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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[1714612374]

1714612374

[1714612374]

1714612374

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[seleme]

There is more fun in watching paint dry.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Cconvert2G36]

(Kicks away a tumbleweed.)

Looks like stress test has begun?



Edit: Looks like 1.8 KB transactions with 0.0008 fees

[Chef Ramsay]

There is more fun in watching paint dry.

Or, rearranging one's sock drawer. Dumb and dumber should just bow out and let the real scale option take place so this charade is over and the price can recover to where it ought to be. Whatever..

[shmadz]

Someone many pages back linked the Gavin interview, https://youtu.be/B8l11q9hsJM

Pay special attention at roughly 1:14:40 , the first and maybe only interesting question, let me paraphrase:

Brian: "so, if this fork succeeds, how will decisions be made in the future?"

Gavin: "Mike Hearn will be the benevolent dictator, he will be the ultimate decision maker."

...

He goes on to explain how he does not want to be in complete control, nor do any of the devs that currently have commit ability, but he is completely happy and ok with Mike as the sole controller and decider. He even goes in to mention that future changes will be much easier and will happen much more quickly once this change is made.

I know XT is already dead, but I just wanted to point out to anyone that was still unconvinced that Gavin has been compromised... He is either completely brain dead, or he is deliberately trying to end bitcoin's function as a permissionless, censorship-proof means of storing and transmitting value.

[Cconvert2G36]

Someone many pages back linked the Gavin interview, https://youtu.be/B8l11q9hsJM

Pay special attention at roughly 1:14:40 , the first and maybe only interesting question, let me paraphrase:

Brian: "so, if this fork succeeds, how will decisions be made in the future?"

Gavin: "Mike Hearn will be the benevolent dictator, he will be the ultimate decision maker."

...

He goes on to explain how he does not want to be in complete control, nor do any of the devs that currently have commit ability, but he is completely happy and ok with Mike as the sole controller and decider. He even goes in to mention that future changes will be much easier and will happen much more quickly once this change is made.

I know XT is already dead, but I just wanted to point out to anyone that was still unconvinced that Gavin has been compromised... He is either completely brain dead, or he is deliberately trying to end bitcoin's function as a permissionless, censorship-proof means of storing and transmitting value.

This is silly. What makes you think that people couldn't just as easily fork away from Hearn's XT?

The Core/XT devs are not the Federal Reserve Board, they serve at the behest of the miners and the community. Forking or threatening to fork is the only relief valve on their power.

BTW I agree that 75% of the network moving to BIP101 seems very unlikely now, but my above point remains.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[shmadz]

Someone many pages back linked the Gavin interview, https://youtu.be/B8l11q9hsJM

Pay special attention at roughly 1:14:40 , the first and maybe only interesting question, let me paraphrase:

Brian: "so, if this fork succeeds, how will decisions be made in the future?"

Gavin: "Mike Hearn will be the benevolent dictator, he will be the ultimate decision maker."

...

He goes on to explain how he does not want to be in complete control, nor do any of the devs that currently have commit ability, but he is completely happy and ok with Mike as the sole controller and decider. He even goes in to mention that future changes will be much easier and will happen much more quickly once this change is made.

I know XT is already dead, but I just wanted to point out to anyone that was still unconvinced that Gavin has been compromised... He is either completely brain dead, or he is deliberately trying to end bitcoin's function as a permissionless, censorship-proof means of storing and transmitting value.

This is silly. What makes you think that people couldn't just as easily fork away from Hearn's XT?

The Core/XT devs are not the Federal Reserve Board, they serve at the behest of the miners and the community. Forking or threatening to fork is the only relief valve on their power.

BTW I agree that 75% of the network moving to BIP101 seems very unlikely now, but my above point remains.

"The path of lost freedom is a gradual, slippery slope; whilst the recovery of such is a brutal hill to climb."

