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

[ahpku]

... "kludge" Thats a meaningless self-serving propaganda term invented By Gavin The Fudster and friends. What makes it a kludge? Gavin said so? It cleans up the structure and fixes many problems like malleability. ...

Kludge. Perfect fit. Also amazing ignorance on your part.

quick-and-dirty solution that is clumsy, inelegant, inefficient, difficult to extend and hard to maintain.

None of those are true re segwit, what makes it a kludge?

Its just a meaningless propaganda term?

It's clumsy (overcomplex and inelegant) and irreplicable (you can't segwit your segwit, "difficult to extend") -- sooner or later blocksize cap will need to be raised.
So fixing a prior kludge (1MB max_block_size) with *another, goldbergian one* is the epitome of kludginess. The all-pro rule of code maintenance is *making previous kludges unnecessary, not adding another layer of kludges to give the previous kludge a new leas on life.*
 

[1714687511]

1714687511

[1714687511]

1714687511

[1714687511]

1714687511

[1714687511]

1714687511

[1714687511]

1714687511

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

 Throwing statements about with no explanation does not help your case.

So why dont you explain to me what makes it a Kludge?


Also, I tried not insult you so please try and not to insult me.

I never said segwit itself was a kludge. (its inelegant at best)

If you read back to my original post, I asked you about how making segwit SF-able was a kludge.  Maybe answer that question.

segwit should be a HF. Making it a SF is political and destroys most of their credibility.

[danielW]

... "kludge" Thats a meaningless self-serving propaganda term invented By Gavin The Fudster and friends. What makes it a kludge? Gavin said so? It cleans up the structure and fixes many problems like malleability. ...

Kludge. Perfect fit. Also amazing ignorance on your part.

quick-and-dirty solution that is clumsy, inelegant, inefficient, difficult to extend and hard to maintain.

None of those are true re segwit, what makes it a kludge?

Its just a meaningless propaganda term?

It's clumsy (overcomplex and inelegant), and unreplicable (you can't segwit your segwit, " difficult to extend"), sooner or later blocksize cap will need to be raised.
So fixing a prior kludge (1MB max_block_size) with *another, goldbergian one* is the epitome of kludginess

What is overly-complex or inelegant about it? The current structure of transactions with the signature being part of it but malleable is inelegant and causes many problems. Segwit is an elegant solution to that.

It also allows elegant scaling solutions to be developed down the road.


As opposed to the inefficient hard-fork kludge that can not be extended as it comes at price of making huge nodes, huge block-chains decentralisation etc.

[molecular]

Segwit gives the same capacity increase as your hard-fork,

Segwit is accounting fraud. It actually has higher bandwidth demand than a simple blocksize bump of equal effect.

[hdbuck]

Segwit gives the same capacity increase as your hard-fork,

Segwit is accounting fraud. It actually has higher bandwidth demand than a simple blocksize bump of equal effect.

but it is opt in, so no biggie if you dont want it.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

 The current structure of transactions with the signature being part of it but malleable is inelegant and causes many problems.

Wrong. The malleability isnt a big issue in bitcoin now, but will become more serious with the functionality expansion required for LN.

Its solving a problem that will be brought about by LN.

[nanobrain]

Christ....I remember when this thread was about walls, trading, speculation and general 'doom' or 'moon'...now its just page after page of people talking incomprehensible blockchain bollox and petty politics.

There has always been some sort of crisis threatening the very existence of BTC, get used to it.

So, all the bed-wetters getting worked up about this: you do realise there are entire sections of this site devoted to these topics.  Perhaps you could all fuck off to those pages and stop boring everyone me to tears with your endless segwit, hardfork fuckwittery.

[danielW]

 Throwing statements about with no explanation does not help your case.

So why dont you explain to me what makes it a Kludge?


Also, I tried not insult you so please try and not to insult me.

I never said segwit itself was a kludge. (its inelegant at best)

If you read back to my original post, I asked you about how making segwit SF-able was a kludge.  Maybe answer that question.

segwit should be a HF. Making it a SF is political and destroys most of their credibility.

Again why is segwit as soft-fork a kludge? because Gavin the FUDster said so? Its a much better to have soft-forks then hard forks and allows capacity to be increased immediately. With hard forks the entire network has to move before anybody gets benefit.

Is not the big motivation to increase capacity?

