diff thread Mar 3 to Mar 17? picks are closed.... prize = 0.1 btc

[notlist3d]

So the Downward trend for the Period continues, as to what is going on? It could just be that there is very little going on, with all that we have seen so far being nothing more than Variance and we are going to end up around Zero for the Period with no net loss or gain in Hash on the Network?


Rich

https://blockchain.info/blocks


Height                             Time
   
402616 (Main Chain)   2016-03-14 12:37:02

402534 (Main Chain)   2016-03-14 00:00:56


83 blocks in  12 ½ hours   should be  75  so pace has picked back up

Price is up just a little around 413 atm.  It's been hanging around that number up and down a little for past 24 hours. Decent article on price: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-stabilizes-at-420-but-still-moving-sideways/

What do you guys think is the debates on size holding price down?   Or think it's a number of other factors.

[1714765221]

1714765221

[1714765221]

1714765221

[1714765221]

1714765221

[philipma1957]

So the Downward trend for the Period continues, as to what is going on? It could just be that there is very little going on, with all that we have seen so far being nothing more than Variance and we are going to end up around Zero for the Period with no net loss or gain in Hash on the Network?


Rich

https://blockchain.info/blocks


Height                             Time
   
402616 (Main Chain)   2016-03-14 12:37:02

402534 (Main Chain)   2016-03-14 00:00:56


83 blocks in  12 ½ hours   should be  75  so pace has picked back up

Price is up just a little around 413 atm.  It's been hanging around that number up and down a little for past 24 hours. Decent article on price: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-stabilizes-at-420-but-still-moving-sideways/

What do you guys think is the debates on size holding price down?   Or think it's a number of other factors.

The size or classic vs core node issue is sending money into alt coins..

ETH  NMC  UNO PPC all had good rallies.

  As much as I prefer BTC right now I am hedging with PPC and I have more then 1200 PPC coins.  I also sold some btc for fiat as this block size war has me a bit nervous.

[notlist3d]

So the Downward trend for the Period continues, as to what is going on? It could just be that there is very little going on, with all that we have seen so far being nothing more than Variance and we are going to end up around Zero for the Period with no net loss or gain in Hash on the Network?


Rich

https://blockchain.info/blocks


Height                             Time
   
402616 (Main Chain)   2016-03-14 12:37:02

402534 (Main Chain)   2016-03-14 00:00:56


83 blocks in  12 ½ hours   should be  75  so pace has picked back up

Price is up just a little around 413 atm.  It's been hanging around that number up and down a little for past 24 hours. Decent article on price: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-stabilizes-at-420-but-still-moving-sideways/

What do you guys think is the debates on size holding price down?   Or think it's a number of other factors.

The size or classic vs core node issue is sending money into alt coins..

ETH  NMC  UNO PPC all had good rallies.

  As much as I prefer BTC right now I am hedging with PPC and I have more then 1200 PPC coins.  I also sold some btc for fiat as this block size war has me a bit nervous.

It seems to be a debate that does not go away.  Some of the more radical ideas on fixing it are what scare me.  I think it's going to be a tough battle on it.  Guess it's another one of those wait and see.

And I really don't like wait and see things that I don't have a solid anwser what future will be.

[Mikestang]

I know this much, the answer isn't as simple as "make blocks bigger".  If it were we'd of solved it a while ago.

I do not like the XT or classic fork attempts, to me that is two guys trying to hijack the entire bitcoin network and bring it under their control via a fork.

The answer to the block size problem has not been found yet, but it will be in time, and it will be solved more eloquently than simply proving bigger blocks.

At least price is holding above $400 and not tanking like the last time the block size debate was raging full strength and XT came out.

[philipma1957]

I know this much, the answer isn't as simple as "make blocks bigger".  If it were we'd of solved it a while ago.

I do not like the XT or classic fork attempts, to me that is two guys trying to hijack the entire bitcoin network and bring it under their control via a fork.