[notme]

Someone many pages back linked the Gavin interview, https://youtu.be/B8l11q9hsJM

Pay special attention at roughly 1:14:40 , the first and maybe only interesting question, let me paraphrase:

Brian: "so, if this fork succeeds, how will decisions be made in the future?"

Gavin: "Mike Hearn will be the benevolent dictator, he will be the ultimate decision maker."

...

He goes on to explain how he does not want to be in complete control, nor do any of the devs that currently have commit ability, but he is completely happy and ok with Mike as the sole controller and decider. He even goes in to mention that future changes will be much easier and will happen much more quickly once this change is made.

I know XT is already dead, but I just wanted to point out to anyone that was still unconvinced that Gavin has been compromised... He is either completely brain dead, or he is deliberately trying to end bitcoin's function as a permissionless, censorship-proof means of storing and transmitting value.

This is silly. What makes you think that people couldn't just as easily fork away from Hearn's XT?

The Core/XT devs are not the Federal Reserve Board, they serve at the behest of the miners and the community. Forking or threatening to fork is the only relief valve on their power.

BTW I agree that 75% of the network moving to BIP101 seems very unlikely now, but my above point remains.

"The path of lost freedom is a gradual, slippery slope; whilst the recovery of such is a brutal hill to climb."

Software stagnates without strong leadership to force a decision.  However, the freedom to fork cannot and will not be eroded.  Just go to the githhub page and click fork.  Make the  change Hearn has rejected and rally the community behind it.

A code base needs a maintainer but that maintainer's position is only secure for as long as they have the backing of the community.  This is how open source works.

[billyjoeallen]

Someone many pages back linked the Gavin interview, https://youtu.be/B8l11q9hsJM

Pay special attention at roughly 1:14:40 , the first and maybe only interesting question, let me paraphrase:

Brian: "so, if this fork succeeds, how will decisions be made in the future?"

Gavin: "Mike Hearn will be the benevolent dictator, he will be the ultimate decision maker."

...

He goes on to explain how he does not want to be in complete control, nor do any of the devs that currently have commit ability, but he is completely happy and ok with Mike as the sole controller and decider. He even goes in to mention that future changes will be much easier and will happen much more quickly once this change is made.

I know XT is already dead, but I just wanted to point out to anyone that was still unconvinced that Gavin has been compromised... He is either completely brain dead, or he is deliberately trying to end bitcoin's function as a permissionless, censorship-proof means of storing and transmitting value.

Hearn would only be the dictator of XT development, not the protocol. XT is only one implementation of BIP101.  Other implementations would be compatible, as XT is currently compatible with core. ANY change in the code that would make XT incompatible would orphan XT, not the other implementations. Anyone can write code using core or BIP101 components and run it on test net to see if it works and then release it into the wild.  This is open source. XT will only succeed if people use it.

A certain amount of skepticism is healthy, but I think we all need to take off our tin foil hats. We just end up talking past each other and getting nowhere.

I read the BITfury white paper in support of BIP100. There are some good points in it, but it doesn't address the big problems that are holding up infrastructure development and mainstream adoption. Entrepreneurs can't build business models around how miners may or may not vote. Issues such as node centralization are secondary.  A fully validating node is and likely will always be many orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to setup and run than a profitable mining operation.

It seems that a major concern for BIP100 supporters is that miners with slow internet connections are disadvantaged by larger blocks. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, why should the rest of us subsidize these slow miners? They are mostly in China which means that if they have less of a competitive advantage then mining will likely become LESS centralized with large blocks rather than more.

Miners are producers. They are essential to the network but we know what happens when producers are in control of the economy. We saw it in the Soviet Union, North Korea, East Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, and Red China. Rent-seeking behavior kills growth. In the free market, the consumer is king which is actually more fair because we are all consumers.

