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

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I'm pretty confident Classic will fail to gain consensus. Core will win this battle & then we can forget about all this crap & look forward to the halving.

[1714700378]

1714700378

[1714700378]

1714700378

[1714700378]

1714700378

[1714700378]

1714700378

[1714700378]

1714700378

[1714700378]

1714700378

[Elwar]

It is only because of politics that people will not like Classic.

Classic is just Core with at 2mb block size limit.

Classic is building off the 0.11.2 branch which is soon to be outdated with 0.12.0 coming out of RC. There are many significant improvements with 0.12.0 that you will be forgoing(It is unlikely that Classic will switch over to 0.12.0 within the next 2 months) . Classic only has 2 experienced developers maintaining it where Core has 45.

Segwit and classic have practically similar capacity upgrades, with segwit allowing for better longterm scaling by fixing tx malleability(something that is required for payment channels to progress) .

Logically, supporting Classic doesn't make much sense.

That's why I say, only if that is the change.

Frankly I don't understand why it would need many coders or time to change a line of code from 1mb to 2mb. I can do it quickly, just give me an hour, grep and vi.

I don't want to support a hard fork that does anything but the block size change. Throwing in last minute changes along with it is similar to politicians throwing in their shitty little laws here and there with major laws that everyone supports.

[matrix zion]

I'm pretty confident Classic will fail to gain consensus. Core will win this battle & then we can forget about all this crap & look forward to the halving.

Well I can't be sure but if they don't manage to win the fight with 22 times more dev, they'll never win any fight xD

[bargainbin]

...
Segwit and classic have practically similar 0-0.25MB difference capacity differences , with segwit allowing for better longterm scaling by fixing tx malleability(something that is required for payment channels to progress) .

Logically, supporting Classic doesn't make much sense.

TL;DR: Classic takes an existing kludge (1MB limit) and changes it to 2MB. No complexity added.
Core keeps the existing kludge (1MB limit), and *adds another, horrendously convoluted kludge, just to keep the *other* kludge*.
In technical circles, this sort of thing is called "fucking retarded," "a patch on a patch."

[BitUsher]

I'm pretty confident Classic will fail to gain consensus. Core will win this battle & then we can forget about all this crap & look forward to the halving.

The great news about all this infighting , is if bitcoin can survive this, than it shows how resilient it is to politics changing the protocol on contentious issues. Once this chapter is behind us there will be no doubt that blacklists, KYC will have no place in the protocol or the 21 million limit would ever be changed.

2 more months and this will be behind us.

[BitUsher]

That's why I say, only if that is the change.

Frankly I don't understand why it would need many coders or time to change a line of code from 1mb to 2mb. I can do it quickly, just give me an hour, grep and vi.

I don't want to support a hard fork that does anything but the block size change. Throwing in last minute changes along with it is similar to politicians throwing in their shitty little laws here and there with major laws that everyone supports.

There are indeed more changes to Classic than you are implying... There necessarily has to be because simply changing maxBlockSize from 1,000,000 bytes to 2,000,000 bytes would be dangerously irresponsible and introduce new attack vectors.

Here is a list of the changes done -

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/92e1efd0493c1cbde47304c9711f13f413cc9099/bip-bump2mb.mediawiki

What I find most deplorable about these changes is the 75% threshold and extremely small 28 day window which goes against the miners wishes of 90% . Even Bitmain's CEO believes this is too small. Softforks require 95% mining consensus for goodness sake and they want to push through a contentious hardfork at 75%.... This is essentially a political coup.

 

[Andre#]

It is only because of politics that people will not like Classic.

Classic is just Core with at 2mb block size limit.

As long as that statement is true I will support it. I supported XT also until Hearn added blacklisting code to it.

Core with at 2mb instead of 1mb limit is a good idea. That's just math/logic. Not politics.

I will be sure to upgrade my node (yes, I still actually run a full node) when it is fully released (as long as there are no other changes snuck in!).

No, it is politics. The question whether Bitcoin should be a settlement system or a P2P electronic cash system is a political question. The question whether the supply of transactions should be left to the free market, or should be planned by a central committee is a political question. By upgrading to max. 2 MB blocks, you voice your opinion that there should be no shortage of possible transactions at this point in time of the development of Bitcoin.

