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

[billyjoeallen]

but it can't be sustainable until TWO very serious problems are fixed: Mining concentration and scaling. Of the two, scaling is actually the easy one.

Who cares? We shall see new high above $1200 by the end of the year.

That's like trying to predict the weather a month from now. It's unknowable because things have to happen that can't be predicted.

You may be right IF

We don't have a fullblockalypse. (probable without at least a SW upgrade)
The ChiComs don't launch a 51% attack (unlikely but possible)
a terrorist attack hasn't been found to be funded with Bitcoin
No more MtGox type exchange implosions
MtGox Bankruptcy (200K!) coins aren't sold to satisfy creditors
We don't have a wave of hacker extortions that trigger a widescale crackdown
Satoshi doesn't move his coins
An Altcoin doesn't overcome Bitcoins first mover advantage
Bitcoin doesn't fork contentiously making two chains that both somehow survive (extremely unlikely)
An unknown vulnerability of the code isn't found and exploited
some completely out of the blue Black Swan doesn't take us out in some way nobody has even thought of yet.

[1714236859]

1714236859

[1714236859]

1714236859

[1714236859]

1714236859

[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.

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

I believe that part of my point is that we cannot know exactly how lightning network is going to be implemented or even if it is going to be implemented because it is quite a ways down the road.   Yes, there are various core supporters who are working on various aspects of lightning network and even attempting to commercialize aspects of it, if it does become the road that we go down.  But really, it seems that we are quite a ways from that point yet, no? 

For example, seg wit needs to be implemented and we have to see how seg wit plays out, then attempts for lightning network to be built upon bitcoin after seg wit has been implemented.  And, really, there have been quite a few people questioning the extent to which lightning network will be secure, especially if the transactions are occurring off chain and then some of that value either would potentially fall into the hands of a third party entity or alternatively be taking place on a subnetwork that is exponentially less secure than the blockchain.

Sure it is possible that some of these ingenious minds will find ways to keep lightning network trustless and secure - and maybe even considering ways in which some of the vast computing power of bitcoin could be tapped into in order to also ensure security of such off chain transactions.  Yes, any of us are going to become skeptical if we believe that there may be insider trading or attempts to allocate value to some companies in place of other companies.  Yet, in the end, we already know that part of any quasi-free market system is going to have some financial incentives that cause people to contribute value with an expected ability to profit in some ways from that contribution later.

[JayJuanGee]

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

Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s...


So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s?

Yeah, I'm guessing too.   

[adamstgBit]

todd's crap about 2MB adversely affecting the mining landscape is insulting. does anyone actually believe that?

every time i've ask poeple to show me 1 small minner not already mining at a pool, they turn to poop throwing.

I'd like to see todd throw some poop, or admit he misspoke.

Are you reading into his comments ? Where did he say that solo miners would need to flee to pools at 2MB ?

Are you going to also accuse Gavin of lying when he suggests there could be up to a 40% node drop off (solo miners run full nodes too) worse possible outcome with 2MB blocksizes?

yes i am forced to read between the lines a bit

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-bitcoin-game-34-bitcoin-core-dev-peter-todd
@ 19:30

he doesn't give a specific MB number at which point this problems a real problem for miners
but to me ( given everything else he says ) he's using to reasoning to justify not bumping the limit ever.

[adamstgBit]

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

Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s...


So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s?

Yeah, I'm guessing too.   

if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size
shit could hit the fan? who knows...

[AlexGR]

Where are you getting your data that we have seem a 1000x increase in bandwidth and network propagation times between 95 and 2015?

I was actually using the internet back in '95 so my personal first hand experience is the data.

To give you an idea, back in '95, my entire country was connected to the Internet through 2 major ISPs. Their total connectivity added up to ....512 KBPS, which had to be shared to >5000 users who were using dialup (typically 14.4 to 28.8 kbps - although a bad phone line could drop that rate dramatically) or leased lines (64kbps). Today total connectivity is in line with the 1000x figure (at least 500 gbps). My home connection exceeds x1000 gains if I connect to a VDSL and is at 500x-1000x with ADSL.

The exception that breaks the rule.

Ok, well you were under a very specific circumstance of a country that didn't adopt the internet as quickly. Keep in mind that in other parts of the world things were much different.

Actually I was far better (in Europe) than most parts of the world.

The only place where speeds were better than Europe was the US. But that didn't involve international traffic (which is what the Internet is about), only domestic traffic - because, in a sense, the majority of Internet content, websites, etc were mostly US-based so the traffic was local to the US.

