit bitcoin with 1MB just in case something went wrong with segwit, and we wouldn't risk getting nodes flooded with trash not being able to run them like it could happen if the 8MB of BCash got filled with spam. This fork could be used as an hedge until original chain is (somehow, i dont know the technical details) restored. I predict someone will do this in 2018, which some are calling "the year of bitcoin forks" where we will have "bitcoin whatever" left and right.

[1713942453]

1713942453

[1713942453]

1713942453

[1713942453]

1713942453

[Hyperme.sh]

I predict someone will do this in 2018, which some are calling "the year of bitcoin forks" where we will have "bitcoin whatever" left and right.

That is the long-range chain reorganization I am positing. A fork that starts from say August and steals all the SegWit booty that has accumulated enriching the miners.

I wonder why no one has come up yet with a bitcoin hardfork that goes back to no-segwit and continues with 1MB and keeps same hashing algo etc, so you get the original bitcoin

I am glad that someone else has noticed they did not offer us that option. Was it on purpose?

And I conjecture one possible reason that no one has offered it yet, because TPTB in my conjecture would want to offer it as a rollback to August, after they divide-and-conquer the community with a proliferation of forks. If they offered it without a rollback earlier, they would not be able to get as much support for their coming rollback (if my theory comes to fruition).

TPTB amass more BTC with the rollback and immutability is restored.

Those (more or less economically irrelevant) sheep who lost BTC to the rollback can continue on one of those many forks to own their more or less worth-much-less “BTC”. Any way, that is my theory but not with even 80% conviction of likelihood.

As you say, 2017 to sometime in 2018 appears to be the year of the forks. So the potentially frenzied end to this forkathon mess is probably not going to be in November 2017.

Again I posited a wild conjecture that any such forkathon is being fostered behind the curtain to create the environment that will be ripe to accept the rollback as a savior from a forkathon mess coupled with a hypothesized insecurity mess of SegWit. Everyone could grow weary of the endless forking and beg for immutability.

That is a lot of potentially cockamamie theory and conjecture. Might all end up being hair-brained. Except all I can say to that is study my sources and make your own determination to quality of my sources and analysis thereof.

I hope everyone remembers there are apparently millions of BTC that would love to see the mob of sheep who supported SegWit, lose their BTC as a punishment and education. They believe the immutability (i.e. resistance against rule by the mob) is one of the key attributes that gives Bitcoin its value as reserve currency.

My wild conjecture is TPTB are in the process now of demonstrating what happens when ”rule by the mob” is allowed. In this conjecture, I posit they want to demonstrate how it ends up as a divided-and-conquered and insecure mess. I believe they put a decade (or more) of research into creating Bitcoin and they know that it should not be fundamentally altered because they know there is no such thing as a democracy. There is only a power vacuum that results in chaos until TPTB step into the power vacuum and create order.

Why am I allowed to speak? Before I was not allowed to speak. Has someone been told to allow me to speak. TPTB have a code of honor that they must warn you and give you your free will. They want you to wilfully walk into their deception due to our own selfish sheep quality.

I am the same confused like you with all that forks,in a case of soft forks looks like new fashion,creating new premined btc,bittrex rule is no premine,most serious is 2x btc war escalation,looks like final battle die or alive
Final effect can be negative sentiment for btc and people like Dimon will walk in glory,After all that years of gaining trust we have that chaos,greedy,wha dev can do,so i ve been reading that 2x may even attack core
and core i dont know,but maybe 2x will not happen

I'm extremely disapointed in Bitcoin's open-source nature. I always supported Core's roadmap but i also welcomed new update/scaling solutions.

It turned into a major shitshow from each of them; XT/Classic/BU/ABC/Bcash/2X etc... they where all disgusting, cheap, bugged, hostile take overs.

[…]

I completely agree with you. It's sad if you think about it. I haven't been in the space for too long but even I recognize the fact that 2x is just a plain attack on bitcoin and what it stands for. We've got one shot to make this exciting technology work. Let's do it right.

[Hyperme.sh]

[…] i.e. Bitcoin will be the Fat Protocol and reap most of the benefits any way (even if it does not directly scale transaction volume, it scales economically as the reserve currency):

There’s a concept called Fat Protocols, which goes something like this: Tim Berners Lee, who effectively invented the World Wide Web in 1989, didn’t really reap much of the financial benefit for his creation. All the monetary rewards went to the companies who built things on top of the HTTP protocol or the FTP protocol etc. Yahoo, Google, AOL, Facebook – those were the winners. The protocols that actually run the web didn’t retain any value in and of themselves. The Fat Protocols theory says that in crypto currencies it will be the other way around – most of the value will accrue to the network itself (in the form of the coins’ values) and there will be a very thin layer of value on top for companies that create things. I don’t know if that will be true, I’m just passing it along.

