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

[bitebits]

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.

Jimbo never gets involved in politics.

Well he gave up on the coffee though trying not to offend people. A true loss if you ask me, never give up on your morning coffee.

[1714260582]

1714260582

[1714260582]

1714260582

[1714260582]

1714260582

[1714260582]

1714260582

[1714260582]

1714260582

[1714260582]

1714260582

[blunderer]

...
and LN allows allows us to incentivize nodes as well.
...

Interesting altcoin idea. How about
>>>/altcoin discussion/ ?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[bargainbin]

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.

And if my wallet is empty by the time the IOU is called? Shit out of luck?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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.

Jimbo never gets involved in politics.

Well he gave up on the coffee though trying not to offend people. A true loss if you ask me, never give up on your morning coffee.

I’ll tell you a secret most folks don’t know about Jimbo. He’s paid to do that by the coffee lobby. (They have a lot more pull in Washington than you’d think.)

http://www.integritea.org/ethics/462

[mOgliE]

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.

This seems really awesome but if there is no third party then will miners become useless? And more important, how are the Tx's assured without third party confirmation? Maybe you have a link to some doc I'm not sure you want to explain everything here ^^

[Fatman3001]

@adam Are you the anti-semite or is it Blitz?

Why did you delete my jstreet post?

What kind of nazi hell is this?

[JayJuanGee]

when he says "give companies time to transition" he means "give companies that rely on cheep transaction,time to close up shop, becuase lighting wont be ready for years"

it feels like he knows lighting won't be ready in time, so he needs to HOLD back any blocksize increase now because he knows once we start to bump it up and the system doesn't implode we'll just keep doing it, and lighting will be drastically less useful.

I don't get it. You start bitching AFTER non-core has lost?

i was bitching from day 1

but at one point i though core hinted that they would eventually bump up block limit, that + segwit , and i was sold.

i was hoping this interview would confrim that Eventually core is willing to rise block size

but he seems hell bend on finding ( or flat out making up ) problems with rising blocksize and saying that the trade off isn't worth it.

this kinda fucking pissed me off.

EVERYONE wants bigger blocks, except for these guys, and it's not because they are all knowing gods and know what's best for us. there are many poeple that understand the nitty gritty details who agree bigger blocks is safe.

Show me 1 person that isn't involved with blockstreem, saying 1mb is as far as bitcoin should ever go. the only reason core is still in power is due to first mover adv. IMO

From what little I know at this time, I'm not very convinced that lightning network is any kind of meaningful solution to long term overall bitcoin transactions (supposedly securely accomplished largely off of the blockchain); however, seg wit seems to be a great next step, and really, we do not know how seg wit is going to play out.

It could be that seg wit really ends up buying a lot of time because of the way that it separates (and removes) less essential aspects from the security (financial) portion of the blockchain.  

In any event, I did not like the way that Todd seemed to reframe the question and to assert that seg wit is the same as a blocksize increase, even though I ultimately agree with his conclusion that a blocksize is not needed at this time and there is not exactly an emergency, at this time to justify planning an exact commitment to a blocksize increase.

I believe that no one can really predict exactly how all of this scaling is going to play out, because we gotta get segwit first and then see how lightning network develops and is proposed because in the end, maybe lightning network is not going to get implemented.

[bargainbin]

@BitUsher: Still waiting for your reply.

...
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.

And if my wallet is empty when the IOU is called? Shit out of luck?

[billyjoeallen]

Uh, I'm not an expert, but doesn't Lightning Network have a routing problem? And by problem, I mean in the sense that pigs have a flying problem.

So to sum up:

Bigblockers think technology will happen that will solve the node harddrive bloat problem and we are ridiculed by people who think technology will happen to solve LN's routing problem for the reason that we can't count on tech that hasn't been invented yet. Hmmmm.

[adamstgBit]

@adam Are you the anti-semite or is it Blitz?

Why did you delete my jstreet post?

What kind of nazi hell is this?

i didnt delete any post.

i rarely delete a post, it's really gotta be completely shit for me to hit delete.

