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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[1714277139]

1714277139

[1714277139]

1714277139

[1714277139]

1714277139

[adamstgBit]

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)

i don't believe you.

[8up]

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)

i don't believe you.

me not either.

[adamstgBit]

https://youtu.be/8zVzw912wPo?t=16m22s

[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)

i don't believe you.

I'm talking about the UI experience, of course what happens behind the scenes is different. This is the same as what will happen when segwit rolls out. All upgraded wallets will send and receive tx the same for the user perspective , but behind the scenes there are now 2 merkle trees. LN is intended to use existing technologies that have already been added to bitcoin . CLTV and multisig ... and wallet providers will be onboard with integrating wallets to process LN txs so there is no learning curve..

What don't you believe , specifically? Do you assume Wallet devs will make it unnecessarily complicated for no reason in order to confuse users?

me not either.

Elaborate ..

Perhaps you guys are getting confused because in these presentations Poon is using terms like Alice, Bob, and Eve ... these terms do not refer to what the humans are actually thinking when a tx occurs, these presentations are intended for developers to understand the concepts .

[bargainbin]

Blitz Netwerken ready in Two Weeks^TM then?

[adamstgBit]

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)

i don't believe you.

I'm talking about the UI experience, of course what happens behind the scenes is different. This is the same as what will happen when segwit rolls out. All upgraded wallets will send and receive tx the same for the user perspective , but behind the scenes there are now 2 merkle trees. LN is intended to use existing technologies that have already been added to bitcoin . CLTV and multisig ... and wallet providers will be onboard with integrating wallets to process LN txs so there is no learning curve..

What don't you believe , specifically? Do you assume Wallet devs will make it unnecessarily complicated for no reason in order to confuse users?

no, i believe the compilation will be necessary

BOB needs to know R and H, and alice needs to know what button to push to make R and the button calculated H to give bob, but if bob is uncoraptive we'll need to check section 2345.3 of the docs to figure out exactly what we can do about that

[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.

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

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Perhaps you can explain to a layman how transactions are routed keeping in mind that if it is not distributed, you're just trading Bitcoin IOUs with a middleman. 

I can already buy stuff at Overstock.com with Bitcoin IOUs completely off chain from my Coinbase account. How the hell do I know Coinbase isn't operating a fractional reserve like Gox? (kind of off the subject, but CB did give away a heluva lot of coins in promotions). This is exactly the type of situation Bitcoin was created to prevent. 

Proof of burn isn't sufficient because even if you can prove solvency, you have a censorship vulnerability without distributed servers. So how do you pay the distributed servers without taking fee money away from the miners? 

and even if if if you can answer all these questions satisfactorily, what good is it when the Chinese Powers have the ability to control the mines, meaning the only reason they haven't launched a 51% attack yet is because they don't want to.

If your focus is to keep the main network rock solid enough to build layers on top, do that.  Address the concentrated mining problem. THEN we can argue about scaling. 

[BitUsher]

no, i believe the compilation will be necessary

BOB needs to know R and H, and alice needs to know what button to push to make R and the button calculated H to give bob, but if bob is uncoraptive we'll need to check section 2345.3 of the docs to figure out exactly what we can do about that

All of that can be automated behind the scenes and the worst possible outcome is the consumer has to wait for the tx to be unfrozen if they want to make an antiquated direct Tx , or if they want to switch from the LN payment channel to Bitpays competing Impulse payment channel network, or they want to sell their BTC for an altcoin.

You understand that the example given of Bob and alice where the funds are locked with multisig and CLTV isn't going to really happen typically because it wouldn't be useful, right? These examples are merely simplified to easier understand. In reality there are going to be layers of multisig where ones funds are locked for 6 months to one person and one can tx with a very large group of people where some people come and go in ones payment channel.

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Perhaps you can explain to a layman how transactions are routed keeping in mind that if it is not distributed, you're just trading Bitcoin IOUs with a middleman. 

