You suggest that I am some kind of fan boy of core, and where's your evidence?  I am describing what I see as facts and dynamics and speculation about outcomes and not taking sides.

The irony is that you are attempting to make core out as if it were centralized and it is not...  where's your evidence?  Anything convincing in that regard?

Anyone can submit whatever the fuck they want for consideration to the core github in order that their BIP can be considered based on logic and facts.

It should be pretty clear that there is really no need for 2mb or a hardfork or a downgrading of consensus guidelines, and those propositions are supported by evidence and logic.  

So the fact that a bunch of nutjob core folks happen to agree with those points and principles does not make them centralized.  Helrow?  

You argue that core folks are centralized or they have some kind of common bias?  and where the fuck is your evidence?  Some are getting paid?  So fucking what?  Is there some kind of connection that shows they are controlled?  They can express whatever ideas they want and as individuals they seem to agree that there is no need for a 2mb upgrade, there is no need for a hardfork and there is no need to change consensus... Those are ideas that they seem to agree upon, at least at the moment, and each of them seems to be free to change his opinion in that regard, if he feels like it.

I think those kinds of claims about centralization of core are nonsense because they are not based on evidence or logic but instead some scant conspiracy theories.  You have any convincing evidence or logic in support of the supposed centralization of core?





Again, more nonsense from you ComputerGenie.  The core individuals can do whatever they want.  There is no religion involved.  If you can convince them to change their minds based on evidence and logic, then that would be great, rather than just asserting that they have some kind of unbreakable alliance.. which is nonsense... stick to the substance of arguments, please.

Frequently, I don't agree with you SaveT_R_F, but you making a very good point... loose the goose, and loose the bitcoin  and loose the rules.

I agree that we may need some clarification of the intent to enforce some of these "tightening" rules.


And, yeah, regarding alt discussions, I can understand if someone is coming in to merely pump some stupid-ass alt, yet this is getting really confusing in recent times, because there are really decent, even though sometimes ambiguous connections of bitcoin's price movements, and especially ETH... sure, at first that stupid ass shit coin had little relevance to bitcoin's price movements, but in recent times it is considerably connected - sometimes moving in correlation, sometimes opposite and sometimes extreme.. which is also connected with some ICO's that can cause a considerable amount of disruption in the space but end up affecting bitcoin price movements and even potentialities (speculation) in price movements.

Regarding length of quotes, I seem to be guilty as charged when it comes to overquoting.. and therefore, I can understand why these quoting of the full post might be irksome, but some times it seems necessary for context. Anyhow, since the link is likely in the quoted portion, then maybe it is just a matter of getting used to.  I just sometimes have a problem that someone makes a comment, and then we do not know the context or from where is the reference, and sometimes it may be better just to have the quote right there in that post in  order that the reader can know the reference.   

What you are arguing seems to make little sense, or possibly I do not sufficiently understand your point?

Core is not some kind of centralized entity, but if consensus within that group is to push for segwit without a 2mb increase because as individuals each of them believes that there is no fucking justification for actually adding either a 2mb upgrade or especially attempting to accomplish such in terms of a hardfork, so why would any specific one of them (of course any one of them is free to do what he wants) just concede and write some stupid ass technically unnecessary code?

Furthermore, it seems that this segwit2x, as flawed as it may be, may well end up being a vehicle that catalyses the activation, implementation and locking in of segwit - without the dumbass 2mb or the hardforking parts. 

So fine and dandy, we are going to get a bunch of whiners down the road, who are trying to argue that the 2x part was already agreed to because of NY agreement and because segwit2x code, but why would core jump in and concede on that 2x part (or the hardforking part), when it is not agreed to and is not technically necessary, at least at this point and even more once segwit is actually locked in? 

Furthermore, why would core agree to concede to any kind of change in governance to allow for 80% consensus when it seems to appear that there are vehicles already in place, including BIP148 and BIP91 that seem to have considerable incentives to cause a movement from 80% in order to achieve the necessary 95% consensus which they had outlined in BIP9.  O.k. maybe down the road there will be some BIP vehicles that allow for other kinds of changes in governance - at least in terms of how to reach consensus, and what kind of thresholds might be sufficient - but at this point it is looking like 95% plus is going to be a pretty safe accomplishment and it looks pretty probable to be achieved in the near term, at least with the segwit portion, no?