[Fatman3001]

Uh, I'm not an expert, but doesn't Lightning Network have a routing problem? And by problem, I mean in the sense that pigs have a flying problem.

So to sum up:

Bigblockers think technology will happen that will solve the node harddrive bloat problem and we are ridiculed by people who think technology will happen to solve LN's routing problem for the reason that we can't count on tech that hasn't been invented yet. Hmmmm.

Or, bigblockers just think that LN will come in its own time and should be judged according to what it is then. And in the meantime the network should be allowed to grow uninhibited.

[Fatman3001]

@adam Are you the anti-semite or is it Blitz?

Why did you delete my jstreet post?

What kind of nazi hell is this?

i didnt delete any post.

i rarely delete a post, it's really gotta be completely shit for me to hit delete.

Ok, so Blitz stands for:



Or just short for Blitzkrieg.

I thought it was in sympathy to The Blitz.

Silly me.

[bargainbin]

^Blitzkrieg = Lightning Network? My German is shit.

[adamstgBit]

when he says "give companies time to transition" he means "give companies that rely on cheep transaction,time to close up shop, becuase lighting wont be ready for years"

it feels like he knows lighting won't be ready in time, so he needs to HOLD back any blocksize increase now because he knows once we start to bump it up and the system doesn't implode we'll just keep doing it, and lighting will be drastically less useful.

I don't get it. You start bitching AFTER non-core has lost?

i was bitching from day 1

but at one point i though core hinted that they would eventually bump up block limit, that + segwit , and i was sold.

i was hoping this interview would confrim that Eventually core is willing to rise block size

but he seems hell bend on finding ( or flat out making up ) problems with rising blocksize and saying that the trade off isn't worth it.

this kinda fucking pissed me off.

EVERYONE wants bigger blocks, except for these guys, and it's not because they are all knowing gods and know what's best for us. there are many poeple that understand the nitty gritty details who agree bigger blocks is safe.

Show me 1 person that isn't involved with blockstreem, saying 1mb is as far as bitcoin should ever go. the only reason core is still in power is due to first mover adv. IMO

From what little I know at this time, I'm not very convinced that lightning network is any kind of meaningful solution to long term overall bitcoin transactions (supposedly securely accomplished largely off of the blockchain); however, seg wit seems to be a great next step, and really, we do not know how seg wit is going to play out.

It could be that seg wit really ends up buying a lot of time because of the way that it separates (and removes) less essential aspects from the security (financial) portion of the blockchain.  

In any event, I did not like the way that Todd seemed to reframe the question and to assert that seg wit is the same as a blocksize increase, even though I ultimately agree with his conclusion that a blocksize is not needed at this time and there is not exactly an emergency, at this time to justify planning an exact commitment to a blocksize increase.

I believe that no one can really predict exactly how all of this scaling is going to play out, because we gotta get segwit first and then see how lightning network develops and is proposed because in the end, maybe lightning network is not going to get implemented.

https://youtu.be/fBS_ieDwQ9k?t=26m49s
how are you not convinced by the alice and bob story?

[BitUsher]

This seems really awesome but if there is no third party then will miners become useless? And more important, how are the Tx's assured without third party confirmation? Maybe you have a link to some doc I'm not sure you want to explain everything here ^^

Miners are still needed because the LN is dependent upon the main chain. Most of the TX fees would be going to the miners as well .

Example - Lightning node handles 100k txs per hour, takes an extremely small cut of the txs amounting to a gross revenue of 30 dollars per month , 15-25 going towards expenses and the rest realized net profit. Most of the tx revenue has to be forwarded to the miners where they get extremely high tx fees revenues of eventually increasing to at least 6-7 dollars per tx once the block reward decreases to 0 while the users only pay a couple pennies per tx. Even with 6-7 (eventually) tx fees on the mainchain the consumer only pays a couple pennies per tx because each one of the settlement tx = more than ~350 LN txs.

https://lightning.network/

Uh, I'm not an expert, but doesn't Lightning Network have a routing problem? And by problem, I mean in the sense that pigs have a flying problem.

So to sum up:

Bigblockers think technology will happen that will solve the node harddrive bloat problem and we are ridiculed by people who think technology will happen to solve LN's routing problem for the reason that we can't count on tech that hasn't been invented yet. Hmmmm.

