Can exchanges and miners represent Bitcoin users?

In the decentralized system of Bitcoin, anyone who wants to represent users is just pretending to be so. I don’t represent others, nor do I want to be represented by anyone. I only represent myself. Therefore, any voting results are invalid, especially the so-called coin signature voting (90% support BU?). If you really believe it, you are an idiot. If you pretend to believe it, you are a liar.

So what do Bitcoin users want? It all depends on the price of the currency.

Buying and selling coins is the user's "ticket"

Buying coins means approval, and selling coins means opposition. I will sell some coins when the BU computing power support rate is 40%. If more than 51% of the computing power supports SW and declares BU bankruptcy, I will buy coins with double the money. It is very likely that this operation will make me lose coins, but I have no regrets. Because buying and selling coins is my vote, I will not participate in any other form of voting.

Why don't I sell all the coins? Because I want to keep some, I want to keep some to smash BTU and buy BTC in the future. This is also a vote, I will not vote in any other way, even Bitfinex's futures BCC and BCU.

The exchange cannot represent me (no matter which currency you trade), and the miner cannot represent me (no matter whether you have the largest computing power).

It should be noted that I am not selling my coins because I have no confidence in Bitcoin. On the contrary, I have great confidence in it. After this catastrophe, Bitcoin will become stronger. I just have to vote by selling my coins, otherwise some people (especially some miners) will think that users are vegetarians. QNMB, who advocates "computing determinism" all day long.

The consensus of Bitcoin is the price of the currency

Users are willing to buy coins and push up the price without regrets, which means that the development of Bitcoin is healthy. I remember that in August 2015, the day when Gavin released XT, the price of the coin collapsed to more than 1,200. Since then, the problem of Bitcoin expansion has not been solved, but the price of the coin has risen to more than 8,000, and the market share was as high as 87%. If it were not for the strong pressure from the central bank and the BU fork, the price would be even higher. This is the vote of users, Bitcoin is good.

Not only did I continue to buy coins, I kept buying them up to over 8,000, and I kept writing articles to tell everyone not to get hung up on capacity expansion. But some people insisted that capacity was the big problem and sold their coins. I admire those people who are consistent in what they say and do. Although you may not understand the biggest source of Bitcoin's value, I respect your behavior. You are true men who are consistent in what you say and do. As for some others who have been advocating that Bitcoin will die if it does not expand, but are secretly long Bitcoin, I really can't express my contempt for them in words.

You can imagine, who would buy coins at more than 8,000, and who would buy and never sell? I am one of them. At least you will have such an understanding, he either doesn't care whether to expand or not, or he agrees with Core's expansion route. If you don't agree with Core's expansion route, and at the same time buy coins at 8,000, then I can only say that you are crazy, you have split personality, and I don't understand your world.

I bought coins at historical highs, which I think is an honor, and this is also my voting power. I kept buying coins and pushed up my average cost. I would think negative cost is a shame. It's not that I can't do negative cost, but I don't want to do it. I hope I can always buy coins like a newcomer, and hold "high-cost" coins with them. In this regard, Jiang Zhuoer and I are fundamentally different. He wrote popular science to deceive newcomers to enter the market, but he announced that his holding cost of coins is negative; and I never deceive anyone to enter the market. I only know to quietly buy coins with my hard-earned money. In other words, he deceived newcomers to come in, and he was selling, and the newcomers became his receivers. Similarly, selling coins is also a kind of voting. If the BU computing power support rate exceeds 40%, I will sell coins, no matter how low the price is, because this is also the voting power given to me by Bitcoin.

Money is the smartest thing, and the price of coins will not lie. If you have any doubts about this, just give it a try. BU miners have an illusion of mining, thinking that there must be people who buy coins with high computing power. You really think too much. If you don't believe it, I sincerely invite you to try it. It's useless to reason with it. Only when you try it yourself will you be impressed. If even you are willing to take the risk and play it, do I have any reason to object?

