Bitcoin's market *price* is trying to rally, but it is currently constrained by Core/Blockstream's artificial *blocksize* limit. Chinese miners can only win big by following the market - not by following Core/Blockstream. The market will always win - either with or without the Chinese miners.
TL;DR:
Chinese miners should think very, very carefully:
-
You can either choose to be pro-market and make bigger profits longer-term; or
-
You can be pro-Blockstream and make smaller profits short-term - and then you will lose everything long-term, when the market abandons Blockstream's crippled code and makes all your hardware worthless.
The market will always win - with or without you.
The choice is yours.
UPDATE:
The present post also inspired u/nullc Greg Maxwell (CTO of Blockstream) to later send me two private messages.
I posted my response to him, here:
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4ir6xh/greg_maxwell_unullc_cto_of_blockstream_has_sent/
Details
If Chinese miners continue using artificially constrained code controlled by Core/Blockstream, then Bitcoin price / adoption / volume will also be artificially constrained, and billions (eventually trillions) of dollars will naturally flow into some other coin which is not artificially constrained.
The market always wins.
The market will inevitably determine the blocksize and the price.
Core/Blockstream is temporarily succeeding in suppressing the blocksize (and the price), and Chinese miners are temporarily cooperating - for short-term, relatively small profits.
But eventually, inevitably, billions (and later trillions) of dollars will naturally flow into the unconstrained, free-market coin.
That winning, free-market coin can be Bitcoin - but only if Chinese miners remove the artificial 1 MB limit and install Bitcoin Classic and/or Bitcoin Unlimited.
Previous posts:
There is not much new to say here - we've been making the same points for months.
Below is a summary of the main arguments and earlier posts:
-
The market knows more about economics than Adam Back and Greg Maxwell do.
-
"If ten smart guys in a room could outsmart the market, we wouldn't need Bitcoin."
-
Miners should use the cryptographic code provided by those programmers. But miners should not use an arbitrary, artificial economic limit ("MAX_BLOCKSIZE = 1 000 000") unilaterally imposed by those programmers - who understand cryptography but do not understand economics.
-
The best way miners can maximize their long-term profits is if they use unconstrained software provided by the free market - not crippled software controlled by companies like Blockstream / Bilderberg Group.
-
Blockstream is planning to steal around 90% of miners' fees, by forcing most transactions off the blockchain, and onto an unproven, centralized, off-chain system called Lightning Network.
-
The Bilderberg Group (major investors behind Blockstream) may be motivated to suppress Bitcoin price and adoption in order to prevent it from becoming a major world currency, and in order to allow central bankers to continue to control the world by infinitely printing their debt-backed fiat.
-
Independent Bitcoin implementations such as Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited use 99% of the same tested and proven code as Core / Blockstream - but without artificial limits on blocksize.
-
Classic and Unlimited are fully tested and fully compatible with Core. They are already smoothly running and mining blocks on the network - but without that single crippling line of code ("MAX_BLOCKSIZE = 1 000 000") - which Satoshi said should be removed.
-
Once miners perform a few hours of work to remove Core's crippled code from the network and replace it with independent, free-market code like Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Unlimited, then Bitcoin volume and adoption will be unconstrained, and Bitcoin price will also be unconstrained.
-
Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency game in town. There are many competing cryptocurrencies. And there is billions (eventually trillions) of dollars waiting to flow into cryptocurrency. Investors will not invest in a crippled coin. The winning coin will be the coin which is free of artificial constraints.
-
Investors have billions of dollars (eventually trillions) waiting to flow into cryptocurrency. Investors are software-neutral. Investors only care about wealth preservation and profit.
-
Investors do not care about preserving the millions of dollars invested in Chinese mining hardware, and they do not care using about the crippled code from Core / Blockstream / Bilderberg group. They care about money.
-
The alt-coin Ethereum (based on a different ledger) is already starting to steal Bitcoin's market share, and is already being traded on major exchanges (such as Gemini).
-
A Bitcoin "spinoff" (based on Bitcoin's existing ledger, but using a different hashing algorithm, to exclude existing miners) can and will be launched, if miners continue to use Core/Blockstream's crippled code.
-
Code for a Bitcoin "spinoff" is already being prepared.
-
Because a "spinoff" uses a different hashing algorithm, it would destroy existing miners' millions of dollars in hardware investment.
-
But because a "spinoff" uses the existing ledger, it would also preserve investors' billions of dollars in wealth.
-
-
The market will eventually win - with or without Chinese miners. The market always wins.
-
If the Chinese miners follow the market, then they have a simple, guaranteed path towards increasing long-term profits due to continuing rise in Bitcoin price and on-chain transaction fees - using their existing hardware.
-
If miners follow Core / Blockstream / Bilderberg Group, they will lose potential profits in the short term (due to suppressed price), and they will lose everything in the long term (when investors massively move to another coin with another hashing algorithm).
-
Chinese miners need the market. The market does not need Chinese miners. If they follow Core/Blockstream/Bilderberg instead of following the market, they will eventually lose everything.
Previous posts providing more details on these economic arguments are provided below:
This graph shows Bitcoin price and volume (ie, blocksize of transactions on the blockchain) rising hand-in-hand in 2011-2014. In 2015, Core/Blockstream tried to artificially freeze the blocksize - and artificially froze the price. Bitcoin Classic will allow volume - and price - to freely rise again.
