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

[billyjoeallen]

Using the 1MB limit to prevent centralization is like mangling your daughter's face to prevent her from being raped. It's an extremely high price to pay and it doesn't even work that well.

Its a tradeoff thats not necessary right now. Scaling roadmap is far better plan.

When blocksize increase is needed it will be done.

Gavin backed by coinbase and blockchain alliance are pushing inferior plan to remove the cyptherpunk element of bitcoin development.

It's a stalling roadmap and it was created by people who's skill set is programming and cryptography, not business and economics. 

[1714673226]

1714673226

[1714673226]

1714673226

[danielW]

Using the 1MB limit to prevent centralization is like mangling your daughter's face to prevent her from being raped. It's an extremely high price to pay and it doesn't even work that well.

Its a tradeoff thats not necessary right now. Scaling roadmap is far better plan.

When blocksize increase is needed it will be done.

Gavin backed by coinbase and blockchain alliance are pushing inferior plan to remove the cyptherpunk element of bitcoin development.

It's a stalling roadmap and it was created by people who's skill set is programming and cryptography, not business and economics.  

Stalling roadmap? Stalling of what? block size increase? Ofcourse it is and thats good. Block size should only be increased when needed. We should try and 'stall' for as long as possible. It trades off decentralisation.

Block size should only be increased when needed.

There has been some incompetent economics coming out of Peter R and the classic camp. G Maxwell seems to have a much better understanding of economics.

Actually when it comes to economic understanding and crypto, I consider Nick Szabo as a thought leader. He is ofcourse very much against classic coup.

[DieJohnny]

The facts:

1. Bitcoin would NOT have failed if Satoshi had chosen a 2MB limit rather than 1MB, to say otherwise exposes you for the complete idiot you would be. Therefore, any FUD about 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda.
2. Adding 2MB now means nothing as far as the technology, network and platform is concerned.., refusing to do so is simply because you do not want to establish a precedent that you can increase the block size to address scalability issues. Why? because the necessity of a sidechain solution for scaling moves further down the road.

There is nothing else to talk about.

[billyjoeallen]

Using the 1MB limit to prevent centralization is like mangling your daughter's face to prevent her from being raped. It's an extremely high price to pay and it doesn't even work that well.

Its a tradeoff thats not necessary right now. Scaling roadmap is far better plan.

When blocksize increase is needed it will be done.

Gavin backed by coinbase and blockchain alliance are pushing inferior plan to remove the cyptherpunk element of bitcoin development.

It's a stalling roadmap and it was created by people who's skill set is programming and cryptography, not business and economics.  

Stalling roadmap? Stalling of what? block size increase? Ofcourse it is and thats good. Block size should only be increased when needed. We should try and 'stall' for as long as possible. It trades off decentralisation.

Block size should only be increased when needed.

There has been some incompetent economics coming out of Peter R and the classic camp. G Maxwell seems to have a much better understanding of economics.

Actually when it comes to economic understanding and crypto, I consider Nick Szabo as a thought leader. He is ofcourse very much against classic coup.

The maxblocksize limit of 1MB was designed as an anti-spam tool, not an anti-decentralization tool.  Larger capacity is needed and it's needed now if we want to have transactions processed in a reliably timely manner for a predictable price, which any sane network administrator should want.  No, you smallblockers want to change the economics of Bitcoin. It's you who want to change the "cythpherpunk" ethos by routing small transactions off the main chain and taking the fees with them, which will take money out of the hands of miners and make Bitcoin less secure. You want to break bitcoin so Blockstream can collect service fees for getting around the limit.  Lightning network doesn't even have a proposed method for decentralizing the routing of LN transactions, which means it may even make them MORE centralized.

Who are you to claim the right to decide when more capacity is needed?  No minority should have that power.  What the fuck kind of elitist ethos is that?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[danielW]

The facts:

1. Bitcoin would NOT have failed if Satoshi had chosen a 2MB limit rather than 1MB, to say otherwise exposes you for the complete idiot you would be. Therefore, any FUD about 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda.
2. Adding 2MB now means nothing as far as the technology, network and platform is concerned.., refusing to do so is simply because you do not want to establish a precedent that you can increase the block size to address scalability issues. Why? because the necessity of a sidechain solution for scaling moves further down the road.

There is nothing else to talk about.

Facts:

1. Bitcoin functions perfectly with current limit. There is no urgent issue that is not FUD. It is a wholly manufactured non-existant FUD crisis. To say network is clogging,  is FUD propaganda.  I can send bitcoins all the time with no problems.

2. The crash landing FUD propaganda predicted by Mike Hearn has not happened, despite FUD being spread months back that by December (or latest Jan) the network would break down.

3. There is No reason to increase the block size limit now. To say otherwise exposes you for the complete ... Therefore, any FUD about need to increase to 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda
 

[danielW]

Here are some more FACTS for you:

After I made my last post I sent transaction to myself, confirmed no problems AS ALWAYS. About 4 min in-fact, you beauty. https://blockchain.info/tx-index/b907009f9ef1e20d9d8d983e2c72186230be91ccfaf742e68caa1b95eb675af8


Hearn, Gavin et al also confirmed as FUD spreading propagandists.


