I dunno... Hopefully I am not jinxing the whole thing. 

But this feels pretty real to me.

CAROLINA TIME!
Banjos and tall lighthouses!
This is GENTLEMEN!

Observing 10103.



Bodie Island Lighthouse (Carolina)

Yeah the volume is really the one underwhelming thing, particularly considering the growing fee market.

We are going to need to have the "influencers" really on point when it comes to fees when we DO start to get that volume.  Because it's coming.  On a level that has made all the last runs look like... well like the way THEY made the previous ones look. 

We have broken the current most aggressive version of this line since the ATH on every time frame so far:



Now we just want to close on all of them above that line!  Maybe a little harder to do?

I mean seriously... we don't even have to break 10k anymore for this 2.6 year line to get pierced.  What do you think is gonna happen?

This is the perfect storm.  Gold about to breech 2k.  

Bitcoin being talked about by herd leaders as "digital gold".

Right after the halving.

Exchanges stock running low.

Hashrate ATH in.

More dollars being printed than toilet paper.

What do you think is gonna happen?

That is not at all what I am saying.  What I am saying is we are going to have to scale it to make it be that.  Either it scales in layers with the BTC blockchain being the settlement layer, or we up the block size ala BSV.

What I am saying is when we do it the latter way it is going to be the realm of the super powerful to keep up with it enough to run nodes... and we coalesce into a system worse than the current one.

OK.  So how many transactions per second do you think is the minimum we should aim for?

5 doesn't scale... neither does 100.

How about 1 transaction per day for half of the people alive as a starting point?  (Still waaaay too small really)

That's (I am guessing) about 40k/sec.  Which would be what? 40Gbish blocks?

So Google and, Amazon and a handful of world governments will be who we trust to keep the blockchain??

It seems to me scaling the blockchain by making it bigger and keeping it safe from control and collusion is impossible.

So awesome.  But they forgot Idiocracy.

Hmm.  Well I think we are at an impasse.  We always were though.

I think the more nodes the better and do not care who runs them primarily.  I believe that that is exactly what decentralized minimized governance looks like and it is messy and slow moving.

You want nodes to be run by some sort of technocratic elite who will govern us all with what they decide the limitation, or removal thereof will be.

We are comfortable with different trade offs.  I think a distributed system with the least amount of trust possible is worth more than you do.

Absolutely.  That has been the long part of the con from the tip AFAIK.  And I assume CA is in on it.  At the very least the sycophants will cheer and lick his toes as they had over the UTXOs for the Satoshi hoard as represented in BSV.  But that is not the brass ring he's going for.  But it is the iron one he might end up with...

Maybe the biggest news of the last 5 years for BTC.  Maybe for the whole decade of it all.

No surprise it whizzes  by unnoticed.

I bet you this is what the geezer who made the 8MM contract bet on BitMex knew.

(I have never said "geezer" beofre but I am listinging to the What Bitcoin Did interview with Keith Levene which is fucking awesome and worth listening to.. we are on the knifes edge! )

This is gentlemen.

Carolina

Trains

Moon

Hodl

.

Yes.  Keep this rolling.

But good lord this whole thing is just a long game of "musical chairs". 

That's why I just stay seated and listen to the music.

When it stops I will still be sitting right here...  never having stood up.

It also hurts my soul that JB is parroting the talking points of the BSV drones. I mean, it's one thing if the argument is valid. But this is just as bad as the "thousand socks of nullc" talking point (quite the neckbeard by the way...).

And that's just it.  No one is making a coherent argument for that fork.  They bring up "protocol set in stone" as they change it.  They fall back on "Law(l) and courts".  Often you get to hear the "So many people are not smart enough to get it" or the "DYOR" argument.  The the abominable "CSW is SN" garbage.

Another one of my favs is Calvin running around accusing people LEFT AND RIGHT of being paid trolls.  I think Kevin Pham was OBVIOUS in that regard, and I have my suspicions that possibly Daniel Krawictz also was in that category.  I have NO DOUBT that various twitter "influencers" received compensation for something like that.  And his proclaimations of paid trolls sort of ignores the FACT that Bitcoin niether NEEDS or even cares about paid trolls.

What bitcoin HAS done is chew up and spit out just about everyone who has ever either purposefully (Pirate@40, so many others) or accidentally (Carpeles) attacked it.

I know this post will be disappointing to The Dude

But dammit.  We really just need one whale to come confirm that this is NOT a headfake.  The longer we go without that themore likely we are to deflate a bit.  I already have 90% of my net worth tied up in it.. I cannot help.

CMON CORN!

There is no doubt that validating nodes hold power. UASF proved that. 

The original paradigm was the miners both did the hash work and the consensus validation.  When the idea was 1 CPU 1 vote this meant both hasrate and consensus validation was distributed.  Upon the advent of ASICS harshpower began to centralize among the producers of the hardware as well as the large ASIC farms that became the current day miners.  But protocol consensus was still something users did not need specialized hardware to validate/support.  So that function branched off to be a list of users LAGER than those providing hashrate security.

This is a VERY GOOD thing in my opinion.

If both hashrate AND consensus validation coalesced to smaller and smaller group the network would be less robustly distributed.  But with the way the power is currently distributed we have a sort of "separation of powers" sort of like the US government.

If the network evolves too quickly and requires expensive, specialized hardware for BOTH Hashrate AND consensus and chain validation then we are introducing TRUST where we do not necessarily have to.

I, and many others, feel very passionately that the distributed nature of the power in bitcoin is worth defending.  Taking a sort of ad hominem stance by calling people who validate the protocol and transactions on the bitcoin network "irresponsible neckbeard hobbyists unable to make the proper life choices to enable them to leave mommy's basement" is not helpful or realistic IMHO.

Holy shoot.  That is either someone who knows something, or one drunk motherfoocker.

To your point:



A good question...  but this would not be the first headfake corn has done.  The volume is not super exciting.  And it's seemed like there are participants in the market who really seem to want to keep it in a certain range.. or... maybe I am seeing things.

I would love to see it poke back above that BBand and close there.