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

[brg444]

I'm sure the NSA will be glad to assist in keeping an entire copy for you. Including every government agency in the world.

 

I can't tell if he's trolling or not.

Either way, the comment is quite pertinent regarding pruning.

[1714991582]

1714991582

[1714991582]

1714991582

[pa]

Suggested reading: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup

solid.

ummm, merely an attempted coup at this stage ... and pretty pathetically transparent power grab dressed up as "helping all the things".

It's the latest "color revolution."

[AlexGR]

I'm sure the NSA will be glad to assist in keeping an entire copy for you. Including every government agency in the world.

 

I can't tell if he's trolling or not.

Either way, the comment is quite pertinent regarding pruning.

A not-so-sophisticated attacker could spam the hell out of the blockchain, while also ensuring that his bloat doesn't have the potential for much pruning.

[brg444]

This is an attempted coup alright, but it's from idiot miners who want a bigger slice of a smaller pie. If we cave on this, they will never allow our network to become competitive enough to disrupt the banksters.

Bloating the blockchain to DOA levels will disrupt bitcoin, not the banksters.

Besides, 8mb blocks, or even 80mb blocks, aren't enough to scale to such levels. You'd need enormous storage (and bandwidth) per day to compete with the volume of banks and credit cards.

so which is it, the increase is too big and too small at the same time?  We don't need to go head to head with VISA right now. We need grown up core devs who don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 

Why do you need bigger blocks right now?

Stop promoting this false dilemma. It's not XT or nothing.

[brg444]

I'm sure the NSA will be glad to assist in keeping an entire copy for you. Including every government agency in the world.

 

I can't tell if he's trolling or not.

Either way, the comment is quite pertinent regarding pruning.

A not-so-sophisticated attacker could spam the hell out of the blockchain, while also ensuring that his bloat doesn't have the potential for much pruning.

Don't get me wrong I agree with you.

I absolutely despise "blockchain pruning"

[Cconvert2G36]

This is an attempted coup alright, but it's from idiot miners who want a bigger slice of a smaller pie. If we cave on this, they will never allow our network to become competitive enough to disrupt the banksters.

Bloating the blockchain to DOA levels will disrupt bitcoin, not the banksters.

Besides, 8mb blocks, or even 80mb blocks, aren't enough to scale to such levels. You'd need enormous storage (and bandwidth) per day to compete with the volume of banks and credit cards.

so which is it, the increase is too big and too small at the same time?  We don't need to go head to head with VISA right now. We need grown up core devs who don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 

Why do you need bigger blocks right now?

Stop promoting this false dilemma. It's not XT or nothing.

I'm totally on board with the guy who doesn't know how to spell brakes. Obviously a Top Mind™.

[micky123]

It is interesting to watch the poll results, until yesterday people were ready to go all in if the CIA took charge of bitcoin. Today , i see a drastic movement from the other side. Even though the number of votes are extremely low and may not reflect the opinion of the masses, i feel the masses would vote to go all in if the CIA took charge of Bitcoin. The only issue really, is that this was not the principle of Bitcoin when it was launched, it was supposed to be free of any government control or in fact any central authority. The fact that people are ready to go all in if the CIA takes over is interesting, because people feel that essentially it is a government nod for the use of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to be the currency of the free though, so its quite interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. If you put up this poll at the start of the Bitcoin lifecycle, i am sure 95% would have said "GTFO".

[brg444]

It is interesting to watch the poll results, until yesterday people were ready to go all in if the CIA took charge of bitcoin. Today , i see a drastic movement from the other side. Even though the number of votes are extremely low and may not reflect the opinion of the masses, i feel the masses would vote to go all in if the CIA took charge of Bitcoin. The only issue really, is that this was not the principle of Bitcoin when it was launched, it was supposed to be free of any government control or in fact any central authority. The fact that people are ready to go all in if the CIA takes over is interesting, because people feel that essentially it is a government nod for the use of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to be the currency of the free though, so its quite interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. If you put up this poll at the start of the Bitcoin lifecycle, i am sure 95% would have said "GTFO".

