/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>4057287
>bitcoin
>decentralized
>80% of Bitcoin hashpower at one conference

hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>4057287
It doesn't matter what that means, the only thing that matters is what is shilled, like what you're doing right now

>>4057305
What about Blocksteam?

ELI5: this

I think the market will decide and when the market decides the hashing power will follow
As you can see the futures trading value for s2x is .145 btc https://www.cryptonator.com/rates/BT2-BTC
If 80% of the hashing power followed a token that's worth .145btc they would lose money, and chinese miners are greedy assholes

>>4057287
>What does this mean if there are more miners on the forked chain?

This is how Bitcoin decides on what rules it's actually going to follow. There's no single central entity that officially decides what rules Bitcoin will or won't follow. It's up to the network to decide.

And as nodes can be spammed in a sybil attack, the amount of hashpower behind a chain with a particular set of rules determines what Bitcoin is.

>>4057478
B-but muh blockstream m-muh core devs.

>>4057461
That futures market has no depth and people will lose their tokens if 2x doesn't actually get created. No one is going to bet in a sketchy market like that.

>>4057444
bitcoin designed an upgrade called segwit, and the majority of miners rejected it because they think it might threaten their profits of transactions fees.
It was blocked for months until a movement was gaining traction called user activated softfork
When this was happening a group of businesses and miners met and came to an "agreement" that they would softfork to segwit only if the blocksize increases to 2mb afterwards
The NYA didn't have any of the core developers in attendance
When this was going through bitcoin cash forked off and started their own big block non segwit chain
segwit softfork went though and the signers of the NYA kept pushing for s2x hardfork
Many core developers said they would quit if the bitcoin repo was replaced with a new repo with jeff garzik as the head, I think this repo is called btc1 and it's the main repo for s2x.
Sometime in the 2nd week of november they plan on pushing a controversial hardfork without replay protection.
If there was replay protection this wouldn't be a problem, but without it people who send coins on 1 chain could have their keys on the other chain compromised
I belive there was an opt in replay protection developed on s2x that the legacy chain could follow, but this would require adding extra data by sending a small amount of satoshi to an address with its private key already known.
It's a big clusterfuck with influential people trying to take control of the protocol development
like I said in another post I think it will fail without replay protection and .145btc value

>>4057352
theres no such thing as development centralizaton. it costs nothing to fork and convince the community to move to a new client.

what you can't do is undo the complete and utter mining centralization that has been allowed to happen in china. what's killing bitcoin now is that, an until real mining competition appeats, bitcoin is under serious thread, as we can see from the attempted takeovers right now.

>>4057487
yes it isn't a clear indicator you're right, but as far I know it's all we currently have to see what might happen

Bitcoin being forked every fucking 2 weeks is what will kill it. Better stock up on those promising alts

who are these newcomers that think miners decide consensus?

consensus is fixed to the clients the users of the network run, you can't change it without getting everyone to update their software.

miners mine blocks under the consensus the users clients enforce, if they try to mine invalid blocks the users ignore the work done, and it's a waste of their money.

anyone trying to tell you otherwise is being wilfully ignorant or has been taken in by the chinks. it hasn't been 1 CPU = 1 vote for years, and without that the user's now have the power, not the miners.

>>4057534
>there's no such this as development centralization
Meanwhile blockstream controls and regulates all contributions to "open source" bitcoin. Really makes you think. Complete retard astroturfing pajeets. One side profits from the network processing as many transactions as possible. The other profits off strangling bitcoin and it's users. I wonder which is better for bitcoin?

>>4057534
Yeah mining centralization is a big problem. It's why I bought some vertcoin months ago when I realized this issue.
Even if bitcoin survives these shenanigans what happens if the miners are unhappy with tx fees after a couple halvenings and want to raise the block rewards which would make more than 21 million coins and change the inflation rate

>>4057563
Even if blockstream is one of the 1st companies to implement payment channels it's still open source and anyone can run their own payment channel
There are many startups developing LN, payment channels, etc.
You have to realize when you raise the blocksize as a solution down the road nodes will become centralized

Game theory holds up on this. I trust the miners and hope they win. I don’t trust Chinks but they have a huge monetary incentive for Bitcoin to survive and have people do as many transactions as possible.

Blockstream has no such incentives. They could give a shit less about Bitcoin unless people are using off chain scaling that they own.

>>4057620
if bigger blocks are the solution then why not just support bitcoin cash
if you really think blockstream is nefarious then get out of the segwit chain 1mb segwit 2mb segwit makes no difference in 2nd layer payment options

>>4057590
They've been centralized for the longest time, bitcoin incentives this. It's entirely based around the miner user relationship. What incentives the miner is the well being of the user and the network. The LN is the worst possible answer to both scaling and centralization. Due to LN favoring high liquidity nodes and the cost to run one limiting users to create one. You end up getting an even more centralized network that just finished gimping your onchain network and the miners, leaving you with no choice but to pay their high subscription fees. The other side of the coin is increased blocksize resulting in cheaper and faster transactions with a sacrifice of no raspberry pi nodes ;(.
We've also started seeing third parties come into the mix releasing the hardware monopoly while also putting out better hardware in general. It just ends up coming down to cheap electricity.

>>4057637
You are a faggot nigger who should go do pic related.

Go back and circlejerk in the Bitcoin sub about how hot Luke Jr is and how much you would love guzzling his cum. You Blockstream faggots are the worst.

