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

[hdbuck]

there goes the 1000ish free AWS Crassic node setup guide: https://archive.is/3csxM

you might wanna give it a try adam.

[1714258237]

1714258237

[1714258237]

1714258237

[1714258237]

1714258237

[1714258237]

1714258237

[1714258237]

1714258237

[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 "

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.

Seriously?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

There are many of us that are so secure about this future that we are willing to make exceptional sacrifices to make it happen.

If you were 'secure' you wouldn't need to work so hard. You are as far from "secure" as you are ever likely to be.

I'd say "scared shitless that the common dross realise that you are lying to them" would be a more accurate assessment.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

WTF does that mean? This isn't one of your anarcap hugging sessions. Are you going to suicide bomb MIT or are you going to drink an extra can of Red Bull and code a bit more?

Why would violence even be an option if you know I follow the non-aggression principle ? You have a very odd perception of our values. We are very motivated to keep the true nature and purpose of bitcoin alive...

You are sounding more and more like a Cultist every day.

There are many of us that are so secure about this future that we are willing to make exceptional sacrifices to make it happen.

[mOgliE]

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.  

Lol! If that's btc right now I'm not sure I'm so confident any more 

[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 "

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.

Seriously?

lighting will mean bitcoin main chain wont need to scale.

lighting will require main chain to scale.

make up your minds, and or stop lying.

[billyjoeallen]

$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.

That's not true. I am interested in bigger increases IF we can do it safely and securely. The issue is that i don't trust core to follow through on their planned increases at all. If they were selfishly interested in throttling the network so that they can make money on their LN side chain regardless of who it hurt, how would they be acting any differently than they are now?

Let's say your girlfriend wants to get married and you have no intention of ever doing it. What do you do? If you're a douchebag, you know that the honest answer will mean you won't get laid, so the solution is to stall so you can keep having sex with her as long as possible. At some point, the girlfriend has to stop fucking until you buy a ring. That's where we're at now. The problem is we keep buying bitcoin (putting out), so douchebag Core keeps on stalling.

SegWit is just ring shopping in the cheapest jewelry store in town. It's not exactly overwhelming evidence of commitment.

[BitUsher]

Seriously?

Yes, its in the Lightning Whitepaper and The Core HF has been discussed in the original scaling roadmap (flexcap) with ongoing discussions with another kick the can in Early 2017.

Any questions?

That's not true. I am interested in bigger increases IF we can do it safely and securely. The issue is that i don't trust core to follow through on their planned increases at all. If they were selfishly interested in throttling the network so that they can make money on their LN side chain regardless of who it hurt, how would they be acting any differently than they are now?

Let's say your girlfriend want to get married and you have no intention of ever doing it. What do you do? If you're a douchebag, you know that the honest answer is to stall so you can keep having sex with her as long as possible. At some point, the girlfriend has to stop fucking until you buy a ring. That's where we're at now. The problem is we keep buying bitcoin (putting out), so Douchebag core keeps on stalling.

SegWit is just ring shopping in the cheapest jewelry store in town. It's not exactly overwhelming evidence of commitment.

Not a fair analogy , because I am not committed to core or blockstream. Core isn't a company either but a dynamic set of developers contributing in an open source manner from many backgrounds and different interests.

The moment Core or blockstream betrays its principles , is the moment we push for a fork. LN isn;t controlled by blockstream , wasn't invented by blockstream, and is open source and freely available... so there is no need to start speculating on conspiracy theories. There is no code in LN that gives blockstream or core special privileges. Anyone will be able to easily run a LN node.

[adamstgBit]

Seriously?

Yes, its in the Lightning Whitepaper and The Core HF has been discussed in the original scaling roadmap (flexcap) with ongoing discussions with another kick the can in Early 2017.

Any questions?

wtf is the point of lighting again?

[Fatman3001]

Seriously?

Yes, its in the Lightning Whitepaper and The Core HF has been discussed in the original scaling roadmap (flexcap) with ongoing discussions with another kick the can in Early 2017.

Any questions?

wtf is the point of lighting again?

He's blowing smoke up your ass. Or someone is blowing smoke up his ass.

[adamstgBit]

Seriously?

Yes, its in the Lightning Whitepaper and The Core HF has been discussed in the original scaling roadmap (flexcap) with ongoing discussions with another kick the can in Early 2017.

