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

[JayJuanGee]

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

 

Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?

In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.

But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.

That's a good point, fatman!!! 

Each of us should be prepared to defend our arguments with logic and empirical examples - rather than merely criticizing the facts and/or logic of others.

In this regard, it is muc easier to criticize the arguments of others than to set forth a decent basis for your own arguments.

furthermore, sometimes, we just are NOT going to agree on some of the points, and in that regard, sometimes, it is a good thing to just accept that there are differences of opinions without necessarily bashing your opponent.

Personally, I am NOT very attached to either side of the outcome so long as there is a decent amount of input from a variety of stakeholders, while at the same time some employment of compromises without rushing into directions that could be detrimentally irreversible. 

The Bitcoin protocol is likely to survive and even thrive, despite variations of view and even some high level of passion expressed on the various sides of the discussion.

[Peter R]

The way forward for someone who wants to make changes seems straight forward enough, release the code and see what happens.

I agree.  We are presently working on a proposal called Bitcoin Unlimited that does exactly this without any voting requirement at all.  We'll see if the idea has legs over the next few weeks...

For the record, the biggest obstacle is /r/bitcoin's policy that such code is an "alt coin" and thus off topic and censored.  Many people at Core share this view.  Over time, /r/bitcoin will lose its importance; however, at present it is still the dominant medium for the dissemination of Bitcoin related information.  It is a slow process to overcome these network effects.

[brg444]

I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:

Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.

Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.

This is complete bogus as usual Peter.

The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.

If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc.  That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.  

However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose.  And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.  

Solve it how exactly? By a vote?

For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support.  Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time).  The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.

This all sounds very tempting.... except it is not up to the miners to decide but the nodes.

Sure, but miners won't publish blocks that they think will be rejected by the economic majority, regardless of the outcome of any BIP voting.  

Am I correct that your vision for Bitcoin is that the block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization?

Let me get this right... you propose that miners have the ability to vote on the proposal they support (which they do already) but that they should only go ahead with mining such a chain if the economic majority agrees (nodes move forward with a similar block size adjustment)....

How is that any different than what is currently occurring?

The biggest source of "friction" preventing a market process from resolving the block size limit debate is that many people view Bitcoin Core as the core of Bitcoin.  They are leery to use XT or modify the code themselves because hard forks are an unknown at the moment.  If Core were to facilitate this market process by supporting all popular BIPs, then the process would proceed much quicker.  This, of course, is the reason Core doesn't do this.   

For the record, Core's hesitance to allow the free-market to function is a good thing for Bitcoin in the long run. I am happy with how the debate is evolving.  It is getting people familiar with the idea that multiple protocol implementations are a positive thing for future Bitcoin governance.  Interestingly, have you noticed that block size limit topics are no longer as heavily censored on r/bitcoin but things related to decentralizing development are?  In fighting the community against the block size limit, Core has shown the community a much bigger problem: Bitcoin governance itself.

There is no "friction". This is a total fabrication of yours Peter and yet another of your attempts to "teach the controversy".

The market process has resolved the block size debate so far in that status quo prevail until a better proposition comes along.

What exactly do you suggest when you say that Core should "support all popular BIPs"? How is that supposed to work?

Please stop mischaracterizing the support for your position. Core has not fought "the community". Core has fought away a small but pernicious minority of very loud individuals who attempted an absolutely irresponsible political coup over Bitcoin's governance under the guidance of a "charismatic" "leader".

The community of Bitcoin peers, evidenced by the decision of full nodes, has so far shown unanimous support for Core and so has the community of miners.

 

[hdbuck]

By "us" you mean you and iCE? oh, I almost forgot the cuddly but distinctly more inept hdbuck.

+1 hdbuck has lost his marbles and seriously needs to take a break from this place.  iCE isn't even worth energy to type those three characters.

aww why you no likee? im sorry if i get a little irritated by the constant fud of the large bl0ckers cultists and their inept economic views.

anyway BIP000 holding pretty strong

[brg444]

The way forward for someone who wants to make changes seems straight forward enough, release the code and see what happens.

I agree.  We are presently working on a proposal called Bitcoin Unlimited that does exactly this without any voting requirement at all.  We'll see if the idea has legs over the next few weeks...

For the record, the biggest obstacle is /r/bitcoin's policy that such code is an "alt coin" and thus off topic and censored.  Many people at Core share this view.  Over time, /r/bitcoin will lose its importance; however, at present it is still the dominant medium for the dissemination of Bitcoin related information.  It is a slow process to overcome these network effects.

There you are again thinking that Bitcoin decisions are taken over at /r/Bitcoin.....

[Peter R]

What exactly do you suggest when you say that Core should "support all popular BIPs"? How is that supposed to work?

I mean they could add code to support all popular BIPs.  Miners and node operators could express their free choice by activating one or several of them in the GUI or with a run-time parameter.  Eventually, either nothing would happen or one of the BIPs would be activated and the market would settle on a solution with the blessing of Core

Or...they could not do this while support continues to migrate away from Core.  This would be my preference as it ends the block size limit debate AND the governance problem.  

[hdbuck]

...