If we want bitcoin to survive, it has to grow. If we want it to grow, it has to scale. If we want it to scale, then we have to make some trade-offs that will benefit various people and groups differently. This is unavoidable. What is also unavoidable is technology proliferation. If we don't fix this scaling problem, banksters are going to jack our tech,  make their own coin(s), and wave at us as they leave us in the dust.

Scale or die.

[Cconvert2G36]

"The path of lost freedom is a gradual, slippery slope; whilst the recovery of such is a brutal hill to climb."

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you (while hopping on a Blockstream™ Sidechain) will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

[shmadz]

Scale or die.

You really are a one trick pony aren't you? Too dense to see the risks inherent in scaling at any cost.

If you choose to follow this bip 101 reckless abandon you will scale and die.

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you (while hopping on a Blockstream™ Sidechain) will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

I have no illusion of freedom. I fully understand what is at stake.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

Scale or die.

You really are a one trick pony aren't you? Too dense to see the risks inherent in scaling at any cost.

If you choose to follow this bip 101 reckless abandon you will scale and die.

NOT scaling is just as risky if not more so.  Take a look at the charts. Observe the walls. I'm not advocating scaling at any cost.  I'm weighing the costs of scaling against the costs of not scaling.  You have a normalcy bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias that prevents you from seeing the disaster ahead if we do nothing.  

At the very least, we should implement Garzik's kick-the-can BIP102 until it becomes obvious to anyone still not paying attention that we need a PREDICTABLE block size increase schedule or the new investments aren't going to come.  Markets hate uncertainty. This was a big problem. It's now become an urgent one as well.

The Market always has the last word. Look at the charts and try to figure out what the market is saying. Go ahead, take your time, but not too much. Not deciding is deciding on no change of course. That course is taking us down.

[Cconvert2G36]

At the very least, we should implement Garzik's kick-the-can BIP102 until it becomes obvious to anyone still not paying attention that we need a PREDICTABLE block size increase schedule or the new investments aren't going to come.  Markets hate uncertainty.

Agreed.

A one time fork to 2MB then reassess would be miles better than a constantly shifting or constantly stagnant limit dictated by a 21% player.

[macsga]

Someone many pages back linked the Gavin interview, https://youtu.be/B8l11q9hsJM

Pay special attention at roughly 1:14:40 , the first and maybe only interesting question, let me paraphrase:

Brian: "so, if this fork succeeds, how will decisions be made in the future?"

Gavin: "Mike Hearn will be the benevolent dictator, he will be the ultimate decision maker."

...

He goes on to explain how he does not want to be in complete control, nor do any of the devs that currently have commit ability, but he is completely happy and ok with Mike as the sole controller and decider. He even goes in to mention that future changes will be much easier and will happen much more quickly once this change is made.

I know XT is already dead, but I just wanted to point out to anyone that was still unconvinced that Gavin has been compromised... He is either completely brain dead, or he is deliberately trying to end bitcoin's function as a permissionless, censorship-proof means of storing and transmitting value.

This is silly. What makes you think that people couldn't just as easily fork away from Hearn's XT?

The Core/XT devs are not the Federal Reserve Board, they serve at the behest of the miners and the community. Forking or threatening to fork is the only relief valve on their power.

BTW I agree that 75% of the network moving to BIP101 seems very unlikely now, but my above point remains.

"The path of lost freedom is a gradual, slippery slope; whilst the recovery of such is a brutal hill to climb."

What people should understand is that Bitcoin is evolving to something more than a "virtual currency for geeks". This change will eventually conquer the whole project and transform it to something either bigger or a lot smaller (in case of failure). When Blythe Masters and Barclay's jump on board, you can kiss your "anonymity" goodbye.

Don't get this wrong, this is not necessarily a bad thing; there are other ways to keep your transactions anonymous and atleast one that's being developed as we speak. All in all, you better get used to leaving a portion of your alleged "anonymous" convenience (which never was real in the first place; hint: Silkroad) for a key feature to move the world forward (or backwards - this remains to be seen).