Block size increase is not needed now, when it will be needed it will be increased, the core roadmap is the best plan going forward.

Everything else is based on a FUD manufactured crisis.

[billyjoeallen]

The facts:
If half a million people wanted to send a single bitcoin to another address the same day, THEY COULD NOT ALL DO IT, NO MATTER HOW HIGH A FEE THEY PAID.

People know this and so we do not buy bitcoin. This is why the price is falling. Price will continue to fall or stagnate until capacity is raised.

[cbeast]

Facts:

1. Bitcoin functions perfectly with current limit. There is no urgent issue that is not FUD. It is a wholly manufactured non-existant FUD crisis. To say network is clogging,  is FUD propaganda.  I can send bitcoins all the time with no problems.

Agreed, given current hobby status.

2. The crash landing FUD propaganda predicted by Mike Hearn has not happened, despite FUD being spread months back that by December (or latest Jan) the network would break down.

Agreed, given current hobby status.

3. There is No reason to increase the block size limit now. To say otherwise exposes you for the complete ... Therefore, any FUD about need to increase to 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda
 

Agreed, given current hobby status.

[danielW]

The facts:
If half a million people wanted to send a single bitcoin to another address the same day, THEY COULD NOT ALL DO IT, NO MATTER HOW HIGH A FEE THEY PAID.

People know this and so we do not buy bitcoin. This is why the price is falling. Price will continue to fall or stagnate until capacity is raised.

Facts:

1. Bitcoin functions perfectly with current limit. There is no urgent issue that is not FUD. It is a wholly manufactured non-existant FUD crisis. To say network is clogging,  is FUD propaganda.  I can send bitcoins all the time with no problems.

Agreed, given current hobby status.

2. The crash landing FUD propaganda predicted by Mike Hearn has not happened, despite FUD being spread months back that by December (or latest Jan) the network would break down.

Agreed, given current hobby status.

3. There is No reason to increase the block size limit now. To say otherwise exposes you for the complete ... Therefore, any FUD about need to increase to 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda
 

Agreed, given current hobby status.

Thats why the best way going forward is to increase TPS via-segwit short term (superior to hardfork increase) and payment-channels, hard-fork, lightining, other methods long term.

No need for this contentious, chaotic hard fork attempt that is really power grab in disguise, and trades off decentralisation.  

[billyjoeallen]

The facts:
If half a million people wanted to send a single bitcoin to another address the same day, THEY COULD NOT ALL DO IT, NO MATTER HOW HIGH A FEE THEY PAID.

People know this and so we do not buy bitcoin. This is why the price is falling. Price will continue to fall or stagnate until capacity is raised.

Facts:

1. Bitcoin functions perfectly with current limit. There is no urgent issue that is not FUD. It is a wholly manufactured non-existant FUD crisis. To say network is clogging,  is FUD propaganda.  I can send bitcoins all the time with no problems.

Agreed, given current hobby status.

2. The crash landing FUD propaganda predicted by Mike Hearn has not happened, despite FUD being spread months back that by December (or latest Jan) the network would break down.

Agreed, given current hobby status.

3. There is No reason to increase the block size limit now. To say otherwise exposes you for the complete ... Therefore, any FUD about need to increase to 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda
 

Agreed, given current hobby status.

Thats why the best way going forward is to increase TPS via-segwit short term (superior to hardfork increase) and payment-channels, hard-fork, lightining, other methods long term.

No need for this contentious chaotic hard fork attempt that is really power grab in disguise, and trades off decentralisation.  

That's quite a non sequitur. Maxwell is the one attempting a power grab.  The clear supermajority wants to increase blocksize. Core is making this badly needed upgrade contentious and chaotic.  We simply don't trust them to do the right thing. They are acting according to their own interest and not the best interest of the network. 

I think Bitcoin will not, cannot grow until the governance model is changed. There is a clear conflict of interest with the core developers and Blockstream. 

[valta4065]

The facts:
If half a million people wanted to send a single bitcoin to another address the same day, THEY COULD NOT ALL DO IT, NO MATTER HOW HIGH A FEE THEY PAID.

People know this and so we do not buy bitcoin. This is why the price is falling. Price will continue to fall or stagnate until capacity is raised.

What? I was not aware the scaling problem was so high!

Why are most people saying that everything is fine and that scaling will come then? It's really not going to help bitcoin adoption! Especially considering how many transaction are made everyday that are "automatic transactions" like faucets or games that are added to the human exchanges.

[danielW]

  

Maxwell is the one attempting a power grab

FUD

badly needed upgrade

FUD

are acting according to their own interest and not the best interest of the network.

 FUD

is a clear conflict of interest with the core developers and Blockstream.

FUD



If we ignore personalities, and focus on pure technical solutions. Segwit is far superior to 1mb hardfork increase. Thats all as far as facts.

[billyjoeallen]

 

Maxwell is the one attempting a power grab

FUD

badly needed upgrade

FUD

are acting according to their own interest and not the best interest of the network.

 FUD

is a clear conflict of interest with the core developers and Blockstream.