Maybe you ought not to take these polls too seriously 

[brg444]

This is an attempted coup alright, but it's from idiot miners who want a bigger slice of a smaller pie. If we cave on this, they will never allow our network to become competitive enough to disrupt the banksters.

Bloating the blockchain to DOA levels will disrupt bitcoin, not the banksters.

Besides, 8mb blocks, or even 80mb blocks, aren't enough to scale to such levels. You'd need enormous storage (and bandwidth) per day to compete with the volume of banks and credit cards.

so which is it, the increase is too big and too small at the same time?  We don't need to go head to head with VISA right now. We need grown up core devs who don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  

Why do you need bigger blocks right now?

Stop promoting this false dilemma. It's not XT or nothing.

I'm totally on board with the guy who doesn't know how to spell brakes. Obviously a Top Mind™.

The guy is Greg Maxwell. Of course small brains such as yours can only fixate on grammar mistakes and not the content of the message.

[BlackSpidy]

I really dont think that there is an excuse not to scale up. Hell, it should be an automated process by now. The community will grow and we're going to need the larger blocks. I dont see how making the block, say... 8MB would cause any trouble. At all. Personally, I dont think this most recent crash back to $220s is merely because of the blocksize debate, but it's not helping. Bitcoins are good for me at $1000 or $100, it's just too useful to not use. Much more useful than some other methods of transferring money. If we let Bitcoin stall behind, we have hundreds of other cryptocurrencies lining up to be the face of cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin will live on, ether in scaled-up core or XT. Meanwhile, there will be more "bitcoin is dead" headlines to add to that one webpage.

Oh yeah? I'm curious how do you use Bitcoin?

As of right now, I have a few loans going on at bitbond.com (getting better interests than I would at a bank) and I have made a few purchases using purse.io (making a few savings, compared to the local stores, which have ridiculous profit margins), and occasionally helping my friends buy stuff online. Using bitcoin is too easy and convenient (compared to the old and obsolete systems we use here) for me to give up. Regardless of price, I'm almost always looking for more bitcoin.

[Cconvert2G36]

It is interesting to watch the poll results, until yesterday people were ready to go all in if the CIA took charge of bitcoin. Today , i see a drastic movement from the other side. Even though the number of votes are extremely low and may not reflect the opinion of the masses, i feel the masses would vote to go all in if the CIA took charge of Bitcoin. The only issue really, is that this was not the principle of Bitcoin when it was launched, it was supposed to be free of any government control or in fact any central authority. The fact that people are ready to go all in if the CIA takes over is interesting, because people feel that essentially it is a government nod for the use of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to be the currency of the free though, so its quite interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. If you put up this poll at the start of the Bitcoin lifecycle, i am sure 95% would have said "GTFO".

Pretty sure it was a joke dude. Playing off the brilliant argument that Gavin and Hearn's move to go past 2.7tps surely means they're agents.

The CIA probably burns bitcoin's market cap every other day... So, ain't nobody got time for that, besides... we're keeping all the data distributed and safe for them for free.

How does it not surprise me that gmaxwell resorts to exaggeration and hyperbole, to support the Blockstream agenda?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[PoolMinor]

23

[Fakhoury]

23

Not again please !!

[billyjoeallen]

Suggested reading: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup

Back clearly does not understand economics. Mining gets more centralized because of economies of scale. this is unavoidable unless you intentionally want to keep mining and our whole project as a hobby. Look at gold mining. At the beginning of the California Gold Rush, anybody with a shovel and a pan could make a buck. After the low hanging fruit all got picked,you had to invest more and more capital and have more knowledge and specialized knowledge.

Back's basically saying that he doesn't want to scale up at all, but if we are to scale up it should be as little as possible. He offers valid concerns, but in practice, that means that "reasonable" block size increase means no increase.  

