Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[eerygarden]

It seems like good news to me. An option has been put out there and people are free to select or reject with a year or so to consider a transition.

[1714812214]

1714812214

[1714812214]

1714812214

[1714812214]

1714812214

[1714812214]

1714812214

[rebuilder]

It seems like good news to me. An option has been put out there and people are free to select or reject with a year or so to consider a transition.

So now we get a year of trolling and catfights like you've never seen before.

[shmadz]

The problem is that the market does not decide in this case. It's the "Hearn and Gavin" show that propose their decision. The market has no say, well... until the fork actually happens and then bitcoin and Gavincoin can trade freely against one another... that will be interesting.

something else that's interesting is that somebody just spent about 700 coins trying to punch through $263 support and got a bounce instead.  We need bigger blocks. everybody knows it. That's why we know the fork will become the main branch.

I'm personally not against a marginal increase in block size. I think 4 mb would be sufficient for the next halving interval, and perhaps we could double each 4 years after that.

It gives reason to the decision: the allocations of new coins has been cut in half, so we double the available transaction space to compensate the miners.

You all need to remember that this whole thing exists on trusting that the Blockchain can not be violated, which means trusting the miners, which means the miners must be properly incentivized, or they will turn against the system.

You've heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds" ?? What do you think happens when that hand stops feeding and the one with the teeth gets hungry?

Yeah and Workers of the World Unite! Gimme a break with your commie talk. That gets no play here. The issue is not between a 8MB block and a smaller increase. It's about a block size increase or NO block size increase. It's your fault. There are no other proposals on the table, so we are forced to chose between Gavin's proposal or doing nothing.  Doing nothing is not an option.

Lol, "commie talk" indeed, I should mine for you for free?

Fuck you, enjoy your fork, asshole.

[Erdogan]

It seems like good news to me. An option has been put out there and people are free to select or reject with a year or so to consider a transition.

Yep, bitcoin is free market money after all. Re Rothbard.

[shmadz]

I don't care, I want gigantic blocks.

Your post about boot strapping fiat currency in another thread was borderline brilliant, but this is just silly.

The larger the blocks become, the more difficult to secure the block chain. If there are gigantic blocks there is no incentive to pay any fee, also no incentive to block non fee payments.

“You see,” he said, “I don’t give a shit.”

Yeah, I got that feeling, I've had a few more than I should as well,  but I'm not gonna let you off so easily.

How do you propose to incentivize chain security as distribution continues to halve?

The blocks will naturally be limited by the cost and benefit balance in the market. I expect the fee will be small but not insignificant at any time. Eventually, the blocks will be limited by nature. Artificial limitation has no purpose (other than possibly to destroy bitcoin for someone with interest in other systems). For the sake of safety, I am ok with a small increase for now.

I'm ok with a small increase, and I share your hope that natural selection would limit the blocks to a reasonable level, but it still remains possible that there exists irrational actors that would not limit themselves to the "natural" limit and instead use the larger artificial limit to attack the network.

It has not been a problem for the six years up till now. An the reason is that there is a cost to make large blocks. The market works, as it always does. Central planning efficacy is an illusion. Go with the market, freedom and private property. It is the only sustainable way.

It has not been a problem up till now because we have been incentivized by the block reward.

If there is no incentive to pay fees on transactions, then how do you incentivize the miners when the reward runs out?

- keep in mind, there is a vast oversupply of sha-256 mining capacity that would be sold to the highest bidder as soon as it becomes unprofitable to mine.

[Erdogan]

The problem is that the market does not decide in this case. It's the "Hearn and Gavin" show that propose their decision. The market has no say, well... until the fork actually happens and then bitcoin and Gavincoin can trade freely against one another... that will be interesting.

something else that's interesting is that somebody just spent about 700 coins trying to punch through $263 support and got a bounce instead.  We need bigger blocks. everybody knows it. That's why we know the fork will become the main branch.

I'm personally not against a marginal increase in block size. I think 4 mb would be sufficient for the next halving interval, and perhaps we could double each 4 years after that.

It gives reason to the decision: the allocations of new coins has been cut in half, so we double the available transaction space to compensate the miners.

You all need to remember that this whole thing exists on trusting that the Blockchain can not be violated, which means trusting the miners, which means the miners must be properly incentivized, or they will turn against the system.

You've heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds" ?? What do you think happens when that hand stops feeding and the one with the teeth gets hungry?

