Powered by glolg
Display Preferences Most Recent Entries Chatterbox Blog Links Site Statistics Category Tags About Me, Myself and Gilbert XML RSS Feed
Sunday, Nov 26, 2017 - 19:29 SGT
Posted By: Gilbert

No Meme More Fitting

Thanks were given.
[N.B. full Dragonball Z context, global top r/bitcoin thread]
(Source: wikia.com)

First, many thanks to Vegeta, who has been training and awaiting this beautiful moment, ever since the US$8000 level was breached; Vegeta memes duly catapulted to the Reddit frontpage this morning, as commentators predictably flooded the r/worldnews and r/investing discussions with tulip analogies. They could yet be right, and I concur that there's a fair chance of another hefty dip in the near future (like the few we've had in past months), but possibly more-informed experts have declared that "computers/the Internet is a fad", reasonably arguing that it's all virtual, nothing concrete underpins its value... while Gates, the Zuck and Bezos sit on hundreds of B's.

Actually, I'd be rather more pessimistic were there not so many detractors, but I'll leave the details for the next H.L. Ham annual report... by which we should find out whether the latest rise sticks. One last comment: from recent personal communications, there have been some distressing misconceptions about Bitcoin (Cash/Gold/Diamond/etc...)'s history and future. While I do continue to support others' right to perform their own analysis and make their own decisions, it behooves me to clarify the firm of H.L. Ham's stance on Bitforks.

First point, on "both sides being unreasonable" on Bitcoin capacity increases. We have covered the Segwit drama back in June, and while I have admitted some sympathy for those wanting a simple limit raise, it remains that blockchain integrity remains paramount. The tragedy of a fork to 2MB, is that it isn't even "adoption over decentralisation" - if you're battling over transaction throughput, then there's simply no realistic way to reach even VISA-level capacity, without second-level solutions.

Further on this, if transaction capacity/low fees were indeed the major driving force behind Bitcoin, any number of other alt-coins are currently far superior in that regard. Plus, as stated, there are currently multiple Bitcoin forks, with identical ownership stakes, with those properties - why are they then not even coming anywhere close to overtaking the original, in a free market? This may bear some thinking about.

Grasps the gist of it pretty well
(Source: busy.org)

Secondly, the point is that a true hard fork - as BCash/Gold/Diamond etc have been slinging around willy-nilly - has consequences; Bitcoin, as an ecosystem, isn't something like Windows' push updates (which are kinda crappy, mind). As such, the Core developers have wisely decided to gently ease nodes in with soft forks whenever possible, but have gotten rebuffed whenever their Segwit solution was proffered. In short, capacity increases remains largely a technical issue, and if there's one thing not to compromise on for purposes of "being accommodating", it's this.

Thirdly, it should be noted that only the original Bitcoin is gaining institutional attention. When the CME futures open, they aren't opening for BCash/Gold/Diamond/Platinum, they're opening for Bitcoin... and when the ETFs built on those futures arrive, it'll be the same. And, tellingly, all these Bitforks ultimately derive from the original chain, despite their lofty ambitions (largely amounting to a not-even-very-impressive webpage). In fact, if we consider the classical "moon" price of US$10000, then the original Bitcoin has already about reached that, if we include its spinoff fork values (US$9k for the original, ~US$1.5k for BCash, ~$340 for Gold, plus other odds and ends)

As such, the value of Bitcoin rests not only in itself, but also in the value of all its future derivations, as the mother chain. That said, its forks do in a way sow the seeds of their own irrelevance - given that there is hardly true consensus on what Bitcoin should emphasize, some success of BCash would in turn encourage a BCash 32MB... which has sort of already happened. Then, by the same argument, many 8MB BCash users should prefer the 32MB chain, and so on. Still, the "free fork value" scheme should have a while to run yet, going by how Super BTC and the like are arriving... though we expect investors and consumers to (sadly painfully; see: the abrupt 2X cancellation, and its poor victims) wise up, in the longer run.

Lastly, much of my distaste for BCash in particular lies with the company it keeps - I mean, when you've a community that actually takes the wonderful Dr. Wright as an authority, after the eye-rolling shambles surronding him, one can only conclude that they're hopelessly blinkered - which is definitely not a firm foundation for a crypto to be run on.

Of course, if one is after pure gains, then yes, Bitforks and other alt-coins likely allow more maximum upside... if played very well, which is always the main problem for traders...

(On the legacy financial system; only partly tongue-in-cheek)
When the new meets the old it always ends the ancient ways
And as history told the old ways go out in a blaze

comments (0) - email - share - print - direct link
trackbacks (0) - trackback url

Next: It Is The East And Bitcoin Is The Moon

Related Posts:
The Third H.L. Ham AGM
Maxican Standoff
Story Of A Bit
Trade Special
No Can Haz ETF

Back to top

Copyright © 2006-2018 GLYS. All Rights Reserved.