Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 07, 2017, 02:04:31 AM

Quote from: CornCube on December 04, 2017, 11:56:15 AM

SegWit and LN (Lightning Networks) makes Bitcoin insecure and fragile. That insecurity and fragility forces Bitcoin towards an oligarchy of mining (wherein the Mt. Box and the miners are in the oligarchy), which is quite ironic since that is precisely what Core claims its focused on preventing.

Bruh... saying stuff like this is really misleading. You're so anti-core, and probably still holding BCH bags, so it almost seems like you're doing it intentionally.

Yet Core lies and tries to convince everyone that we need SegWit and small block size because theyre fighting for decentralization. Its the lies and bullying.

No we sold the free BCH at $800. Then repurchased from $450 down to $300, wherein in this thread I wrote it would go to $1500. We sold at $1500 as predicted. Now were nibbling again with BTC at $14,500 and BCH at $1400 (i.e. below 0.1 BTC again and right at the upward trendline on BCH-USD chart as support, i.e. not likely to go much lower unless that trendline fails or Im it drawing wrong).

Im looking for 0.3 - 0.5 BTC again on a moonshot when the BTC difficulty resets at these higher prices, so then as BTC corrects, I presume the big blockers are going to pump BCH again, and it will more profitable to mine BCH than BTC so a self-feeding moonshot cycle again.

I had two scenarios last week (if you read my other posts in Speculation). One was BTC would stall after recovering to $11k, and alts would run up. Or BTC would moonshot to $20k in December (because the CME and SBOE futures markets launch this month) and alts would pause first. So looks like the second scenario was the correct one. Remember I cautioned some days ago that it might be too soon to buy BCH. So now were getting closer to the time to buy BCH again.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 07, 2017, 02:04:31 AM

All cryptocurrency's eventually lead to oligarchies (if they don't start out that way). BCH is no different and nor is BTCSatoshi for that matter. ASIC mining oligarchies own all of them. Please don't say "but my super secret design doesn't" because we will never know for sure without you publishing it to be peer-reviewed...

At least Bitmain doesnt lie about it. They make it quite obvious in fact. And they dont try to lie and claim they are the official BTC. Instead they forked and let the market decide without putting blinders on n00bs and newbies with all that BS you and the Core jerks are shoveling. (But thanks to yall for doing that obfuscation, because it has enabled the meteoric bubble, so thank you Core!)

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 07, 2017, 02:04:31 AM

The LNs bring additional oligarchies to the mix.... at least 4 of them (ACINQ, Blockstream, Lightning Labs, Blockchain's Thunder). There will be more LN implementations, and at the end of the day... you can still use the PBOC payment channel (on-chain transactions) if you wish. That is a good thing because competition breeds economical efficiencies.

Yet all the Mt. Box all have to settle onchain and thus they can overload the chain anytime they want to. Combine that with CME futures and the ability to short BTC to hell, they can have lots of fun fucking with the difficulty recomputation, transaction fees, and slowness of blocks, etc..

Youre not really thinking this out clearly from a technological and game theory perspective.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 07, 2017, 02:04:31 AM

Atomic Cross Chain Swaps will become normal in 2018 and beyond, which will generate even more competition. Instead of competing against only LNs and on-chain transactions, these payment channels will also be competing against ALT coins. If an ALTs can do transactions cheaper, then Bitcoin's transaction market share will dwindle. Since miners will be relying increasingly more on transaction fees in the future, they will eventually be forced to keep fees as low as possible. Right now until LNs and Atomic Swaps are normal, they can pretty much charge whatever they want... and they have been by spamming the network and raising the fees.

I will need to study the technological security of those instant offchain cross chain swaps. I expect to find security weakness of the sort of game theory attacks I mentioned about Mt. Box settlement spikes on chain. In any case, any altcoin which enables Lightning Network (LN) is going to subject to the threat of volume spikes due to Mt. Box. If an altcoin is not threatened by that (because it can handle nearly any volume such as the design I am working on), then it doesnt need LN any way!

Yes altcoins can already do transactions much cheaper than Bitcoin and that doesnt matter. Bitcoins transaction volume demand will always continue to increase because BTC is the reserve currency of crypto and so everyone wants to bank their profits in their unit-of-account which is BTC.

Bitcoins transaction market share will drop precipitously, but its share of the economic pie of crypto will remain very significant and grow because of the reason I stated. BTC miners/whales do not care about transaction volume, they care about value of the transactions and thus the amount of fees that those whose transacts fit within 1MB block size can afford to pay. For example, when every BTC transaction is $10 million, then a $5000 fee per transaction will not be a problem.

Quote from: thejaytiesto on December 06, 2017, 05:22:28 PM

I still don't get how (if the supposed segwit hack/attack/thieft happens) the transition into BTCsatoshi would be like...

Considering that "the most serene whales" aren't for sure going to support BCash or any other altcoin, and considering we aren't going to simply roll back to August 1st and act as if nothing happened...

Presumably only transactions with had SegWit in their lineage would be at risk of being stolen with a massive chain reorganization.

And obviously its cheaper to only reorganize back in time to the point where enough BTC could be stoken to pay for the cost of the proof-of-work mining cost.

Also there is my crazy theory that BCH whales (who also include BTC miners) may have been trading BTC for BCH on exchanges, and they could also steal back those BTC while keeping the BCH, thus wrecking havoc on exchanges and on anyone who withdrew BTC from those exchanges.

I do not think there is any safe BTC unless youre obtaining it from an address from before August. And if you trust that payer to not be colluding with the miners/whales who will steal BTC with the hypothetical chain reorganization.

Quote from: thejaytiesto on December 06, 2017, 05:22:28 PM

I assume that if you just avoid storing and accepting segwit addresses you are good to go? that's what I've been doing.

That may not be sufficient if the theft occurs (which is granted possibly a small chance or maybe a large chance, I dunno).

After selling out of BTC to alts and the alts moon, then maybe better to buy gold and wait for this matter to be settled?

Im thinking a max price for BTC before any such theft to be in the range of $25 $40k (although someone I know threw out an outlandish possibility for $100k).

So if I can take profits into gold at after trading that to alts (from BTC at $20k) for another double or so (so $40+K effective selling price), then I will not feel like Ive lost any opportunity on a risk vs. reward basis.

Looks like the regression chart indicated BTC should be about $10K right now. So according to that theory, were already above the level it needs to correct back down to after it peaks. Apparently long-term support for BTC is around $4 $6K right now.

Quote from: thejaytiesto on December 06, 2017, 05:22:28 PM

I also assume after such a disaster nobody would use segwit ever again, so we wouldn't even need to remove it from the network. In any case, how could it be removed? through another softfork? or maybe it cannot be removed? (and I doubt a hardfork to remove it would happen). It is a real clusterfuck of a situation to be honest. Let's just hope nothing happens, im enjoying the bull market.

Well what if the SegWit attack never happened on Litecoin. Maybe Litecoin would become the offchain scaling coin, so all that potential insecurity of Mt. Box attacks on the chain, arent burdening BitcoinSatoshi any more.

However, there are other chains coming which scale to very high transaction volume such as EOS and my own project.

Also there is Raiden for offchain on Ethereum and perhaps they did not design it to have the same pay to anyone flaw.

Were enjoying the clusterbubblefuck actually. Been fun trading back and forth between BCH, LTC, BTC and compounding the gains.

Never let a good crisis go to waste. Tongue