I made some comments at that (somewhat famous and oft-cited) Fat Protocols blog just now and I will copy them here, because they’re waiting on a moderator there and might never be approved given the blog is old (also I essentially provided the most cogent refutation of it in the comments):

the market cap of the protocol always grows faster than the combined value of the applications built on top, since the success of the application layer drives further speculation at the protocol layer

Disagree. The speculation at the protocol layer eventually subsides once everyone is onboarded. The value of the money supply doesn’t grow faster than the stock market or other derivatives of the money supply, because the speculation on those derivatives is based on the accumulated velocity of the money supply over time.

The value of the protocol layer is growing faster now because there is so little adoption and I agree with you that this tokenization offers an hyper-accelerated financing mechanism for driving the future adoption.

Eventually the applications will be worth much more than the money supply.

As the mobile carriers have found, it's very hard to keep value at the network / dumb pipe layer for long.

That’s because any dumb capital can over build mobile infrastructure and they’re more or less fungible with each other (e.g. other than upgrades in technology). There’s no moat:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2839

Whereas, a decentralized ledger solves a coordination problem for it’s participants and even a fork doesn’t solve the coordination for the same set of participants (discord over forks is a reduction in coordination). The coordination is the moat.

UPDATE Nov 5: Also I will quote Vitalik:

doing so requires breaking through a hard coordination problem. Coordination problems are everywhere in society and are often a bad thing - while it would be better for most people if the English language got rid of its highly complex and irregular spelling system and made a phonetic one, or if the United States switched to metric, or if we could immediately drop all prices and wages by ten percent in the event of a recession, in practice this requires everyone to agree on the switch at the same time, and this is often very very hard.

[Bartimer]

@Hyperme.sh, how can regular BTC users protect themselves from SegWit coins? I use Electrum, and most of my bitcoins are older than the start of SegWit, but how can I check the status of bitcoins transferred into my Electrum wallet since SegWit started?

Is there a way to 'de-SegWit' bitcoins, maybe by sending to myself in an old wallet? I take your advice seriously, and want to avoid having my stash SegWitled away by miners.

This is all I know, and I don’t know much about Bitcoin wallets. Hopefully someone else can offer better insights.

The point of discussing is to crowd source information.

I'm sort of freaking about this possibility now, and dble freaking at the lack of freaking out by most other crypto users.

Thanks for explaining the risks at play!!

@Klone

I also wanted to check if my BTC were "segwitted" or not - took me a while, but finally stumbled on this: http://srv1.yogh.io 
Hope you find it helpful.


@Hyperme.sh: Thank you very much for all your analysis - admittedly, it takes me a long time to go over it, but I truly appreciate it.  Rooting for your work: hope to see that soon.

[MarketMagic]

That is the long-range chain reorganization I am positing. A fork that starts from say August and steals all the SegWit booty that has accumulated enriching the miners.

I wonder why no one has come up yet with a bitcoin hardfork that goes back to no-segwit and continues with 1MB and keeps same hashing algo etc, so you get the original bitcoin

I am glad that someone else has noticed they did not offer us that option. Was it on purpose?

I also mentioned this a while back wondering why they did not go back to pre 2017 and one of the suggestions was that it avoided a situation where anyone with old private keys of then emptied addresses which had contained BTC at the chosen snapshot would then have all the btc belonging to those old addresses or something to that effect.

My wild conjecture is TPTB are in the process now of demonstrating what happens when ”rule by the mob” is allowed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

[Hyperme.sh]

My wild conjecture is TPTB are in the process now of demonstrating what happens when ”rule by the mob” is allowed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Some where I actually corrected that to “rule (actually chaos) of the mob”:

The notion that, in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannise and exploit diverse smaller interests, has been criticised by Mancur Olson in The Logic of Collective Action, who argues instead that narrow and well organised minorities are more likely to assert their interests over those of the majority. Olson argues that when the benefits of political action (e.g., lobbying) are spread over fewer agents, there is a stronger individual incentive to contribute to that political activity. Narrow groups, especially those who can reward active participation to their group goals, might therefore be able to dominate or distort political process, a process studied in public choice theory.

See also the Pitfalls of Proof-of-Stake section, Paul Sztorc’s explanation of voting political economics, and Mancur Olsen’s The Logic Of Collective Action.

I am envisioning a forkathon where every demographic of differing interests is given a fork, and thus the minions are divided onto to numerous chains.

It may be perceived that Core has majority support, but my cockamamie theory is this is being feigned (and thus fostered) so as to create a bubble and a forkathon.

The tyranny of the mob is actually that the mob is manipulated by the few who control the strings from behind the curtain.



I think I will try to make this my last post over here in Speculation for a while.

I recently analysed Martin Armstrong’s The Coming One-World Currency report (which btw contains an extremely detailed account of relevant world history).