[ahpku]

... "kludge" Thats a meaningless self-serving propaganda term invented By Gavin The Fudster and friends. What makes it a kludge? Gavin said so? It cleans up the structure and fixes many problems like malleability. ...

Kludge. Perfect fit. Also amazing ignorance on your part.

quick-and-dirty solution that is clumsy, inelegant, inefficient, difficult to extend and hard to maintain.

None of those are true re segwit, what makes it a kludge?

Its just a meaningless propaganda term?

It's clumsy (overcomplex and inelegant), and unreplicable (you can't segwit your segwit, " difficult to extend"), sooner or later blocksize cap will need to be raised.
So fixing a prior kludge (1MB max_block_size) with *another, goldbergian one* is the epitome of kludginess. The all-pro rule of code maintenance is *making previous kludges unnecessary, not adding another layer of kludges to give the previous kludge a new leas on life.*

What is overly-complex or inelegant about it? The current structure of transactions with the signature being part of it but malleable is inelegant and causes many problems. Segwit is an elegant solution to that.

It also allows elegant scaling solutions to be developed down the road.


As opposed to the inefficient hard-fork kludge that can not be extended as it comes at price of making huge nodes, huge block-chains decentralisation etc.

See boldface above. Seriously, think about it.

[danielW]

 The current structure of transactions with the signature being part of it but malleable is inelegant and causes many problems.

Wrong. The malleability isnt a big issue in bitcoin now, but will become more serious with the functionality expansion required for LN.

Its solving a problem that will be brought about by LN.

Wrong,  I would guess most wallet or bitcoin developers would tell you that malleability and dealing with it is a pain in the Ass. It is for me. I will hazard a guess that you have not done any bitcoin development if you said that?

Firstly have you forgoten Mt. Gox and how all exchanges went offline to fix their malleability problems?

I remember wasshisname from LTB talking about it recently because of problems it was causing his platform due to difficulties related to transaction chaining.

Malleability is a big annoying thing that pops up all the time to cause problems.

[Fatman3001]

Christ....I remember when this thread was about walls, trading, speculation and general 'doom' or 'moon'...now its just page after page of people talking incomprehensible blockchain bollox and petty politics.

There has always been some sort of crisis threatening the very existence of BTC, get used to it.

So, all the bed-wetters getting worked up about this: you do realise there are entire sections of this site devoted to these topics.  Perhaps you could all fuck off to those pages and stop boring everyone me to tears with your endless segwit, hardfork fuckwittery.

You just drop in every six months to tell us we're a bunch of assholes. We know! We're trying to improve ourselves! Don't we sound cleverererer now?

[belmonty]

Christ....I remember when this thread was about walls, trading, speculation and general 'doom' or 'moon'...now its just page after page of people talking incomprehensible blockchain bollox and petty politics.

There has always been some sort of crisis threatening the very existence of BTC, get used to it.

So, all the bed-wetters getting worked up about this: you do realise there are entire sections of this site devoted to these topics.  Perhaps you could all fuck off to those pages and stop boring everyone me to tears with your endless segwit, hardfork fuckwittery.

I hoped to find out a reason for the $6 price increase in this thread, and I hoped people would be discussing it. Instead I found a wall of posts about segwit combined with acronyms like hf and sf. Once upon a time people would have discussed whether the bottom of this dump was in, but now it's all block size debates.

[ahpku]

...
I hoped to find out a reason for the $6 price increase in this thread, and I hoped people would be discussing it. ...

Life is flux, belmonty, nothing stays the same... A lot of people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch of unconnected incidents and things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice of coincidence that lays on top of everything. Give you an example, show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, "plate," or "shrimp," or "plate of shrimp" out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconsciousness.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[molecular]

Christ....I remember when this thread was about walls, trading, speculation and general 'doom' or 'moon'...now its just page after page of people talking incomprehensible blockchain bollox and petty politics.

There has always been some sort of crisis threatening the very existence of BTC, get used to it.

So, all the bed-wetters getting worked up about this: you do realise there are entire sections of this site devoted to these topics.  Perhaps you could all fuck off to those pages and stop boring everyone me to tears with your endless segwit, hardfork fuckwittery.

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!

[nioc]

Christ....I remember when this thread was about walls, trading, speculation and general 'doom' or 'moon'...now its just page after page of people talking incomprehensible blockchain bollox and petty politics.

There has always been some sort of crisis threatening the very existence of BTC, get used to it.