FUD



If we ignore personalities, and focus on pure technical solutions. Segwit is far superior to 1mb hardfork increase. Thats all as far as facts.

Calling my argument "FUD" is not a counter-argument. Why is my charge of conflict of interest FUD? Do you even understand the charge? Blockstream's business model does not work without a fee market, but creating a fee market now, before a critical mass of users are formed, will prevent the growth that is necessary for such a fee market to economically function. If that's FUD, tell me why it's FUD.

[billyjoeallen]

The facts:
If half a million people wanted to send a single bitcoin to another address the same day, THEY COULD NOT ALL DO IT, NO MATTER HOW HIGH A FEE THEY PAID.

People know this and so we do not buy bitcoin. This is why the price is falling. Price will continue to fall or stagnate until capacity is raised.

What? I was not aware the scaling problem was so high!

Why are most people saying that everything is fine and that scaling will come then? It's really not going to help bitcoin adoption! Especially considering how many transaction are made everyday that are "automatic transactions" like faucets or games that are added to the human exchanges.

Most people are not saying everything is fine. The people who are saying that either want to sell before the price crashes again or are attempting to prevent or stall scaling.  They are a minority.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[danielW]

 

Maxwell is the one attempting a power grab

FUD

badly needed upgrade

FUD

are acting according to their own interest and not the best interest of the network.

 FUD

is a clear conflict of interest with the core developers and Blockstream.

FUD



If we ignore personalities, and focus on pure technical solutions. Segwit is far superior to 1mb hardfork increase. Thats all as far as facts.

Calling my argument "FUD" is not a counter-argument. Why is my charge of conflict of interest FUD? Do you even understand the charge? Blockstream's business model does not work without a fee market, but creating a fee market now, before a critical mass of users are formed, will prevent the growth that is necessary for such a fee market to economically function. If that's FUD, tell me why it's FUD.

Its FUD because:

1) devs had these ideas before they started their business to promote their vision not other way round.

2) devs have many bitcoin so its in their interest for it to have best possible outcome for bitcoin

3) devs have history of providing open source and free work and being motivated by problems, ideas not money,

4) accusations of conflict of interest can be made at anybody like Gavin, Hearn, coinbase etc. The accusations are made selectively only against core devs who have different ideas to you.

5) Most devs, and people opposing classic have nothing to do with blockstream.

[DieJohnny]

The facts:

1. Bitcoin would NOT have failed if Satoshi had chosen a 2MB limit rather than 1MB, to say otherwise exposes you for the complete idiot you would be. Therefore, any FUD about 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda.
2. Adding 2MB now means nothing as far as the technology, network and platform is concerned.., refusing to do so is simply because you do not want to establish a precedent that you can increase the block size to address scalability issues. Why? because the necessity of a sidechain solution for scaling moves further down the road.

There is nothing else to talk about.

Facts:

1. Bitcoin functions perfectly with current limit. There is no urgent issue that is not FUD. It is a wholly manufactured non-existant FUD crisis. To say network is clogging,  is FUD propaganda.  I can send bitcoins all the time with no problems.

2. The crash landing FUD propaganda predicted by Mike Hearn has not happened, despite FUD being spread months back that by December (or latest Jan) the network would break down.

3. There is No reason to increase the block size limit now. To say otherwise exposes you for the complete ... Therefore, any FUD about need to increase to 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda
 

1. Bitcoin would have been just fine wtih a 2MB limit rather than 1MB. I think you missed that part.
2. Scalability is a red herring, a distraction, it is something for you to argue about but has nothing to do with the decision not to raise the limit, but you didn't read my last sentence......

[AlexGR]

1. Bitcoin would have been just fine wtih a 2MB limit rather than 1MB. I think you missed that part.

It wouldn't. The code is written in such a way where if someone crafted a block with a lot of stuff in it, in a particular way, others would take 10 minutes just to process it.

[billyjoeallen]

1) devs had these ideas before they started their business to promote their vision not other way round.

are you saying they were aware of the scaling problem years ago and did nothing to prevent it? That would explain why segwit is still not ready.

2) devs have many bitcoin so its in their interest for it to have best possible outcome for bitcoin

No, they do not. They have admitted as much. That is why they need another way to profit from their involvement with Bitcoin.

3) devs have history of providing open source and free work and being motivated by problems, ideas not money,

The same can be said of Gavin and Mike. and Jeff Garzik.

4) accusations of conflict of interest can be made at anybody like Gavin, Hearn, coinbase etc. The accusations are made selectively only against core devs who have different ideas to you.

Gavin did not need to take over core development. He was the only person with commit access and lead developer until he gave it to others. It is ludicrous to accuse him of attempting to steal something he already gave away. The same cannot be said for Maxwell and the Blockstreamers.

5) Most devs, and people opposing classic have nothing to do with blockstream.

If you are developing a product, you obviously don't want someone using a competing product, and so most core devs would obviously oppose that, but that is not the same as saying most core devs oppose a blocksize increase. That is simply untrue. Many core devs want an increase, but enough oppose it that, according to Wladimir's idea of "consensus" (which he apparently thinks means "near unanimity"), the smallblockers have effectively veto power.