Armstrong has a strong dollar international capital stampede into the USA (and USA equities) theme which seems to be valid which I also recently redocumented. With that backdrop we can analyse his latest blog as it applies to Bitcoin:

QUESTION: Marty, we are living in Austria and we try to grasp what will come after the Dow reached the mid 30.000s or even the 40.000s in 2019/20 and the dollar went up too? what goes up must come down. it would be good to know how to prepare oneself for the everyday life as we can´t do big jumps with our little money. what economic scenarios do we have to expect here in Europe around 2020/2021?

ANSWER: Oh yes. What goes up must come down. However, that is the case ONLY when the currency remains equal! We are looking at a new monetary system. That is when the currencies are reset. They need to explain away the failure of Socialism – the pension ponzi scam.

Some people also ask if the “arrival of crypto’s” will be the reset. In order for the cryptos to make it past the DOT.COM Bubble syndrome, there has to be a major technological advance in society around the world. That is not likely.

This is why I just finished The Coming One-World Currency report. This deals with what is coming for the reset AFTER the chaos unfolds.

Someone ^{(who is much more well respected around here than I am)} sent this message to me in private:

Has Armstrong become out of touch? What technological advance? Smartphones can participate in crypto and they've proliferated like no other technology in history. I have a hard time taking any of his posts discussing crypto seriously anymore.

If 2020 is the timeline for monetary reset (but I’ve also seen Armstrong mention dates as distant as 2024), and if Bitcoin is to be that reserve currency, then any crypto winter would need to be more of a V bottom than the 2 year cup from 2014 to 2016.

Or perhaps I should look at it another way. Maybe the exodus from the strong dollar and 40,000 DJIA just gets underway in 2020 and the capitulation of the nation-states to Bitcoin as a reserve currency does not complete until the 2024 to 2032 timeframe.

Or maybe there will be no crash:

We have four actual groups:

• smart strategic big money (long-term portfolios)
• professional short-term traders
• the day trader who thinks he is limiting his risks
• program traders who try to arbitrage ticks
• the average retail investor
• the fool who rushes in at the last minute

In most real good vertical markets, it is the professional short-term traders who keep trying to sell the new highs. This has been the group that has been bearish ever since 2009. They never saw new highs coming, and they still will try to sell every new high today. They falsely believe that they are “professional” and so they will be right and the average investor is the fool. But the average investor sees the trend for what it is, goes with the trend, while the short-term “professional” keeps trying to beat the market.

Re: Next 5 year for Bitcoin

in the next 5 years bitcoin price have a chance to reach the barrier of $25000 it's been predicted after the price barrier reach the $6000.

I think we may get to $10,000 to $25,000 within Q1 2018. Then some sort of crash perhaps.

In 5 years, I expect Bitcoin will no longer be used for transactions by most people and instead will be a reserve currency held by Central Banks. The price will be greater than $300,000 per Bitcoin.

Click here for more details.

[Hyperme.sh]

I recommend clicking the quote and reading the entire blog and the insightful comments below the blog.

As in every mania in history, it is currently rational to be irrational.

To understand what’s going on, let’s look at the buyer and seller mentality right now, starting with the buyers.

If you invested early in Bitcoin or Ethereum, you are sitting on a windfall. It feels like you are playing with “house money,” a well-known psychological effect. You feel smart and willing to risk more than you otherwise would if it was “your money.” Might as well diversify a bit and parlay your gains into the next crypto asset, or two, or three.

If you didn’t invest, the fear-of-missing-out continues to build until the “screw it” moment when you buy in. Maybe you read about Bitcoin, didn’t understand it, and followed Warren Buffet’s (good) advice not to invest in things you don’t understand. Some of your friends made money but you still ignored it. Then you read about Ethereum, which you really didn’t understand, also passed on buying, and later found out that your friends are planning to retire because they did. The lesson seems to be anti-Buffet: only invest in things you don’t understand. This is causing people to check their judgement at the door when the latest all-time high finally convinces them to jump into the market.

And that is not good.

Because there will be sellers to fill the demand, especially the demand coming from people who have decided they will never understand this stuff so will just place bets on things that sound complex and impressive.

Let’s think about these sellers. And by sellers, I don’t mean people selling their holdings of existing crypto assets. I mean new issuers. Teams launching new crypto assets.

The basic model is to pre-sell some percentage of the crypto assets the proposed network will generate as a way to fund the development of the decentralized application before it launches. The project founders tend to hold on to some percentage of these assets. Which means that raising money for a project this way is a) non-dilutive as it is not equity and b) not debt, so you never have to pay anyone back. This is basically free money. It’s never been this good for entrepreneurs, even in the 90s dot-com boom. Which makes it incredibly tempting to try and shoe-horn every project that could perhaps justify an “initial coin offering” to go for it, even if they aren’t actually building a decentralized application. After all, an ICO lets you exit before you even launch.

And there is a pervasive narrative out there that supports entrepreneurs looking to create new crypto assets. The idea is that by selling assets to users before your network launches, you create “evangelists” who will be early users and promoters you wouldn’t otherwise have if there were no financial incentive to participate in your community.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it conflates early investors with early users. The overlap between people who buy your crypto asset and people who actually want to use the service you are building is likely very, very small, especially during market manias like this one. It creates a false sense of “product-market fit.” Yes, people are buying your crypto asset. But that’s because the “market” are people who want to get rich and the “product” you are selling is a “way to get rich.”

IOW, he exactly described the analogous Dot.com bust when the hype and empty bag selling got way out in front of the adoption. Warren Buffett was correct about the Dot.com bust and yet he admited he was wrong not to buy Amazon in the web2.0 rise when adoption finally blasted off.

I think we may see an analogous outcome in crypto, but on a more accelerated timeline. So I could see another 1 - 2 year crypto winter due to a SegWit theft and ICO collapse due to regulators doing enforcement against EOS and others. Maybe not, but maybe so.

As long as you have BTC you acquired since well before August, then you can just hold through any crypto winter, but if you’re holding recent BTC or altcoin tokens that were issued by ICO, then could potentially be confiscated/destroyed. Maybe not, but it is a risk I am considering. Do you think the scenario I described is a very low probability?


We are currently entering a phase transition vertical market for all private assets including the DJIA due to the dollar short squeeze that will engulf the entire world. The following quotes are thus relevant:

However, money will NEVER shift from the stock market all into gold. Everyone has their pet investment in what they feel comfortable. Gold is a retail product – not institutional. The Institutions can trade ETFs, gold stocks etc., but they will never take possession of gold.

What we are facing in truth is a currency reset. That means that ALL tangible assets rise against the currency in whatever country we are talking about. The goldbugs always hate the dollar and many of them have turned away from gold and into cryptocurrencies.

You will always have people who will prefer stocks, others gold, and others real estate

It seems above Armstrong is equating gold and cryptocurrencies to tinfoil hats who hate society+civilization (even if they do not admit it to themselves) and want money to be an absolute store-of-value without any social liability. Yet I think he is missing the point that Bitcoin will be the one-world reserve currency for the power brokers of this world (i.e. not a medium-of-exchange) and other (altcoin) cryptocurrency as a medium-of-exchange is primarily about the value of decentralized applications.

I thought I was not going to post again in Speculation so soon, but you may be the professional trader:

We have four actual groups:

• smart strategic big money (long-term portfolios)
• professional short-term traders
• the day trader who thinks he is limiting his risks
• program traders who try to arbitrage ticks
• the average retail investor
• the fool who rushes in at the last minute

In most real good vertical markets, it is the professional short-term traders who keep trying to sell the new highs. This has been the group that has been bearish ever since 2009. They never saw new highs coming, and they still will try to sell every new high today. They falsely believe that they are “professional” and so they will be right and the average investor is the fool. But the average investor sees the trend for what it is, goes with the trend, while the short-term “professional” keeps trying to beat the market.

It’s very difficult to trade a vertical market. Be careful with getting knocked off the horse too soon.

None of us know what is going to happen.

There is a compelling viewpoint that the momentum and rush into Bitcoin will carry forward a bit longer. Perhaps even with a dip sometime during the 2x and the (sell the) end of the year (and go away) period.

Indeed you will probably end up being correct, but at $6000, $8000, $10000, $15000, or $25000? That is the question.

I do agree, nobody should be rushing in at these prices. Buy dips and/or dollar cost averaging. Don’t be the guy who bought everything in one lump sum at the top:

He explained he had bought the Japanese share market on the very day of the high and now it was crashing. His investment was $50 million. But the intrigue came when he said it was the first time in his life he had purchased any stock. He then had my attention since I was talking to the guy who bought the high.

Those who purchased long-ago should be wary of trying to trade in and out of a vertical market, unless you have some conviction about arbitrage such as you think an altcoin is undervalued.

Has Armstrong become out of touch? What technological advance? Smartphones can participate in crypto and they've proliferated like no other technology in history. I have a hard time taking any of his posts discussing crypto seriously anymore.

If 2020 is the timeline for monetary reset (but I’ve also seen Armstrong mention dates as distant as 2024), and if Bitcoin is to be that reserve currency, then any crypto winter would need to be more of a V bottom than the 2 year cup from 2014 to 2016.

Or perhaps I should look at it another way. Maybe the exodus from the strong dollar and 40,000 DJIA just gets underway in 2020 and the capitulation of the nation-states to Bitcoin as a reserve currency does not complete until the 2024 to 2032 timeframe.

QUESTION: I am wondering if, with the ECM turning down on 11/24-11/15/17, if the U.S. stock market could potentially follow the ECM down into 2020?
Was the last 52 weeks the phase transition you were looking for?
I know you have been forecasting much higher highs than 23,700. Does the (ultimate) phase transition need to occur 2018-2020 or could it be delayed?

ANSWER: We have most likely extended the entire process. That means we can move to the second type of Vertical Market which I call the Plateau Move. This is dealt with in detail in the report on How to Trade a Vertical Market. We will also be focusing on this at the WEC.

So above indicates the possibility of a plateau or correction before the vertical phase transition continues.

[ololajulo]

It is very much possible that a crypto winter is coming. The signs are very much there. Massive hype, A five fold increase in price in a matter of months. Governments either welcoming Bitcoin or baying for its blood. But if a winter does come, it won't last for ever. And I will hold until the next crypto boom happens.

There is no predition I can trust when it comes to bitcoin. All alternative coins still respond to prediction except bitcoin. The general believe of bitcoin is even against your opinion with regards to winter.Just like every other commodity, the demand should be higher then and we know how demand affect value of coin.

[aardvark15]

There will be corrections and a few ‘crises’ over the years that will cause significant drops in the price of Bitcoin. There’s always going to be some risk even if it is less every year.

What we have seen is that Bitcoin has recovered from all of the MtGox, Cryptsy, and ‘Bitcoin is dead’ crises over the years so there is a good chance that it will overcome a future crisis as well. I think the fact that Bitcoin has been through those and survived is what makes it worth so much now and what keeps it as the top cryptocurrency.

[orarider]

It is very much possible that a crypto winter is coming. The signs are very much there. Massive hype, A five fold increase in price in a matter of months. Governments either welcoming Bitcoin or baying for its blood. But if a winter does come, it won't last for ever. And I will hold until the next crypto boom happens.

There is no predition I can trust when it comes to bitcoin. All alternative coins still respond to prediction except bitcoin. The general believe of bitcoin is even against your opinion with regards to winter.Just like every other commodity, the demand should be higher then and we know how demand affect value of coin.

Compared to all other currencies, bitcoin is really superior, it is popular with the community on the increasingly widespread, the demand for bitcoin does not decrease, on the contrary, it increased rapidly, this Makes its value increase dramatically.

[Hyperme.sh]

I was thinking for past days I would not reply to it because it seems to not comprehend what I had already written, but then I decided of WTF I will waste some more of my time and perhaps aid understanding of my thesis a bit. Not to claim my thesis is 100% certain or correct. Just to clarify it.

interesting thread. let's look at the facts...

1) bitcoin core has the most peer review of any implementation by a long mile. literally 1000's of people look at it's github, searching for any flaws. we all know how important peer review is in open source development.

More cooks does not necessarily make a better designed product. Open source is good at ferreting out bugs but it is not so good about making design decisions. SegWit is a security hole. It enables “pay to anyone” bounties and it enables garbage collection attacks from Mt. Box nodes on Lightning Networks.

2) trb has... 3? people developing it. no github or any public place that i know off. tiny peer review. only 10 people run it, according to coin.dance. what would the price be if there was just these 10 guys involved in bitcoin? (since they seem to hate everyone else). they don't seem to consider this.

Satoshi’s Bitcoin had extensive peer review. They froze it and have focused on not adding features but checking it for correctness.

Besides afaik, we can make Core compatible for the most part by choosing the version before SegWit was added (or just not using the optional SegWit).

3) segwit is the most peer reviewed bip ever. i would be surprised to see the scenario described here anytime ever.

Lol. Sheep just ignore me and look at the ass of the other sheep in front of you. That is what the people who financed this crap are expecting us to do.

4) if mp is so powerful and dislikes segwit, why didn't he stop it?
5) if he has so much power and influence, wouldn't he have been stopped already? pretty sure usg has more power than some guys holding a couple billion worth of bitcoin

It will stop itself. He is waiting to let it destroy itself. Never stop an enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.

He is playing to his strengths. He by himself can not crush SegWit. He needs other whales and miners to follow. So he awaits for the SegWit booty to accumulate and then the natural economic incentive will make it happen. Have you never tried to keep flies away from honey?

7) mp is ultimately a good actor for bitcoin's sovereignty since he helps resolving contentious hardforks by attackers, but thinking you are the most powerful and smartest guy in the world is a flaw

I think he has also failed to understand that the Zionists are in control of Bitcoin and he will fail to keep it decentralized. But afaics that does not factor into analysis of whether SegWit will fail someday.

im not sure what mp's accomplishments are when it comes to cryptography and software development. adam back was credited on the whitepaper for instance (and mp hates him, for some reason. blockstream related? im not sure what that company even does, neither do i really care, it is a private company, separate from the bitcoin protocol.)

Actually there is an earlier year 1999 prior art for proof-of-work[1] than Adam Back’s 2002 publish date for Hashcash (although he made some informal announcement in 1997 of the idea). And yeah I must agree that Adam Back may be much smarter than me about cryptography, but appears to be a dunce w.r.t. to more holistic matters. For example, side-chains are irreparably insecure. Adam Back is a tool of the Zionists who funded Blockstream as a Hegelian dialectic. Everything is according to plan for world dominance.

[1] Note that is the application of a computational puzzle to solve the Sybil attack problem (which is an underlying issue of Byzantine fault tolerant consensus). Hashcash has the specific form of the computational puzzle employed in Bitcoin.

