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

[Fatman3001]

If you want a digital gold system, then you can't in good faith say the blockchain can't be used for non-monetary purposes with respect to colored coins, title transfers, timestamps and microtransactions.

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

Apparently billyjoeallen is a true visionary, unlike cripplecoiner Satoshi who put there the 1MB limit and only wanted Bitcoin's fate to be "restricted" into a much lesser role instead of wanting to include every possible dataset that can be "blockchained", into BTC's blockchain.

As an inventor, Satoshi would likely get enormous credit for creating something that could be used for 100 or 1000 stuff simultaneously instead of 1, 5 or 10. Yet he was quite open and honest about whether that would actually scale.

Satoshi showed the way: The invention of the blockchain could be used with parallel blockchains for different data sets. It was not necessary to put every single data set into the same blockchain.

But billyjoeallen knows better...

I think you read a bit much into what Satoshi wrote there. The uses BJA lists up can be argued to have a legitimate place in Bitcoin, while other more trivial uses can be left to Ethereum et al. Bitcoin offers a level of security that none other do at the moment. The entire crypto revolution can be crippled if we start restricting what should go where at this point in time.

[cypherdoc]

Civil engineer: Hey, Boss. Traffic on the bridge is increasing by 50% per month. Shouldn't we widen it?

Bureaucrat: Ha! That bridge has excess capacity. If traffic gets too high, we'll just increase the tolls. Most of those schmucks don't really need to go anywhere anyway.

Civil engineer: Do we know that for sure? What if there is an evacuation or something?

Bureaucrat: That bridge was intentionally designed with low capacity to prevent invasions! Widening it would be a dangerous departure from historic bridge operations.

Civil Engineer: Aren't bridges supposed to be used to facilitate travel?

Bureaucrat: Yes, but only the right sort of travel. That's for me to decide! If traffic gets too heavy, and tolls get too expensive, the people can use buses. Too many single passenger cars anyway.

Civil engineer: Do you own a bus company?

Bureaucrat: Purely coincidental! I'm just guarding against bridgebuilder centralization.

Civil engineer: I see. No conflict of interest there. What's the name of your company anyway, Busstream?

Bureaucrat: Bridgestream_TM, Smartass.

had to come back just to lol

Did you buy this account? I'm sure after the HashFast theft and especially fucking over a dev like Greg Maxwell the real cypherdoc would never show up around here again. Or are you just so addicted to posting here that you have to do it even if everyone here thinks you're a thief?

haha.  you have no idea what's really going on with that case.

Maxwell's just a liar.

[JayJuanGee]

 

To me, it seems that I am just a bit more comfortable and tollerant with allowing the back and forth process to  play itself out without getting so worked up about it and accusing bad motives of others, rather than painting every scenario as doom and gloom or continuing to assert that the sky is falling, when that surely is not the case.

It's not every scenario. It's just this one particular scenario. There aren't two sides that are attempting to negotiate a solution to a problem. There is one side that is trying to fix a problem and another side that is attempting to make the problem worse so they can sell a proprietary workaround or failing that, to delay fixing the problem as long as possible.

Smallblockers are not arguing in good faith. It makes no sense to change the way Bitcoin works so that we can avoid changing the way bitcoin works. It makes no sense to vilify opinions or procedures critical of centralized power if your chief concern is centralized power.

You don't shout down your opposition if you want a reasoned solution. You don't censor opposing viewpoints if your goal is rational discourse that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders. You sure as hell don't keep changing your rationalizations to support the same conclusion.

If you want a digital gold system, then you can't in good faith say the blockchain can't be used for non-monetary purposes with respect to colored coins, title transfers, timestamps and microtransactions. Gold isn't cash. If you want a digital cash system, then you can't jack up fees so high that small cash purchases become nonviable. If you want a network that can only be effectively used by directly by rich people, then you can't credibly claim to be the conservative force faithful to the original vision and purpose of Bitcoin. You should be honest enough to admit that you want to change Bitcoin, to take it away from those who built it, put in the effort and absorbed the risks and give it not to the people who need it but to people who stand in the middle and make profits from INCREASING rather than decreasing the friction in trade. 

Those are surely fair enough points... to the extent that they may be occurring to one degree or another.. which I don't doubt that a variety of tactics are employed both in politics and in the "free market" in order to attempt to "get your way."