However, I suggest you save some money to prepare for the fork. If you cannot bear the price of the currency when the fork occurs, you will most likely fail, and fail miserably. The price of the currency is the truth, believe it or not!

Those who believe in conspiracy theories are idiots

Don't say Core is dictatorial. All coins have only one development team, including LTC, ETH and DASH. Are these coins all dictatorial? Saying Core is dictatorial is just making up a false accusation. It is the users who chose Core's expansion plan (which is why the price of coins can go up), not Core that is dictatorial. Users have hands and feet, why don't they run away? Why are they still dictatorial? Are users all stupid? Is the users' money all stupid money?

Don’t say Blockstream has a conspiracy. If that’s the case, then it must be that users are willing to be “conspired” by Blockstream. Users have hands and feet, why don’t they run away? Why are they being conspired? Are users stupid? Are users’ money stupid money? What’s more, the website (https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/) has more than 100 companies supporting SW. If this is really a conspiracy, then maybe it’s not the whole world that is conspiring against you, but you yourself have persecution delusion. Therefore, when Wu Jihan shouted loudly at an event, “This is definitely a conspiracy,” I could only silently think that he was not mentally mature at all.

If we really want to talk about conspiracy theories, Bitmain is obviously more suspicious. Of course, I don't want to believe it, but someone has produced evidence of Jiang Zhuoer's short selling, saying that it was Jiang Zhuoer who posted the order himself. Even so, I still don't believe in conspiracy theories. I prefer to believe that Jiang Zhuoer is just a speculator. There is no doubt about this. Which diehard fan would short? Which diehard fan would relish the negative cost of holding coins? Which diehard fan would stay up late to write popular science when he opened a long futures order and was too nervous to sleep just to fool a few newcomers to take over? (Go and check the time nodes when he wrote the popular science.)

You can't kill anyone or any chain

Jiang Zhuoer's remarks are all about "sending Core to the west", "driving Core out of office", and "killing short links". Wow, I seem to see children playing house. No one has ever improved themselves by killing others.

If more users support short chains, then killing short chains will result in all of these users being lost. This is not an either-or choice. Core supporters have many options when the Core chain is "killed". They can buy other coins, gold, or houses. But one thing is certain, they will never support BTU. What's more, you can't kill Core at all. Chains that are supported by people can't die.

There is no need for miners to denigrate the role of developers. There is basically no difference between the forks of ETH and ETC. ETC even has an advantage in public opinion because it is the original chain. The only advantage of ETH is the development team, and this is a development team that "steals coins". Now, is the market value higher for ETH or ETC? Therefore, whether the Core programmers are valuable or not is not something you can discredit. If one day you really achieve "sending Core to the west", it is nothing great. Coins are dead, people are alive, and the Core team will build a new coin. We will sell Bitcoin and follow Core to play with the new coin. What can you do? It can be expected that this coin will at least exceed ETH, because the Core developers are several blocks away from that little prodigy. As for the "so-called Bitcoin" with the highest computing power, what will happen to BTU? I really don't believe in the myth of computing power. The highest computing power has never been a selling point. Don't believe what I say? You can try it.

In short, you can't kill anyone or any chain, otherwise there wouldn't be so many coins on the market. If you could kill anyone at will, Bitcoin would have already unified the whole world. So, please, come and kill them, I'm really curious about how you can kill them.

Who are you going to negotiate with?

It is said that there will be another capacity expansion conference in May. I have to say again, it is useless.

I have never supported any so-called consensus in meetings. When the mining industry first came up with the 1992 Consensus, I was the first to oppose it. Why do you guys hold a closed-door meeting and think you represent me? Later, they came up with the Hong Kong Agreement, and I was also the first to oppose it. Why do you guys hold a closed-door meeting and think you represent me? I really think you have delusions from mining. Do you really think you can represent others?

