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

[julian071]

Luckily most mining pools are intelligent and have our best interests in mind like most of the developers and these drastic steps likely will never be needed.

Its a fatal misapprehension to believe that any actor in Bitcoin has your best interests in mind. Bitcoin works because everyone can work to their own advantage. Its been designed that these interests naturally self align without any central coordinating function.

There is no invisible hand here - and devs have no business guiding anyone.

Satoshi obviously understands human nature and planned Bitcoin accordingly. One of the mistakes he admitted was offering no reward for running a full node. People still do it with the best interests of the network in mind, but there are decreasing numbers of people prepared to do it for nothing. There would be an order of magnitude more nodes if people were rewarded for running one.

Having a decent wallet would help too. Switched to Electrum today, I really got sick of of the QT-wallet fucking up the block-index, verifying stuff for no apparent reason and for looking fugly while doing it. I never could wrap my head around why not more energy was put into a more sexy looking and properly working wallet... Except I understand a lot of ppl think the end user is not that important, BTC was designed purely for either tech nerds or speculators, buying a cup of coffee and running a cool wallet at home is supposed to be done with other crypto's like DASH?

Electrum is not a full node ....

Exactly. I'd love to run a full node and did for a while, but Bitcoin QT just sucks ass. More energy should be put into developing a wallet that is also a full node, which would make it nice to run instad of a pain.

You're complaining about it validating, well a full node needs to validate. Electrum does not so you're not comparing fairly.

Have you tried running bitcoind headless?

Haven't, will look into it, thx.

[1714851567]

1714851567

[1714851567]

1714851567

[Richy_T]

What this means is that some blocks which appear to be 75% full are, effectively 100% full. This skews the averages. I'm not going to have ChartBuddy change the way he calculates the averages but I am going to have him mark them in the dots. I think purple will be the color to use.

Sorry, bug in the last couple of widgets that meant non-75% blocks were showing up as purple and 75% not showing up at all (average indications not affected). Fixed now.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I presume you are referring to Adam Back there, and yeah, I agree that he is more than capable of what you suggest, but is that a reason that I should be following him?
Because he will fuck me up if I dont?  Seriously, R3CEV must be reading this and pissing themselves laughing.

No, I think I will take my chances that the majority of bitcoin is not as fucked up as these guys and willact rationally to maintain the value of their coinz.

BTW - You know he has no bitcoins, right? He said so when he joined at the ATH in 2013.

Yes, I am aware that Adam doesn't have many coins, as he wouldn't fit the description being that he joined in 2013 with his first coin being purchased at ~180.

Look around you a bit and pay attention and don't merely select an exception to the rule that fits your agenda. I'll admit there are indeed some large bagholders which I can name that support bitcoin classic. Are you suggesting that a majority of bagholders support classic over core? If this is true you are delusional. For one thing, the core devs are almost all extremely large bagholders as they have been around since the beginning. Why do you think they are so interested in bitcoin succeeding and thus volunteering their efforts?

I never suggested anything of that kind. You brought up the notion of bagholders throwing their weight around. I personally dont think it will ever come to that - it would be like the Bank of England trying to fight off Soros when he shorted the pound years ago.  The more coins they throw at it, the more they loose.

No, the threats are just that - threats. Except for the one you mentioned earlier - they can carry out nasty attacks, such as the ddos campaign on XT nodes.

But that is a reason I would be less inclined to support them - not more. 

[BldSwtTrs]

I am tired of all that shit. I quit Bitcoin until the next ATH.

I failed to quit.

[BldSwtTrs]

I am tired of all that shit. I quit Bitcoin until the next ATH.

Good. We need all your bitcoins. Thanks.

Think about it: why would I sell if I think there will be another ATH? But I guess I shouldn't ask too much logical reasoning skills from a small blockist.

[Fatman3001]

Ok, so brg444 is claiming victory on behalf of Core because some core devs made a deal with f2p to raise the limit to 2mb in 2017.

What am I missing?

