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

[Fatman3001]

@Bitusher What are you talking about? I want BIP101. But nobody gives a shit about what I think. Bitfury obviously wants a 2MB Block Size Cap without burning too many bridges. I guess a hard fork from 1MB to 2MB isn't considered "abrupt" by Valery.

[BitUsher]

@Bitusher What are you talking about? I want BIP101. But nobody gives a shit about what I think. Bitfury obviously wants a 2MB Block Size Cap without burning too many bridges.

Almost Everyone wants an effective 2MB block capacity. You aren't making any distinctions.

So You are you suggesting that Classic supports those statements from Bitfury?

Here is a hint-

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:11:29:i have misgivings about the vision of the fee market as a way to pay for mining, and i think that fee market + lightning would be terrible for earning fees as a miner

I guess a hard fork from 1MB to 2MB isn't considered "abrupt" by Valery.

What gives you that indication? A nod of support and a long article directly refuting most of Classic's principles?

P.S... yes, and Bitfury doesn't like XT or Bip 101 either.

[cbeast]

Bitcoin as global currency. Locally regulated and exchanged digital currencies will organically emerge. There's your scalability roadmap.

[CuntChocula]

<>

Mass Rule is Not Appropriate for Bitcoin

The pipe dream of some in the Bitcoin community is to govern the system by having ordinary users vote for changes by adopting the corresponding full node software. This approach is not only impractical, it is also not desirable.

This directly refutes the Bitcoin Classic And Bitcoin Unlimited governance model.

"Thus the Bitcoin dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun.”

http://s15.postimg.org/pzn6su0iz/nice0.gif

[Fatman3001]

@Bitusher What are you talking about? I want BIP101. But nobody gives a shit about what I think. Bitfury obviously wants a 2MB Block Size Cap without burning too many bridges.

Almost Everyone wants an effective 2MB block capacity. You aren't making any distinctions.

So You are you suggesting the Classic supports those statements from Bitfury?

Here is a hint-

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:11:29:i have misgivings about the vision of the fee market as a way to pay for mining, and i think that fee market + lightning would be terrible for earning fees as a miner

I guess a hard fork from 1MB to 2MB isn't considered "abrupt" by Valery.

What gives you that indication? A nod of support and a long article directly refuting most of Classic's principles?

? ? ?

Are you slow or something?

I am not the CEO of Bitfury.

Here: https://mobile.twitter.com/valeryvavilov/status/688054411650818048

Troll Valery instead.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin


Explanation

[BitUsher]

? ? ?

Are you slow or something?

I am not the CEO of Bitfury.

Here: https://mobile.twitter.com/valeryvavilov/status/688054411650818048

Troll Valery instead.

I am not trolling you or insinuating that you know his mind. This is the speculation forum where we discuss data and speculate upon it. I am asking for your opinion on why Bitfury gives a nod of support and than shortly after attacks most of the principles that support the implementation he gave a nod of support to.

Do you have an opinion on this or do you believe the list of statements I laid out don't fundamentally undercut XT/BU/Classics principles?  

Or is this merely an issue you prefer not to discuss because you rather not acknowledge it? If so, I will happily leave you alone and apologize for upsetting you.

[aztecminer]

Bitcoin as global currency. Locally regulated and exchanged digital currencies will organically emerge. There's your scalability roadmap.

i am not sure how ?? we are still arguing over scalability.. and the argument has become more complex with more versions of bitcoin.. looks more like a big giant clusterfuk .

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Bitfurys article strongly rejects XT principles. Not Classic.  XT != Classic.

Read it again, and the underlying tone is that they prefer development to be more open.

You must have skipped to the end of the article instead of reading the whole thing. Additionally , most of us want development to be more open. Stop creating false wedge issues where none exist ... we agree on this! Lets support Libbitcoinconsensus!

 https://medium.com/@BitFuryGroup/keep-calm-and-bitcoin-on-4f29d581276#.lsa4ml1p6


This directly refutes the Bitcoin Classic And Bitcoin Unlimited governance model.

Meh, not too sure. That Medium piece was written in the context of Hearns exit piece, so yes, I still think it was largely directed at that, and not specifically at Classic.
We could argue the interpretation of various pieces of that artical, but I would prefer to simply quote the man himself's view on Classic, as he posted on twitter:

https://twitter.com/valeryvavilov/status/688054411650818048?s=09

@BitFuryGroup - the largest private miner and security provider is ready to move forward and support 2MB increase with @Bitcoin Classic

That seems pretty unequivocal.

edit: posted before i saw you address it earlier. But point still stands - your view that the article denegrades Classic is only your interpretation of it. And condidering his explicit support for Classic, I'd say you could redress the dichotomy by simply saying that maybe the article was about XT and Hearn.

[cbeast]

Bitcoin as global currency. Locally regulated and exchanged digital currencies will organically emerge. There's your scalability roadmap.

i am not sure how ?? we are still arguing over scalability.. and the argument has become more complex with more versions of bitcoin.. looks more like a big giant clusterfuk .

You don't need to know how. That's how "organic" works. Bitcoin doesn't need to buy every coffee, nor does anyone really need to use it. The blocksize argument is only a short-term adoption solution. Altcoins are the obvious and most popular solution to adoption overall to date. Exchanges have always and will always take Bitcoin. It's just that simple.

[DieJohnny]

We are heading towards a hard fork and two coins. China BTC and everyone else on Classic.

Nobody is buying coins mined by two mining companies in China..... that only trade on chinese exchanges.... just saying...

