BTC Bailouts Get Consensus, what now?

[Anonymous No.10537761]

I'm almost sure that this is wrong, but I can't actually nail down why. It has to be wrong though right? The entire purpose of the creation of Bitcoin was to stop this entire thing. With hashpower now only acting as a rubber stamp on the core devs consensus though, that safeguard is gone... It has to be something else though, right? This person can't actually be right, right?

[Anonymous No.10537784]

>>10537761
Oh look a retarded bcash thread.

[Anonymous No.10537805]

>>10537761
what bailout nigger
do you even know what a bailout is

[Anonymous No.10537850]

I got no clue what this guy is saying

[Anonymous No.10537887]

>>10537805
>>10537850
He's pointing out that with the change in consensus mechanism from what it used to be (hashing power from miners all over the world) to what it is (whatever the core dev team claims to perceive to be "consensus"), now any changes at all, including bailouts and quantitative easing or anything at all, only need to have the core dev team sign off on them, whether they actually believe they have consensus or not. All they have to do is claim they do, emergency, extenuating circumstances whatever.
Previously they would've had to get the sign-off of every single significant hashpower operator in the world, now they just need to get the sign off of the core devs.
But there must be some objective mechanism where the core devs would never sign off on such a change, right?

[Anonymous No.10537919]

>>10537887
the core team and anyone else who thinks miners aren't in control of consensus are in a honey pot.

let them spend their effort trying to subvert bitcoin while bitcoin cash proves the exchange ticker is least important part of he system

[Anonymous No.10537945]

>>10537919
I'm not interested in the bcash answer. If bcash really is the answer and 90%+ of the people who have been in this for almost ten years missed it, it is pretty much proof that the entire ecosystem is useless.
There has to be a reason that the current reality is the correct one.

[Anonymous No.10537967]

>>10537945
you should sell then

[Anonymous No.10537980]

>>10537967
If he really is right, that does seem to be basically the only option, sell altogether or buy shitty bcash and hope for a "correction".

[Anonymous No.10538013]

>>10537980
core are like toddlers in a day care run by miners, they have zero ability to change consensus. Bitcoin is proof of work not proof of github.
if you don't understand that I don't know why you bought in the first place

[Anonymous No.10538014]

>>10537887
Thanks for explaining

[Anonymous No.10538034]

BTC was nothing but an experiment every early Bitcoin developer can tell you that. SKY was designed to solve all the issues BTC & ETH faces today

[Anonymous No.10538068]

>>10537887
that's fucking ridiculous lol you cashies are the most retarded bunch I've ever seen

[Anonymous No.10538447]

>>10538013
As it relates to BTC this is just wrong. Consensus for BTC is certainly exactly what he says it is; whatever the core devs say it is. Consider the following examples to conclusively verify this;

1) The miners move all the hashpower over to BCH, people who think Bitcoin is BTC, still 80-90% of the market for the past year simply ignore it and keep using BTC regardless, no matter how weak the hashpower supporting it is. Even when they did this last year on November 12th, BTC retained 10% of the hashpower, which was enough to keep operating. Yes, the chain would be in a degraded state. But eventually as long as the people who think BTC is Bitcoin keep throwing their money at it, the difficulty would adjust back to the actual level where the hashpower supports the price and it would keep on just as it presently is.
2) The miners not only move all the hashpower over to BCH, but they also mine an endless stream of empty blocks into the BTC chain which the people convinced BTC is Bitcoin irrationally believe in. They would have to forfeit tens of thousands of dollars per hour to maintain this attack even if the present position of BCH and BTC were switched in market price, it is not economically rational for them to maintain that behaviour.

[Anonymous No.10538465]

>>10538447
As long as the majority of market activity accepts the position that BTC is Bitcoin, regardless of the objective facts of the issue that prove it's contrary to it in every way, has abandoned the consensus mechanism of the original, is subject to central control and attack, and all these things are even currently in progress, none of that matters. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is where the money flows, and as long as that's 9/1 BTC to BCH, the majority of unquestioning plebs are going to think BTC is Bitcoin and BCH is Bcash.
There appears to be no way around this short of BCH actually living up to the original vision of the currency to be used globally as actual money, at which point, the current 9/10 majority becomes a tiny slice of a large pie, and actual genuine commerce backs the value of BCH, which BTC will need to compete with, or be flipped by it. It is however questionable whether A) this can actually be done B) what the timeline is on it and C) if BTC really are backed by global central banks, they probably can actually just fake enough volume to maintain the position regardless of the fact they're not widely used in production commerce.

[Anonymous No.10538522]

>>10538447
it isn't economically rational to move 90% of hashpower if the market will still value btc higher. if its actual operation is not greatly hut during such a period why should they not? only a successful 51% attack on bitcoin or a long term slowdown with 90%+ hashpower drawn off to bch and 2 hour confirmation times for weeks could change the market sentiment. both of these have very high economic costs. just because one time in November BCH had 90%+ of the hashpower for a very short time and the price didn't immediately flip doesn't mean that the market is wrong. it means that the miners couldn't pull that off without huge risk of potential loss.

[Anonymous No.10538556]

>>10538522
That's exactly what I'm saying. Because of that, miners really *have* been removed from the set of things constituting the consensus mechanism as far as BTC is concerned.

[Anonymous No.10538594]

>>10538556
they are still mining BTC though. are you saying they don't have agency? in actuality the miners care more about profitability and running a sustainable business than idealism, if they even believe that BCH is the "real" bitcoin. it's more important to them to be able to keep the lights on. this is their choice. what has changed since the beginning of BTC mining in this regard? I don't think anything.

[Anonymous No.10538610]

>>10538556
You mean that the Chinese Communist Party has been removed from the set of things constituting the consensus mechanism of BTC.