The answer to the block size problem has not been found yet, but it will be in time, and it will be solved more eloquently than simply proving bigger blocks.

At least price is holding above $400 and not tanking like the last time the block size debate was raging full strength and XT came out.

No I agree  long term solve is not to endlessly expand it. (block size)

But I feel a move to 2mb and revisit this in December or January would be a good short term solution.

[Kexkey]

I do not like the XT or classic fork attempts, to me that is two guys trying to hijack the entire bitcoin network and bring it under their control via a fork.

It's actually not a "fork attempt", but an attempt to solve a problem.  You see, the goal is not the fork, it's the improvement.  The way we see it can have an impact on our reactions and opinions.  The perceptions of the taken actions are often more important than the actions themselves.  I don't think hijacking the entire Bitcoin network by controlling it is something possible.  Do you?

Ethereum just forked.  Nice and easy.  You know why everything went smoothly?  Because people agreed even if they didn't think exactly the same.

The answer to the block size problem has not been found yet, but it will be in time, and it will be solved more eloquently than simply proving bigger blocks.

It will be a combination of every good ideas, including block size limit increase.  The question is: when?  Will it be too late?  My fear is halving will be catastrophic.

That being said, I'm confident there will be peace and great things will happen with Bitcoin after the halving and scaling issues are solved.

[notlist3d]

I know this much, the answer isn't as simple as "make blocks bigger".  If it were we'd of solved it a while ago.

I do not like the XT or classic fork attempts, to me that is two guys trying to hijack the entire bitcoin network and bring it under their control via a fork.

The answer to the block size problem has not been found yet, but it will be in time, and it will be solved more eloquently than simply proving bigger blocks.

At least price is holding above $400 and not tanking like the last time the block size debate was raging full strength and XT came out.

I think you are right about certain people trying to control what happens next.   I'm not sure on the amount but a few I have seen.... put themself or company obviously as benefiting from decisions.

I think we will battle it for a while sadly as so many have hidden agenda's.  And even if something is decided.... after the ones who "lost" will keep putting out info.  So hard for anyone to win.

[philipma1957]

I know this much, the answer isn't as simple as "make blocks bigger".  If it were we'd of solved it a while ago.

I do not like the XT or classic fork attempts, to me that is two guys trying to hijack the entire bitcoin network and bring it under their control via a fork.

The answer to the block size problem has not been found yet, but it will be in time, and it will be solved more eloquently than simply proving bigger blocks.

At least price is holding above $400 and not tanking like the last time the block size debate was raging full strength and XT came out.

I think you are right about certain people trying to control what happens next.   I'm not sure on the amount but a few I have seen.... put themself or company obviously as benefiting from decisions.

I think we will battle it for a while sadly as so many have hidden agenda's.  And even if something is decided.... after the ones who "lost" will keep putting out info.  So hard for anyone to win.

It is why I like baby steps. The move  to 2mb is stop gap but here in NJ and in any cold weather place with asphalt based roads in the spring road crews come out on a good weather day and patch winter caused potholes.

Everyone knows it is temporary fix but they do the temporary fix when they can in order to give some time to users of the road with a better fix down the road.

This temporary pot hole patch would be helpful in that it would show people can agree on some thing short term.

They maybe we can assess how it works in the short term.

[Mikestang]

It's actually not a "fork attempt", but an attempt to solve a problem.  You see, the goal is not the fork, it's the improvement.

The first five words at https://bitcoinclassic.com/ is "We are hard forking bitcoin", that looks pretty clearly like a fork attempt to me.

I do not agree their goal is improvement, I think that is a byproduct, a way to entice people over to their fork and seize development control.

I don't think hijacking the entire Bitcoin network by controlling it is something possible.

There was a statement in the faq on the xt site (that probably exists somewhere on the classic site, too) that gave all dispute resolution powers to 2 developers - hardly what I would call decentralized.  I don't trust people with agenda like that.