Also, this is going to sound nuts but classic should road map a change to POW in 12 months. The future hard forks have to be much easier, more miners is the only way to make this happen.

[DieJohnny]

Bitcoin as global currency. Locally regulated and exchanged digital currencies will organically emerge. There's your scalability roadmap.

i am not sure how ?? we are still arguing over scalability.. and the argument has become more complex with more versions of bitcoin.. looks more like a big giant clusterfuk .

You don't need to know how. That's how "organic" works. Bitcoin doesn't need to buy every coffee, nor does anyone really need to use it. The blocksize argument is only a short-term adoption solution. Altcoins are the obvious and most popular solution to adoption overall to date. Exchanges have always and will always take Bitcoin. It's just that simple.

This is a single view that is frankly bizarre, only recently have statements like these become commonplace. Bitcoin was always going to record every transaction.

[cbeast]

Altcoins are the obvious and most popular solution to adoption overall to date.

Save us, BBQ Coin, you're our only hope!

There are thousands to choose from. Ask your local regulators which one you are required to register for.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Where are we at, are people just pretending Toomin-Coin is still happening?

As far as I can see (read) Chinese mining pools have rejected it & shown their support for Core?

Can we add Toomin-Coin to the list of failed take overs?

[cbeast]

Bitcoin as global currency. Locally regulated and exchanged digital currencies will organically emerge. There's your scalability roadmap.

i am not sure how ?? we are still arguing over scalability.. and the argument has become more complex with more versions of bitcoin.. looks more like a big giant clusterfuk .

You don't need to know how. That's how "organic" works. Bitcoin doesn't need to buy every coffee, nor does anyone really need to use it. The blocksize argument is only a short-term adoption solution. Altcoins are the obvious and most popular solution to adoption overall to date. Exchanges have always and will always take Bitcoin. It's just that simple.

This is a single view that is frankly bizarre, only recently have statements like these become commonplace. Bitcoin was always going to record every transaction.

If it's so bizarre, then why are all the banks developing blockchains and there are thousands of experimental coins? I have been saying this all along. Local currencies will be regulated with violence and the anarchists can't do anything about that.

[Richy_T]

Coin


Explanation

What happened to the block stats?

I had to reindex the blockchain to be able to examine old transactions and due to a design decision that is annoying but that I can sympathize with, that makes the data unavailable until it completes and it was taking a long time so I disabled the widget. I think it should be done now though.

Edit: Nope, still rolling.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Coin


Explanation

What happened to the block stats?

I had to reindex the blockchain to be able to examine old transactions and due to a design decision that is annoying but that I can sympathize with, that makes the data unavailable until it completes and it was taking a long time so I disabled the widget. I think it should be done now though.

Richy - My PC froze with Core open a few weeks ago, I had to reindex the entire blockchain too.

Fucking nightmare.

[Fatman3001]

@lambie You know me, nerds are easy prey.

? ? ?

Are you slow or something?

I am not the CEO of Bitfury.

Here: https://mobile.twitter.com/valeryvavilov/status/688054411650818048

Troll Valery instead.

I am not trolling you or insinuating that you know his mind. This is the speculation forum where we discuss data and speculate upon it. I am asking for your opinion on why Bitfury gives a nod of support and than shortly after attacks most of the principles that support the implementation he gave a nod of support to.

Do you have an opinion on this or do you believe the list of statements I laid out don't fundamentally undercut XT/BU/Classics principles?  

Or is this merely an issue you prefer not to discuss because you rather not acknowledge it? If so, I will happily leave you alone and apologize for upsetting you.

What is there for me to acknowledge? His defence of Bitcoin was, as I said, woolly. It can be read different ways by different people. But at the very least Bitcoin Classic and Bitfury has reached some kind of overlapping consensus on the urgent need for a 2MB hard fork. That announcement was very precise. As long as people agree on the technical implementation they don't need to agree about every little thing or thought regarding Bitcoin.

[Fatman3001]

Where are we at, are people just pretending Toomin-Coin is still happening?

As far as I can see (read) Chinese mining pools have rejected it & shown their support for Core?

Can we add Toomin-Coin to the list of failed take overs?

Any solid links?

[JorgeStolfi]

[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.

It was no mistake. The concept of a "full but non-mining" relay node is an aberration.  Such nodes are precisely the sort of "trusted intermediaries" that bitcoin was supposed to get rid of.  They do not add anything to the security of the network -- on the contrary, they are a gross violation of the protocol, and a huge security risk.  

What Satoshi called "nodes" were the miners.  Miners were supposed to mine for their own benefit (as users of the network) and for the fees paid by simple clients, who should contact them directly.  Miners have incentives to validate and secure transactions on the blockchain, and serve all clients that pay enough to offset their marginal cost of doing so.  Miners are prevented from defrauding the system by the proof-of-work and most-worked-chain-wins rules.  In constrast, the "full but non-mining" nodes have no financial incentives to be honest, so one shoudl wonder what is their motivation for offering to "help" clients.  There is no way of checking that they actually store or verify anything, so nothing prevents an attacker from cloning thousands of such nodes -- and scamming all clients that happen to talk to only those clones.

"Full but non-mining" relay nodes were invented by bitcoiners who were unable to compete with industrial miners, but still wanted to retain their control over the system, because they felt entitled to it.  Non-mining clients should avoid them, and talk directly to miners (or relays that they cantrust are operated by miners).  The sooner they disappear, the better.