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/44xrw4/this_graph_shows_bitcoin_price_and_volume_ie/
Bitcoin has its own E = mc^2 law: Market capitalization is proportional to the square of the number of transactions. But, since the number of transactions is proportional to the (actual) blocksize, then Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit is creating an artificial market capitalization limit!
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4dfb3r/bitcoin_has_its_own_e_mc2_law_market/
(By the way, before some sophomoric idiot comes in here and says "causation isn't corrrelation": Please note that nobody used the word "causation" here. But there does appear to be a rough correlation between Bitcoin volume and price, as would be expected.)
The Nine Miners of China: "Core is a red herring. Miners have alternative code they can run today that will solve the problem. Choosing not to run it is their fault, and could leave them with warehouses full of expensive heating units and income paid in worthless coins." – u/tsontar
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3xhejm/the_nine_miners_of_china_core_is_a_red_herring/
Just click on these historical blocksize graphs - all trending dangerously close to the 1 MB (1000KB) artificial limit. And then ask yourself: Would you hire a CTO / team whose Capacity Planning Roadmap from December 2015 officially stated: "The current capacity situation is no emergency" ?
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ynswc/just_click_on_these_historical_blocksize_graphs/
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/
Austin Hill [head of Blockstream] in meltdown mode, desperately sending out conflicting tweets: "Without Blockstream & devs, who will code?" -vs- "More than 80% contributors of bitcoin core are volunteers & not affiliated with us."
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/48din1/austin_hill_in_meltdown_mode_desperately_sending/
Be patient about Classic. It's already a "success" - in the sense that it has been tested, released, and deployed, with 1/6 nodes already accepting 2MB+ blocks. Now it can quietly wait in the wings, ready to be called into action on a moment's notice. And it probably will be - in 2016 (or 2017).
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/44y8ut/be_patient_about_classic_its_already_a_success_in/
Classic will definitely hard-fork to 2MB, as needed, at any time before January 2018, 28 days after 75% of the hashpower deploys it. Plus it's already released. Core will maybe hard-fork to 2MB in July 2017, if code gets released & deployed. Which one is safer / more responsive / more guaranteed?
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/46ywkk/classic_will_definitely_hardfork_to_2mb_as_needed/
"Bitcoin Unlimited ... makes it more convenient for miners and nodes to adjust the blocksize cap settings through a GUI menu, so users don't have to mod the Core code themselves (like some do now). There would be no reliance on Core (or XT) to determine 'from on high' what the options are." - ZB
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3zki3h/bitcoin_unlimited_makes_it_more_convenient_for/
BitPay's Adaptive Block Size Limit is my favorite proposal. It's easy to explain, makes it easy for the miners to see that they have ultimate control over the size (as they always have), and takes control away from the developers. – Gavin Andresen
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/40kmny/bitpays_adaptive_block_size_limit_is_my_favorite/
More info on Adaptive Blocksize:
https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoin+btc/search?q=adaptive&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
Core/Blockstream is not Bitcoin. In many ways, Core/Blockstream is actually similar to MtGox. Trusted & centralized... until they were totally exposed as incompetent & corrupt - and Bitcoin routed around the damage which they had caused.
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47735j/coreblockstream_is_not_bitcoin_in_many_ways/
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3wo9pb/satoshi_nakamoto_october_04_2010_074840_pm_it_can/
Theymos: "Chain-forks [='hardforks'] are not inherently bad. If the network disagrees about a policy, a split is good. The better policy will win" ... "I disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the 'Bitcoin currency guarantees'. Satoshi said it could be increased."
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45zh9d/theymos_chainforks_hardforks_are_not_inherently/
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
Mike Hearn implemented a test version of thin blocks to make Bitcoin scale better. It appears that about three weeks later, Blockstream employees needlessly commit a change that breaks this feature
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43iup7/mike_hearn_implemented_a_test_version_of_thin/
This ELI5 video (22 min.) shows XTreme Thinblocks saves 90% block propagation bandwidth, maintains decentralization (unlike the Fast Relay Network), avoids dropping transactions from the mempool, and can work with Weak Blocks. Classic, BU and XT nodes will support XTreme Thinblocks - Core will not.
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4cvwru/this_eli5_video_22_min_shows_xtreme_thinblocks/
More info in Xtreme Thinblocks:
https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoin+btc/search?q=xtreme+thinblocks&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
4 weird facts about Adam Back: (1) He never contributed any code to Bitcoin. (2) His Twitter profile contains 2 lies. (3) He wasn't an early adopter, because he never thought Bitcoin would work. (4) He can't figure out how to make Lightning Network decentralized. So... why do people listen to him??
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47fr3p/4_weird_facts_about_adam_back_1_he_never/
I think that it will be easier to increase the volume of transactions 10x than it will be to increase the cost per transaction 10x. - u/jtoomim (miner, coder, founder of Classic)
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/48gcyj/i_think_that_it_will_be_easier_to_increase_the/
Spin-offs: bootstrap an altcoin with a btc-blockchain-based initial distribution
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.480
More info on "spinoffs":
Posted May 10, 2016, 1:55 PM UTC · edited