Edit: Anyhew, nice read: http://belshe.com/2016/01/18/bitcoin-blocksize-and-the-future/

[Richy_T]

Thanks for any help that can be provided. I'm trying to wrap me head around the market implications and how to properly proceed with coin storage. Or should I just convert to fiat with money ready to be wired to exchanges to buy? The delay concerns me, as markets move fast. If only there was a more expedient option.

It gets more complicated also.

It's quite possible (even likely) that a transaction you create from either wallet could end up leaking onto the other chain and get mined into a block. So if you send me some bitcoins on wallet #1 and Coinbase some on wallet #2, you might end up sending both to me or Coinbase.

So it turns out that you have to have a transaction that gets on one chain but not the other. Typically this would be by ensuring it got mined into a bigger block (so that the small block chain would reject it). How this is done is left as an exercise to the reader but it would quite likely involve sending to yourself until it happened.

[Meuh6879]

Segregated Witness

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Richy_T]

Exactly. I'd love to run a full node and did for a while, but Bitcoin QT just sucks ass. More energy should be put into developing a wallet that is also a full node, which would make it nice to run instad of a pain.

I actually believe the full node should run in the background as a service and you should never see it. Fire up the wallet and bam, your ready to go.

I think the user experience of running a node has more to do with why people don't run it than disk space issues. If Luke-jr would quit dumpster-diving 486s, we might start getting somewhere.

[Fatman3001]

If Luke-jr would quit dumpster-diving 486s, we might start getting somewhere.

Good one! I can't stop laughing!

[bitebits]

actually believe the full node should run in the background as a service and you should
I think the user experience of running a node has more to do with why people don't run it than disk space issues.

Indeed, one would like to see the contribution of the node to the network. Some graphs, bandwidth usage, etc. That will be seen as the reward for running a node, instead of just a static GUI screen / terminal screen.

https://statoshi.info/ is a great start for some inspiration.

[BitUsher]

I never suggested anything of that kind. You brought up the notion of bagholders throwing their weight around.

Which I why I phrased it in the form of a question. I did indeed bring it up, but not as a threat but to clarify to others the dangers of a minor majority fork of 75%  and how such a low number can cause a civil war where the apparent chain with the advantage can quickly becomes the losing chain. Once Bitcoin classic releases code I warn users to pay attention and be ready to pull their coins out of exchanges and store them in cold storage during any network split.

The more coins they throw at it, the more they loose.

How so? I don't think you understand the nature of the attack clearly. Let me elaborate...

1) Either individually or collectively the economic majority on the chain with less hash power spends their coin on the chain that isn't being attacked and/or has the greatest value associated with a corresponding exchange. If they spend the coins on the chain with greater hashing power they remove any risk of a 51% attack.

2) The coins are sold for fiat, driving the Bitcoin classic coin down in value dramatically

3) The fiat is used to invest in asic companies , buy asics and/or mining pools in order to quickly recover the majority of hashing power

4) The investment simply strengthens their coin and is not wasted as they return a profit off the newfound mining operation.  

No, the threats are just that - threats. Except for the one you mentioned earlier - they can carry out nasty attacks, such as the ddos campaign on XT nodes.  

Whether the ddos attacks where orchestrated by opponents or Hearn himself to garner sympathy I am against this behavior. That form of censorship harms us all. People should have a fair choice to accurately hear the technical details of classic and cores proposals and make an informed decision.

I personally dont think it will ever come to that -

I completely agree with this statement, but for very different reasons. There are deals being made as we speak to end this and come to consensus. The miners tend to be highly conservative by nature unlike some of the btc banks and processors who are biased towards prioritizing volume and adoption. While the miners want adoption like we all do, they have other considerations that exchanges/banks/processors don't have.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Luckily most mining pools are intelligent and have our best interests in mind like most of the developers and these drastic steps likely will never be needed.

Its a fatal misapprehension to believe that any actor in Bitcoin has your best interests in mind. Bitcoin works because everyone can work to their own advantage. Its been designed that these interests naturally self align without any central coordinating function.

There is no invisible hand here - and devs have no business guiding anyone.