9) big blocks camp is incompetent. the best developers are certainly not part of the bitcoin cash developer team.

Agreed, but the big blocks are just a misdirection and leverage play to get more BTC into the hands of the Zionists as they play out these false flag forks to take everyone’s BTC and end up with the immutable Bitcoin at the end game.

The plan I think may be that they get the one-world reserve currency but most of the sheep will have lost their BTC along the way.

10) bitcoin cash survives due roger ver's propaganda mostly. for how long is it economically viable?

An 8MB block size with no SegWit is going to look very attractive if SegWit has been stolen and everyone is afraid to buy BTC. A massive stampede out of BTC into BCH is possible, although I am not predicting that nor predicting the timing.

11) bitcoin would have problems if the fees went as high as thousands of dollars.

No problem at all. Bitcoin is not a payment currency. It is a one-world reserve currency in the making.

Which is a very important function that the Zionists may have planned out for decades. And which is called for in Revelation.

Hey but this is just cockamamie kooky shit despite all the compelling evidence.

[Fatoshi]

I'm not technically minded but it seems to me Crypto with the ICO goldrush built upon ETH is ripe for a correction. You don't need to be smart to know when EVERYONE thinks this will go on forever then its time to be worried. Korean housewives are investing in ETH and Kakaotalk here is starting a trading platform with Bittrex. Its not about not believing in crypto cause I do but I sense we are off-kilter at the moment. I don't think the mainstream is ready for losing a lot of money in crypto, with even many on this forum are now ETH rich newbies only in crypto a few months and have no experience of the last few years of alts slow decline.


But I wonder if good stable ALTS (no ETH ICO tokens) are also a good safety play in this possible SEGWIT2x fuck up?


I just don't want to be anywhere near the BTC chain or its forks at he moment and if I did hold BTC I wouldn't move it for months. People are running at BTC now thinking its another cash cow flip but I'm not so sure...A lot of newbies and Japanese housewives are bound to fuck up without relay protection.

[Hyperme.sh]

I'm not technically minded but it seems to me Crypto with the ICO goldrush built upon ETH is ripe for a correction. You don't need to be smart to know when EVERYONE thinks this will go on forever then its time to be worried. Korean housewives are investing in ETH and Kakaotalk here is starting a trading platform with Bittrex. Its not about not believing in crypto cause I do but I sense we are off-kilter at the moment. I don't think the mainstream is ready for losing a lot of money in crypto, with even many on this forum are now ETH rich newbies only in crypto a few months and have no experience of the last few years of alts slow decline.

I do not think the government (i.e. the thugs bought off by the powers-that-be) should have a monopoly on the system for fund raising. Because I believe the bottom-up free market can allocate funds better than a top-down monopoly can. However, dynamic, multivariate optimization algorithms do not move in a bee line to a global maxima or minima of the solution space. Employing a mathematical algorithm akin to Newton’s gradient method (or something more sophisticated[1]), the multivariate space is optimized with incremental steps and some oscillation (overstep and pullback) around the minima valley (or maxima peak). And even then, the solution found may be only a local optimum (i.e. at the bottom of the valley floor but there may be another lower valley somewhere out there in the dynamic multivariate solution space). By “multivariate solution space”, I want you to imagine a 3D terrain but then imagine it extended from 3 dimensions to N dimensions. Finding optimal “solutions” is tantamount to finding the lowest valley. And by dynamic, we mean the terrain is always changing as we search it! Thus there may be an unbounded number of candidates and given we can not see all of them in time epsilon, then we have no way of stating which solution was/is/will be optimal! The only known algorithm which can optimize fitness to dynamic multivariate solution spaces is decentralized annealing (i.e. the free market of many independent actors making decisions based on local information they have closest access to coupled with competition amongst top-down actors trying to aggregate wider scope information from any dimension such as time, space, etc). A system which is stated to be composed of bottom-up, decentralized actors, is consistent with some of those actors being top-down organizers within their mathematical “locale” (i.e. local within in a particular dimension of the multivariate solution space); thus, it’s not correct to state that a decentralized system has no centralization. The unbounded complexity of reality is an interwoven multivariate manifold spectrum of decentralization and centralization. If we look at the physics of entanglement, i.e. “action at a distance” (such as China’s advancements in quantum communication), I believe (wish to model as) this is a centralization manifold across some dimensions of the unbounded dimensionality of the universe.

Thus expect overshoots and massive waste as the free market takes money from fools and routes that money to those who can best allocate it for optimum production.

