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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[1714282781]

1714282781

[1714282781]

1714282781

[1714282781]

1714282781

[1714282781]

1714282781

[bucktotal]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115193/bip-100-support-grows-21-attack-worries-remain

I don't get why something has so suddenly enchanted so many when there's zero code to actually fap over.

because coding is the easy part.

[ElectricMucus]

How ya like this price action, cripplecoiners? Nobody wants to buy your damn unscalable shitcoins.

It's gonna get even worse. Once word gets out about the 21% vulnerability of BIP100, You're gonna see what the market thinks about miners running the show.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115193/bip-100-support-grows-21-attack-worries-remain

What if they simply set the target at 50% of the 20%-80% of the votes and tell you people NOW STFU? Some idiots will probably attack it on that still, not realizing what they are doing.
Scrapping the top and the bottom makes me think that's probably what's initially intended.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[gentlemand]

because coding is the easy part.

I'd consider it customary to vote for something that you actually can verify rather than sounding like a neat idea. If that's how it works these days then I'm proposing BIP 1 Billion. It gives free money to everyone but still retains all of its value and is scalable enough for every atom in the universe to buy its morning coffee all at the same time.

[Monopoly]

The BTC market has not power for rising ....... be ready for another crashing

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115193/bip-100-support-grows-21-attack-worries-remain

I don't get why something has so suddenly enchanted so many when there's zero code to actually fap over.

Its called "clutching at straws"  + miners love it!!  

Some core devs are coming out with how its such a bad idea to allow miners to vote for block size. There are other solutions - btcdreks bipxx is one, but it has a serious flaw in that it incentivizes miners to vote for smaller blocks ( for free)

[coinableS]

I'm terrible at trading, the market always moves the opposite of my positions.
With that being said, I just placed a margin long position that I plan to hold for at least a week. In other words we should crash big time  

[Fatman3001]

The BTC market has not power for rising ....... be ready for another crashing

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[shmadz]

How ya like this price action, cripplecoiners? Nobody wants to buy your damn unscalable shitcoins.

It's gonna get even worse. Once word gets out about the 21% vulnerability of BIP100, You're gonna see what the market thinks about miners running the show.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115193/bip-100-support-grows-21-attack-worries-remain

What if they simply set the target at 50% of the 20%-80% of the votes and tell you people NOW STFU? Some idiots will probably attack it on that still, not realizing what they are doing.
Scrapping the top and the bottom makes me think that's probably what's initially intended.

I remember a time when forum participants like Mr. Mucus were considered trolls.

Mr Mucus, I must tip my hat, you've nailed it on the head, directly.

This illusion of "voting" and "mattering" is just that, an illusion.

The only votes that matter are cast by the ones that control the mining of the blocks, they run the show, but they only run as far as the incentives will lead.

As soon as the reward incentives paid per block are reduced to less than the potential reward for attacking the network, the security agreement will end. Miners have no incentive to be loyal. They have no incentive to secure your record of transactions without sufficient monetary compensation.

The question I leave for electric mucus,  (and anyone else who'd like to respond - excepting BJA,  I've grown tired of his lack of intelligence) is:

How do you propose that the miners are incentivized to protect the security of the blockchain if there is no scarcity enforced on the size of the Blockchain?

[hmmkay]

Let miners leave. Let difficulty fall. Others will step up and fill that gap.

End game will probably have laws against hijacking/abusing mining power.

[shmadz]

Let miners leave. Let difficulty fall. Others will step up and fill that gap.

I think you might underestimate the amount of sha-256 horse-power that might be leveraged against the network once mining becomes unprofitable.

If mining is no longer profitable, mining hardware will be sold at clearance prices.

 It all contributes to diminishing the security of the immutable ledger.

[Jammalan the Prophet]

Let miners leave. Let difficulty fall. Others will step up and fill that gap.

End game will probably have laws against hijacking/abusing mining power.

Yeah , let's replace miners with miners.
You're a genius.

[shmadz]

End game will probably have laws against hijacking/abusing mining power.

Because having and following "laws" is what bitcoin's all about, right?

[hmmkay]

Let miners leave. Let difficulty fall. Others will step up and fill that gap.

I think you might underestimate the amount of sha-256 horse-power that might be leveraged against the network once mining becomes unprofitable.

If mining is no longer profitable, mining hardware will be sold at clearance prices.

 It all contributes to diminishing the security of the immutable ledger.

Could you eleborate on that scenario?

At a certain point in time, a group of mining pools decides they earn too little for letting their computers run.
So what option do they have?

1. Shutdown and leave. Like others did when the price fell below 300.

2. They introduce a new 'fork' which gives them more money and turn their hashing powers towards that fork.

When this fork happens my guess is that it will be so obvious to the whole world that it's just to enrich the miners, it won't happen.
How? Maybe by that time everyone has a small '21' asics in their home powered up. Governments who don't want to lose money will create laws against hijacking earth's currency. I'm just thinking out loud, but I'm confident a solution will arise.


// about the laws thing; ideally bitcoin becomes resilient that it's not necessary.
Sadly I share this world with people who like to abuse everything and anything. So yeah, we probably need laws against those people.

[shmadz]

Let miners leave. Let difficulty fall. Others will step up and fill that gap.

I think you might underestimate the amount of sha-256 horse-power that might be leveraged against the network once mining becomes unprofitable.

If mining is no longer profitable, mining hardware will be sold at clearance prices.

 It all contributes to diminishing the security of the immutable ledger.

Could you eleborate on that scenario?

At a certain point in time, a group of mining pools decides they earn too little for letting their computers run.
So what option do they have?

1. Shutdown and leave. Like others did when the price fell below 300.

2. They introduce a new 'fork' which gives them more money and turn their hashing powers towards that fork.

When this fork happens my guess is that it will be so obvious to the whole world that it's just to enrich the miners, it won't happen.
How? Maybe by that time everyone has a small '21' asics in their home powered up. Governments who don't want to lose money will create laws against hijacking earth's currency. I'm just thinking out loud, but I'm confident a solution will arise.


// about the laws thing; ideally bitcoin becomes resilient that it's not necessary.
Sadly I share this world with people who like to abuse everything and anything. So yeah, we probably need laws against those people.

"Could you eleborate on that scenario?"

Sure.

"At a certain point in time, a group of mining pools decides they earn too little for letting their computers run.
So what option do they have? "

As a profit-mined miner myself, I would expect that the best option is to sell non-profitable hardware to the highest bidder.

Once the hardware is sold, the new owners of said hardware can mine whatever blocks they want. They can include or exclude any transactions as they see fit.

Are you beginning to see the problem?

"So yeah, we probably need laws against those people."

"laws" that can't be enforced are useless. If you are expecting to rely on force of government and enforcement of "laws" ,  you're gonna have a bad time...

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[hmmkay]

They can include or exclude any transactions as they see fit.

Then this is the culprit that needs to be fixed in a future update.
Miners should have no say whatsoever in which transactions to in or exclude.

It should be 'white noise' to them so they don't know what transactions they are putting in their blocks.

Laws can be enforced if there is enough will to do so. (not always....but in this case the bigger mining plants have physical address and people, so it would be fairly easy to shutdown)

If miners start messing with a worldwide financial ledger, it's like poisoning the water purification plants. It'll have negative consequences for them. But like I mention before, I rather see bitcoin become resilient enough so this won't be necessary.

//I'm talking 20+ years from now when bitcoin is BIG.