I don't think its possible to explain it to you...based upon some of your comments you seem to ignore my explanations where I already answer them. No problem , keep shorting away your Bitcoins and we will see in late 2016 how the LN turns out.

[adamstgBit]

no, i believe the compilation will be necessary

BOB needs to know R and H, and alice needs to know what button to push to make R and the button calculated H to give bob, but if bob is uncoraptive we'll need to check section 2345.3 of the docs to figure out exactly what we can do about that

All of that can be automated behind the scenes and the worst possible outcome is the consumer has to wait for the tx to be unfrozen if they want to make an antiquated direct Tx , or if they want to switch from the LN payment channel to Bitpays competing Impulse payment channel network, or they want to sell their BTC for an altcoin.

You understand that the example given of Bob and alice where the funds are locked with multisig and CLTV isn't going to really happen typically because it wouldn't be useful, right? These examples are merely simplified to easier understand. In reality there are going to be layers of multisig where ones funds are locked for 6 months to one person and one can tx with a very large group of people where some people come and go in ones payment channel.

watch and learn buddy.

[8up]

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)

i don't believe you.

I'm talking about the UI experience, of course what happens behind the scenes is different. This is the same as what will happen when segwit rolls out. All upgraded wallets will send and receive tx the same for the user perspective , but behind the scenes there are now 2 merkle trees. LN is intended to use existing technologies that have already been added to bitcoin . CLTV and multisig ... and wallet providers will be onboard with integrating wallets to process LN txs so there is no learning curve..

What don't you believe , specifically? Do you assume Wallet devs will make it unnecessarily complicated for no reason in order to confuse users?

me not either.

Elaborate ..

Perhaps you guys are getting confused because in these presentations Poon is using terms like Alice, Bob, and Eve ... these terms do not refer to what the humans are actually thinking when a tx occurs, these presentations are intended for developers to understand the concepts .

Don't have time for a longer answer now.

LN will have its own adoption cycle. It won't go from 0 to 100 - even if there are massive fees in BTC. On top of that, complexity is a killer in the adoption phase (more so than de/centralization). And in the meanwhile you have plenty of other cryptos willing to take the extra load off the bitcoin blockchain, getting stronger and more secure in the process.

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see LN beeing a big success. But having a role-out within a few month and beeing adopted is two completley differnt things.

[tomothy]

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Perhaps you can explain to a layman how transactions are routed keeping in mind that if it is not distributed, you're just trading Bitcoin IOUs with a middleman. 
what good is it when the Chinese Powers have the ability to control the mines, meaning the only reason they haven't launched a 51% attack yet is because they don't want to.
If your focus is to keep the main network rock solid enough to build layers on top, do that.  Address the concentrated mining problem. THEN we can argue about scaling. 

LN isn't distributed. There is no satisfactory answer to this issue yet. (AFAIK). I think that's what /nullc was reluctantly admitting.
So, essentially, by adopting LN using a centralized authority, you are allowing bitcoin to be co-opted and trading decentralization for an alleged scaling solution. I dunno, this seems insidious. Seems like 2mbs is safer and less co-option but what do I know, i use coinbase so my voice doesn't matter and i'm not a bitcoiner... (bought a trezor... Soon...)

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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)

i don't believe you.

I'm talking about the UI experience, of course what happens behind the scenes is different. This is the same as what will happen when segwit rolls out. All upgraded wallets will send and receive tx the same for the user perspective , but behind the scenes there are now 2 merkle trees. LN is intended to use existing technologies that have already been added to bitcoin . CLTV and multisig ... and wallet providers will be onboard with integrating wallets to process LN txs so there is no learning curve..

What don't you believe , specifically? Do you assume Wallet devs will make it unnecessarily complicated for no reason in order to confuse users?

me not either.

Elaborate ..

Perhaps you guys are getting confused because in these presentations Poon is using terms like Alice, Bob, and Eve ... these terms do not refer to what the humans are actually thinking when a tx occurs, these presentations are intended for developers to understand the concepts .