So, all the bed-wetters getting worked up about this: you do realise there are entire sections of this site devoted to these topics.  Perhaps you could all fuck off to those pages and stop boring everyone me to tears with your endless segwit, hardfork fuckwittery.

I hoped to find out a reason for the $6 price increase in this thread, and I hoped people would be discussing it. Instead I found a wall of posts about segwit combined with acronyms like hf and sf. Once upon a time people would have discussed whether the bottom of this dump was in, but now it's all block size debates.

I like the convenience of finding all my Btc news in one thread.  If i want to expand my understanding of any of it I can do so.

As to why Btc went up 1.5%?  Noise, somebody bought a few Btc and it wasn't me.  I am merely hodling until last year's tax burden is settled.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

 Throwing statements about with no explanation does not help your case.

So why dont you explain to me what makes it a Kludge?


Also, I tried not insult you so please try and not to insult me.

I never said segwit itself was a kludge. (its inelegant at best)

If you read back to my original post, I asked you about how making segwit SF-able was a kludge.  Maybe answer that question.

segwit should be a HF. Making it a SF is political and destroys most of their credibility.

Again why is segwit as soft-fork a kludge? because Gavin the FUDster said so? Its a much better to have soft-forks then hard forks and allows capacity to be increased immediately. With hard forks the entire network has to move before anybody gets benefit.

Is not the big motivation to increase capacity?

How do you feel about the segwit kludge of pushing its commitment into the coinbase tx? You ok with that design approach?  What was the motivation for it? Expediency, efficiency or just so that they would not have to sell segwit as an evil HF?

[craked5]

Christ....I remember when this thread was about walls, trading, speculation and general 'doom' or 'moon'...now its just page after page of people talking incomprehensible blockchain bollox and petty politics.

There has always been some sort of crisis threatening the very existence of BTC, get used to it.

So, all the bed-wetters getting worked up about this: you do realise there are entire sections of this site devoted to these topics.  Perhaps you could all fuck off to those pages and stop boring everyone me to tears with your endless segwit, hardfork fuckwittery.

I hoped to find out a reason for the $6 price increase in this thread, and I hoped people would be discussing it. Instead I found a wall of posts about segwit combined with acronyms like hf and sf. Once upon a time people would have discussed whether the bottom of this dump was in, but now it's all block size debates.

Have to say I don't understand any shit about what's discussed here most of the time.

And I don't see really the link with the thread "wall observer".
But I keep coming here for chart buddy

[Andre#]

We are nowhere close to "everything will suck soon" ^tm. You guys have been saying that for a year now btw.

Actually several years. We've been repeatedly pointing at the same stupid, unnecessary hard ceiling, and pointing out that the inexorable trend of increasing transactions has us on a clear intersect.

In the meantime, we have recently gone from things never sucking in regards to capacity, to things sucking for brief flashes of time. The issue is not how much one needs to pay to get a transaction through, the issue is that with the current block size, no more than about 350,000 transactions can be processed in a day. Period. No matter how much money is thrown at the transactions.

Here's what those two non-parallel lines would look like if the bump to 2MB occurs May 1:

Thanks! This is still the best graph.

Yes, this is still the best meaningless graph, Andre#.

You are so "spot on" lately.

I am, indeed. 

Wahou wahou wahou!

Thanks for the graph indeed, it's a good way to see things.

But what I get from this graph is that 2mb blocks would be a very temporary solution no? Is it only me?
Cause it seems like even if we go to 2mb it'll last for a few months maybe a year or two before we need another action taken.

Indeed. But at least it buys some time for Segregated Witness to get into effect (x1.7), and later on perhaps the Lightening Network. If these don't materialize, it would have to be increased further in two years time.

[nioc]

http://www.coindesk.com/private-satoshi-roundtable-bitcoin-exec-scaling-debate/

"To be held from 26th to 28th February, the event follows the inaugural edition of Satoshi Roundtable, which garnered criticism at the time of announcement for an alleged lack of transparency and air of secrecy. Though it eventually opened its doors to limited media presence, this year's event, by contrast, will be closed to the public."[/b]

"The attendee list also includes bitcoin startup CEOs such as BTCC's Bobby Lee and Align Commerce's Marwan Forzley, as well as representatives from Bain Capital Ventures and Fidelity Labs."

Bain Capital Vultures brought to you by the likes of Mitt Romney and friends.

I repeat, closed to public.  Open source and decentralized, whoopee!!