Why should things be so complicated? If the hashrate is switched to BU, will the price of the coin fall or rise? If it rises, it means users agree with BU, and if it falls, it means users oppose BU. Let me say it again, money is the smartest, and the price of the coin will not lie. If you don't pull the price yourself, don't expect others to support BU. Whether it is developers or miners, they cannot represent any users. The agreements negotiated by a few or even dozens of people are all nonsense. This is fair to everyone. If the hashrate supports SW or remains the same, and Bitcoin is still rising, it means that users are supporting Core.

In a decentralized system, you are still thinking about negotiation? Do you think you are the boss? Who are you going to negotiate with? Who can represent Bitcoin? Is it OK if we agree on Core? If the users run away, it doesn’t matter if we agree on Core. Some people speculate that Bitcoin Mainland wants to threaten Core by supporting BU, so that it can increase some bargaining power. How naive! In the end, you will find that you can’t find anyone to negotiate with. In other words, there is no need to negotiate at all. Just execute your plan and see how the market reacts.

Want 2M+SW?

Many people wonder why Core cannot accept 2M + SW, and whether Core programmers are too arrogant. In fact, the answer to this question is very simple. Core does not agree with the upgrade method of hard fork at all, so 2M hard fork is unacceptable. This is exactly why I support Core. I also think that the time is not right for 2M hard fork now, and hard fork is not used to kill mosquitoes. So the more Core programmers insist, the more confident I am in them, and this belief also supports me to buy coins at 8,000. The better programmers are, the more loyal they are to their values. If a person says that hard fork is dangerous, but compromises and executes hard fork when threatened, is such a person worthy of our respect? I despise inconsistency between words and deeds the most. There is no compromise in decentralized systems. You do what you want to do, he does what he wants to do, and everyone behaves in the same way (such as every soft fork with 95% activation) to upgrade. At this point, Core programmers are fundamentally different from BU programmers. Bitmain wants to spend money to hire Core, but you can't hire it. Believe it or not?

In a decentralized system, you have the freedom to do anything. For example, if you want to initiate a BU fork or kill someone, it is your freedom, whatever you want. You can also naively think that supporting BU can increase your bargaining power. However, in the end, you can't tie the legs of users. So, I encourage you to do anything, even forks, because you miners will bear the consequences in the end. I like your spirit of "not giving up until you see the Yellow River, not crying until you see the coffin".

Recently I have been using the phrase "If you don't fork, you are a grandson" to criticize BU miners. I apologize first. I don't really think you are grandsons. I sincerely hope you will initiate a fork, because I really want to know whether the "computing power myth" you promote is true. I really don't believe it. Please do it once and for all to convince me. (You can think of this as a provocation or provocation.)

Finally, I want to say to all Bitcoin users: "You are the most powerful. You can make miners live in luxury or make them unable to take care of themselves. The myth of computing power is bullshit." (But this does not mean that POW is a bad mechanism.)

Is Segregated Witness important?

Answer the questions left by the previous article "On the Monetary Function of Bitcoin" (http://www.8btc.com/bitcoin_currency):

Is it an important question whether Segregated Witness (SW) can be activated?

Answer: It doesn’t matter, because the problems it solves (capacity expansion and scalability) all belong to the transaction attributes of Bitcoin. And improving transaction attributes is not that important for Bitcoin. Therefore, I have never promoted SW on any occasion. It is good to be able to activate it, but it doesn’t matter if it cannot be activated.

However, one thing needs to be emphasized. If SW is truly a technological innovation, then it cannot be stopped, no matter how powerful or wealthy you are. If SW is not activated in Bitcoin, then SW will be activated in other coins. Eventually, a few years later, many coins (except Bitcoin) will use SW as a standard. So, when you look back at those who stopped it, you will find it very ridiculous. We laugh at those who stopped the Internet, and we laugh at those who stopped Bitcoin. It's the same reason. On the contrary, if SW can be stopped, then it must not be a real technological innovation. Therefore, it is a good thing that SW encounters resistance during the activation process, which just happens to test its quality.