>>4057661
>They've been centralized for the longest time, bitcoin incentives this.
do you mean miners centralized or something else?

Yes I agree miners need to network to function properly to maintain profits.

Why is LN the worst possible answer? Isn't it optional to participate
I have this vision that for bitcoin to scale for everyone we would need payment channels. Right now on chain transactions are still cheap but if everyone wants cheap on chain transaction the data required would be too much.
So I see it as payment channel to use bitcoin everyday, and anything going on chain would be expensive and important. Somehow we need to figure out the proper balance to compensate miners while still offering cheap transactions.
I think there will be many 2nd layer options that can compete with each other, not just a blockstream monopoly.

There's really a lot to think about and see what would be the best option. I see bitcoin cash as a big block testing ground and bitcoin as a segwit 2nd layer testing ground.

>>4057563
Not bigger blocks that's for certain. Chink mining pools need to fuck off.
>>4057707
Seriously. Bitcoin cash is the solution you claim everyone wants with your 2x attack but no one gives a fuck about it. Just admit 2x is about kikes wanting to assume control over the legacy chain.

>>4057707
In your "game theory" are there 2nd layer payment channels on the s2x chain or would changing blocks from 1mb to 2mb change that? lol

Holy shit I'm going to have 4 Bitcoin forks

What if all 4 turn into 100b+ in the future? I'mma be rich

I can't believe there are still so many retards here. History already taught us that bitcoin core is unmovable and nothing will replace it. It's literally 101 in trading and investment to not try to dictate the market but adapt to the market yourself, the fucking kikes will have no success in destroying core.

We can't let bitcoin die. Noone will give a shit about alts if bitcoin dies. You think the mainstream masses give a shit about shitcoins? No they don't. BTC is what apple branding is today. We will continue to get raped by the government and banks if BTC dies.

>>4057727
>Isn't it optional to participate
If blockstream also let the blocksize increase over time yes. Which was what everyone was ready to do until blockstream stabbed them in the back once they got segwit.
>Right now on chain transactions are still cheap but if everyone wants cheap on chain transaction the data required would be too much.
The only reason it costs anything to transact is because you have to compete with others to get included on the block.
>I think there will be many 2nd layer options that can compete with each other, not just a blockstream monopoly.
Good luck passing that by blockstream.

The only other sidechains that will come around will be sold by blockstream to big orgs. This is proven Adam said it himself.

>>4057813
If blockstream is exploiting the users for profit we should see bitcoin cash rise
I don't think they'll do that so I'll hold some bitcoins
That's the great thing about all the different chains and consensus protocol, we can choose what we believe is most fair and put our money where our mouth is.

>>4057856
Blockstream and their supporters hope to win by having the ticker and enough dumb market money. Only way they survive this fork is if they fork off with an eda.

>>4057809
Oh, what are you going to do about it? Nothing because you my friend, are powerless.

>>4057884
the miners have been abusing the eda in bitcoin cash raising the inflation %, they game the distribution rates by not mining for 6 hours then mining the chain very fast until difficulty retargets
I think the eda was a terrible idea, if there's going to be a fork they need to add something like kimoto gravity well and have difficulty adjust after each block

>>4057813
from everything I read payment channels are part of an open sourced code which anyone can participate, blockstream just happens to be one team developing them
and I don't think blockstream stabbed anyone in the back or reneged, they didn't have a say in this NY "agreement"

>>4057898
Eda is getting updated on cash. First implementation was a hack job it can work much better by simply updating faster.

>>4057916
They went along with the agreement until it stopped benefiting them. They control what contributions make it into bitcoin.

>>4057287
Segwit2x will fail because it is being made by a Jew and as you all know with them you lose, just look at Bancor and Tezos. Same with his ARK clone metronome that he plans to launch afterrwards with B2X.

When BitcoinCash was out the market carried on as normal. In fact the btc price rose shortly after. However, when Bitcoincash was being forked out big exchanges like Coinbase suspended trading!

We then had the Chinese government banning the BTC exchanges and that is still an on going issue, but I thought this also included the Chinese miners!!! The Chinese are Greedy, gamblers and currency manipulators! This caused a 40% market correction! It was very recently this happened remember!

As for SEGWITX2 this has been tested since July/August this year. It is being supported by Coinbase and other big exchanges! As free money will be available I am surprised I have not seen an even greater demand for BTC by users, etc... to stackup on the free money that will be given out eventually!?!

I know there is a lot of disagreement and politics involved... but, if BTC is being hampered it is the fork that is causing it. I would expect this fork to behave like the last one and would expect to see price increase for BTC. Coinbase will be hosting BITCOINCASH as well I think this is in the Q1 of 2018. I also believe SEGWITX2 will be a success as big names are behind it! the market will be bearish again! This technology is here to stay and not to die!

The picture I attached is a direct communication received yesterday form Coinbase!


However, for the future I think that Ethereum is going to be the fuel for crypto and ICOs . I know some of my friends have pulled out their money totally out of BTC because of the politics and the forking that is happening. Perhaps to accommodate for the growing market we need to Fork


Finally wait till proof of stake is out :
When the switch to "Proof of Stake" comes there will be no mining anymore and because staking does not cost too many computational resources the fee for computation on the blockchain will decrease dramatically .....

>>4057287
all this forking is slowly dooming bitcoin, its basically having the same influence as inflation.

in fact, until some sort of robust anti-fork blockchain is developed, all blockchains will be fucked by this.

imagine 2 forks a months....because this is almost where we are now. then picture a fork every week on the top 10 on cmc.