[Hunyadi]

Actually, it's more like 500,000 per day after segwit is implemented in April.

Is this a fact?

[BitUsher]

Actually, it's more like 500,000 per day after segwit is implemented in April.

Is this a fact?

It is indeed a fact that Segwit testing is on schedule and the April deployment date is extremely likely.

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#roadmap-dates

Segwit wallet support is growing and some wallets are already complete with the changes and ready 2 months ahead for deployment -

https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I'm pretty confident Classic will fail to gain consensus. Core will win this battle & then we can forget about all this crap & look forward to the halving.

The great news about all this infighting , is if bitcoin can survive this, than it shows how resilient it is to politics changing the protocol on contentious issues. Once this chapter is behind us there will be no doubt that blacklists, KYC will have no place in the protocol or the 21 million limit would ever be changed.

2 more months and this will be behind us.

On the other hand, if core fails, it will prove that 3 or 4 devs cant take a codebase written and developed by hundreds over 7 years and sell it to the highest bidder for their own gain.

PwC? GTFO!
AXA? GTFO!

Private Shares in Blockstream worth millions? GTFO!

Google/USGov - USGTOR Lightning networks - no thanks!

ps: why cant the 21m not be changed via a segwit like soft fork?

[tomothy]

ps: why cant the 21m not be changed via a segwit like soft fork?

I thought technically it could? Can't any change theoretically be done via soft fork? Which is stupid, imho, and smarter to do a HF to avoid consensus issues? I dunno. I'm sick of all the bickering. Decided to invest in something really solid. Sold all my BTC and bought viacoin.

[Elwar]

It is only because of politics that people will not like Classic.

Classic is just Core with at 2mb block size limit.

As long as that statement is true I will support it. I supported XT also until Hearn added blacklisting code to it.

Core with at 2mb instead of 1mb limit is a good idea. That's just math/logic. Not politics.

I will be sure to upgrade my node (yes, I still actually run a full node) when it is fully released (as long as there are no other changes snuck in!).

No, it is politics. The question whether Bitcoin should be a settlement system or a P2P electronic cash system is a political question. The question whether the supply of transactions should be left to the free market, or should be planned by a central committee is a political question. By upgrading to max. 2 MB blocks, you voice your opinion that there should be no shortage of possible transactions at this point in time of the development of Bitcoin.

I'm obviously not a developer but I don't see a problem with 2mb to solve the fact that we're hitting 100% capacity already. Segwit sounds like it will be good too. But I'll leave that to the developers. I'm open to upgrading to 2mb when that comes out to fix our current problem. I'll upgrade to segwit when that soft forks.

[Fatman3001]

ps: why cant the 21m not be changed via a segwit like soft fork?

Decided to invest in something really solid. Sold all my BTC and bought viacoin.

Baaaaaahaaaaahhaaaa!!!!!

BtcDrak and Peter Todds altcoin??

Please tell me you're joking!?!?!

[bargainbin]

ps: why cant the 21m not be changed via a segwit like soft fork?

I thought technically it could? Can't any change theoretically be done via soft fork? ...

An infographic explaining the Bitcoin consensus mechanism, hope you find it helpful.

[hdbuck]

It is only because of politics that people will not like Classic.

Classic is just Core with at 2mb block size limit.

As long as that statement is true I will support it. I supported XT also until Hearn added blacklisting code to it.

Core with at 2mb instead of 1mb limit is a good idea. That's just math/logic. Not politics.

I will be sure to upgrade my node (yes, I still actually run a full node) when it is fully released (as long as there are no other changes snuck in!).

No, it is politics. The question whether Bitcoin should be a settlement system or a P2P electronic cash system is a political question. The question whether the supply of transactions should be left to the free market, or should be planned by a central committee is a political question. By upgrading to max. 2 MB blocks, you voice your opinion that there should be no shortage of possible transactions at this point in time of the development of Bitcoin.

I'm obviously not a developer but I don't see a problem with 2mb to solve the fact that we're hitting 100% capacity already. Segwit sounds like it will be good too. But I'll leave that to the developers. I'm open to upgrading to 2mb when that comes out to fix our current problem. I'll upgrade to segwit when that soft forks.

