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

[brg444]

all this time we were worried about central control systems from outside but it turns out they are like cancer they grow from within.  

And they thrive because the organism fails to recognize tumors as malignant, and even feeds them more than the sane organs.

I am in agreement with Stolfi? This isn't the end of Bitcoin. It's the end of the world!  

1. Seriously, the core dev's involvement with Blockstream is a real conflict of interest. Sidechains can be used as a way to route around a bottleneck. They will profit from bottlenecks that they created in the first place.

2. There is something wrong with a protocol if there is no diversity of code running on top of it, or that can run on top of it.

3. It's silly to argue about the trade-offs in scalability vs mining decentralization when code development is so centralized that it is essentially a monopoly.

That's a lie, why do you entertain it?

Code development is by necessity a monopoly as in everyone needs to run the same, unique, consensus code. A protocol, ya know.

[1714224444]

1714224444

[brg444]

all this time we were worried about central control systems from outside but it turns out they are like cancer they grow from within.  

And they thrive because the organism fails to recognize tumors as malignant, and even feeds them more than the sane organs.

I am in agreement with Stolfi? This isn't the end of Bitcoin. It's the end of the world!  

1. Seriously, the core dev's involvement with Blockstream is a real conflict of interest. Sidechains can be used as a way to route around a bottleneck. They will profit from bottlenecks that they created in the first place.

2. There is something wrong with a protocol if there is no diversity of code running on top of it, or that can run on top of it.

3. It's silly to argue about the trade-offs in scalability vs mining decentralization when code development is so centralized that it is essentially a monopoly.

1)  I don't think see any way this can be avoided.  The top Bitcoin developers will always be in demand by the top Bitcoin-related companies, and developers are free to work for anyone they want.  I don't think it's really a problem in the long run.  If people really believe that the Bitcoin Core project is compromised by developer self-interest, someone will start a BitcoinXT-like project, and Core will no longer define what IS Bitcoin.

I would caution that you shouldn't assume out-of-hand that developers are acting purely in their own interest, like Dr. Stolfi does.  Isn't it possible that the Core devs who are also Bitstream devs have thought a lot longer and harder about this problem than most of us, and realized (like I said earlier) that there really IS no way (as of now) to have Bitcoin be both scalable AND decentralized, and set about building a project that might insure that Bitcoin will still be usable anyway?  Sure they MIGHT be acting solely (or even partly) in their own interest.  But making money out of having the foresight to anticipate this problem does not, a priori, mean that their solution is not the RIGHT solution.

2) I can't parse this.  If you think a protocol must have multiple, conflicting versions of itself, you may not understand what the word 'protocol' means.  If you mean something related to alt coins, I would point out that there are plenty of those already.

3) It's not just an issue of mining scalability - it's a matter of even being able to just run a validating node.  There is no monopoly, as Gavin and Mike have proven.  Anyone who is unhappy can fork, and if the world agrees with them, their fork will become Bitcoin.

A rational post for once. 10/10. Would read again

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

1)  I don't think see any way this can be avoided.  The top Bitcoin developers will always be in demand by the top Bitcoin-related companies, and developers are free to work for anyone they want.  I don't think it's really a problem in the long run.  If people really believe that the Bitcoin Core project is compromised by developer self-interest, someone will start a BitcoinXT-like project, and Core will no longer define what IS Bitcoin.

I would caution that you shouldn't assume out-of-hand that developers are acting purely in their own interest, like Dr. Stolfi does.  Isn't it possible that the Core devs who are also Bitstream devs have thought a lot longer and harder about this problem than most of us, and realized (like I said earlier) that there really IS no way (as of now) to have Bitcoin be both scalable AND decentralized, and set about building a project that might insure that Bitcoin will still be usable anyway?  Sure they MIGHT be acting solely (or even partly) in their own interest.  But making money out of having the foresight to anticipate this problem does not, a priori, mean that their solution is not the RIGHT solution.

They don't have to be evil people to be biased in their judgement. 

2) I can't parse this.  If you think a protocol must have multiple, conflicting versions of itself, you may not understand what the word 'protocol' means.  If you mean something related to alt coins, I would point out that there are plenty of those already.

To compare:  we have firefox, chrome and IE browsers on the HTTP. We have~15% of nodes running XT, a few running old obsolete versions of core and everyone else running core. That's a monopoly when a supermajority (or even a super-duper majority "consensus" need to implement a change.  The biased core devs and greedy miners have veto power.

Scaling is a trade-off but a necessary one because we are reaching capacity.  Let's use a gold mining analogy: In the free market, there would be no way a placer miner (guy with a shovel and a pan) could consistently compete against a large mining corporation. If you change the mining rules to make him more competitive, you have left the free market.If you change the rules to make him LESS competitive, you have also left the free market, but that is not what's at issue today.  It's called "capitalism" because you need capital in order to increase your productivity.

Code development is not constrained by capital (very much) because the limiting component is creativity. There is nothing magical about being a core dev.  It does not automatically make you wise and just. 

The market will ultimately decide and if bitcoin doesn't scale, it may well decide on an altcoin.

[xyzzy099]

They don't have to be evil people to be biased in their judgement. 

I concur.  But they don't HAVE to be biased in their judgement, just because the possibility exists that they might be.  It's possible that the technical solution they propose is the BEST solution.  I don't know that it is, I am just providing counterpoint to the relentless negativity toward Blockstream I see on here.  They might be evil, or they might be RIGHT.  You should at least consider it.