>>4057287
>80% of bitcoin mining power will be swtiching to the forked chain.
They probably won't. (not 80%)
80% is signaling NYA, that doesn't mean they will mine it at a loss later.
If the BTC chain is the highest profitable one, then they will mine it.
S2X will have same difficulty, but a price of 15% of the real BTC. So they would have to mine it at a loss, for a long time, for it to be profitable.
We will see the "unknown" miner mine it a lot then, so that it can be usable (and abandon BCH to die completely)

It will all depend on how profitable it is to mine it.

>>4057352
I prefer developers united than miners united.
If the miners are in total control, they can start changing the rules to favor them. Increase the 21 million coin limit for example.

>>4057546
If bitcoin dies, so do all alts

>>4058193
Stop spreading lies about coinbase. Yes, they did publish that, but a few hours later they said they would call the longest chain BTC.
If 80% of the miners stay in S2X, then S2X will become BTC.

>>4058475
>in fact, until some sort of robust anti-fork blockchain is developed
yeah, fuck you metronome garzik.
The guy making all the forks just announced a coin that is fork-proof.
fucking bastard, holy shit. I hope he dies in a fire

I fail to see why 2x is a big deal.
Bitcoin should do the no-brainer upgrade and focus on innovating.
I think BTC will need smart contracts to beat ETH next year. (In terms of growth).

Everyone is assuming miners will mine what ever is most profitable, but lets assume that some continue to mine at a loss for some time. What could the reasons for doing this be?

>>4057287
it means buy Vertcoin.

>>4058918
Then what goybase considers BTC won't be the same as BTC elsewhere because the chink communist party miners will mine b2x at a loss for 48 hours. This is all the time goybase needs to determine the real btc as far as they're concerned.

Enjoy your lawsuits.

>>4057561
1000x this
But don't underestimate how ignore t people are
Most people use auto updating wallets and are incredibly susceptible to external influence in markets they don't understand

>>4059193
BTC is where most of the hash power is, not where the devs are.

If there's enough hash power for a 51% then why wouldn't they do that until people have no choice but to adopt b2x as the real BTC?
Assuming of course b2x has 80% of the hash power?

>>4057287

>unprecedented
>Hardforked like 10 times already

>>4057287
>This is unprecedented

Something has been around less than 10 years......

"It's unprecedented!"

JUST LOL

>>4057808
That doesn't mean that dumb money won't leave the market cap, and if this results in any major price drop it leaves core vulnerable to miners preferring a chain with higher profitability (if it gets thst bad)

>>4059278
It's too easy to rig since the Chinese state is subsiding electricity, hence the concentration of mines in China.

No one except the Chinese state wants btc to be determined this way alone.

>>4057620
Miners=chinks

>>4058951
how the hell will bitcoin handle smart contracts? do you even to blockchainz?

>>4057809
Stop using the fucking "alt" term
"Alts" are bitcoin alternatives by definition, like litecoin
There are blockchain technologies that have absolutely nothing to do with bitcoin or anything that bitcoin is trying to accomplish (really has accomplished), and they get labeled "Alts" all the time.
Bitcoin can never "die", it can lose market cap and miners if something better comes around, but bitcoin is one of a kind, and fulfils needs in the marketplace that no asset has before

>>4057762
>muh 2nd layer payment channels
almost all people who support a blocksize increase ALSO support 2nd layer payment channels. But since there are no 2nd layer solutions existing right now today, then why is it so fucking impossible to alleviate the congestion by also allowing onchain scaling in the form of raising the blocksize a very conservative amount (2mb in case of 2x)

Do you understand?
2nd layer solutions = awesome
forcing users to use 2nd layer solutions by artificially restricting onchain scaling = not awesome

>>4058918
thats like saying if altavista dies so does the internet

>>4057287
bitcoin has more forks than a cutlery drawer

>>4057561

kek this is 0/10 bait

Miners absolutely control the network and 'consensus', to think some faggy autistic programmers can't be replaced is moronic, in fact they already have been replaced.

>>4057534
>theres no such thing as development centralizaton. it costs nothing to fork and convince the community to move to a new client
lololololololololol

Next you'll say that communication channels can't be centralized, censored, and controlled too!

>>4058918
if BTC dies, ETH survives.
crypto is far beyond being just a currency now. we are having actual services that use the coins.

>>4059478
it will be the end of the money in the space, thats for sure, maybe not for marginal tech based blockchains, but the money will entirely evaporate.

if bitcoin can get coopted by a bunch of chinks, its value is significnalty overvalued, if bitcoin can be overtaken by another coin which maintains a significantly higher store of value than bitcoin, all coins are significantly overvalued.

who exactly is going to put money into PoW coins, or any coin for that matter if even bitcoin can be destroyed or overtaken?

you don't understand finance.

>>4059638
survives only if it can pull of proof of stake and has other safeguards against chinks. and it will be pure utility, no longer a valuable token, because value in this space will have evaporated, at least until proof of stake can prove itself on the only other useful blockchain.

>>4059544
the newness is oozing off you. you don't even understand how bitcoin works if you think miners control consensus. bitcoin was designed EXPLICITLY so miners couldn't do anything more than order transactions, or exclude transactions if every miner colludes.

nothing. more.

>>4059620
which is harder: pressing the fork button on a repository, or buying and trying to stay profitable mining bitcoin to remove the 51% attack the chinkies have on bitcoin right now?

go shill elsewhere.

>>4057898
exactly. the chinks have shown their true colors throughout this whole bcash saga, expecially with their complete explotation of the hilariously embarrassing "fixes" to difficulty, creating huge periods of mega inflation on bcash.

you'd have to be braindead to think trusting the chinks with full control of development AND mining ends in anything but the death of bitcoin.

>>4059642
i think you missed the point, bitcoin can fail and cease to exist, however blockchain, smart contracting etc will still be around.

the money would move from bitcoin which fails for whatever short coming into something which does not have the same issues.

how can you not see that this early on with this small a market cap bitcoin could cease to exist in 5 years and be replaced by something better?

If you unironically believe that the fork is the death of alts, you're retarded (probably just trolls post shit like that, but still). This fork is good for alts, and will drastically increase the price of alts and BTC will probably keep rising as it always do (10k before 2019)

>>4059823
>10k before 2019)

at this rate it'll be 10k before EOY....and 100k next year. i don't even understand what's going on anymore, segwit2x is supposed to be something extremely scary, YET price just keeps increasing. what the fuck.

>>4059860
amazon rumor

>>4059872
>>4059860
Yes, rumor and fomo. When people realize the fork isnt gonna make you a multi trillionaire for holding 0.1 btc people are gonna invest back into alts, reducing the price of btc (massively, but temporarely) and skyrocketing the price of alts

>>4059193
Yes, I agree.
If coinbase change S2X to be BTC people are going to be pissed

>>4059478
no
it's not the same at all

>>4059780
The money will move from bitcoin and cryptocurrencies back to fiat if BTC stops existing

>>4059952
what about ETH?

>>4057546
Why do you hate free money ?

>>4058918
I posted what I received from coinbase.. only ....

>>4059974
Eth is a dying bloatware. smart contract has proved to be too easy to hack because of the turing complete shit.

>>4059901
>>4059872

i can't shake the feeling that this is a gradual influx of huge amounts of "smart money". the extreme volatility and fairly easy manipulation makes it very attractive for experienced traders, and will only attract more of them leading to a couple of possibly very nasty scenarios.

>>4059952
bitcoin has to die.
its taking up too much money. people actually think its digital gold because they only see the money it makes.
bitcoin needs to free up some of the billions that are stuck there forever. its absolutely retarded to have a useless coin like btc to take up so much marketcap

>>4057287
>80% of bitcoin mining power will be swtiching to the forked chain
ok there Nostradomus

>>4060023
you have to die too
everything dies

>>4059671

No, you're the newfag here, or a fucking kike paid troll.

Kill yourself if you are legit you are too fucking stupid for this world. The miners literally control the network and protect it, BY FUCKING DESIGN.

>>4059974
the fuel of crypto currency

>>4060023
the only legit thing for a real blockchain (not POS) to do is transfer value
otherwise i i have a simple server solution for you

>>4060047
this comment alone proves that bitcoin is becoming a religion of fanatics with their retarded buzzwords like $hodl
its not my fault that you have 0 investment education and believe bitcoin will save the world or someshit

So unlike the last fork, I don't automatically get the same value of the new coins which I can sell for btc without fucking up my btx holdings?

omg who cares about all this bullshit, i just want to know whether I'll get free money for holding BTC?

>>4060066
did you miss the dip bro?

>>4060059
right the whole "a trustless ledger that can never be modified" thing is worthless

>>4059952
okay here is a reasonable but slightly far fetched example: 5 years from now a state actor launches a quantum attack on bitocin out of nowhere. bitcoin attempts to implement quantum resistance, but it will take time (bitcoin) and all legacy wallets are vulnerable.

unable to respond fast enough everyone has a mass sell off of bitcoin moving all of their holdings into a specifically built quantum resistant cryptocurrencey.

sure the above is highly unlikely but if you cannot envision such a scenario then you must be extremely hard line in your viewpoint.

Dump it when we get free?btg was a disappoiintment earned almost nothing.

>>4057461
we're all greedy assholes

>>4059993
What in the fuck are you even talking about? Too easy to hack?

Eth has proved to be amazing for cryptocurrencies and applications in general. Honestly you shouldn't be allowed to speak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb9rhW9edtw

>>4060118
Bitcoin is already quantum resistant. If you think I am wrong do your own research.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/more-rumors-amazon-could-accept-bitcoin-as-all-eyes-on-conference-call

>>4059780
i understand what you're saying. my point is that ethereum's price comes not from smart contracts but from speculation in the space as ethereum being a good (enough) store of value like bitcoin.

if it's shown that store of value crypto aren't actually good stores of value, i expect the valuation of all crypto to drop heavily. a black swan event for bitcoin is an even bigger swan for cryptocurrency.

>>4059993
solidity needs huge fixes and improvements, sure, but bloatware? hardly. it's actually more efficent in disk/network space than bitcoin is for the transactions it does. its possible to run a light client on much less demanding hardware than it is to run an svp node for bitcoin.

>>4060023
you just sound like someone bagholding a bunch of shitcoins. the actual reality is it's the hundreds of alts that will never amount to anything other than exchange fodder that are holding and wasting capital. coins like litecoin are nothing more than a capital sink.

>>4060050
lol, you really don't understand how the code works. miners have one job to do, that it does not involve anything to do with consensus. the real jews are the chinks that want to sacrifice bitcoin so they can get paid more per block.