Still, back in '95, dialup modems were pretty regular for home use in the USA too. There was no ...FTTH and ADSL was on the ...horizon: http://s29.postimg.org/q0hlsbb8n/DSC00023.jpg (Byte / Jan 1996)

so If we were to use just fixed bandwidth the numbers would be close to 50% per year... so would you be ok with a 50% a year blocksize increase? Of course , IMHO , we should be much more conservative than that because propagation time and network latency isn't also increasing at the same rates and really important networks like TOR are also not increasing at the same rates.

You have to remember that user adoption is on a curve which is much faster than technological progression, so less than what the technology is able to give you won't cut it. But allowing spam won't cut it either. So I'd like to have as much as possible, the sooner it becomes technologically feasible, with one slight twist: Serious minimum fees that prevent network abuse for the lolz.

As for latency, latency of miliseconds in a network that operates in 10m windows, is relatively ok. If we are talking about propagation delay, then transmission speed (which has the tendency to scale) plays a huge role. If you have networks that transfer files 10x as fast, you get the job done quicker, thus lowering the propagation time singificantly.

[JayJuanGee]

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

Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s...


So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s?

Yeah, I'm guessing too.    

if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size
shit could hit the fan? who knows...

Yeah, but Todd is just one of the voices of the core supporters.  Maybe he is vocalizing the general direction of core, but really if he were to assert "never" anything related to blocksize, he is going to be discredited, no?  I mean any "never" is conditioned on a large number of variables, and if he were just expecting that there are going to be other work arounds, he really does not know how it is going to play out 6 months from now or even 2 years from now.  So "never" may end up translating into 6 months, when conditions change, and when the situation needs to be reevaluated, no?



Adam, you really seem to be getting caught up on this Peter Todd thing and even this sense of emergency that we need 2mb now... it's as if you and BJA have traded accounts, because at the moment, even BJA is sounding a bit more measured.   hahahahahhaha

[billyjoeallen]

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

Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s...


So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s?

Yeah, I'm guessing too.   

if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size
shit could hit the fan? who knows...

Short term, that would do it, but if he really has no intention of ever touching it and says so, then we could get on with this. We are being strung along. 

OTOH, If Core makes it clear that there will be a 2MB hardfork within six months, then both Classic and my short are dust.

What is most likely is that there will be more noncommittal hemming and hawing and a slow realization that we have been played once again. As Classic approaches 50% of nodes, expect a crash. 

Markets hate uncertainty. That is what you want to bet against, not any particular outcome.

[adamstgBit]

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

Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s...


So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s?

Yeah, I'm guessing too.    

if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size
shit could hit the fan? who knows...

Yeah, but Todd is just one of the voices of the core supporters.  Maybe he is vocalizing the general direction of core, but really if he were to assert "never" anything related to blocksize, he is going to be discredited, no?  I mean any "never" is conditioned on a large number of variables, and if he were just expecting that there are going to be other work arounds, he really does not know how it is going to play out 6 months from now or even 2 years from now.  So "never" may end up translating into 6 months, when conditions change, and when the situation needs to be reevaluated, no?



Adam, you really seem to be getting caught up on this Peter Todd thing and even this sense of emergency that we need 2mb now... it's as if you and BJA have traded accounts, because at the moment, even BJA is sounding a bit more measured.   hahahahahhaha

I was under the impression core would bump limit eventually.
I was hoping Todd  would confirm that, he didn't, if anything i feel he never wants to touch it, and wants LN to be the solution, that seems to be his end game. and he's willing to use FUD to get people agreeing with him,  classic isn't acting with any more class, but thats no excuse to sink to their level.

I don't think we need 2MB NOW or everything is going to fall apart, but it has to be in the cards, or everything will eventually fall apart. thats my feeling, cheep TX is absolutely necessary for the network to keep growing, thats my view.

[blunderer]

What is that from? They look so uncomfortable/out of scale sitting on those (what are those, bar stools? Pool furniture?). Intentional?
Would be funnier if seated in little booster chairs *on top* of those giant ...stool things.

Also, that a '58? Screen partially clogged with dry vomit/things better left unknown? Are they *sharing* it?

[tomothy]

Adam, I think you are 100% correct. But I am big block biased. However, statements speak for themselves.




