https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html
The market got really excited about it for a second.
Oh man this fucking market
Last edited by a moderator:
$ (BTC) The Bitcoin Thread - NO SHITCOINERS ALLOWED
- Thread starter CrunkLord420
- Start date
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html
The market got really excited about it for a second.
Oh man this fucking market
Good. The hard forks were seriously entering the realm of pure idiocy and forcing people to sit on currency even more than they usually do.
Some idiots are going to try to fork it anyways. Egos are inflamed (this was always about ego). https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000689.html
I hope they get cancer and then the cancer catches fire and then they die in that fire.
I'm trying to understand the logic of this forking:
1. An increase to blocksize means that more transactions can be stored per block, lowering transaction costs for Bitcoin but also lowering the profit margin of the current whales/megaminers.
2. Lowering transaction costs makes Bitcoin more usable as an actual currency.
3. This would be a bad thing because...
1. An increase to blocksize means that more transactions can be stored per block, lowering transaction costs for Bitcoin but also lowering the profit margin of the current whales/megaminers.
2. Lowering transaction costs makes Bitcoin more usable as an actual currency.
3. This would be a bad thing because...
Because the value of BTC is that it's the longest, oldest blockchain with the most hashing power. The idea of hard forking, at all, is heretical. There already was a 2MB HF which became Bcash, it never gained consensus, never took the Bitcoin name and is currently worth ~0.0884 BTC. This is about another attempt for fork BTC and hijack the Bitcoin name where it's both 2MB blocks and Segregated Witness (SegWit).
SegWit is a whole other thing, which will likely go forward as a (soft?) fork while successfully retaining the BTC name, this seems to have most consensus support (among the vocal minority). With SegWit the possibility exists to create "sidechains" which will enable off-chain payment channels and offload transactions from the block. Honestly a lot of the sidechannel stuff gives me the feeling of Ethereum smart contracts, trying to get corporations to buy into your stupid enterprise solution memes (see: Blockstream). Another interesting use of sidechannels might be MimbleWimble.
The block situation is that people don't want bigger blocks because it creates a higher barrier to entry to running a node, which is critically important and I personally believe SPV wallets (article argues the contrary) are damaging the ecosystem. There has been some evidence of transaction spam to create block congestion/political pressure. I personally subscribe to the idea of BTC as a "settlement layer" for other altcoins, it doesn't need to pay for coffee, it just needs to keep being the most reliable and oldest blockchain that everyone can agree upon at the end of the day.
Hypothetically speaking, would transactions get delayed if a bunch of people cashed out all their bitcoins at once? Does that strain the network at all?
People use transaction spikes as a trading indicator of people wanting to sell: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#1w
(in case the link isn't clear, yes, there is transaction congestion going on right now)
Last edited:
Roger Verr did a pretty harsh interview with a guy who runs a "popular" BTC camgirl site. By ~35mins in he's gone completely insane and ragequits by the end. It's worth watching the whole thing imo.
Edit, I noticed he put out an Apology video for this interview
Edit2, also another?
Edit, I noticed he put out an Apology video for this interview
Edit2, also another?
Last edited:
Honestly, you're better off if you just ignore the swings. They're mostly meaningless.
- Tags
- None