[RichBC]

So we pushed up a little bit during the first half of Yesterday and finished with +5.56% add 152 blocks. Since then we have been running flat with the Period Run Rate now at +4%


Rich

[valkir]

Oups missed this one! 
The new diff is way better. 3-4 % is acceptable.

[Kexkey]

It's actually not a "fork attempt", but an attempt to solve a problem.  You see, the goal is not the fork, it's the improvement.

The first five words at https://bitcoinclassic.com/ is "We are hard forking bitcoin", that looks pretty clearly like a fork attempt to me.

I do not agree their goal is improvement, I think that is a byproduct, a way to entice people over to their fork and seize development control.

Well that's why I was talking about perceptions, if your perception is their goal is to take over Bitcoin, you'll interpret everything they say that way.  But if you take a step back and think, their solution is to increase the max block size and the only way to achieve it is by a hard fork, so technically that's what they develop.  The way they express it on the site is direct, probably to be as clear as possible and not trying to hide the hard fork path.

BTW, I'm trying to be as objective as possible when I say that.  There's no obvious choice in this story.  I actually think the best thing would have been Core increasing the max block size earlier.  Everybody would be working on all the other ways to scale and productivity would not be slowed down by media/community management.  All the drama would have been inexistent and developers would all be drinking beer together.

I don't think hijacking the entire Bitcoin network by controlling it is something possible.

There was a statement in the faq on the xt site (that probably exists somewhere on the classic site, too) that gave all dispute resolution powers to 2 developers - hardly what I would call decentralized.  I don't trust people with agenda like that.

I don't trust people with hidden agenda neither.  Once again, are you sure their intentions were to control the system, or maybe it was to propose a way to break deadlocks with some kind of benevolent dictatorship or whatever like the way it works in a lot of other open source projects?  I don't have the answer, I actually don't know a lot about anything, but I'm good in asking questions to make sure everything has been well thought. 

[philipma1957]

It's actually not a "fork attempt", but an attempt to solve a problem.  You see, the goal is not the fork, it's the improvement.

The first five words at https://bitcoinclassic.com/ is "We are hard forking bitcoin", that looks pretty clearly like a fork attempt to me.

I do not agree their goal is improvement, I think that is a byproduct, a way to entice people over to their fork and seize development control.

Well that's why I was talking about perceptions, if your perception is their goal is to take over Bitcoin, you'll interpret everything they say that way.  But if you take a step back and think, their solution is to increase the max block size and the only way to achieve it is by a hard fork, so technically that's what they develop.  The way they express it on the site is direct, probably to be as clear as possible and not trying to hide the hard fork path.

BTW, I'm trying to be as objective as possible when I say that.  There's no obvious choice in this story.  I actually think the best thing would have been Core increasing the max block size earlier.  Everybody would be working on all the other ways to scale and productivity would not be slowed down by media/community management.  All the drama would have been inexistent and developers would all be drinking beer together.

I don't think hijacking the entire Bitcoin network by controlling it is something possible.

There was a statement in the faq on the xt site (that probably exists somewhere on the classic site, too) that gave all dispute resolution powers to 2 developers - hardly what I would call decentralized.  I don't trust people with agenda like that.

I don't trust people with hidden agenda neither.  Once again, are you sure their intentions were to control the system, or maybe it was to propose a way to break deadlocks with some kind of benevolent dictatorship or whatever like the way it works in a lot of other open source projects?  I don't have the answer, I actually don't know a lot about anything, but I'm good in asking questions to make sure everything has been well thought. 

see bolded:
yeah so simple  but noooooo!   well maybe it works out better with the fighting then with a simple idea being done.

meanwhile the diff  is about 5%

 https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty



Bitcoin Difficulty:   158,427,203,767
Estimated Next Difficulty:   166,334,041,833 (+4.99%)
Adjust time:   After 430 Blocks, About 2.8 days            >>>>>>>> some time friday we find the exact number.
Hashrate(?):   1,145,463,919 GH/s
Block Generation Time(?):   
1 block: 9.5 minutes
3 blocks: 28.4 minutes
6 blocks: 56.8 minutes
Updated:   9:10 (3.5 minutes ago)

[alh]

It would appear that heavy math and cryptography don't actually eliminate the "human element" from Bitcoin. As long as folks "trust it", it can work. Remove that, and no amount of math will save it (IMHO).