Samson Mow ‏@Excellion  8h8 hours ago
1/ So to talk about safety @digitsu @olivierjanss, first we need to establish a common understanding. What is the end game?
4 retweets 3 likes
Reply   Retweet  4  
Like 3  
More
 Samson Mow ‏@Excellion  8h8 hours ago
2/ Are we taking about switching to Classic to reach 2MB via HF, and then back to Core after they follow with increase?
4 retweets 4 likes
Reply   Retweet  4  
Like 4  
More
 Samson Mow ‏@Excellion  8h8 hours ago
3/ Or is this a permanent switch to Classic forever whereby we abandon Core?
3 retweets 4 likes
Reply   Retweet  3  
Like 4  
More
 Samson Mow ‏@Excellion  8h8 hours ago
4/ and Core keeps writing code & fixing security issues to give to Classic team so they can merge and change 1 to 2 before re-releasing?
3 retweets 8 likes
Reply   Retweet  3  
Like 8  
More
 Samson Mow ‏@Excellion  8h8 hours ago
5/ If it's the latter, we should ask @petertoddbtc @morcosa @pwuille if they are okay with that arrangement. It's the polite thing to do.
3 retweets 7 likes
Reply   Retweet  3  
Like 7  
More
 Olivier Janssens ‏@olivierjanss  8h8 hours ago
@Excellion 1/ We're not here to replace core but to compete on merits. Our priority/goal is to scale Bitcoin on-chain first.
0 retweets 1 like
Reply   Retweet    
Like 1  
More
 Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc  8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion What's relevant here isn't Bitcoin Core vs Bitcoin Classic, but rather, Bitcoin protocol vs Classic protocol.
3 retweets 7 likes
Reply   Retweet  3  
Like 7  
More
 Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc  8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion Protocol competition is a winner take all, as there can only be one winning protocol w/o screwing up BTC economy.
3 retweets 4 likes
Reply   Retweet  3  
Like 4  
More
 Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc  8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion Alternative is protocol development _cooperation_, where compromises can be made between different parties.
3 retweets 6 likes
Reply   Retweet  3  
Like 6  
More
 Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc  8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion e.g. the Bitcoin Core scaling proposal is a significant compromise in how it uses segwit to increase blocksize.
1 retweet 3 likes
Reply   Retweet  1  
Like 3  
More
 Olivier Janssens ‏@olivierjanss  8h8 hours ago
@petertoddbtc @Excellion Compromise to who? Segwit is something Core proposed. Many people want 2MB HF first.
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply   Retweet    
Like  
More
 Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc  8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion Segwit didn't need to be implemented as blocksize increase; using it to increase blocksize was a compromise.
1 retweet 3 likes
Reply   Retweet  1  
Like 3  
More
 User Actions  
Following
 
Peter Todd
‏@petertoddbtc
@olivierjanss @Excellion There's many - including myself - who would prefer to do no increase at all for now. But we must compromise.


My understanding of Todd's position, is that Segwit IS the blocksize increase. /golfclap

[JayJuanGee]

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

Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s...


So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s?

Yeah, I'm guessing too.   

if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size
shit could hit the fan? who knows...

Short term, that would do it, but if he really has no intention of ever touching it and says so, then we could get on with this. We are being strung along. 

OTOH, If Core makes it clear that there will be a 2MB hardfork within six months, then both Classic and my short are dust.

What is most likely is that there will be more noncommittal hemming and hawing and a slow realization that we have been played once again. As Classic approaches 50% of nodes, expect a crash. 

Markets hate uncertainty. That is what you want to bet against, not any particular outcome.

More or less, I think that all of your above points are largely fair; however, I don't get why so many people feel that it is necessary to frame the resolution of this scaling question as if a hardfork is actually a necessary component?  That push for a hard fork really means that there is not agreement and is part of the whole contention and resistance to some proposed blocksize increase proposals.

A hard fork, in itself (unless nearly completely unanimous consensus) creates a considerable amount of uncertainty that many core supporters want to avoid.

Therefore, if whatever resolution can be achieved via softfork (and not a contentious hardfork), then there seems to be a lot more flexibility and even acceptance of such proposals from a variety of the core supporters.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Why the silly word games?

Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc  8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion What's relevant here isn't Bitcoin Core vs Bitcoin Classic, but rather, Bitcoin protocol vs Classic protocol.
3 retweets 7 likes

By that definition bitcoin died with the original 32Mb -> 1Mb drop. Its core protocol v. Classic protocol.

[Cconvert2G36]

Awww, isn't that cute.

Chief Scientist, Viacoin [Peter Todd] doesn't want any increase at all... but would be willing to "compromise" with this totally straightforward hack solution called SegWitSoftFork. A situation that would give a 75% fee discount to signature heavy LN transactions, potentially the bandwidth equivalent of 4MB blocks... for 1.3 to 1.7x the amount of transactions... Creating a large number of zombie nodes that don't understand or validate segwit tx is just a bonus.