>>4060118
nobody would ever move to a quantum resistant crypto, and this scenario isn't feasible because as it stands now bitcoin is quantum resistant. the only people losing money are people spending from accounts more than once, which hasn't been a thing in modern bitcoin clients for years.

>>4060185
do people actually believe this? bitcoin needs second layer networks before it's feasible to open up to amazon users like that. its the perfect use case because amazon are a huge entity that will accept the slightly higher risk profile required, because it's still orders of magnitude less risk than accepting credit/debit card payments.

>>4059638
Fucking bitcoin maximalists I swear to god

>>4060209

Sorry buddy but you're simply wrong, the miners control the network end of fucking story. If you think some fucking autistic kikestream patsy cannot be replaced you're as fucking stupid as I believe you are.

>>4060249
do you ever realize why you're the only one with that opinion? maybe because bitcoin is code not political agreements, and the code outlines exactly what miners can and can't do to the blockchain that the clients will accept.

you're not even trying.

>>4060231
read the article I am not suggesting anything ...
FYI only ....

>>4057287
ask mozilla

>>4060233
there is no god you fucking pleeb

>>4060260
It's happening.

>>4057287
im forking bitcoin again
buy moar bitcoin

>>4060337
nodes have even less weight than miners when it comes to consensus. it's the users. users to nodes have very little relation.

lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WDnRBwYg6I

>>4060023
>its taking up too much money.
And that money is supposed to be yours, eh? You sound like a nigger.

>>4060391
But they can move to any node program they want and beat Core program hashrate.

>>4060406
this nigger i begging for a hand out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mXzxz4vL00

>>4060391

You seem like a well informed man. What do u reccomend doing in this fork scenario? leave it all in fiat or btc?

reminder that biz always was and always will stand behind Bitcoin core and contentious hardforks are altcoins.

>>4060426
what you said doesn't make any sense whatsoever. that's not even a simplified version of how bitcoin works.

>>4060491
i have a large position in ethereum, but that's less a hedge against this latest round of drama, but a hedge against the fact that no matter the outcome, chinese miners are going to continue to be a drag in this space, and if ethereum can pull off proof of stake that gives them an incredible amount of upside as people realize they don't have to deal with miners.

as for what do do now, i dont think it matters long term. if you're not interested in trading the volatility, or dumping your forked coins as soon as possible, you're fine in bitcoin or fiat, but beware of staying in fiat for too long because once this is over i don't expect the price to stay low for long.

>>4060336
You fat edgelord.

>>4060260

I'm not, but if you want me to spin your horseshit lies you can pay me and i'll do it.

I only accept bitcoin cash though.

17sT2PTRoztQ9KGW6fryFmAk8GtsTh2Ar6

>>4059301
Are you that dense?

The context is 80% of the hashpower switching to a fork.

>>4060504
its not that simple. most people don't give a fuck about "core", me included. i care about developers, because without them bitcoin is going to lose most of its upside potential.

we need improvements to the core protocol, better signatures, better address formats, faster syncing, better pruning, full header-only validation of the blockchain, etc. you're not going to get these improvements with just any developer, especially not one cherry-picked for their sympathy towards miners.

but it's not core vs miners, it's developers vs miners, and that's an incredibly important distinction.

>>4060050
boy, you are clueless

WILL I MAKE FREE MONEY YES OR NO

>>4060551
you're in the company only with individuals that don't understand/can't read the bitcoin source code. not a great place to be.

>>4060491
Leave it in BTC after the fork transfer the BTC to a new wallet, wait for it to confirm about 6-10 times then Transfer your 1x/2x coin.

>>4059023
More money later. This is one of the many problems with centralized mining, they can sacrifice short term for long term gains at the expense of the users.

Everyone in here is clueless.

Read these:

https://keepingstock.net/the-corporate-takeover-attempt-of-bitcoin-eb87c18fad60

https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/segwit2x-the-broken-agreement-e9035a453c05

>>4060337
>obvious fake nodes
See how that went with the other takeover attempts.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/nail-in-the-coffin-coinbase-to-list-segwit2x-chain-as-bitcoin2x/

>>4059193
S2X is going to get dumped into oblivion by whales forcing miners to mine real BTC or go bankrupt.

Miners don't have power in Bitcoin, whales do, this is what clueless mongs don't understand.

>>4060536
why this thread happened?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/77niq0/guys_i_tried_to_tell_you_its_not_over_yet/

>What is Chancoin (4CHN)
Chancoin is a community driven digital currency made for imageboards, discord and edgy internet communities across the web, that integrates tipping, gaming and lots of other fancy features. Check out for more here: http://chancoin.org/

>The tipping extentions for Chrome and Firefox
Chrome : https://github.com/VladimirPewtin/CHANCOIN-TippingExtension/releases/download/0.0.5/CHANCOIN_TippingExtension.crx
Firefox : https://github.com/VladimirPewtin/CHANCOIN-TippingExtension/releases/download/0.0.5/CHANCOIN_TippingExtension.xpi

http://github.com/chancoin-core/CHANCOIN-TippingExtension

>Wallet
https://github.com/chancoin-core/chancoin/releases/tag/v1.1.3

>Discord
https://discord.gg/wCA5wN5

>Markets
https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange?market=4CHN_BTC
https://tradesatoshi.com/Exchange/?market=4CHN_BTC
https://novaexchange.com/market/BTC_4CHN/

>How do I earn free coins?
Just reply to this thread with "$4CHN:address" in your name field. You can also contribute to the project, just join the Discord. Or you can be a great /biz/ contributor - give solid advice, post epic maymay and get tipped by fellow Chancoiners!