[Feri22]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ysitn/btcc_it_would_be_much_better_to_have_the_support/

People will not follow Core if it won't raise the block size limit...I think the devs are really acting like bunch of butthurted girls not going at least for some compromise...They should not lead our community when they don't hear the community...this is open source software... guys start forking already so we can choose the best client and be done with this bullshit once and for all...block size limit should be decided by code, not by humans

[Elwar]

You know a conversation is not about technical merits when words like "small blockers" and "cripplecoiner" start dominating the argument.

Key to winning an argument without logic:
Lump a bunch of people into a group, then attack that group. Usually by pointing out some bad actions of one or a few members of that group.

[JayJuanGee]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ysitn/btcc_it_would_be_much_better_to_have_the_support/

People will not follow Core if it won't raise the block size limit...I think the devs are really acting like bunch of butthurted girls not going at least for some compromise...They should not lead our community when they don't hear the community...this is open source software... guys start forking already so we can choose the best client and be done with this bullshit once and for all...block size limit should be decided by code, not by humans

I hear what a lot of posters are saying about problems with humans, but really you cannot completely take out humans in any revised way of going forward.. there's gotta be some human elements in order to ensure that any system is responsive to the input and possibly votes of individuals .. rather than machines (that would be controlled by a smaller number of individuals)... so in essence it seems that some human input is inevitable

[AlexGR]

Bitcoin offers a level of security that none other do at the moment. The entire crypto revolution can be crippled if we start restricting what should go where at this point in time.

It can't be crippled. The cat is out now. But it will be "problematic" in people's perception if some try to put everything into one blockchain. Then some will say "ahhhh, as it seems this is too bloated to work... the blockchain was a stupid idea in the first place, we are better off with centralized systems - besides as this is configured right now is not much different than a centralized piece of shit...".

As for the "at this point in time", if you start using BTC's blockchain right now for other uses, against the warning that it won't scale, then what? At some point you'll have services that will need to stop altogether. Isn't it better to have a continuity plan by starting them in an alternate blockchain that is better suited for your own dataset needs and cost requirements (btc fees will eventually skyrocket, by design, due to diminishing subsidy).

As for security, there is always the possibility of merged mining to benefit from BTC's hashrate.

[billyjoeallen]

If you want a digital gold system, then you can't in good faith say the blockchain can't be used for non-monetary purposes with respect to colored coins, title transfers, timestamps and microtransactions.

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

Apparently billyjoeallen is a true visionary, unlike cripplecoiner Satoshi who put there the 1MB limit and only wanted Bitcoin's fate to be "restricted" into a much lesser role instead of wanting to include every possible dataset that can be "blockchained", into BTC's blockchain.

As an inventor, Satoshi would likely get enormous credit for creating something that could be used for 100 or 1000 stuff simultaneously instead of 1, 5 or 10. Yet he was quite open and honest about whether that would actually scale.

Satoshi showed the way: The invention of the blockchain could be used with parallel blockchains for different data sets. It was not necessary to put every single data set into the same blockchain.

But billyjoeallen knows better...

This is what I mean when I say arguing in bad faith. The context of the Satoshi quote makes it clear he was discussing BitDNS, which isn't at all what we are discussing here.  Even still he qualifies why bitcoin users may want to limit the size of the blockchain: so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

The issue was to keep bitcoin inclusive, not to make it exclusive.  Fortunately with deterministic wallets we can use small devices and the size of the blockchain isn't a limiting factor.  But we can't have lots of users if we're limited to ~ half a million transactions per day.  

And regardless of what SM thought about "Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset", the 1 MB limit was not designed or used to prevent it. It was specifically included to prevent DDS attacks and if it it used now for any other purpose, such as to create a transaction fee market, then that is a change, a departure that actually makes DDS attacks MORE likely, not less.

[QuestionAuthority]

Civil engineer: Hey, Boss. Traffic on the bridge is increasing by 50% per month. Shouldn't we widen it?

Bureaucrat: Ha! That bridge has excess capacity. If traffic gets too high, we'll just increase the tolls. Most of those schmucks don't really need to go anywhere anyway.

Civil engineer: Do we know that for sure? What if there is an evacuation or something?

Bureaucrat: That bridge was intentionally designed with low capacity to prevent invasions! Widening it would be a dangerous departure from historic bridge operations.

Civil Engineer: Aren't bridges supposed to be used to facilitate travel?