[Fatman3001]

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

 

Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?

In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.

But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.

I think my analogy is pretty clear: in the presence of a known scarce value (rain forest & decentralization) it is necessary that controls be put in place so as to limit the potential damages cause by misaligned incentives from the various participants in the system.

Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.

[JayJuanGee]

Regarding price and walls, maybe we are going to remain in this territory of $255 to $275 for a few days.

Actually, since the weekend mostly contained retracement, maybe there will be some movement in one direction or the other by NO later than Wednesday... I remain fairly confident that the short term price direction will be upward -yet I am retaining some doubts about whether prices can go above or remain above $300 prior to the Fed auction. 

Thoughts? 

Where we going this week and in the coming 2.5 weeks prior to the Fed auction?

[brg444]

What exactly do you suggest when you say that Core should "support all popular BIPs"? How is that supposed to work?

I mean they could add code to support all popular BIPs.  Miners and node operators could express their free choice by activating one or several of them in the GUI or with a run-time parameter.  Eventually, either nothing would happen or the one of the BIPs would be activated and the market would settle on a solution with the blessing of Core

Or...they could not do this while support continues to migrate away from Core.  This would be my preference as it ends the block size limit debate AND the governance problem.  

Can you provide evidences for "support" continuing to migrate away from Core. Support from whom? Surely not the relevant actors as I've explained in my last post they are, by all accounts, still satisfied with current state of the network.

Let's be clear: either nodes unanimously decide to hard fork to a larger block size or they don't. The free floating setting you have been proposing would irremediably lead to fracture of the network into multiple forks. It makes absolutely no sense from a technical perspective.

[brg444]

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

 

Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?

In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.

But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.

I think my analogy is pretty clear: in the presence of a known scarce value (rain forest & decentralization) it is necessary that controls be put in place so as to limit the potential damages cause by misaligned incentives from the various participants in the system.

Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.

That is absolutely not true as evidenced by the numerous accounts of interested individuals who have had no choice but to stop running their full nodes because of technical constraints.

As the blockchain continues to grow the resources required to fully validate one's own transactions will necessarily continue to increase.

[Peter R]

Can you provide evidences for "support" continuing to migrate away from Core. Support from whom?

Sorry, I can't.   

BTW, I'm still taking 1 BTC bets that a block larger than 1 MB will be included in the longest PoW chain by this time next year.  

[brg444]

Can you provide evidences for "support" continuing to migrate away from Core. Support from whom?

I can't share that information at this moment.  

BTW, I'm still taking 1 BTC bets that a block larger than 1 MB will be included in the longest PoW chain by this time next year.  

 

I guess the least I can do is show the evidence that support my position:

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

Explanation

[Fatman3001]

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

 

Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?

In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.

But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.

I think my analogy is pretty clear: in the presence of a known scarce value (rain forest & decentralization) it is necessary that controls be put in place so as to limit the potential damages cause by misaligned incentives from the various participants in the system.

Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.

That is absolutely not true as evidenced by the numerous accounts of interested individuals who have had no choice but to stop running their full nodes because of technical constraints.

As the blockchain continues to grow the resources required to fully validate one's own transactions will necessarily continue to increase.

You'll find anecdotal evidence for everything, and there's no denying that people have different points where they find they cannot/will not continue running a node, but the fact that those people are not being replaced at a higher rate has much to do, in my opinion, with the stagnation in price since the last bubble and the lack of attractive use cases. Hopefully there will be more attractive use cases for ordinary people after the next peak. Use cases that will make Bitcoin more relevant to people and help the number of nodes to grow. Nodes run on enthusiasm and nerd-cred.

[hdbuck]

lol this edit, so you would not even present such evidence in the future?

also as per your vaillant bet, it is the fucking longest VALID chain, you dishonest fucktard.

[brg444]

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

 

Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?

In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.

But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.

I think my analogy is pretty clear: in the presence of a known scarce value (rain forest & decentralization) it is necessary that controls be put in place so as to limit the potential damages cause by misaligned incentives from the various participants in the system.

Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.

That is absolutely not true as evidenced by the numerous accounts of interested individuals who have had no choice but to stop running their full nodes because of technical constraints.

As the blockchain continues to grow the resources required to fully validate one's own transactions will necessarily continue to increase.

You'll find anecdotal evidence for everything, and there's no denying that people have different points where they find they cannot/will not continue running a node, but the fact that those people are not being replaced at a higher rate has much to do, in my opinion, with the stagnation in price since the last bubble and the lack of attractive use cases. Hopefully there will be more attractive use cases for ordinary people after the next peak. Use cases that will make Bitcoin more relevant to people and help the number of nodes to grow. Nodes run on enthusiasm and nerd-cred.

Here's another anecdotal evidence: the number of nodes did not increase with the latest price rise.

[phishead]

Coin

Explanation

Hey sorry for the newbness, but I was reading your explanation and didn't understand exactly what each image entails... is the first image on the left the "newest" image? Or the one on the right? Or maybe showing different exchange sites?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

Explanation

[Andre#]

Aren't you busy building the next global payment system over at bitco.in?

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited 

I thought you would be thrilled being compared with Palin.