Miners were never the consensus mechanism for BIG IDEAS. They are the consensus mechanism for what blocks are included in the chain. That's what cashies have such a difficult time understanding. Nodes and Users determine the direction of the network and changes to it. Miners determine, within the bounds of the network's constitution, what happens with blocks. They aren't there to determine high-level decisions about how the network should be developed. That's the job of the dev community and the users and nodes to then accept. Miners are bounded decision-makers. The consensus they make is a bounded one not a meta one.

[Anonymous No.10538628]

>>10538594
They have agency, but aiming for profitability is always the economically rational decision. What miners mine is supposed to denote the valid chain, but that's not actually the case. In reality what miners mine is a result of what miners are best paid to mine, and only that. The federal reserve could disembowel the entire system tomorrow simply by paying a higher rate for hashing power than any other cryptocurrency can, in fact, effectively that is what OP is arguing that they have already done, by paying a higher rate to mine BTC than to mine a legitimate proof of work cryptocurrency.
The more I think about it, the more I think they're right, they seem to think BCH can somehow win, I am starting to think actually the entire thing is just over.

[Anonymous No.10538659]

>>10538610
This is the kind of stupidity that is emblematic of exactly why I think the sector is probably broken beyond repair. This fuckwit actually uncritically swallows the fact that now a political council of six people decides what consensus is, and claims it was never intended to be any different, despite that being complete and utter nonsense that only the most absolutely retarded of newfags could ever believe.
To say that the Chinese Communist Party controls all the hashing power is even more idiotic than saying it's business as usual the consensus mechanism for BTC has been swapped out to an unaccountable centralised six person political council. Yeah, Communist China controls all the energy production in the world, the red menace! Reee!.
Fucktards like this really have me thinking it's just plain ogre. There is likely nothing that could ever wake up this level of idiotic delusion.

[Anonymous No.10538732]

>>10538659
1. There isn't a council of six people. That's your own retarded conspiracy theory.

2. You are uncritically casting aside the influence of the Chinese government in Bitcoin mining. China has banned crypto trading, yet they have no interest in controlling mining in their counrty? Give me a break you absolute brainlet.

3. As to your image: the key word is ENFORCED. Not CREATED or INVENTED, but ENFORCED.

4. You lost. Now that you realize BCH is done for, you are throwing up your hands and calling for the end of it all. In reality, it isn't the end for BTC, but it is the end for you. You'll spend the rest of your days as a ranting, schizophrenic boomer who knows that the BTC crash is "just around the corner!"

Goodnight cashie, thanks for playing. And remember that traitors go straight to hell.

[Anonymous No.10538842]

>>10538732
1. Yes there is, consensus is whatever the core devs say it is. hashing power no longer has any role in determining consensus within BTC, and the exchanges announced loudly that the instrument backing BTC would always be whatever the core dev team says it is. That they cloak their edicts in language of "we think / don't think x has consensus" is utterly irrelevant to that, it's a subjective determination centralised in a tiny group of humans. You're convincing me altogether now that OP was in fact entirely correct. There really is no hedge on them acting *however the fuck they want to* and dressing it up after the fact to appeal to stupid cunts like you with shit like "x has consensus"

2. You clueless fucking brainlet, all governments which have crypto operations under their jurisdiction have "influence" in mining. And that's a lot of them, not just China. You know which government has 100% control over the core dev team though? The US government.

[Anonymous No.10538852]

>>10538732
>>10538842

3. Yeah I'm totally sure the people who were in control of mining and signalled acceptance / rejection of proposals right up until core subverted Bitcoin by capturing the exchange all along bought into the idea that they were just purchasing fancy rubberstamp machines to approve blockstream's business model.

4. I have never believed in BCH because the market firmly rejected it right out of the gate, in fact it makes total sense for it to have done so given the way the proof of work calculus has actually worked out; It really *doesn't* denote the "valid chain". In fact there is no reasonable such *thing* as the valid chain, there's just what pays people the highest immediate profit for rubberstamping. That conclusively proves that proof of work cryptocurrencies are an abject failure, there are in fact no proof of work cryptocurrencies anymore, just BCH wishing it was legitimate whilst slyly changing the definition to something completely different by way of messing with the DAA, and BTC LARP'ing as a POW cryptocurrency whilst actually being the ultimate centralised shitcoin.

Good night stupid cunt, and remember this moment when you're sucking federal dick for bailouts next recession cycle because you believed the bullshit lies about your hijacked centralised shitcoin.

[Anonymous No.10538898]

>>10538842
>>10538852
MORE POSTS EQUALS MORE CONSENSUS.

[Anonymous No.10538953]

>>10538898
Proof of social media presence is something only a technically illiterate abject fuckstick cuntbrain could possibly imagine to be a legitimate usable metric, it is the *definition* of fucking sybil vulnerable. Useless cunts like you whining on the interwebs. You make me fucking sick, unironically kill yourself, you're a load that should've been taken anally.

[Anonymous No.10539005]

>>10538659
he's right though. miners will always mine the most profitable coin; therefore the markets determine which is the real BTC, not miners.

[Anonymous No.10539043]

>>10538953
Man, you are unsalvageable.

[Anonymous No.10539060]

>>10539005
This is right. But *markets* have allocated the real BTC to a ledger where the consensus mechanism is a central political council of six people who decide entirely by their own subjective judgement how the ledger should evolve.
How the fuck can this be considered rational, letalone decentralised? Isn't OP's argument completely correct? Even assuming that the core devs are benevolent dictators for life, which, frankly, is quite the fucking stretch given the way they've behaved, at the end of the day if the USG issues a national security letter with an attached gag order demanding that they all do x, they will all do fucking x and x will get fucking done.
How does this not mean it's ogre? Bitcoin has failed.