>Follow us on Twitter!
https://twitter.com/chancoindev

>JS/Ruby/C/C++ developers are welcome in our core dev team!

>>4060706
clueless bitcoin unlimited / bitcoin xt / b2x users/miners think that dummy nodes on the network make "good pr", or something. who knows.

>>4060581

I'm a programmer by trade you stupid kike shill

>>4059642
That's why when myspace failed we all stopped using the internet right? Delusional.

>>4060750
and yet you think if miners mine a 2mb block, magically nodes are going to accept it as valid? you're the one shilling for the wrong side here. please go and read the consensus code on the bitcoin client. its only a few lines and it should clear up your confusion as to the flexibility you think miners have when producing valid blocks.

>>4060754
since when do payment networks have anything to do with social networks? it didn't cost you anything to have a myspace or facebook profile. if bitcoin gets coopted easily then yes, the money will flee, because it shows a fundamental weakness in these systems. you can't have a "store of value" that is under threat of getting replaced by a new hot better "store of value" every few years. think about it a little.

>>4060165
No it isn't, don't be retarded. It's SHA 256, it's absolutely not quantum resistant.

>>4060072
Bump for a simple answer

>>4060792
how are one way hash functions not quantum resistant? its public key factoring that becomes significantly easier with quantum computing.

>>4060801
for bitcoin vs b2x? yes, in theory. but if there's no replay protection you would have to be careful sending b2x coins because the transaction could be replayed on the bitcoin network causing you to send both.

>>4060743
you clearly know nothing about this fork.
BTC1 is a real threat to Core. it will change block size rule and do the hard fork.

>>4060801
Put your coins on bitfinex. You;ll have both coins in equal amounts post fork.

I hope bitcoin dies. No mass adoption if the block size is artificially restricted. It's a free market, the miners and users will decide which coin is bitcoin

All these faggots who treat bitcoin like a sacred cow need to fuck off

when mircea popescu starts having people killed or screaming bloody murder, then I'll worry

until then, this is just nothing, like BCC/BCH

>>4060820
Chink miners whose gravy train came to an end with segwit and ASIC resistance will be the ones fucking off.

>>4060813
sure, they will fork off onto another network, just like anyone else can today. it's only a threat if the network is as centralized as the miners believe it is.

>>4060831

Yeah, Fucking off to a different coin with more hashpower and bigger blocks. Good luck with your $15 fees lmao

>>4060847
>more hashpower and bigger blocks
you realize there are hundreds of altcoins today that have more on-chain capacity than bitcoin does now?

>>4060847
Yes, my six-figure stack that doesn't move shudders at the thought of being reduced by a whole $15.

>>4060816
I have them in electrum right now., will that do?

>>4060789

I never said that you stupid fuck, reread what I've written. I'll conclude this here because I have more important things to do than debate a paid shill - segwit1x and segwit2x and segwit gold are all absolute fucking garbage and will collapse eventually when people start to realise its fucking useless and expensive.

>>4060536

But once this fork happens btc price should drop significantly, it'd be a new opportunity to buy am I right?

>>4060876
Depends on how savvy you are with this.

Easiest way is to let bitfinex handle it.

>>4060876
Also depends on how quickly you intend to sell b2x because I anticipate that it will get dumped very hard and the price will tank.

>>4060918
Too bad when you sell b2x, there's a chance you might get fucked and send your btc too.

>>4060928
Not on bitfinex as they are issuing a separate token for b2x exactly the same way bcash was handled - just like the shitcoin it is.

>>4060692
Actually whales don't have power either, exchanges have.
Coinbase, Bittrex, Bitfinex, etc..
They are the one deciding what you can convert against dollar and what is the medium of trade.

Sure you can count them as whales but not all whales are exchanges however all exchanges are whales.

>>4057571
Can anyone answer this?

>>4060895
>paid shill
i own more ethereum than i do bitcoin, i would probably be financially better off if the chinks did manage to overtake bitcoin and halve its value.

>>4060897
if you're able to. who knows how exchanges will handle it, they may simply block buying if it gets too crazy and by the time they allow it the price could be even higher. it's just very risky to sell unless you're really bearish on this outcome.

>>4060950
it would be even more contentious than this attempted takeover, but yes, its a possibility. this is the problem when you allow miners to influence the development of the coin, you end up with only one point of view and we've seen how greedy they are for short term gains.

>>4060937

Will be the same with bittrex? I don't have a bittfinex acc but even if I do I wouldnt want to put it all there

>>4060999
apparently, bittrex will do the same as b'fex but you won't be able to sell your b2x there.

>>4060995

Ok, thanks anon. I think I'm gonna spread it on 2-3 exchanges and then, once the fork takes place,I'll just dump it all for eth and fiat.

>>4059952

Fiat doesn't provide any answer at all to the usecase Bitcoin provides. The capital will just move elsewhere

>>4057287
>80% of bitcoin mining power will be swtiching to the forked chain.
>not realizing that people will switch pools
also it's going to be a field day/week/month for non-retarded miners.

>>4057561
>theres no such thing as development centralizaton. it costs nothing to fork and convince the community to move to a new client.


Found the core developer, what you are describing is a UASF

>>4061213
which is the only fork that can be made in a decentralized way, when you let mining centralize itself to < 10 people.