Mining centralization is unfortunate and unavoidable but there is also limits to centralization in an open network. The barriers to entry are hardware efficiency, cost of hardware, cost of electricity, technical skill and other things like bandwidth.

Every single barrier can be overcome if the price of bitcoin gets enough. The same thing happened a few years ago when gold prices jumped so high that placer mining became profitable again. Smart rich people from lower margin industries come in and compete--But that WON'T happen if most bitcoin transactions go off blockchain because of economics.

Off blockchain transactions increase the velocity of money which has the same effect of increasing supply. You're not trading with bitcoin. You're trading with bitcoin IOUs.

MV=PQ   money supply times velocity equals price of goods time quantity of goods. How long before Coinbase starts operating as a fractional reserve or gets out-competed by someone else who does?

Supply and demand. Effectively increasing bitcoin supply drives the price down.  

Scale or die.

[micky123]

It is interesting to watch the poll results, until yesterday people were ready to go all in if the CIA took charge of bitcoin. Today , i see a drastic movement from the other side. Even though the number of votes are extremely low and may not reflect the opinion of the masses, i feel the masses would vote to go all in if the CIA took charge of Bitcoin. The only issue really, is that this was not the principle of Bitcoin when it was launched, it was supposed to be free of any government control or in fact any central authority. The fact that people are ready to go all in if the CIA takes over is interesting, because people feel that essentially it is a government nod for the use of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to be the currency of the free though, so its quite interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. If you put up this poll at the start of the Bitcoin lifecycle, i am sure 95% would have said "GTFO".

Pretty sure it was a joke dude. Playing off the brilliant argument that Gavin and Hearn's move to go past 2.7tps surely means they're agents.

The CIA probably burns bitcoin's market cap every other day... So, ain't nobody got time for that, besides... we're keeping all the data distributed and safe for them for free.

How does it not surprise me that gmaxwell resorts to exaggeration and hyperbole, to support the Blockstream agenda?

Well... even it was a joke, most of the un-informed would not even be aware of what you just said. So going by that yardstick, people are of the mindset that government backing is somehow good for Bitcoin. To an extent you cannot disagree with them. If the government had an agenda and some interest in promoting the use of bitcoin, they would go all out and ensure the bitcoin boat would be steadied and the volatility would not be present. I don't see that happening any time soon either, but people are living with a false sense of security that if the government backs something, it must be good. 

[Cconvert2G36]

It is interesting to watch the poll results, until yesterday people were ready to go all in if the CIA took charge of bitcoin. Today , i see a drastic movement from the other side. Even though the number of votes are extremely low and may not reflect the opinion of the masses, i feel the masses would vote to go all in if the CIA took charge of Bitcoin. The only issue really, is that this was not the principle of Bitcoin when it was launched, it was supposed to be free of any government control or in fact any central authority. The fact that people are ready to go all in if the CIA takes over is interesting, because people feel that essentially it is a government nod for the use of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to be the currency of the free though, so its quite interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. If you put up this poll at the start of the Bitcoin lifecycle, i am sure 95% would have said "GTFO".

Pretty sure it was a joke dude. Playing off the brilliant argument that Gavin and Hearn's move to go past 2.7tps surely means they're agents.

The CIA probably burns bitcoin's market cap every other day... So, ain't nobody got time for that, besides... we're keeping all the data distributed and safe for them for free.

How does it not surprise me that gmaxwell resorts to exaggeration and hyperbole, to support the Blockstream agenda?

Well... even it was a joke, most of the un-informed would not even be aware of what you just said. So going by that yardstick, people are of the mindset that government backing is somehow good for Bitcoin. To an extent you cannot disagree with them. If the government had an agenda and some interest in promoting the use of bitcoin, they would go all out and ensure the bitcoin boat would be steadied and the volatility would not be present. I don't see that happening any time soon either, but people are living with a false sense of security that if the government backs something, it must be good. 

Bitcoin was invented, partly, to disabuse them of this notion.