Any questions?

wtf is the point of lighting again?

He's blowing smoke up your ass. Or someone is blowing smoke up his ass.

i know!
but why!?!?!



if it's true that lighting will require the main chain to scale 2 orders of magnitude

why is todd saying its the best solution as is pushes scaling to the high level? another lie?

[becoin]

Impressive list up upgrades -

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

Very impressive list of upgrades indeed. Big blocktards have no chance with their classic altcoin fork.

[Fatman3001]

Seriously?

Yes, its in the Lightning Whitepaper and The Core HF has been discussed in the original scaling roadmap (flexcap) with ongoing discussions with another kick the can in Early 2017.

Any questions?

wtf is the point of lighting again?

He's blowing smoke up your ass. Or someone is blowing smoke up his ass.

i know!

but why!?!?!

If they tell the truth they will get pummeled.

Core isn't that united.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Seriously?

Yes, its in the Lightning Whitepaper and The Core HF has been discussed in the original scaling roadmap (flexcap) with ongoing discussions with another kick the can in Early 2017.

Any questions?

wtf is the point of lighting again?

He's blowing smoke up your ass. Or someone is blowing smoke up his ass.

i know!
but why!?!?!



if it's true that lighting will require the main chain to scale 2 orders of magnitude

why is todd saying its the best solution as is pushes scaling to the high level? another lie?

Great. Now Adam's a spy.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/butterfly-labs-bitcoin-asics-miners-ftc-settlement-scam

[adamstgBit]

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/butterfly-labs-bitcoin-asics-miners-ftc-settlement-scam

trying to change to topic?

[BitUsher]

wtf is the point of lighting again?

if it's true that lighting will require the main chain to scale 2 orders of magnitude

why is todd saying its the best solution as is pushes scaling to the high level? another lie?

LN isn't a 1 to 1 scaling solution like simply increasing the blocksize , but a p2p on the chain caching layer which can dramatically increase the amount of txs .

Look at the whitepaper and slides.

LN will allow for 133MB blocks to have ~unlimited Tx's
Simply raising maxBlockSize to 133MB will only give us 931 TPS

and LN allows allows us to incentivize nodes as well.

We cannot compete with Visa by simply increasing maxBlockSize in TPS... impossible without some radically never thought of before technology. We can if we use smart payment channels. It really is that simple.

[mOgliE]

wtf is the point of lighting again?

if it's true that lighting will require the main chain to scale 2 orders of magnitude

why is todd saying its the best solution as is pushes scaling to the high level? another lie?

LN isn't a 1 to 1 scaling solution like simply increasing the blocksize , but a p2p on the chain caching layer which can dramatically increase the amount of txs .

Look at the whitepaper and slides.

LN will allow for 133MB blocks to have ~unlimited Tx's
Simply raising maxBlockSize to 133MB will only give us 931 TPS

and LN allows allows us to incentivize nodes as well.

We cannot compete with Visa by simply increasing maxBlockSize in TPS... impossible without some radically never thought of before technology. We can if we use smart payment channels. It really is that simple.

I don't understand. Isn't the size of blocks the limit for number of tx?

Even if you change the network, a XMB block can still contain only an amount of Tx's proportionnal to X no?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/butterfly-labs-bitcoin-asics-miners-ftc-settlement-scam

trying to change to topic?

Great. Now I'm spy.

[BitUsher]

I don't understand. Isn't the size of blocks the limit for number of tx?

Even if you change the network, a XMB block can still contain only an amount of Tx's proportionnal to X no?

No , the LN is a extremely efficient caching layer that doesn't involve trusting third parties and can settle much higher txs.
To help you understand it I will use an analogy... You are playing a game of poker with your friends and instead of settling up between all 20 games in a tournament, you use a special program that automatically locks and remembers all debts in a trustless and secure manner between games so the only txs you need to perform is buying the chips initially and cashing out at the end of the night. At any time you can quickly look up and see your balance and be assured that it is impossible for others to take it or manipulate your earnings.

All Tx's happen instantly , do not depend upon trusted third parties or sidechains, or altcoins, but use bitcoin directly in a secure manner with the assumption there are adversarial parties trying to game the system. Ln also solves the problems payment processors have with double spends upon 0 conf which exist even without RBF enabled.