1 cpu = 1 vote hasn't meant anything for a long long time, and because satoshi didn't think ahead far enough about ASICs miners no longer represent the coin as they were intended to.

>>4058855

The price has no influence on the difficulty. Only time and hashpower. If over 50% switch over to s2x then the chain would be the faster growing one and the difficulty would adapt faster.

The mining at a loss is influenced by price. And this time we have a pretty good example of "haspower follows price" vs "price follows hashpower". We shall see

Litecoin going to survive the fork?

>>4061252
>1 cpu = 1 vote hasn't meant anything for a long long time, and because satoshi didn't think ahead far enough

Ever heard of Proof of Stake? With what you are saying you run into the "Nothing at stake" problem with decentralization. Every "1 CPU" you speak of has been invested for. A non mining node has nothing at stake and is replicated easily. So switch to PoS-Coins if that means so much to you. Or invest in mining.

>>4061323
mining is effectively a futures market for the price of whatever they're mining. the only problem is chinese miners have been shown to care more about short term gains than long term viability, so i would not be surprised if they were willing to lose a lot of money to try their best to push their takeover attempt through, even if it means mining at a loss, or taking risky positions in the market to finance it.

>>4061354
even more centralized than bitcoin, and even more chinese involvement. i dont have much long term hope for litecoin personally.

>>4061376
i dont know what that has to do with what i'm saying. the fact that mining is so centralized has warped the economics of proof of work so badly that you can't really make assumptions about miners acting in the interest of the coin anymore.

>>4061423

>interest of the coin

You dumb, m8? Miners act in their own interest, not the interest of the coin. These are supposed to coincide, but not always, and not necessarily

Read the white paper.

>>4061423
and ive mentioned above that nodes mean nothing, the only metric that has ever mattered has been users. in the past the miners were overwhelmingly the users, and the interests were aligned. as miners become a smaller and smaller part of the users of bitcoin their interests also become a smaller and smaller part of it.

the concept of a "non mining node" isn't even part of the picture in this debate.

>>4061436
thats the point, satoshi's assumption is that the interests of the miners = the interests of the coin, because the possibility for them to collude and force changes in the protocol was a positive, as the miners were the users, and if most of the users wanted a change, it followed most of the miners wanted the change too.

>>4057287
The bankers that influence these parties are just trying to FUD people into the more centralised chain they can control.

>>4061472

Exactly, miners will go where the money happens to be. This isn't a problem. All coins are competing with equal PoW are competing for mining power. If Miners leave, it just means another coin has provided a better network for Miners, ergo, a better coin.

>>4061474
it's not looking good for either chain at this point. the only hope is that the chinese are kept at bay long enough for true rivals in mining to pop up. it won't help much about "big money" having control, but when the control is shared in many countries it's a lot harder to try and push through changes that benefit few.

>>4061489
the issue is this don't work when mining is as centralized as it is, because the miners have so much capital they can mine at a loss, or otherwise game the system. if mining was truly decentralized the few political extremists that wanted to mine at a loss to prove a point would be crowded out by all of the rational actors simply looking to make a profit.

>>4061423

One might think that. And here comes game theory.

If you consider the huge amount of money they have invested to mine this coin you would think they have a great interest in it surviving and in its price rising.

On the other hand, users have financially invested nothing in the uphold of the network, just the coin itself. Why would they be allowed the same rights as a miner? That's what PoS is for. You invest in the uphold by investing in the coin.

This whas my last point also which I have now connected for you I hope.

So what's to gain for the succesfull fork? Miners gain the right to scale their chosen way. Bigger blocks. They already comprimised on this fork by allowing SegWit. (Contrary to Bitcoin Cash)

Core gains the reamining of the Satus Quo. Small Blocks and SegWit. No new throughput, but their own developed payment channels wich will deter transaction cost from the main chain (miners) to the developers (lighning, etc)

So, who has more to lose albeit having invested more?

Sorry for the ramble

>it's another gook shills invading /biz/ episode

Ver hired you guys for how long? I assume it's at least until the bch fork.

>>4061555
this whole thread is a ramble.

i understand what you're saying, but see >>4061547. when mining gets centralized the economics shift away from rationality. and the user's have stake because of the coins they own, their investment is smaller, but there are many more of them than there are miners, due to centralization.

and as we've see we can't expect the miners to act in the interests of the users all the times, because the interests have diverged so much, yet a very small number of "users" now hold a very oversized amount of control over the system.

and lightning doesn't give money to the developers there are no fees that go straight to bitcoin core each time you make a transaction, besides, even if there was, that would be forked out very quickly.

>>4061611
and its not like lightning is this nefarious plan to steal mining fees, it's a necessary step in scaling bitcoin. there simply isn't enough bandwidth to transmit every transaction to every node and have a system that has the capacity required for global usage. the infrastructure isn't even close to being there.

>>4061611

Thanks for the correction. I wasn't totally informed on how the fees will work under lightning.

And I am with you on that the centralization of bitcoin mining is a huge problem for the coin. But that is out of scope in this fork debate I think.

You think Bandwidth is the problem with scaling bitcoin? I was under the impression it was storage, since bigger blocks would mean bigger chain and That's why Ethereum is developing Sharding.

Other than that, I can't see any reason why you would be refusing to change the blocksize. And that is what is irking me in this whole thing. Why refuse, why not even compromise on it?

I don't get all the angst over splits. It's easy.