The governments may try to step in to stop the massive waste of selling empty speculation bags to greater fools (no crypto projects have any appreciable real world use/adoption except maybe Bitcoin and Steem) and take their cut of the pie as the cost of our inability to organize ourselves without massive waste. Yet decentralization trumps centralization (eventually and more readily in this era of the Internet) and so some projects are going to figure out a way to allocate capital better than the government privilege+monopolistic-theft model, and these paradigms will “steal” (i.e. reallocate) it all back away from the corrupted retards in government ^{(and those who ride the governments’ coattails who implicitly corrupted because they choose to comply and take the Mark of the Beast instead of coming out of the Great Harlot, thus by their complicity they perpetuate the corruption)} and into massive decentralized production.

And so yeah, expect theft and concomitant corrections along the way as the free market annealing mechanism plays out and we astute developers bring decentralization to the real world adoption.

I assert that I am working feverishly on this and the fruits of my effort will see the light in 2018 ^{(presuming I have control over my chronic health issue)}.

Note we as developers have to decide whether make such sort of ridiculous, self-aggrandizing exposition about ourselves on BCT, as a proactive defence against ignorance about our work/expertise/capabilities because there are some “sick puppies” who were given positions of control and high reputation here who ridicule or otherwise attempt to suppress others. Presumably because of politics and the speculation pot of gold around here. By making some criticisms or claims against SegWit, I make myself a target, but note afair I’ve tried not to malign any person’s reputation in this thread, other than to state material facts and discuss/cite the opinions others have stated about others.

[1] _{I worked for a couple of months on this software in 1996, implementing the 3D renderer, some of import file formats, and creating with manual labor (not some 3D digitization machine which were experimental or very expensive at that time) some of the most detailed photorealistic models of natural objects at that time which are also available in the Art-o-matic software I created. Literally I created a photo realistic model of a hamburger in 1996/7 (the rendering shown at the link is a cartoon rendering but download the software to see the photorealism).}

But I wonder if good stable ALTS (no ETH ICO tokens) are also a good safety play in this possible SEGWIT2x fuck up?

I just don't want to be anywhere near the BTC chain or its forks at he moment and if I did hold BTC I wouldn't move it for months.

I have the same dilemma to contemplate. I want to hold some BTC long-term, but I do not currently have any BTC that I acquired well before August. Because we know that with a long-term perspective, hodling is the most risk-free strategy.

During the 2014 winter, afair most or all of the altcoins were sold off even more than BTC.

I’ve been holding BCH and LTC purely based on technical chart analysis and that the Scalepocalypse is not yet resolved. But this is more a trade than a long-term conviction about their value.

In addition to these issues we also have the potential failure of Tether, which I have continued to expect its failure eventually. Pegs are never stable long-term. There is no peg in the history of mankind that did not fail. And there appear to be many shady details around Tether, Bitfinex’s creation of tokens to bail itself of of the attack, and Poloniex seems to trade against its own customers also.

[fright]

you ever plan to make an analysis again on LTC?
Where do you see this coin longterm? BTC/LTC was 0.02 not long ago, and now it's in 0.008~.
As i understand , everything becomes more clearer after November.

[Hyperme.sh]

you ever plan to make an analysis again on LTC?
Where do you see this coin longterm? BTC/LTC was 0.02 not long ago, and now it's in 0.008~.
As i understand , everything becomes more clearer after November.

I am employing http://cryptowat.ch to view the charts. On a 1D (1 day) chart, LTCUSD is still in a bullish trend. LTCBTC appears to be finding a spike down, V bottom somewhere in the 0.0070s. Should rocket up again. Extremes have to reached first. I still think $100 and $150 are potentially realistic targets during this current period (over next couple of months or so). Of course, nothing is certain, just talking probabilities. If LTCBTC breaks below 0.0059, that could signal the end of the bullish trend, especially if LTCUSD has also broken down from its trend (just view the LTCUSD chart, the trend slope is obvious). We were expecting LTCBTC to reach 0.03 before this bullish trend ends (and possibly 0.05 on some insane moonshot spike), so if that holds then at $150, then BTC would need to be $5000. So perhaps BTC moves higher from here ($55 / $7500 or $8000) so we can get a 0.0070s V bottom in LTC (perhaps 0.0073) and then BTC corrects back to $5000 while LTC heads to $150 (perhaps with a first stop at $100 and 0.021 so BTC at $4700). Might not play out exactly that way. Trading is a day-to-day reanalysis.

Volatility will increase as we approach the topping of this current phase transition vertical bull market, as it did in the 2013/4 topping. LTCBTC was up and down like a yo-yo then also.

BCHUSD has a much less clear uptrend slope (not steep if at all). BCHBTC is also in this sort of wedge pattern. Thus appears to me that BCHUSD may fail to make new ATHs on this current move. May need to come back down again first, or maybe not. In short, BCH is going to be highly volatile and move up and down in very fast spikes. I do think though eventually (within this current phase transition over the next couple to few months) it will make a rocketshot to $1500+. Yet I am not 100% certain.