We are way past the whitepaper sir and have working code. Its open source and available for all to see.

https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning
https://github.com/LightningNetwork/lnd

It is disingenuous to talk about technical limitations that don't exist or insinuate LN is vaporware when we already have code written that you can install yourself.

https://youtu.be/fBS_ieDwQ9k?t=26m49s
how are you not convinced by the alice and bob story?

Alice, bob , and Eve are commonly used placeholder names in cryptography and game theory. Any questions in general?

[adamstgBit]

This seems really awesome but if there is no third party then will miners become useless? And more important, how are the Tx's assured without third party confirmation? Maybe you have a link to some doc I'm not sure you want to explain everything here ^^

Miners are still needed because the LN is dependent upon the main chain. Most of the TX fees would be going to the miners as much higher.

Example - Lightning node handles 100k txs per hour, takes an extremely small cut of the txs amounting to a gross revenue of 30 dollars per month , 15-25 going towards expenses and the rest realized net profit. Most of the tx revenue has to be forwarded to the miners where they get extremely high tx fees revenues of eventually increasing to at least 6-7 dollars per tx once the block reward decreases to 0 while the users only pay a couple pennies per tx.

https://lightning.network/

Uh, I'm not an expert, but doesn't Lightning Network have a routing problem? And by problem, I mean in the sense that pigs have a flying problem.

So to sum up:

Bigblockers think technology will happen that will solve the node harddrive bloat problem and we are ridiculed by people who think technology will happen to solve LN's routing problem for the reason that we can't count on tech that hasn't been invented yet. Hmmmm.

We are way past the whitepaper sir and have working code. Its open source and available for all to see.

https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning
https://github.com/LightningNetwork/lnd

It is disingenuous to talk about technical limitations that don't exist or insinuate LN is vaporware when we already have code written that you can install yourself.

it's just to complicated to use.

maybe some crazy framework can use this for some ODD reason, but i just can't see paying for my morning coffee with this mess.

[matrix zion]

@adam Are you the anti-semite or is it Blitz?

Why did you delete my jstreet post?

What kind of nazi hell is this?

i didnt delete any post.

i rarely delete a post, it's really gotta be completely shit for me to hit delete.

Ok, so Blitz stands for:



Or just short for Blitzkrieg.

I thought it was in sympathy to The Blitz.

Silly me.

Wow wow wow it goes a bit far here ^^

[BitUsher]

it's just to complicated to use.

maybe some crazy framework can use this for some ODD reason, but i just can't see paying for my morning coffee with this mess.

The protocols , stacks of code, layers of scripting languages that make up the internet are far, far more complicated than the LN and the average grandmother can look at videos of cats on the internet just fine even though she doesn't have a clue how it happens.

When you do the math , the reality is , this isn't a question of choice... we either throw away bitcoin and create centralized databases to handle visa levels of txs or we change bitcoin into a settlement layer. Developers aren't choosing this because they can , they are simply realizing this is the only viable means to make bitcoin scale otherwise it can never go mainstream.

The user won't have to think about the LN ... to them they will be maiking a bitcoin payment and receiving the funds immediately just like now ... there will be no change to the user experience with buying coffee except they will have 2 benefits:
1) Tx conf will be instant ... no waiting every ~10min
2) Tx cannot be double spent like they can now with coinbase/bitpay

BTW ... ETA for LN is scheduled to begin roll out 3rd quarter this year (and only because Core likes to test everything extremely thoroughly)

[tomothy]

I thought it was confirmed that LN is still broken, despite the existence of code. My understanding is that it isn't "trust-less" or "decentralized" and depends on a central authority. So, is it like adding ripple to bitcoin...?I thought G.Maxwell reluctantly conceded that it hasn't completely been figured out how to get rid of the central authority and trust issue. If I recall, his response to this line of questioning was, it doesn't work now but we'll fix it and it will work in the future.

I.e., LTC to Gox! Soon! Is this correct in paraphrasing?

FYI, I'm having a sale on bridges. Especially the golden ones...