Bureaucrat: Yes, but only the right sort of travel. That's for me to decide! If traffic gets too heavy, and tolls get too expensive, the people can use buses. Too many single passenger cars anyway.

Civil engineer: Do you own a bus company?

Bureaucrat: Purely coincidental! I'm just guarding against bridgebuilder centralization.

Civil engineer: I see. No conflict of interest there. What's the name of your company anyway, Busstream?

Bureaucrat: Bridgestream_TM, Smartass.

had to come back just to lol

Did you buy this account? I'm sure after the HashFast theft and especially fucking over a dev like Greg Maxwell the real cypherdoc would never show up around here again. Or are you just so addicted to posting here that you have to do it even if everyone here thinks you're a thief?

haha.  you have no idea what's really going on with that case.

Maxwell's just a liar.

That's funny because Maxwell has never stolen Bitcoin from anyone and has dedicated years to improving the Bitcoin space by donating his time and ability to the cause. You, on the other hand, have never done anything for Bitcoin except defraud a bunch of people out of their money. Burn in hell.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[cypherdoc]

Civil engineer: Hey, Boss. Traffic on the bridge is increasing by 50% per month. Shouldn't we widen it?

Bureaucrat: Ha! That bridge has excess capacity. If traffic gets too high, we'll just increase the tolls. Most of those schmucks don't really need to go anywhere anyway.

Civil engineer: Do we know that for sure? What if there is an evacuation or something?

Bureaucrat: That bridge was intentionally designed with low capacity to prevent invasions! Widening it would be a dangerous departure from historic bridge operations.

Civil Engineer: Aren't bridges supposed to be used to facilitate travel?

Bureaucrat: Yes, but only the right sort of travel. That's for me to decide! If traffic gets too heavy, and tolls get too expensive, the people can use buses. Too many single passenger cars anyway.

Civil engineer: Do you own a bus company?

Bureaucrat: Purely coincidental! I'm just guarding against bridgebuilder centralization.

Civil engineer: I see. No conflict of interest there. What's the name of your company anyway, Busstream?

Bureaucrat: Bridgestream_TM, Smartass.

had to come back just to lol

Did you buy this account? I'm sure after the HashFast theft and especially fucking over a dev like Greg Maxwell the real cypherdoc would never show up around here again. Or are you just so addicted to posting here that you have to do it even if everyone here thinks you're a thief?

haha.  you have no idea what's really going on with that case.

Maxwell's just a liar.

That's funny because Maxwell has never stolen Bitcoin from anyone and has dedicated years to improving the Bitcoin space by donating his time and ability to the cause. You, on the other hand, have never done anything for Bitcoin except defraud a bunch of people out of their money. Burn in hell.

ppl who lie and know they've done something wrong tend to hide.  who's hiding now?  Maxwell?  well shit.

[AlexGR]

This is what I mean when I say arguing in bad faith. The context of the Satoshi quote makes it clear he was discussing BitDNS, which isn't at all what we are discussing here.

The application name is irrelevant. Someone would argue "why should Bitcoin make it impossible for my app to store the x, y, z data sets into the blockchain? I want bigger blocks and cheaper blocks, otherwise Bitcoin is preventing innovation".

Bitcoin, as it is, can't even scale to serve its primary purpose of e-cash in order to rival paypal, visa, etc. And then you have people who want to store all sort of stuff in the same blockchain - when these things could be stored in other blockchains. And you also have spammers who like to fill the blocks for the lulz, paying peanuts.

Obvious priority is obvious. Or isn't it?

[suda123]

You know a conversation is not about technical merits when words like "small blockers" and "cripplecoiner" start dominating the argument.

Key to winning an argument without logic:
Lump a bunch of people into a group, then attack that group. Usually by pointing out some bad actions of one or a few members of that group.

Ahuehuahe

[madmat]

I just started running a bitcoin node, and this is not bitoin core.

Setup is quick and free for the next 60 days, the howto is here : https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3xwcnl/how_i_stopped_bitching_and_started_my_own/

My node: https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/130.211.103.123-8333/

Please quote me before thermos c3n-su-re this post!!!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I just started running a bitcoin node, and this is not bitoin core.

Setup is quick and free for the next 60 days, the howto is here : https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3xwcnl/how_i_stopped_bitching_and_started_my_own/

My node: https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/130.211.103.123-8333/

Please quote me before thermos c3n-su-re this post!!!