Btw, I sold some more BCH for LTC. I am roughly 50/50 now in BCH and LTC. Waiting for the next episode in the Scalepocalypse. Perhaps I should also diversify more, but have not the time to analyse other coins. I sold BTC up to about $5100. Decided not to hold on for $8000+, because I speculate on 3 baggers in BCH and LTC. Although it is not unthinkable that BTC does a moonshot to $15000+. When BTC declined from $4900ish to $3700ish, I was of the opinion in our private discussion group that it would reattempt $5100. My mistake was not selling some BCH for BTC at that juncture (after I had previously traded some BTC and LTC  for BCH at their prior peaks, e.g. LTC at $80+, and that was after trading some BCH at its prior peak in $800s for LTC). And it was because I was worried about the potential SegWit theft and I had not studied carefully the latest BCHBTC chart which was clearly showing weakness and potential to decline back to below 0.08 as it had progressed (trading requires a continuous attention to new facts as they develop). Given the discussions in this thread, I came the conclusion that any such SegWit theft is unlikely in 2017. Thus in hindsight I should have traded per my expectations in price (was a bit distracted/overloaded at that time so hadn’t developed a well thought out analysis of the situation). I really do not have the free time to be a trader. I am so busy as programmer/developer/doing research ^{(and also daily issues of coping with and sorting out the recovery/cure from disseminated Tuberculosis)}.

[Lancusters]

you ever plan to make an analysis again on LTC?
Where do you see this coin longterm? BTC/LTC was 0.02 not long ago, and now it's in 0.008~.
As i understand , everything becomes more clearer after November.

When bitcoin rises in price then all the altcoins are getting cheaper. This is not surprising. It is a pattern. If after November the price stabiliziruemost that altcoins also begin to catch up in price. Now many people are buying bitcoins, but it seems to me that it is not correct. Now we need to pay more attention to altcoins.

[Rahar02]

An endless speculation regarding cryptocurrency in the future.
What kind of winter that you have mentioned here?
Bitcoin price constantly increasing over time and some altcoins following but mostly left behind, barely dead.
You prefer to trade cryptocurrency instead of holding for long term, right?
And the best coins to rise, for the next episode of Scalepocalypse is Ltc?

[MarketMagic]

Rumour going around bitcoin looks like its getting pumped so some big miners maximize their return as they exit and buy cheap bitcoin cash.

Jiang Zhuoer, founder of the world's third-largest mining pool, BTC.Top, for example, isn't shy about his opinion on bitcoin's upcoming Segwit2x fork, the third this year following bitcoin cash and bitcoin gold.

But Zhuoer, whose pool serves 12.4 percent of the world's bitcoin miners, appears to already be personally embracing alternatives, even after signing an agreement that might suggest his preference would be otherwise.

He told CoinDesk:

    "To be honest, I do not care about bitcoin now, bitcoin cash is bitcoin. I earn by mining bitcoin, [selling it] and buying bitcoin cash. We mine for the most profit and buy bitcoin cash."

We also have McAfee and Jihan Wu from Bitmain backing it even though Wu earlier was one of the loudest voice for 2x.Even Lukedashjr said he preferred BCH over LTC for micropayments,sidechain etc making poor coblee cry 

[Hyperme.sh]

Wu earlier was one of the loudest voice for 2x.

I had already explained in this thread and/or the companion thread linked from the OP, that from the moment the NYA was announced, I realized Wu had a scheme up his sleeve and that they would defect from 2x in November so that there is a new confusion about the Scalepocalypse outcome and the big blockers then having only BCH and LTC as options with LTC also having SegWit2x.

Then maybe later comes the SegWit1x theftathon to ramp up the profits of the oligarchies behind the curtain who own the only two 14nm/16nm ASIC fabs in the world and who I think are actually behind these mining cartels. And I believe those are the Zionists (aka the banksters who control the central banks by pulling strings behind the curtain, etc).

Their coup (the magic that is referred to in Revelation) is to fool us into believing we are defeating them with Bitcoin when in fact they are taking everything from us with Bitcoin (over the long-term). Those of us getting rich on Bitcoin are just pawns. They will take that wealth back from us later with their total world order control.

Yet my upbeat stance is they are destroying themselves (yet they will take most of the sheep down with them as Revelation predicts).

[taktik]

Wu earlier was one of the loudest voice for 2x.

I had already explained in this thread and/or the companion thread linked from the OP, that from the moment the NYA was announced, I realized Wu had a scheme up his sleeve and that they would defect from 2x in November so that there is a new confusion about the Scalepocalypse outcome and the big blockers then having only BCH and LTC as options.

Then maybe later comes the SegWit1x theftathon to ramp up the profits of the oligarchies behind the curtain who own the only two 14nm/16nm ASIC fabs in the world and who I think are actually behind these mining cartels. And I believe those are the Zionists (aka the banksters who control the central banks by pulling strings behind the curtain, etc).

understand that the moment that such situations are more afraid of those people who are big holders of Bitcoin. But I do not understand what to fear us, ordinary users crypto, and what can we lose in this regard? I'm worried, but I can not understand anything about what to expect in November.