Hum so, basically you just go for anything strangers tells you to, putting literally YOUR money at risk at every corner??! just wow.

[aztecminer]

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

sounds like a bilderberg meeting,lol

yep.. i wasnt supposed say anything but since u mentioned it.... i will be there too... i will be speaking about how " bitcoin does not scale, and that until it does scale, it still doesnt scale " .. and then i will roll out the BitcoinPure fork of mega-chains of 12M blocks ready for Golden Week of Chinese Bears..................... assuming everyone at the Satoshi Round Table is on board with the plan ... if we have consensus, then right as we fork the network we will have Coinbase, in conjunction with BFX and the chinese exchanges PUMP the lightneing chain forks of the secret bitcoins we are going to release ... at that point we will be able to collect more fees since we will have multiple lightening forks of bitcoins and mega-chains of 12M blocks ...

phase two will then be happen: we will have billyjoe raid all five lightning forks of mega-blocks with the #FourPunchRaiders to cause massive volatility to attract newb traders to the ligthening forks during the Golden Week of Chinese Bears . once we have all this in place, finally, we will .. all of us .. buy boats and rule the world from right here from 'wall of observer thread' of bitcoin forum. everyone except juangee ... we are going to 'blockchain blacklist' him during the purification ... lol..... its going to be exciting times for all ye landlubbin HODLERS!!

To the extent that there is any substance in your above fantasy post.... you appear to be in a bit of a lala land to think that there is any kind of "we" going on in bitcoin.  Bitcoin is structured in a such a way that it is peer to peer and decentralized and there are going to be a variety of ins and outs and in the end, as it expands, it will likely involve all types (good, bad and ugly).... well at least hopefully fungibility will be preserved in such a way that blacklisting is not any kind of meaningful dynamic.

Lots of interesting times ahead indeed to see how some of this plays out regarding whether BTC is a storage of value or a currency or something else and to what degree.

juangee... its a joke post dumbass.......... the fact your tiny brain could not detect SARCASM proves your doing nothing but trolling people that you disagree with in this thread . first week of February is in LALA land and still your precious coin still cannot scale . ...what a joke that btc is a store of value ..... there aint gonna be NOTHING for anyone with bitcoin until it can scale.. period .

[Andre#]

It is only because of politics that people will not like Classic.

Classic is just Core with at 2mb block size limit.

As long as that statement is true I will support it. I supported XT also until Hearn added blacklisting code to it.

Core with at 2mb instead of 1mb limit is a good idea. That's just math/logic. Not politics.

I will be sure to upgrade my node (yes, I still actually run a full node) when it is fully released (as long as there are no other changes snuck in!).

No, it is politics. The question whether Bitcoin should be a settlement system or a P2P electronic cash system is a political question. The question whether the supply of transactions should be left to the free market, or should be planned by a central committee is a political question. By upgrading to max. 2 MB blocks, you voice your opinion that there should be no shortage of possible transactions at this point in time of the development of Bitcoin.

I'm obviously not a developer but I don't see a problem with 2mb to solve the fact that we're hitting 100% capacity already. Segwit sounds like it will be good too. But I'll leave that to the developers. I'm open to upgrading to 2mb when that comes out to fix our current problem. I'll upgrade to segwit when that soft forks.

Whether the shortage of blockspace is regarded as a problem or is regarded as desirable (as an instrument to push small payments off the blockchain) is political. If you call the shortage of blockspace a problem, you have already expressed how you think about this.

Kind of like the Israel-Palestine conflict. Whether you talk about the West Bank or Judea & Samaria already tells how you think about the question if this area belongs to Israel or not.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Hum so, basically you just go for anything strangers tells you to, putting literally YOUR money at risk at every corner??! just wow.

No, that is called "Supporting Core".

And its not YOUR money anymore - Its AXA/Horizons. So be careful you dont get it grubby with your filthy hands before they can collect it via LN.

Thank You.

[aztecminer]

Why is it that core supporters end up having a complete tard-out?

Am I being manipulated to support alternative implementations through the fake unpleasantness of supposed Core supporters?

Do you have any idea how frustrating it must be to deal with inferior beings all the time? Don't question. Hash.

every day ... our country is being led by inferior beings.