This is what we are asked to adopt instead of changing a 1 to a 2:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7404

He's also so principled that he would create an altcoin rather than work on a Bitcoin that HF'd to 2MB through classic.

His arrogance just oozes out, whatever the medium, that interview this week... his twattering...

LN will definitely create centralizing hubs for payment channels, if it is adopted at all... but the "decentralization at any cost" crew is pushing it like their livelihood depends on it. Sure glad we are sacrificing our competitive advantage for these visionaries.

[billyjoeallen]

Coin



Explanation

When you start seeing these blocks >95% full consistently (a few weeks from now at present rates), expect a market reaction. 

If we see a price increase of >20%, expect the blocks to fill up.

This will slow but not stop the price rise. 

If non-dust transactions quadruple (in a few months and present growth rates), expect a permanent and growing backlog. 

Of course we will see this happening and so it will never happen. People will just migrate to other coins until one of them gets enough market share to suck off most of the new money and Bitcoin will be a collector's coin. A hobby coin forever.  It'll still grow in value,  but at a much slower rate than the new Cryptocoin, the one where wallstreeters get to be early adopters. 

I imagine a coin where blockreward gets reduced by 10% a year instead of dramatic halvings. Blocksize scaling is built in at predictable intervals.  Mining is done on the the more secure SHA512 or something more quantum computer resistant. It may have a full Turing-compliant scripting language for smart contracts, etc.

[JayJuanGee]

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

Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s...


So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s?

Yeah, I'm guessing too.    

if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size
shit could hit the fan? who knows...

Yeah, but Todd is just one of the voices of the core supporters.  Maybe he is vocalizing the general direction of core, but really if he were to assert "never" anything related to blocksize, he is going to be discredited, no?  I mean any "never" is conditioned on a large number of variables, and if he were just expecting that there are going to be other work arounds, he really does not know how it is going to play out 6 months from now or even 2 years from now.  So "never" may end up translating into 6 months, when conditions change, and when the situation needs to be reevaluated, no?



Adam, you really seem to be getting caught up on this Peter Todd thing and even this sense of emergency that we need 2mb now... it's as if you and BJA have traded accounts, because at the moment, even BJA is sounding a bit more measured.   hahahahahhaha

I was under the impression core would bump limit eventually.
I was hoping Todd  would confirm that, he didn't, if anything i feel he never wants to touch it, and wants LN to be the solution, that seems to be his end game. and he's willing to use FUD to get people agreeing with him,  classic isn't acting with any more class, but thats no excuse to sink to their level.

I don't think we need 2MB NOW or everything is going to fall apart, but it has to be in the cards, or everything will eventually fall apart. thats my feeling, cheep TX is absolutely necessary for the network to keep growing, thats my view.

O.k.  If we are going to give some kind of meaningful weight to the words of Todd, then even listening to him in the LTB interview, you can also hear him saying that any kind of Hardfork and disagreement is a bad idea to attempt to hardfork with even a few percentage in the minority.

In that regard, even if he is talking about contentiousness in terms of increasing the blocksize limits, he really seems to be asserting the dangers of a hard fork and having people who oppose the hardfork working on the other side of such a hardfork.

So in that regard, even if Todd may be a bit less than artful in the way that he made his claims, he is voicing opposition to a majority forcing some kind of outcome on a minority (thus he is saying something like: "hardforks are dangerous no matter what and we should go through considerable efforts to avoid hardforks, if possible")

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Coin



Explanation

When you start seeing these blocks >95% full consistently (a few weeks from now at present rates), expect a market reaction. 

If we see a price increase of >20%, expect the blocks to fill up.

This will slow but not stop the price rise. 

If non-dust transactions quadruple (in a few months and present growth rates), expect a permanent and growing backlog. 

Of course we will see this happening and so it will never happen. People will just migrate to other coins until one of them gets enough market share to suck off most of the new money and Bitcoin will be a collector's coin. A hobby coin forever.  It'll still grow in value,  but at a much slower rate than the new Cryptocoin, the one where wallstreeters get to be early adopters. 

I imagine a coin where blockreward gets reduced by 10% a year instead of dramatic halvings. Blocksize scaling is built in at predictable intervals.  Mining is done on the the more secure SHA512 or something more quantum computer resistant. It may have a full Turing-compliant scripting language for smart contracts, etc.

Wall Street doesn't give a toss about decentralization. If it turns out the market doesn't either, eventually a competing hard fork will take Core's place.

[rocks]

Adam, I think you are 100% correct. But I am big block biased. However, statements speak for themselves.




