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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?

imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.

ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.

I know it's all hype and speculators drooling over tokens, don't get me wrong. But what about autonomous agents, decentralized autonomous organizations, and the like? I imagine a scaling catastrophe. Could our block chain handle the capacity? Could our block chain do the right tricks?

[1714644715]

1714644715

[1714644715]

1714644715

[Gyrsur]

Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?

imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.

ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.

I know it's all hype and speculators drooling over tokens, don't get me wrong. But what about autonomous agents, decentralized autonomous organizations, and the like? I imagine a scaling catastrophe. Could our block chain handle the capacity? Could our block chain do the right tricks?

what i have understand so far is the speed of the blockchain is to slow for decentralized computing in general for use cases where you have this generic approach like ethereum. it will take 5 to 10 years to have hardware which is able to handle such capacities.

[iCEBREAKER]

Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?

IIRC, Blockstream types tend to like Rootstock's approach.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[cbeast]

Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?

imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.

ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.

emphasis mine

[hdbuck]

pretty awesome that bitcoin resisted human induced inflation.

[Fatman3001]

Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?

imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.

ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.

I know it's all hype and speculators drooling over tokens, don't get me wrong. But what about autonomous agents, decentralized autonomous organizations, and the like? I imagine a scaling catastrophe. Could our block chain handle the capacity? Could our block chain do the right tricks?

[billyjoeallen]

pretty awesome that bitcoin resisted human induced inflation.

That's not even close to an accurate description of what happened. Cripplecore is resisting taking some armor off the truck to allow more cargo capacity. As a result we have an $8/transaction network.  Good luck winning any races with that.

[hdbuck]

pretty awesome that bitcoin resisted human induced inflation.

That's not even close to an accurate description of what happened. Cripplecore is resisting taking some armor off the truck to allow more cargo capacity. As a result we have an $8/transaction network.  Good luck winning any races with that.

there is no race, there is not only core, there is no governance.
bitcoin is here to stay and is the reference in regards to security and store of value.
time is on our side here, let the clowns chicken run behind their pipedreamed blockchain technology..

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[wachtwoord]

pretty awesome that bitcoin resisted human induced inflation.

That's not even close to an accurate description of what happened. Cripplecore is resisting taking some armor off the truck to allow more cargo capacity. As a result we have an $8/transaction network.  Good luck winning any races with that.

That's nonsense. Hdbuck is perfectly right and you repeating your retarded opinion 10000 times doen not make it true. Go fork off and start your oen retardationcoin. I wish you all the luck in the world, but no luck will save you if you build on unsound economics.

[Feri22]

Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?

imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.

ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.

Couldn't agree more... bigger complexity means bigger security issues...but still, rootstock connecting bitcoin with ethereum is interesting concept

[wachtwoord]

Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?

imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.

ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.

Couldn't agree more... bigger complexity means bigger security issues...but still, rootstock connecting bitcoin with ethereum is interesting concept

As any software engineer knows. Complexity sucks and is unnecessary in the vast majority of the case. There's a lot of elegance in designing non-complex systems.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AlexGR]

pretty awesome that bitcoin resisted human induced inflation.

That's not even close to an accurate description of what happened. Cripplecore is resisting taking some armor off the truck to allow more cargo capacity. As a result we have an $8/transaction network.  Good luck winning any races with that.

If you had 10 MB blocks tomorrow morning, you'd still need 0.8$ in fees, per tx, to replenish lost subsidy income.

People are currently paying 0$ to 0.03$ (for first block inclusion) while "blocks are full", under the current 1 MB scheme. With the current fees, even with 100 MB blocks, and them being full, you'd still be unable to pay the subsidy loss (you'd need 0.08$ per tx). So you'd need something like 250MB blocks with the current fees. This makes it pretty obvious and simple: Fees have to rise.

If fees don't rise, then miners bail out and the network loses security. OR, some new "forkers" will come and say something retarded like "we want free txs forevah, so let us inflate the money quantity instead... why limit btc to 21mn coins? That's ...crippling to BTC... yeah, let's uncripple it by issuing a few hundred million more... we don't want to pay high tx fees you know... we prefer inflation".

[ButtLava]

If you had 10 MB blocks tomorrow morning, you'd still need 0.8$ in fees, per tx, to replenish lost subsidy income.

People are currently paying 0$ to 0.03$ (for first block inclusion) while "blocks are full", under the current 1 MB scheme. With the current fees, even with 100 MB blocks, and them being full, you'd still be unable to pay the subsidy loss (you'd need 0.08$ per tx). So you'd need something like 250MB blocks with the current fees. This makes it pretty obvious and simple: Fees have to rise.

If fees don't rise, then miners bail out and the network loses security. OR, some new "forkers" will come and say something retarded like "we want free txs forevah, so let us inflate the money quantity instead... why limit btc to 21mn coins? That's ...crippling to BTC... yeah, let's uncripple it by issuing a few hundred million more... we don't want to pay high tx fees you know... we prefer inflation".

That's like saying "if the gays can get married, whats to stop people from marrying their pets!". How can you seriously compare raising the block size limit to a slippery slope of raising the total supply? Nobody wants to devalue their coins by creating more, but they DO want to increase the value in them by making them more accessible and liquid.

Has any analysis been done to determine why 1mb is the best? why not 1.2mb, or half a meg. If limited supply is the answer, let's just make it one transaction every block for ultimate success! Why is less than 5 transactions a second the ideal number? Why would raising that to 10, 20, 30, 40, 100, or 1000 ruin bitcoins security?

More on that... how many hashes are done per transaction, and how many miners do we need for the network to be secure? Does anyone know. I mean, it seems like we are doing quite a lot of calculations per transaction, which means mathematically the transactions are plenty secure, even with an order of magnitude more of them.

[Fatman3001]

pretty awesome that bitcoin resisted human induced inflation.

That's not even close to an accurate description of what happened. Cripplecore is resisting taking some armor off the truck to allow more cargo capacity. As a result we have an $8/transaction network.  Good luck winning any races with that.

If you had 10 MB blocks tomorrow morning, you'd still need 0.8$ in fees, per tx, to replenish lost subsidy income.

People are currently paying 0$ to 0.03$ (for first block inclusion) while "blocks are full", under the current 1 MB scheme. With the current fees, even with 100 MB blocks, and them being full, you'd still be unable to pay the subsidy loss (you'd need 0.08$ per tx). So you'd need something like 250MB blocks with the current fees. This makes it pretty obvious and simple: Fees have to rise.

If fees don't rise, then miners bail out and the network loses security. OR, some new "forkers" will come and say something retarded like "we want free txs forevah, so let us inflate the money quantity instead... why limit btc to 21mn coins? That's ...crippling to BTC... yeah, let's uncripple it by issuing a few hundred million more... we don't want to pay high tx fees you know... we prefer inflation".

Who gets the fees?

Who decides which transactions gets on the block?

[Laosai]

Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?

imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.

ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.

I would say there is a use for that, that you're a bit harsh on eth here ^^

But that would be really strange to use btc for that. No need to complexify and corrupt the security of btc.

[AlexGR]

That's like saying "if the gays can get married, whats to stop people from marrying their pets!". How can you seriously compare raising the block size limit to a slippery slope of raising the total supply? Nobody wants to devalue their coins by creating more, but they DO want to increase the value in them by making them more accessible and liquid.

A forker can troll us with an argument of the following style:

"High tx fees reduce adoption, so we need low tx fees to increase adoption. If that doesn't happen, BTC is dead. So it's preferable to have more than 21mn coins through constant inflation rather than raising tx fees".

They could say "you are crippling BTC's potential through those high fees, we need much lower fees and in order to do that we need subsidy / more coins".

If people insist on having low-fee txs, then the end-game is a ...DOGEcoin (infinite inflation).

Higher fees solve both the inflation issue and also address the sane block utilization issue.

Fees at 1 to 3 cents are ridiculous anyway.

[hdbuck]

Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?

imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.

ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.

I would say there is a use for that, that you're a bit harsh on eth here ^^

But that would be really strange to use btc for that. No need to complexify and corrupt the security of btc.

And this is why i'm neither a proponent for the segwit softfork.

I'm sorta tired with the upgrade rush.

Bitcoin is not a sprint, it is a marathon.