RE: Secrets of Bitcoin’s Dystopian Valuation Model
A move of claiming only the top 20 segwit addresses alone right now would exceed the number of bitcoin stolen from Mt Gox. (>850,000 BTC).
Now you made me even more sure it’s going to happen. 😈
I'm thinking that once the Segwit booty exceeds 50% of the total BTC in existence, that's when it will happen. If I could just mathematically model the flow into segwit somehow, I might be able to extrapolate when.
At the 50% mark, the value of BTC Core and BTC legacy will be equal which turns this into something similar to a PoS situation where the majority BTC legacy is assured control.
Addendum Jun 3rd: Craig Wright has also been cosying up to the state, obtaining copyrights for a paper he probably didn't write (stylometry). I can imagine miners accepting bribes from state actors who want to destroy the crypto field by making an example of bitcoin using this as well. It will cause a mass panic at first because 99% of the public has no idea what's going on. Maybe someone gets the funds from the military budget and pays the miners 1+ Trillion to get started justifying the expense under "national security".
Craig Wright is apparently promising to launch the attack on the halving in May 2020. Their group has at least 3 million TH/s (i.e. 3000 peta-hash/s).
The halving is the logical time to launch it because the income for miners temporarily is cut in half, so miners have less profit leeway to support shit they ideologically believe in. And market psychology reasons.
Note Craig’s blog post adds more support. So hilarious that Craig intentionally does a teapot-calling-the-kettle-black wherein he is both the teapot and the kettle simultaneously! Lol! He criticizes Core for mutating the protocol, yet he wants naive readers to not pay attention he necessarily implicitly (while explicitly claiming otherwise!) advocates to centralize the future increases in the block size of BSV because adaptive block size is otherwise insecure. It’s obvious what Craig is doing. He is employing Orwellian double-speak to fool all the snowflake idiots. Abstractly it’s as if he is performing a theatrical playbook for Revelation’s 666. More concretely, he’s possibly going to lead (or like an opportunist parasite, take credit for leading when it happens naturally) the SegWit donations defensive mechanism “attack” that will force Core to fork off from the real Satoshi v0.5.3 Bitcoin and self-destruct, whilst publicly claiming or insinuating (perhaps with continued double-speak) that BSV is the real Bitcoin with scaling (which it isn’t), all the while letting fools buy BSV while he (and his wealthy supporters) are trading BSV for the real Satoshi v0.5.3 Bitcoin that survives from the Core fork-off. Clever and so many idiot snowflakes will be duped. Love it! I have reason to believe that Craig was reading my stuff and getting some of his recent ideas from me (as have many others throughout our industry). Whereas, I tend to cite those I get ideas from such as Vitalik. Not that I care to receive recognition for it. I don’t need any recognition. I prefer to be ignored by the snowflakes and read by the experts, lol. Ignored but…
pay attention and you might be able to figure out that I’m much more than you think I am…(so you like double-speak?)Craig’s points about the law are basically correct. Anonymous tokens (i.e. where proof of source of funds is not provable) will of course be banned from registered exchanges eventually, but that doesn’t mean they won’t still function decentralized for those who want to use them as a medium-of-exchange in a black market. And it’s possible that anonymous cryptocurrencies with “view keys” that enable authorities to verify lineage will not be banned. And he is correct that for those who want to transact in Satan’s statism, they will need to deal with the law and anonymity won’t help them.
In the image below presumably “DL” is Daniel Larimer and “CZ” is Changpeng Zhao:
Here’s another source:
@jesseluther wrote:
0.000000000000000000001Funny pic! Is this Buterin in the fleeing audience?
Posted using Partiko Android
What does "0 to 21 decimal places" mean?
"Thus I conclude that adaptive block sizes require centralization"
I do not see how you have provided evidence for this.
When there is no block size cap ..... then "consensus" on the block size is reached by the majority of nodes choosing to build on top of a block (or not). ie. can the network transmit your block quickly enough? (or is your block stale).
It's competition.
Learn how to read.