Yeah and Workers of the World Unite! Gimme a break with your commie talk. That gets no play here. The issue is not between a 8MB block and a smaller increase. It's about a block size increase or NO block size increase. It's your fault. There are no other proposals on the table, so we are forced to chose between Gavin's proposal or doing nothing.  Doing nothing is not an option.

Lol, "commie talk" indeed, I should mine for you for free?

Fuck you, enjoy your fork, asshole.

I take your cripplecoin, and double.

[macsga]

Look what the cat dragged in! Satoshi resurfaced to fight the BitcoinXT fork!? That would've been very interesting indeed... I'd expect more from him (if he is the *real* one) though. For starters, I'd feel comfortable with some real interaction of his with the code instead of just pointing fingers. Secondly, I'd like to see a signed message from a BTC address that he owns. Third; wouldn't it be more dandy if he'd contacted Gavin in person to express his feelings?

I think this is fake.

PS:
FWIW, I believe that the small dump has nothing to do with this.

[shmadz]

The problem is that the market does not decide in this case. It's the "Hearn and Gavin" show that propose their decision. The market has no say, well... until the fork actually happens and then bitcoin and Gavincoin can trade freely against one another... that will be interesting.

something else that's interesting is that somebody just spent about 700 coins trying to punch through $263 support and got a bounce instead.  We need bigger blocks. everybody knows it. That's why we know the fork will become the main branch.

I'm personally not against a marginal increase in block size. I think 4 mb would be sufficient for the next halving interval, and perhaps we could double each 4 years after that.

It gives reason to the decision: the allocations of new coins has been cut in half, so we double the available transaction space to compensate the miners.

You all need to remember that this whole thing exists on trusting that the Blockchain can not be violated, which means trusting the miners, which means the miners must be properly incentivized, or they will turn against the system.

You've heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds" ?? What do you think happens when that hand stops feeding and the one with the teeth gets hungry?

Yeah and Workers of the World Unite! Gimme a break with your commie talk. That gets no play here. The issue is not between a 8MB block and a smaller increase. It's about a block size increase or NO block size increase. It's your fault. There are no other proposals on the table, so we are forced to chose between Gavin's proposal or doing nothing.  Doing nothing is not an option.

Lol, "commie talk" indeed, I should mine for you for free?

Fuck you, enjoy your fork, asshole.

I take your cripplecoin, and double.

Most of my remaining crypto horde is already moved into Monero (big risk, yeah, we'll see how that turns out)

What I have left on bitcoin I am confident I will be able to spend on whatever chain survives, or on both, perhaps?

[Erdogan]

The problem is that the market does not decide in this case. It's the "Hearn and Gavin" show that propose their decision. The market has no say, well... until the fork actually happens and then bitcoin and Gavincoin can trade freely against one another... that will be interesting.

something else that's interesting is that somebody just spent about 700 coins trying to punch through $263 support and got a bounce instead.  We need bigger blocks. everybody knows it. That's why we know the fork will become the main branch.

I'm personally not against a marginal increase in block size. I think 4 mb would be sufficient for the next halving interval, and perhaps we could double each 4 years after that.

It gives reason to the decision: the allocations of new coins has been cut in half, so we double the available transaction space to compensate the miners.

You all need to remember that this whole thing exists on trusting that the Blockchain can not be violated, which means trusting the miners, which means the miners must be properly incentivized, or they will turn against the system.

You've heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds" ?? What do you think happens when that hand stops feeding and the one with the teeth gets hungry?

Yeah and Workers of the World Unite! Gimme a break with your commie talk. That gets no play here. The issue is not between a 8MB block and a smaller increase. It's about a block size increase or NO block size increase. It's your fault. There are no other proposals on the table, so we are forced to chose between Gavin's proposal or doing nothing.  Doing nothing is not an option.

Lol, "commie talk" indeed, I should mine for you for free?

Fuck you, enjoy your fork, asshole.

I take your cripplecoin, and double.

Most of my remaining crypto horde is already moved into Monero (big risk, yeah, we'll see how that turns out)

What I have left on bitcoin I am confident I will be able to spend on whatever chain survives, or on both, perhaps?

It's bitcoin, stupid! Whatever is the winning branch.

[ImI]

if public gets notice of this fork-thing we could easily go double digits.

[billyjoeallen]

blah blah blah

something else that's interesting is that somebody just spent about 700 coins trying to punch through $263 support and got a bounce instead.  We need bigger blocks. everybody knows it. That's why we know the fork will become the main branch.

I'm personally not against a marginal increase in block size. I think 4 mb would be sufficient for the next halving interval, and perhaps we could double each 4 years after that.