I think that this article is in sync with what is being said here regarding time line.

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-scaling-project-segwit2x-release-new-code-tomorrow/

Segwit2x tested for two weeks, and then maybe go live at that point, and then the real test is regarding how many miners are actually running it, rather than merely stating an intention to run it?

At that point, would it be fair to add up those running segwit2x and those running BIP141 in order to achieve 80% under BIP91?  and then once BIP91 80% requirements are met, then it becomes a requirement to signal segwit or otherwise become orphaned... which would cause more than 95% and then the activation of BIP 141.   

There seems to be a kind of loophole here, because BIP141 is currently at above 44%,  but if that percentage is added together with whoever is going to run segwit2x, then only 36% would be needed in order to trigger BIP91 - which would pretty much make segwit certain thereafter?   

Yep... looking good.

I have a feeling that we may be in the top 20 for a considerable amount of time into the future... I hope that I am not jinxing it..

Since we are in a new thread, I will repeat again, that I believe that $2,700 is a more significant resistance point, rather than $2600.

Seems like we are likely to blow right past $2,600, and $2,700 will be the "true" test of whether we are going back into the testing of $3k resistance.

On another note, it remains quite amazing to continue to witness the dynamics of the walls as a kind of contrary indicator of price direction.

Currently, ask walls are building the fuck up, and therefore, it is beginning to feel that we are going UP..   It is almost as if the higher the wall differentials (between bid and ask) on the ask side, the more likely we are going UP...

I will concede that trade volume of the past 24 hours has been mediocre and even down - however, trade volume for the week is definitely on the above average, and in that regard, on a weekly basis we continue to have high trade volume.. and also in that regard, the lower trade volume of the past 24 hours, likely just adds up to a kind of coiling effect.

Therefore, hang on boys and girl.   Let us head to $2,700 and see where we can go from there.

I had seen random quotes of the WO thread in various news places, and even fairly recently, within the past several months.  I doubt that my spending time to further research into the matter and citing various locations in which it was quoted would make any kind of difference because it seems that owner and moderators already have their minds made up that they do not really value the WO thread in its current state - they consider the thread to be more of a burden on them than a benefit - despite ongoing, active and longterm participation by both substantive and non-substantive posters.

I think that the sentiment of marcus_of_augustus various posts describes the importance of the WO thread - but none of his comments seem to be sinking in and the fact that there was a mixture of both good and bad content does not take away from the fact that the thread could be a bellweather measure of bitcoin sentiment.

Also the fact that causing the moving of the thread will likely lose some of the participants who have that particular thread bookmarked, and they won't be able to find (or bother to find) the new thread location. 

I wish there were a like button.   

That is hilarious.

I surely have thought about jbrehrer as a "big blocker nutjob," but I never even thought about Jbrehrer post in this thread as a rage quit.... hahahaha... great humor... a fun personal attack that captures meaning in the bitcoin community.

Unlike some of those other nutjob ragequitters, I'm sure Jbrehrer will be back, because he cannot resist being where the "action is."  hahahaha   Actually, there may even be a bit of a pattern in which ragequitters do come back.

I find it amazing that owners and various moderators seem to NOT recognize value in a thread that seems to have the most participation.  Even just considering the matter from an owners point of view, isn't there value in that?  There are quite a few instances of of members who would come back into the WO thread after 1 or 2 years of non-participation in the forum, and that would be their "go to" location to post.  Also, newbies post in that thread, and may not post in any other thread.  I even saw that thread cited as a bitcoin news source in more than one articles.





This is a GREAT suggestion.  Leave the thread tentatively open, until an alternative can be considered, and it seems that just putting the thread in Off-topic - could be a solution, even though I really am having some difficulties understanding what the problem is just leaving the topic where it is, and maybe just getting a volunteer to be the new moderator of the thread - someone active in the thread could be the new moderator.. there are all kinds of decent candidates that would likely just moderate the extreme and just leave most posts alone....

In the end, the owner of this forum can do whatever he wants with threads; however, I find it difficult to understand why the owner, would not see value to have a "go to" thread - even if technically, it is off topic or whatever. 

Seems to brings value to the forum overall, but apparently, since there was a decision to lock the thread, Theymos does not see the thread as valuable to the forum?