Samson Mow ‏@Excellion  8h8 hours ago
1/ So to talk about safety @digitsu @olivierjanss, first we need to establish a common understanding. What is the end game?
4 retweets 3 likes
Reply   Retweet  4  
Like 3  
More
 Samson Mow ‏@Excellion  8h8 hours ago
2/ Are we taking about switching to Classic to reach 2MB via HF, and then back to Core after they follow with increase?
4 retweets 4 likes
Reply   Retweet  4  
Like 4  
More
 Samson Mow ‏@Excellion  8h8 hours ago
3/ Or is this a permanent switch to Classic forever whereby we abandon Core?
3 retweets 4 likes
Reply   Retweet  3  
Like 4  
More
 Samson Mow ‏@Excellion  8h8 hours ago
4/ and Core keeps writing code & fixing security issues to give to Classic team so they can merge and change 1 to 2 before re-releasing?
3 retweets 8 likes
Reply   Retweet  3  
Like 8  
More
 Samson Mow ‏@Excellion  8h8 hours ago
5/ If it's the latter, we should ask @petertoddbtc @morcosa @pwuille if they are okay with that arrangement. It's the polite thing to do.
3 retweets 7 likes
Reply   Retweet  3  
Like 7  
More
 Olivier Janssens ‏@olivierjanss  8h8 hours ago
@Excellion 1/ We're not here to replace core but to compete on merits. Our priority/goal is to scale Bitcoin on-chain first.
0 retweets 1 like
Reply   Retweet    
Like 1  
More
 Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc  8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion What's relevant here isn't Bitcoin Core vs Bitcoin Classic, but rather, Bitcoin protocol vs Classic protocol.
3 retweets 7 likes
Reply   Retweet  3  
Like 7  
More
 Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc  8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion Protocol competition is a winner take all, as there can only be one winning protocol w/o screwing up BTC economy.
3 retweets 4 likes
Reply   Retweet  3  
Like 4  
More
 Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc  8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion Alternative is protocol development _cooperation_, where compromises can be made between different parties.
3 retweets 6 likes
Reply   Retweet  3  
Like 6  
More
 Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc  8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion e.g. the Bitcoin Core scaling proposal is a significant compromise in how it uses segwit to increase blocksize.
1 retweet 3 likes
Reply   Retweet  1  
Like 3  
More
 Olivier Janssens ‏@olivierjanss  8h8 hours ago
@petertoddbtc @Excellion Compromise to who? Segwit is something Core proposed. Many people want 2MB HF first.
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply   Retweet    
Like  
More
 Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc  8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion Segwit didn't need to be implemented as blocksize increase; using it to increase blocksize was a compromise.
1 retweet 3 likes
Reply   Retweet  1  
Like 3  
More
 User Actions  
Following
 
Peter Todd
‏@petertoddbtc
@olivierjanss @Excellion There's many - including myself - who would prefer to do no increase at all for now. But we must compromise.


My understanding of Todd's position, is that Segwit IS the blocksize increase. /golfclap

The reason Todd and Blockstream want SegWit first is very simple.

LN requires SegWit in order to work, without SegWit LN is broken.

This is why they are pushing SegWit first. They know that if 2MB blocks happen, once everyone sees how easy it was it will become more difficult push SegWit onto the ecosystem. SegWit is a major overhaul and I could see many more miners and nodes dragging their feet on SegWit once they know the next 4MB change is easy too.

[Cconvert2G36]

That's the great thing about soft forks, they can be very contentious™... but rammed through all the same.

If we can't hard fork while a minority disagrees, we will never hard fork again = exactly what they want. Any change desired by the politburo can be soft forked in with enough hacking creativity.

[rocks]

O.k.  If we are going to give some kind of meaningful weight to the words of Todd, then even listening to him in the LTB interview, you can also hear him saying that any kind of Hardfork and disagreement is a bad idea to attempt to hardfork with even a few percentage in the minority.

In that regard, even if he is talking about contentiousness in terms of increasing the blocksize limits, he really seems to be asserting the dangers of a hard fork and having people who oppose the hardfork working on the other side of such a hardfork.

So in that regard, even if Todd may be a bit less than artful in the way that he made his claims, he is voicing opposition to a majority forcing some kind of outcome on a minority (thus he is saying something like: "hardforks are dangerous no matter what and we should go through considerable efforts to avoid hardforks, if possible")

What he is really saying is he and Blockstream are blocking a 2MB HF even if everyone else wants one.

They keep saying a HF is bad if a small percentage objects to it.

What they are not saying is they object to it and so the 2MB HF should not happen.

Unfortunately Bitcoin is a democratic system.