In some ways it's kind of amusing to watch. As always: Don't spend/invest/waste more on Bitcoin than you can afford to lose (please don't take offense at the word "waste").

[philipma1957]

It would appear that heavy math and cryptography don't actually eliminate the "human element" from Bitcoin. As long as folks "trust it", it can work. Remove that, and no amount of math will save it (IMHO).

In some ways it's kind of amusing to watch. As always: Don't spend/invest/waste more on Bitcoin than you can afford to lose (please don't take offense at the word "waste").

Set a max loss cap and do not go over it is simply the best way to think about the game.

Or as you say do not spend/invest/waste more on Bitcoin than you can afford to lose.







Note:
I cut waste but not because I find it offensive.

[notlist3d]

If we end up under 5... i will be decently happy.  I can handle jumps in this area with a little over 2 day's left it's looking possible.

I for the life of me cannot explain the negative last change.  And that still scares me, I just have not seen a good verified reason.   I am still hoping for a while of current gen mining before next gen.  Eventually we are going to hit next gen, and I see some big jumps coming there.

[RichBC]

So Yesterday was +11.81% with 161 Blocks, however we seem to have stabilised the period run Rate for the last couple of days in the band +3% to +5% There is if anything a very slight upward trend so hopefully we will end up between +4% & +6%.

Rich

[usenet]

The problem with block size will be explained in my opinion.
This will become an impulse for the strong growth on BTC/USD pair.
Uncertainty about the future of BTC makes a lot of people coming out of the BTC. BTC is accumulated by the strong hands. It's part of my hypothesis.

[Kexkey]

It would appear that heavy math and cryptography don't actually eliminate the "human element" from Bitcoin. As long as folks "trust it", it can work. Remove that, and no amount of math will save it (IMHO).

Makes sense.  Until robots, IoT, autonomous systems, become massive users of Bitcoin.    I guess then trust in the system won't be a factor for it to survive.  Nodes are run by humans... For now.  Well it could actually be a realty in the future that nodes will be run by the autonomous systems using it.  lol

Who knows!
 

[philipma1957]

https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

Bitcoin Difficulty:   158,427,203,767
Estimated Next Difficulty:   166,039,852,686  (+4.81%)
Adjust time:   After 250 Blocks, About 1.7 days
Hashrate(?):   1,183,867,619 GH/s
Block Generation Time(?):   
1 block: 9.6 minutes
3 blocks: 28.6 minutes
6 blocks: 57.3 minutes
Updated:   12:30 (3.3 minutes ago)




-1.2 = philipma1957  If I hit I will roll it over
+0.0 = adaseb
+1.3 = VRobb
+2.3 = leowonderful
+2.7 = HerbPean



+3.1 = tertius993 ---- will donate back if he wins thanks!
+4.2 = VirosaGITS
+4.4 = ingiltere
+5.0 = tlhIlwI
+5.1 = wlefever
+5.2 = blindminer
+5.4 = alh
+5.5 = pusttiu
+5.6 = fr4nkthetank
+5.7 = wpt1wpt1
+5.8 = flikflak
+6.0 = radiumsoup
+6.4 = zebedee
+6.5 = mavericklm
+6.6 = indiemax
+6.7 = Amph
+6.8 = RichBC

+7.0 = ezeminer
+7.2 = edonkey
+7.5 = HagssFIN
+7.8 = Kexkey
+8.8 = lanfeusst
+9.0 = alfacro
+12.4 = psi
 


the group in bold is the closest.