Yep...   Thanks for taking the initiative to start a new WO thread.

Would be good to 1) bring back polls, 2) acquire some kind of chart posting bot, and maybe 3) reword the OP in such a way that it says that this is a continuation of the old WO thread.

Agreed!!!! Move to off-topic, if necessary, or assign a new person to manage the thread, as many of us actively involved in that thread would be more than happy to agree to volunteer for such duties.

The thread is a historical masterpiece, like yefi suggested, and probably amongst the most ongoing and active "go to" locations for bitcointalk members to attempt to connect anything to BTC prices, including various activities going on in the alt space.

Sure, there are trolls in the thread, too; however, the thread seems to have historically been a catch-all kind of location to gather about bitcoin price movements, and also a way to attempt to make price connections.  Sure some folks would like to deny that some of the movements in the altcoins, ETH, ICOs, and other pump and dumps do not affect bitcoin prices, but those denials would be out of touch with the real crypto space world that we find ourselves these days.

By hook or by crook  - KEEP the Wall Observer thread alive...  please.   

I don't claim to understand all these various technical variations, but it seems to me that even if segwit2x is fucked up and ambiguous, it seems to be serving as a pretty decent vehicle to on board  a large number of folks into segregated witness, which is seeming to make segregated witness more likely to happen, and also on a bit quicker of a timeline. 

So, even if segwit2x is a bunch of nonsense, likely we would not gotten to the likely activation and locking in of segwit?  Sure segwit is not a done deal, yet, and there are a variety of influential factors - but doesn't segwit2x deserve some credit for adding to the likelihood and speed of the real deal seg wit activation and lock in?

This may be a dumb question - or an area that has already been covered, but do we have a date in which the segwit2x software will be available for miners to actually run, to change their smoke from "intention" to actual "signaling" that counts towards locking in segwit? 

Accordingly, since BIP141 is already at about 42%, then the segwit2x portion would only need about 53% in order to add up to 95% and then to lock in segwit, right?

Seems like there is enough support.. but an ongoing problem is that there is a difference between actually running software and merely asserting intention.. .. and I know that there is some locking in, as well.. with BIP148 and also with BIP91 that requires them to actually signal segwit which will bring the segwit number close to 100%. 

Somewhere I heard that the miners would have to start running the segwit2x software by July 7 in order to have enough time to lock it in before August 1 and to make BIP148 irrelevant.

Am I on the right track?

This is an area in which reasonable observers can have a reasonable difference of opinion.. and both be kind of correct.

The problem that I have with suggesting that that resistance would be very strong in the $2,600 arena is because we were just in the $2,700s a few days ago.

And there was pretty decent trade volume in the $2,700, and that trade volume only increased when the price got pushed below $2700 and the past couple of days that there have been ongoing attempts to push BTC prices down... so in that sense, I am of the opinion that $2600 is not going to be as difficult as $2700.

On the other hand, we do have the continued and shitty dynamics of the pump and dump alt coins that could continue to have a dragging down affect on bitcoin... but maybe they are going to continue to pump the alts and everyone can just get pumped together combining the pump of the shit and the non-shit..    

There is no "have to" in bitcoin, we have had three attempts at pushing the price down, and it looks like there is some downwards difficulties.

And, based on the trade volume, no one really seems to agree on prices between $2500 and $2750.. ... so either we are going up or down.. and yeah, if they battle it out for a few more weeks (about whether we go up or down), then maybe at that point, we could settle for something in the $2500 to $2750 range.. but I don't see sideways without a fight - and down is not any kind of for sure.. so that only leaves us with UP and the remaining option... hahahahha   

Yep!!!

Flip a coin.    That is be call Koreck!!

There has been pretty intense trade volume over the past couple of weeks in which this dumping has been going on, and surely bears could be running out of coins to dump at those low $2,400 prices.... and seemingly unsuccessful in achieving a third leg down from $2,980?

Maybe the bears can regroup and try again, but if we get into the $2,700s then the bears are going to have difficulties reversing this train...  Agree? .. so maybe currently, around $2,700 and below is the area to watch for a possible reversal?

Frequently, I am confused by supposed legal implications of a decentralized system.  Who are they going to prosecute?  Bitcoin?