Satoshi obviously understands human nature and planned Bitcoin accordingly. One of the mistakes he admitted was offering no reward for running a full node. People still do it with the best interests of the network in mind, but there are decreasing numbers of people prepared to do it for nothing. There would be an order of magnitude more nodes if people were rewarded for running one.

Having a decent wallet would help too. Switched to Electrum today, I really got sick of of the QT-wallet fucking up the block-index, verifying stuff for no apparent reason and for looking fugly while doing it. I never could wrap my head around why not more energy was put into a more sexy looking and properly working wallet... Except I understand a lot of ppl think the end user is not that important, BTC was designed purely for either tech nerds or speculators, buying a cup of coffee and running a cool wallet at home is supposed to be done with other crypto's like DASH?

Electrum is not a full node ....

Exactly. I'd love to run a full node and did for a while, but Bitcoin QT just sucks ass. More energy should be put into developing a wallet that is also a full node, which would make it nice to run instad of a pain.

You're complaining about it validating, well a full node needs to validate. Electrum does not so you're not comparing fairly.

Have you tried running bitcoind headless?

Haven't, will look into it, thx.

I have a better suggestion, run bitcoind headless and mSIGNA.

Have mSIGNA connect to your local bitcoind node (is the default) ... mSIGNA is as good as (imo better than Armory) enterprise level SPV wallet but since you connect to your own local node you get full node security (and privacy if bitcoind set-up right). mSIGNA has multi-sig, HD seed back-ups, separate accounts and few other slick wallet bits and piece.

[Richy_T]

https://statoshi.info/ is a great start for some inspiration.

I think the blocks received vs blocks sent has interesting implications for complaints of how bandwidth intensive it is to run a node. Having to forward everything to 8 other nodes, my arse.

https://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/blocks

[Andre#]

Why are we still discussing Classic like it's not a failed project already?

Didn't you get the news?

Apparently, it's YOU who didn't get the news.

[Fatman3001]

Why are we still discussing Classic like it's not a failed project already?

Didn't you get the news?

Apparently, it's YOU who didn't get the news.

I think he's referring to f2pools tentative agreement with core about a 2mb block size in 2017.

So we know f2pool and probably Kano supports core. Kano is insignificant and f2pool might shrink quite a bit in a couple of months.

[madmat]

Why are we still discussing Classic like it's not a failed project already?

Didn't you get the news?

Apparently, it's YOU who didn't get the news.

I think he's referring to f2pools tentative agreement with core about a 2mb block size in 2017.

So we know f2pool and probably Kano supports core. Kano is insignificant and f2pool might shrink quite a bit in a couple of months.

2017!! So funny.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I never suggested anything of that kind. You brought up the notion of bagholders throwing their weight around.

Which I why I phrased it in the form of a question.

Huh?  How do you otherwise phrase your questions? It was a question - "are you suggesting...?" What other way would you ask it? 

I did indeed bring it up, but not as a threat but to clarify to others the dangers of a minor majority fork of 75%

So... not a threat, but if you follow the minor majority 'certain' bad things will happen....  Okay.  I've seen Goodfellas, so I think I get that.... The 'dangers' you speak of is if i follow that miner majority, you and your dev friends will mess me up with all your coinz. Got it.

 and how such a low number can cause a civil war where the apparent chain with the advantage can quickly becomes the losing chain. Once Bitcoin classic releases code I warn users to pay attention and be ready to pull their coins out of exchanges and store them in cold storage during any network split.

You see this is all based on your initial flawed concept:

the economic majority on the chain with less hash power

If you are on the weak/shorter chain, you are already the economic minority. You can convince yourself otherwise - that big bags of coins will redress the imbalance - but it wont. Only deliberate fraud and criminal actions will delay the inevitable - and I'm sure you are not really proposing that.

[JayJuanGee]

I am tired of all that shit. I quit Bitcoin until the next ATH.

I failed to quit.

Good for you, and bad for us.... hahahahaha 

We gotta put up with more fake quitting drama........ and fewer coins for us.