1) Put your BTC in your wallet
2) Wait for chain split
3) See what happens

Get your fucking idiot ass out of shitcoins and get that BTC off the exchange. It's should never sleep there to begin with, but ESPECIALLY not during a split.

>>4060092
well than trust a bank i dont care
what does that have anything to do with what i said?

Funny how nobody gave a shit when BTC was $100.
I blame Satoshi.

>>4057561
Technically, you're correct. In reality, you're not. Yes, consensus is fixed to the clients but if you mean to say that "people have the power here" you're absolutely retarded.

Here's the reality of it: most people don't run full nodes on their computers, because its too expensive (blockchain weights more than 130 GB now, you have to keep the client running all day long, etc.). Most people use exchanges. Exchanges are aware that BTC price follows hashpower, and thus, they will run the client the mining pools choose.
If 80% of mining pools agree on switching to segwit2x, you have to be a moron to believe exchanges will not adopt the segwit2x client.

You are the newcomer here my friend.

>>4061798
This. Use exchanges only to buy BTC, then move it to your own securely created and stored wallet nobody knows about.

>>4061843
yes, sure, it's exchanges, the point it it's decidedly not miners, because satoshi wasn't an idiot, and rightfully limited what miners were able to do before their actions were considered consensus-breaking.

the real issue is the collusion between exchanges and miners.

What would be satoshi's vision?

>>4061735
storage can be pruned. ethereum has fantastic "pruning", because each block header is able to verify every transaction without actually needing to download and verify it yourself. this means theoretically as long as you have the latest state data, which is just over 10GB i believe, all you need are the block headers going back to the genesis block, and you can be sure that you have an untampered blockchain, even if the actual state changes (transactions, etc) are no longer available. fascinating stuff.

but it's definitely bandwidth as far as transaction processing and syncing goes. a visa-level blockchain would take impossibly long to download and verify, even if you could throw away every block after downloading it.

my refusal is mostly because i dont trust the chinese miners and their interests, and they've proven it to me when they turned this into a political debate about removing every bitcoin developer and replacing them with one dude who's currently off developing his own altcoin (with a 20% premine).

>>4061954
Satoshi would shit his pants if he knew BTC would be worth $5k one day. It's out of his hands now. Might as well ask how the founding fathers would feel about net neutrality.

>>4061843
oh, and don't fall into the trap of thinking bitcoin price follows hashpower. i dont know why so many people think this, but it's the other way around. miners need to offload their coins to pay for mining, mining is betting on bitcoin futures, that's all. the price of bitcoin goes up with the demand, and the demand is in no way connected to the hashrate on the network.

in fact, mining expands to fill as much hashrate as the price can support, and sometimes going over (the "futures" aspect of it), but hashrate entering a coin less people are interested in using does not cause the price to rise.

>>4061992
Why do you imply Satoshi isn't alive anymore?

>>4061992
Satoshi is meeting with Jeff Bezos today, what do you think his vision is?

These are the people incharge of he dev team. https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@davecrypto/is-segwit2x-used-for-the-hidden-takeover-of-central-bankers Clearly anyone defending this is a cunt nugget

>>4062363
OMG. Thanks for posting this. I never knew! Fuck Bcc and BCG

>>4061155
but sadly bitcoin is right now 90% speculation. Not people using it

>>4062023
This. Hashpower doesn't matter. I have enough hashpower to run the entire Bitcoin network on my laptop if the difficulty level were dropped to one. And guess what? The difficulty level automatically adjusts to the hash power of the network every two weeks. Worst case scenario, 80% of the network's hashpower moves to B2X and the Core network is slow for a couple of weeks. After that everything goes back to normal

>>4063125
So many incorrect statements all in one post.
Congratulations.
Please, when you don't know about something, just shut up, and keep learning.

>>4060803
RSA is not quantum resistant. So, theoretically, if such a machine existed and was created during our lifetimes (which is a big if), it could be used to trivially determine which private key corresponds to a given Bitcoin address.
Bitcoin would effectively die in that scenario. But then again, there would be a lot more of things to worry about that just Bitcoin.

Thankfully, there are quantum-resistant fallbacks to RSA, like NTRUEncrypt. Problem is that those solutions are mostly proprietary, and their adoption would be really slow.

>>4063187
Not the same guy, but I don't see anything particularly incorrect in that post. Dare explain?

>>4063187
>that pic
lol in reality there's no upswing after mount stupid
it's just a bell shape and that's it

>>4060816
Wat do if american?

Bitfinex shuts down for burgers on the 9th.

>>4063125
>Hashpower doesn't matter. I have enough hashpower to run the entire Bitcoin network on my laptop if the difficulty level were dropped to one.

But it's not 1 now, is it?
> And guess what? The difficulty level automatically adjusts to the hash power of the network every two weeks.
And this is the big problem with what you said. It's not "every 2 weeks"
It's every 2016 blocks. If those blocks are being mined at 1 per hour instead of one every 10 minutes, your 2 weeks become 6 weeks.
And no, it won't then go back to "1"
Difficulty would go down only slightly. Still taking a long time to adjust to 20% of the hashrate.
Now imagine that those against bitcoin who have been spamming the mempool continue doing so. Your transaction will need 6x the price it needed before for it to be confirmed.

So yeah, if we suddenly ended up with 20% of the miners, BTC would die, and S2X would either become the new BTC, or just everything would go to hell.

>>4057527
thnx based anon