To compare:  we have firefox, chrome and IE browsers on the HTTP. We have~15% of nodes running XT, a few running old obsolete versions of core and everyone else running core. That's a monopoly when a supermajority (or even a super-duper majority "consensus" need to implement a change.  The biased core devs and greedy miners have veto power.

If you look in the debug.log file of your Bitcoin Core client, you will see lots of /version/ lines - these lines are the equivalent of the user-agent sent by browsers.  There are many different implementations of the bitcoin client, in addition to the Satoshi client.  Look for yourself.

[bambou]

Why does people keep on yapping that Blockstream does not want bigger blocks? Its is a fundamental for their project to catch on.

ALL core devs, including gavin, big VCed corporations like Jgarzik's Bitpay, large private mining ops a la Bitfury etc, they all want bigger blocks to make Bitcoin THEIR little centralized toy and exclude "small" miners/nodes/people.

Ya'll been mindfucked. This is hilarious.

[xyzzy099]

Why does people keep on yapping that Blockstream does not want bigger blocks? Its is a fundamental for their project to catch on.

Because it may also be fundamental for Bitcoin to remain decentralized.

If you think this problem is a no-brainer, it's because you don't really understand the problem.  I don't claim to know the right answer, but I do know that it is more complicated than many would have you believe.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

Why does people keep on yapping that Blockstream does not want bigger blocks? Its is a fundamental for their project to catch on.

ALL core devs, including gavin, big VCed corporations like Jgarzik's Bitpay, large private mining ops a la Bitfury etc, they all want bigger blocks to make Bitcoin THEIR little centralized toy and exclude "small" miners/nodes/people.

Ya'll been mindfucked. This is hilarious.

Nobody wants to buy coins that are only spendable on a crippled network.  I don't buy BTC to sell later for a higher price. I buy them so that I will be able to SPEND them in the future.  If the network doesn't scale up, I won't buy them at all. 

Small mining is dead, Jack. Until 21's embedded miners come out, in which case you'll be even more screwed.   Economy of Scale is an economic law and not some preference that you can overcome without introducing other problems that are even worse.

[coinableS]

Time to long? Looking at the 1 week and 3 day chart on bitstamp with bbands.
I'm just going to leave this here...
http://www.fxkeys.com/doji-candlestick-doji-star-how-to-trade-using-doji-candlestick-and-bollinger-bands/

[aztecminer]

i foresee a future where bitcoin is the world reserve currency and governments secure the blockchain

expecting bitcoin to grow and always allow full nodes to run off of a 500$ computer is a silly fantasy.

I foresee a world where central governments are forced to either include crypto as part of their central bank reserves or get out of the counterfeiting business altogether, but that's a long way off and there is no guarantee Bitcoin will be the crypto that prevails.

I haven't seen the cost of running a node go up at all as we approach the 1 MB limit. Hard drive storage is cheaper, bandwidth is cheaper, fast processors are cheaper. All this more than offsets the increased size of the chain. Can anyone out there give an argument otherwise?  Maybe I'm wrong.

the govys are probably going to be out of the counterfeiting business sooner than we think ... and the "blockchain blacklists" is going to keep bitcoin from becoming a reserve currency .

[nioc]

First speculation, sort of.......

I spent the fiat from my recent sale of some btc.  I always spend all my fiat be it btc, altcoins (gasp  ), women or necessities.  This time it was family.  Hopefully falling prices will coincide with fresh fiat.


As far as what it takes to run a node, I bought the 2nd cheapest comp I could find more than a year ago with the smallest HD which was 500 GB.  I have the btc blockchain on it as well as 2 altcoin blockchains (gasp  gasp  ).  I have only used 109 GB of the HD.  I have no videos on it.   Bandwidth has been no issue and they recently upgraded my connection.  No router, hardwired.

So what are the hardware issues with btc?

[JorgeStolfi]

Why does people keep on yapping that Blockstream does not want bigger blocks? Its is a fundamental for their project to catch on.

Blockstream has been more than clear about it: they do not want to raise the block size limit until the network is saturated.  And they want to keep it saturated forever; although they admit that the limit will have to be raised later, they do not intend to raise it to match the demand. 

They are adamant about that, because their vision for the future of bitcoin includes having users compete for space on the blocks by raising their fees, in teh so-called "fee market".  They also want all "banal" traffic (such as paying for a cup of coffee) pushed out of the blockchain, to some off-chain solution. 

The "fee market" will not happen unless the network is congested, that is, there is a persistent backlog of unconfirmed transactions in the queues, and not every transaction that is issued will be included in the next block.  If there were no backlog, then every trasnaction would be confirmed in the next available block, and therefore no one would have to pay more than the minimum fee. 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[noobtrader]

anyone notice that in 30 minute bitfinex chart there is inverted head and shoulder, target price is 268

[Tuck Fheman]

Where's teh "Deez Nuts" option on the poll? I demand a recount!

[Proxiebuier]

anyone notice that in 30 minute bitfinex chart there is inverted head and shoulder, target price is 268

where you know the target price is 26*$ ?
can you give me source about it ?

[Cconvert2G36]

anyone notice that in 30 minute bitfinex chart there is inverted head and shoulder, target price is 268

where you know the target price is 26*$ ?
can you give me source about it ?

hint: Begins with "a". Ends with "s".

[bad trader]

The recent shorts were wiped out on Bitfinex yesterday.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation