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

[BitUsher]

Yeah, it's different, but it's hard to dumb down this conflict for the idiot masses without losing some of the essential elements. It doesn't mean it's an intentionally misleading analogy.

If not intentionally misleading its is downright stupid when a perfectly good analogy is available . Gavin and Brian spouting that nonsense should know better and its disturbing to hear it from them.

To be clear ... this is a far better analogy--

Different browsers = Bitcoin Core, Bitcore, libbitcoin , ect....
Different protocols = TCP/IP and those that suggest we make some changes to make a new internet where existing browsers suddenly become incompatible with it.

Notice how standards that break the functionality of old browsers are rarely , if ever introduced on the internet. I can still run "mosaic-ck" and lynx browser on my linux computer with no problem and while I am unable to use all that fancy javascript/css/flash/ect I can use TCP/IP just fine as originally intended and surf the web, send emails, and read text. The internet was built with stacks and layers of technology to insure backward compatibility and a HF is the exact opposite of this. So no, it isn't just an imperfect analogy but one that is extremely misleading.

We want an armored truck, not a safe on castor wheels pulled by a horse.

We are building a tank with hardened steal, exploding anti- tank missile panels, advanced engine and suspension components for maneuverability, and a more efficient engine to carry a larger capacity and more ammo...

You simply want to double the weight of the tank and throw a bigger cc diesel engine in her that guzzles more fuel.  

[1714281643]

1714281643

[1714281643]

1714281643

[1714281643]

1714281643

[valta4065]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

I see we're still hovering around $420. At least $400 seems to be holding (for now).

After a week and a half of pretty steady price rise, you'd think we'd see a slight correction but maybe this rise isn't done quite yet.

Come on Bitcoin, let's keep this moving up.

Well we should maybe stop moving up and get some stability on the 415 ^^

When the 415 floor will be strong enough, yeah let's move up again!

[Fatman3001]

We want an armored truck, not a safe on castor wheels pulled by a horse.

We are building a tank with hardened steal, exploding anti- tank missile panels, advanced engine and suspension components for maneuverability, and a more efficient engine to carry a larger capacity and more ammo...

You simply want to double the weight of the tank and throw a bigger cc diesel engine in her that guzzles more fuel.  

[BitUsher]

0.12.0 final source code tagged and released -

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.12.0

Binaries will come soon.

Impressive list up upgrades -

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.12.0/doc/release-notes.md


I will keep running a non pruned full node(to allow others to bootstrap from) but for the first time ever people will be able to fully validate with only ~2GB of Blockchain disk usage.

[Fatman3001]

0.12.0 final source code tagged and released -

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.12.0

Binaries will come soon.

Impressive list up upgrades -

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.12.0/doc/release-notes.md


I will keep running a non pruned full node(to allow others to bootstrap from) but for the first time ever people will be able to fully validate with only ~2GB of Blockchain disk usage.

Lets give it a lick of paint and see what happens.

[BitUsher]

Lets give it a lick of paint and see what happens.

This is how I can tell you are insincere and just trolling. Even Classic Developers support 95% the improvements in 0.12.0 and have been testing a Classic variation for the Earlier Release candidates.(with a small possibility of not including opt in RBF)

[adamstgBit]

"bitcoin dost scale, we need to just accept that and use lighting"

[Fatman3001]

Lets give it a lick of paint and see what happens.

This is how I can tell you are insincere and just trolling. Even Classic Developers support 95% the improvements in 0.12.0 and have been testing a Classic variation for the Earlier Release candidates.(with a small possibility of not including opt in RBF)

I am very sincere. The one thing missing is what we need. NOW!

[Chef Ramsay]

we can all use paypal as a "temporary off-chain solution", ok?

You have to try and empathize with the mind of a new user being introduced to bitcoin and understand that many need to take incremental steps in learning and using it... onramp services like circle and coinbase are well suited to fill this role as they have better support, and handle the complex security for the clients, and the clients have to buy the bitcoins from them anyways so may as well setup a temporary wallet with them too.