Don't have time for a longer answer now.

LN will have its own adoption cycle. It won't go from 0 to 100 - even if there are massive fees in BTC. On top of that, complexity is a killer in the adoption phase (more so than de/centralization). And in the meanwhile you have plenty of other cryptos willing to take the extra load off the bitcoin blockchain, getting stronger and more secure in the process.

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see LN beeing a big success. But having a role-out within a few month and beeing adopted is two completley differnt things.

Peter Todd seems to be fond of Moneros. Maybe they can adopt that.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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.  

Post of the day right there...  

[BitUsher]

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see LN beeing a big success. But having a role-out within a few month and beeing adopted is two completley differnt things.

No one is suggesting it being widely adopted in 2016, or 2017... I said it rolls out in 2016(from a sidechain testnet to a live bitcoin testnet). LN won't become useful until the capacity is much bigger (4-8MB at least) reinforcing my point why the blocksize needs to grow dramatically for the LN to be viable. Which kinda blows up the whole conspiracy theory that Blockstream is delaying the blocksize repeatedly as a stalling tactic because they never want it to grow.

[adamstgBit]

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see LN beeing a big success. But having a role-out within a few month and beeing adopted is two completley differnt things.

No one is suggesting it being widely adopted in 2016, or 2017... I said it rolls out in 2016(from a sidechain testnet to a live bitcoin testnet). LN won't become useful until the capacity is much bigger (4-8MB at least) reinforcing my point why the blocksize needs to grow dramatically for the LN to be viable. Which kinda blows up the whole conspiracy theory that Blockstream is delaying the blocksize repeatedly as a stalling tactic because they never want it to grow.

i'd love to hear you and todd talk about this.

[billyjoeallen]

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Perhaps you can explain to a layman how transactions are routed keeping in mind that if it is not distributed, you're just trading Bitcoin IOUs with a middleman. 

I don't think its possible to explain it to you...based upon some of your comments you seem to ignore my explanations where I already answer them. No problem , keep shorting away your Bitcoins and we will see in late 2016 how the LN turns out.

You don't understand. I'm shorting as a hedge.. I WANT you to blow up my short.

[adamstgBit]

billyjoeallen's short doesn't seem so ridiculous today.

[AlexGR]

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.

The underlined part does not match real world experience of the last 20 years:

1995: Pentium 100 / 4-16MB RAM / 800mb - 2GB disks / dialup and ISDN connections at speeds like XX kbps
2015: multicore i7s / 4-16GB RAM / 1TB-4TB disks / home connections in XX mbps+.

We are seeing 1000x in processing, ram, storage, internet - and we are really getting those incrementally, not as radical breakthroughs.

If the software can currently do something like 10tx/s (with 2MB blocks + segwit), then with 1000x in hardware (and no change in software), just on the current trendline of tech progression, we'll be seeing 10.000 tx/sec by 2035 and hundreds of thousands of tx/sec further ahead.

If you add software improvements, breakthrough advances (?), or tapping new resources (like GPU processing which is already >10x the CPU processing power) for General Purpose computing tasks like validation, real time compression etc), we might get there far earlier.

QC-resistance may be one of the factors that regresses scaling if it employs a bloated scheme, otherwise it's a certainty that massive scaling *will* happen. Just not now - it'll take time.

[hdbuck]

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see LN beeing a big success. But having a role-out within a few month and beeing adopted is two completley differnt things.

No one is suggesting it being widely adopted in 2016, or 2017... I said it rolls out in 2016(from a sidechain testnet to a live bitcoin testnet). LN won't become useful until the capacity is much bigger (4-8MB at least) reinforcing my point why the blocksize needs to grow dramatically for the LN to be viable. Which kinda blows up the whole conspiracy theory that Blockstream is delaying the blocksize repeatedly as a stalling tactic because they never want it to grow.

why does people still clinging on to the idea bitcoin *needs* to scale or be instant or nearly free to be valuable?