[brg444]

Suggested reading: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup

Back clearly does not understand economics. Mining gets more centralized because of economies of scale. this is unavoidable unless you intentionally want to keep mining as a hobby. Look at gold mining. At the beginning of the California Gold Rush, anybody with a shovel and a pan could make a buck. After the low hanging fruit all got picked,you had to invest more and more capital and have more knowledge and specialized knowledge.

Back's basically saying that he doesn't want to scale up at all, but if we are to scale up it should be as little as possible. He offers valid concerns, but in practice, that means that "reasonable" block size increase means no increase. 

Mining centralization is unfortunate and unavoidable but there is also limits to centralization in an open network. The barriers to entry are hardware efficiency, cost of hardware, cost of electricity, technical skill and other things like bandwidth.

Every single barrier can be overcome if the price of bitcoin gets enough. The same thing happened a few years ago when gold prices jumped so high that placer mining became profitable again. Smart rich people from lower margin industries come in and compete--But that WON'T happen if most bitcoin transactions go off blockchain because of economics.

Oh yeah. Economies of scale. Surely he hasn't heard that one before. Good on you to point this out.

I'd say you clearly don't understand english maybe? Did you somehow miss this paragraph ?

Adam Back: The worry with extremely large blocks is that they can be used to exacerbate a selfish mining attack. If you’ve got a large miner or a couple of large miners, they can create very large blocks and other people won’t be able to receive them or process them in time. So, they will gain an advantage in mining.

Bitcoin chose its parameters to make the advantage minimal so that it’s a level playing field between small miners and large miners. Right now, the interval between Bitcoin blocks is ten minutes. And the approximate time it takes to propagate, or send a block after it’s found, across the peer-to-peer network is about 10 or 15 seconds. You want the ratio between the propagation time and the block interval to be high enough, because, as a miner, while you’re waiting to receive a block, or while you’re processing a block to check it’s valid, you’re unable to mine. So, you lose money.

By having larger blocks, it’s going to take a longer time to process them. So, it’s going to favor miners with higher bandwidth or who are more centrally connected via high speed links to other miners. It gives them an advantage.

If you increase the block size rapidly, the level playing field is eroded. If it gets eroded too much, once miners are able to create blocks that only they and a couple of other big miners can mine, they can exclude everybody else because [other miners] can’t keep up.

The block size is there to put a check on these economies of scale and level the playing field.

[JayJuanGee]

OH SHIT!!!!!!








We are crashing!!!!!!!!














UP

[brg444]

Why does this sound so plausible 

Agent A : “Ok team, listen up, I’ve assembled you here today because we haven’t a moment to lose. These are the direst of times and we’re running out of options.”
Agent C : “I have the same sense, so what’s the plan ?”

Agent A : “We’re going to fast-track our proposed ph0rk, wind up the media marionette, and squeeze the price signal with everything we’ve got. I don’t know if it’ll be enough, but we have to do something. We can’t just take this laying down. The stakes are simply too high.”
Agent C : “I’m already on the phone with Agent E(conomist).”

Agent D : “I have Agent B(itfinex) on hold.”
Agent E : “Agents G(avin) and H(earn) are standing by awaiting your orders, sir. What shall I tell them ?”

Agent A : “Tell them to fire when ready. Hell, tell them all to fire, fire, fire. What choice do we have ? What else can we do ? Good God I hope this works. The People are counting on us…”

Agent B(BC) : “Bitcoin could split in debate over currency’s future”
Agent B(usiness)I(nsider) : “A bitcoin civil war is threatening to tear the digital currency in two”
Agent E(conomist) : “A spat between programmers may split bitcoin”
Agent G(uardian) : “Bitcoin’s forked: chief scientist launches alternative proposal for the currency”
Agent V(ox) : “Bitcoin is on the verge of a constitutional crisis”
Agent W(all)S(treet)J(ournal) : “Bitcoin’s Noisy Size Debate Reaches a Hard Fork”

http://www.contravex.com/2015/08/19/vox-populi-vox-dei-no-more/