Key point. I've long postured that this ball game needs to have a soft landing for all the newcomers and grandmas we're trying to introduce it to. That said, if there's no incentives to use BTC (discounts on products) via merchants then these new folks will have no reason to use it and then we're just stuck w/ speculators and the investment community, which is better than nothing. IOWs, there's a time and place for geek snobbery but when the party shows up, let's tone it down a notch.

[BitUsher]

I am very sincere. The one thing missing is what we need. NOW!

I thought you already have what you need with classic? It has already been released. Meanwhile lets praise and congratulate the great accomplishments of core developers for a moment before getting back to work.

Key point. I've long postured that this ball game needs to have a soft landing for all the newcomers and grandmas we're trying to introduce it to. That said, if there's no incentives to use BTC (discounts on products) via merchants then these new folks will have no reason to use it and then we're just stuck w/ speculators and the investment community, which is better than nothing. IOWs, there's a time and place for geek snobbery but when the party shows up, let's tone it down a notch.

Agreed. My conversations with newcomers off this forum are much different. It is great that coinbase is integrated directly with purse.io and changetip because that means someone can buy bitcoins and immediately save 15-40% off amazon and start tipping all without tx fees and without adding any tx load to the blockchain. This is the first experience I want them to have before we start talking about hardware wallets and other technical details.

[billyjoeallen]

Yeah, it's different, but it's hard to dumb down this conflict for the idiot masses without losing some of the essential elements. It doesn't mean it's an intentionally misleading analogy.

If not intentionally misleading its is downright stupid when a perfectly good analogy is available . Gavin and Brian spouting that nonsense should know better and its disturbing to hear it from them.

To be clear ... this is a far better analogy--

Different browsers = Bitcoin Core, Bitcore, libbitcoin , ect....
Different protocols = TCP/IP and those that suggest we make some changes to make a new internet where existing browsers suddenly become incompatible with it.

Notice how standards that break the functionality of old browsers are rarely , if ever introduced on the internet. I can still run "mosaic-ck" and lynx browser on my linux computer with no problem and while I am unable to see or use all that fancy javascript/css/flash/ect I can use TCP/IP just fine as originally intended and surf the web, send emails, and read text. The internet was built with stacks and layers of technology to insure backward compatibility and a HF is the exact opposite of this. So no, it isn't just an imperfect analogy but one that is extremely misleading.

We want an armored truck, not a safe on castor wheels pulled by a horse.

We are building a tank with hardened steal, exploding anti- tank missile panels, advanced engine and suspension components for maneuverability, and a more efficient engine to carry a larger capacity and more ammo...

You simply want to double the weight of the tank and throw a bigger cc diesel engine in her that guzzles more fuel.   

Perhaps I'm making my opponent's argument for them, but are you familiar with Microsoft's "embrace and extend" strategy to kill off or neuter competing technology? 

Gavin is simply putting names on the ballot. He knows this is an election and only one side will win.  Perhaps he thought that was obvious. 

There is a reason we don't use armored tanks to transport money.  There is a reason why soldiers don't have body armor that weighs 300 pounds and can stop missiles. There is such a thing as too much security. 

$8 worth of security for each and every transaction is too much security for now. Maybe at some point in the future, we'll need that, but we'll never get to that point without the growth than can only come from cheap transactions.

This "field of dreams" business model of smallblockers is baffling.  You don't run a small bank like that, getting a huge vault and then opening for deposits. You get a small vault and you upgrade when you have too many deposits to hold in the small one.

People are not going to pay for security they don't need, particularly when it is provided by Chinese security guards nervously wondering if they are going to get a phone call from the Commies suggesting they take the day off.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Fatman3001]

I am very sincere. The one thing missing is what we need. NOW!

I thought you already have what you need with classic? It has already been released. Meanwhile lets praise and congratulate the great accomplishments of core developers for a moment before getting back to work.

Now who's being insincere?

[adamstgBit]

petter todd

has joined starfleet!

[BitUsher]

$8 worth of security for each and every transaction is too much security for now. Maybe at some point in the future, we'll need that, but we'll never get to that point without the growth than can only come from cheap transactions.