I'll do it!

[Fatman3001]

Bitcoin offers a level of security that none other do at the moment. The entire crypto revolution can be crippled if we start restricting what should go where at this point in time.

It can't be crippled. The cat is out now. But it will be "problematic" in people's perception if some try to put everything into one blockchain. Then some will say "ahhhh, as it seems this is too bloated to work... the blockchain was a stupid idea in the first place, we are better off with centralized systems - besides as this is configured right now is not much different than a centralized piece of shit...".

As for the "at this point in time", if you start using BTC's blockchain right now for other uses, against the warning that it won't scale, then what? At some point you'll have services that will need to stop altogether. Isn't it better to have a continuity plan by starting them in an alternate blockchain that is better suited for your own dataset needs and cost requirements (btc fees will eventually skyrocket, by design, due to diminishing subsidy).

As for security, there is always the possibility of merged mining to benefit from BTC's hashrate.

If you read what I wrote again I think you will see that it was more nuanced than that. I am not proposing that everything crypto should be on the Bitcoin Blockchain.

And your assumption that fees must "eventually skyrocket" would be a sign of failure. Instead of fees going up 100x we need the number of fee-paying users to go up 100x.

[brg444]

ppl who lie and know they've done something wrong tend to hide.  

Except sociopath weirdos who've made an habit out of defrauding people, isn't it so Dr. Marc A. Lowe?

[billyjoeallen]

This is what I mean when I say arguing in bad faith. The context of the Satoshi quote makes it clear he was discussing BitDNS, which isn't at all what we are discussing here.

The application name is irrelevant. Someone would argue "why should Bitcoin make it impossible for my app to store the x, y, z data sets into the blockchain? I want bigger blocks and cheaper blocks, otherwise Bitcoin is preventing innovation".

Bitcoin, as it is, can't even scale to serve its primary purpose of e-cash in order to rival paypal, visa, etc. And then you have people who want to store all sort of stuff in the same blockchain - when these things could be stored in other blockchains. And you also have spammers who like to fill the blocks for the lulz, paying peanuts.

Obvious priority is obvious. Or isn't it?

It can't scale because people like you won't let it scale!  My node cost me $118 plus maybe a few bucks per month in bandwidth, But I could easily double that every year as long as the price more than doubles, but it's been over TWO YEARS since the last ATH and we're still well under 50% of that level now and I believe that is primarily because of smallblocker obstinance.

[ErisDiscordia]

Yes... it's confirmed to be happening in BJA's head.

Honest injun.

Okay, I'll bite.

What part of the analogy dont you like, or feel is less than accurate?

Frequently, libertarians, such as BJA, become very prejudgemental about group action and the motives of persons in authority, such as representatives or government authorities. 

Therefore, these libertarians paint a picture, not as artfully done as Animal Farm, regarding bad motives of government officials.  Sure there may be some truth to those kinds of bad motives playing out and developing in some situations, but bad motives and biases and self-dealings are not a given - except, I do understand that many countries, including the USA, need to figure out ways to lessen the influence of money in politics (and yes, there is a bit of an inexactness in suggesting the blockchain is governmental in the same way that politics is governmental. 

I am not taking any side for or against bigger blocks - well actually, it does seem that at some point in the near future, we are going to need to have bigger blocks... and even a plan going forward regarding bigger blocks without constant back and forth. 

To me, it seems that I am just a bit more comfortable and tollerant with allowing the back and forth process to  play itself out without getting so worked up about it and accusing bad motives of others, rather than painting every scenario as doom and gloom or continuing to assert that the sky is falling, when that surely is not the case.

What you need is a sense of humour. A sense of humour allows you to see things from both perspectives, because thats what jokes essentially are - regular stories which at some point suddenly change direction. Without it you will continue to see things from a fundamentalist perspective, and that it certainly no fun.

A sense of humour would allow you to see the intelligence of his post, but still retain your own belief.

I guess somehow in your infinite wisdom and social/psycho analyses you've figured out what I need based on my making a few posts on a forum...


Go figure?

"A few" posts with "a few" words in them 

[jbreher]

You know a conversation is not about technical merits when words like "small blockers" and "cripplecoiner" start dominating the argument.

I get your point in regards to "cripplecoiners". However, I insist that "small blockers" is as accurate a name as possible, for the group that advocates no increase in the maxblocksize.