It gives reason to the decision: the allocations of new coins has been cut in half, so we double the available transaction space to compensate the miners.

You all need to remember that this whole thing exists on trusting that the Blockchain can not be violated, which means trusting the miners, which means the miners must be properly incentivized, or they will turn against the system.

You've heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds" ?? What do you think happens when that hand stops feeding and the one with the teeth gets hungry?

Yeah and Workers of the World Unite! Gimme a break with your commie talk. That gets no play here. The issue is not between a 8MB block and a smaller increase. It's about a block size increase or NO block size increase. It's your fault. There are no other proposals on the table, so we are forced to chose between Gavin's proposal or doing nothing.  Doing nothing is not an option.

Lol, "commie talk" indeed, I should mine for you for free?

Fuck you, enjoy your fork, asshole.

Y'all are getting a million dollars a day. You call that free? NObody thinks they get paid enough, but everybody thinks they pay too much for "good help". I work in an oilfield town. Most of the small business owners here ARE working for free now. You have to believe the industry will recover or cut your losses. it's a tough call, but the people who best anticipate consumer's future wants are the ones who profit. The good news is we are all consumers, so we generally have it better than those "worker's Paradise" places like Cuba, North Korea, East Germany and the former Soviet Union.

There's a name for people who tell others what they want to hear rather than the unpleasant truth: Politicians. There's a name for people who prefer pleasant lies to the truth: women.  I'm sorry you think I'm an asshole, Ma'am, but I'm not a politician.

[ImI]

if public gets notice of this fork-thing we could easily go double digits.

Why?

public doesnt understand those technical details. all that is noticed is that there i a turmoil going on and we have suddenly two versions of bitcoin. thats EXTREMELY irritating!

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Wary]

Look what the cat dragged in! Satoshi resurfaced to fight the BitcoinXT fork!? That would've been very interesting indeed... I'd expect more from him (if he is the *real* one) though. For starters, I'd feel comfortable with some real interaction of his with the code instead of just pointing fingers. Secondly, I'd like to see a signed message from a BTC address that he owns. Third; wouldn't it be more dandy if he'd contacted Gavin in person to express his feelings?

I think this is fake.

PS:
FWIW, I believe that the small dump has nothing to do with this.

First: He is pro mathematician/cryptographer, but an amateur coder. You shouldn't expect a code from him.
Third: How do we know that he didn't contacted Gavin?

[ChartBuddy]

if public gets notice of this fork-thing we could easily go double digits.

Why?

public doesnt understand those technical details. all that is noticed is that there i a turmoil going on and we have suddenly two versions of bitcoin. thats EXTREMELY irritating!

Not sure if public even cares about fork thing. Current solution is not final it is just a proposal... and it looks like many will upload to Bitcoin XT. Will be interesting to see what happens next.

Yeah, more likely it will be more like "Sounds like this bitcoin thing might be more serious than I thought"

[ImI]

if public gets notice of this fork-thing we could easily go double digits.

Why?

public doesnt understand those technical details. all that is noticed is that there i a turmoil going on and we have suddenly two versions of bitcoin. thats EXTREMELY irritating!

Not sure if public even cares about fork thing.

They dont care as long as Cnbc etc dont start to headline: "Bitcoin divided! Is the war of developers destroying the Virtual Currency?"

This can seriously bring us down to double digits in no time. Pretty naive to start such a public nerd fight imo.

[relm9]

if public gets notice of this fork-thing we could easily go double digits.

Will it even get attention on mainstream news outlets?

Probably not...

I mean, a lot of them avoid mentioning Bitcoin at all anymore and just focus on "the Blockchain."

[Richy_T]

They dont care as long as Cnbc etc dont start to headline: "Bitcoin divided! Is the war of developers destroying the Virtual Currency?"

This can seriously bring us down to double digits in no time. Pretty naive to start such a public nerd fight imo.

Yeah, it could be as bad as Microsoft and Apple. Or Coke and Pepsi...

[marcus_of_augustus]

Looks like Hearn's bankster-buddy handlers at Circle want to buy lower so they pushing hard for the PanoptiCoin and extended bitcoin turmoil.

[ImI]

if public gets notice of this fork-thing we could easily go double digits.

Will it even get attention on mainstream news outlets?

Probably not...

I think it will.

Also imagine, a fork means you are basically not able to receive money anymore in a safe way, as if you happen to be on the wrong fork you are pretty much fucked.
That would lead to public warnings, turmoil and BIG damage to Bitcoin.

What an silly and egoistic way to ruin this project...