This "field of dreams" business model of smallblockers is baffling.  You don't run a small bank like that, getting a huge vault and then opening for deposits. You get a small vault and you upgrade when you have too many deposits to hold in the small one.

People are not going to pay for security they don't need, particularly when it is provided by Chinese security guards nervously wondering if they are going to get a phone call from the Commies suggesting they take the day off.

The difficult thing about this conversation is that we are repeatedly being misrepresented or misunderstood. Core has already agreed to compromise and kick the can by increasing capacity(they are slowly increasing the "bank" vault just like classic).... which means that you really aren't interested in 2MB, but something much bigger... which at this point in time(remember we want bigger blocks too) would be disastrous for bitcoin. Even by Gavin's own calculations Classic could cause a 40% node drop off (worse case scenario) , this is absolutely unacceptable and we need to start reversing this trend immediately.

It really isn't a choice between on the chain decentralized network with large blocks and a decentralized network of payment channels using the main chain as a settlement network. The first option is impossible to accomplish at Visa levels of tx's , It will never happen, not because of any choices we make , but because the technology is just incapable and any future projected technology is incapable of doing this in a decentralized manner. *

* I am open to the idea of unforeseen radical breakthroughs that completely change technology or black swan events... but lets modify bitcoin if these happen and not expect for them to occur.

[adamstgBit]

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/02/17/hashrate-of-mining-pools-supporting-bitcoin-classic-reach-51/

[BitUsher]

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/02/17/hashrate-of-mining-pools-supporting-bitcoin-classic-reach-51/

Lol... that math doesn't add up. Paid article? They are still listing Miners and pools which specifically stated they will not be using Classic. Really dishonest.

[adamstgBit]

The difficult thing about this conversation is that we are repeatedly being misrepresented or misunderstood. Core has already agreed to compromise and kick the can by increasing capacity.... which means that you really aren't interested in 2MB, but something much bigger... which at this point in time(remember we want bigger blocks too) would be disastrous for bitcoin. Even by Gavin's own calculations Classic could cause a 40% node drop off (worse case scenario) , this is absolutely unacceptable and we need to start reversing this trend immediately.

 segwit is huge, it makes any blocksize effectly double the size

but core is still not budging from 1MB

will they ever?

todd need to come clean, and literally say " we will not increase block size no matter what happens, because we believe in lighting "

[BitUsher]

The difficult thing about this conversation is that we are repeatedly being misrepresented or misunderstood. Core has already agreed to compromise and kick the can by increasing capacity.... which means that you really aren't interested in 2MB, but something much bigger... which at this point in time(remember we want bigger blocks too) would be disastrous for bitcoin. Even by Gavin's own calculations Classic could cause a 40% node drop off (worse case scenario) , this is absolutely unacceptable and we need to start reversing this trend immediately.

 segwit is huge, it makes any blocksize effectly double the size

but core is still not budging from 1MB

will they ever?

todd need to come clean, and literally say " we will not increase block size no matter what happens, because we believe in lighting "

Seriously? Lightning Depends upon radically  larger blocks in the future .... We are talking about 100-200MB blocks. Core has been planning to increase maxblocksize in early 2017... this is old news.

[bargainbin]

We want an armored truck, not a safe on castor wheels pulled by a horse.

We are building a tank with hardened steal, exploding anti- tank missile panels, advanced engine and suspension components for maneuverability, and a more efficient engine to carry a larger capacity and more ammo...

You simply want to double the weight of the tank and throw a bigger cc diesel engine in her that guzzles more fuel.  

Reality:

Core team sits on butt for 7 years, because tanks () don't scale.

With Axis of Evol at the gates, Core chooses to forgo , because "lack security,"

...opting, instead to reinvent tank warfare. By having those WW1 Mark 1s (top speed: 7tps; Cruising speed: 2.7tps) tow a bunch of half-tracks (see: BlitzNetzwerk), which would do that actual fighting.

A scheme analogous to , which we all know worked super good.

Bonus: Troop morale at all-time high, because BlitzNetzwerk development fully funded by Krupp Works.