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

[Tzupy]

... 
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.

You mean... bitcoin done right... I am afraid it is too late for the old bitcoin we are trading, too complicated to change... better start anew...

[1714314395]

1714314395

[1714314395]

1714314395

[1714314395]

1714314395

[adamstgBit]

SegWit is a major overhaul

Todd implied a one line change in his interview

ANOTHER LIE?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

SegWit is a major overhaul

Todd implied a one line change in his interview

ANOTHER LIE?

[billyjoeallen]

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.

It depends on what sort of decentralization we are talking about. Bitcoin businesses need a PREDICTABLE scaling solution to build their business models around.  Trusting Core to fill the need when the time comes is not decentralized at all. Smallblockers want to maintain node decentralization by centralizing code development.

There is a real need for bigger blocks if we want to use the Blockchain for anything more than a settlement ledger. Core only wants monetary writing to the chain. This is a waste of a precious resource that could be the greatest tool for freedom since the Internet itself.

What about mining centralization? That is the problem that nobody but me is talking about and it means Bitcoin is not censorship resistant to the ChiComs.

If there were businesses running bitcoin blockchain based stock exchanges, bond exchanges, currency exchanges, any equity, really, then those companies would have nodes. Anyone who's business involved writing to an immutable ledger would have a node. Bigger blocks mean more nodes.

Right now the only companies with the incentive to run nodes are onramps like Coinbase and Circle.  One of the Largest, Bitpay, will go out of business or switch to LN and won't run nodes anymore because any transaction under $10 will eventually be too expensive to process if the blocksize isn't allowed to scale. Bitpay sponsored a bowl game and brought Bitcoin awareness to millions. That's the kind of company  smallblockers want to drive out of business?

[adamstgBit]

I told you

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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.

Smallblockers want to maintain node decentralization by centralizing code development.

I don't see any way to decentralize code development. Competing protocols doesn't seem to be the answer.

[adamstgBit]

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.

Smallblockers want to maintain node decentralization by centralizing code development.

I don't see any way to decentralize code development. Competing protocols doesn't seem to be the answer.

everyone codes whatever feather they want

miners vote on the feathers they are ready and willing to accept

once >90% of miners are all accepting a specific feather it is turned on.

core is going to start using this method soon. ( or they said they would? another lie???)

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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.

Smallblockers want to maintain node decentralization by centralizing code development.

I don't see any way to decentralize code development. Competing protocols doesn't seem to be the answer.

everyone codes whatever feather they want

miners vote on the feathers they are ready and willing to accept

once >90% of miners are all accepting a specific feather it is turned on.

core is going to start using this method soon.

But even if 90% of the miners are mining something, it's the nodes that determine the longest valid chain. That's why they can't just fork off at will. Isn't it?

[marcus_of_augustus]

... too much angst, it's all good guys.

Anyone can have an opinion, they are like AH, but only those who can code get to put ideas on the ballot, and only those with the best ideas point the way ahead.

[ImI]

folks? still that block-discussion going on?

isnt it obv meanwhile? classic wont succeed, miners are hesitant to switch.

but core will have to accept a 2MB hardfork in 2017. miners want that.

so case closed. nothing to see here anymore.

[ronald98]

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.

Smallblockers want to maintain node decentralization by centralizing code development.

I don't see any way to decentralize code development. Competing protocols doesn't seem to be the answer.

everyone codes whatever feather they want

miners vote on the feathers they are ready and willing to accept

once >90% of miners are all accepting a specific feather it is turned on.

core is going to start using this method soon.

But even if 90% of the miners are mining something, it's the nodes that determine the longest valid chain. That's why they can't just fork off at will. Isn't it?

But it's damn cheaper to set up 1000 nodes than to run a mining farm. Any big farm that wanted to get control of the majority of nodes could temporarily set up thousands of them running the software of their choice. How many nodes would $50000 buy? That kind of money's small change to a big mining farm.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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.

Smallblockers want to maintain node decentralization by centralizing code development.

I don't see any way to decentralize code development. Competing protocols doesn't seem to be the answer.

everyone codes whatever feather they want

miners vote on the feathers they are ready and willing to accept

once >90% of miners are all accepting a specific feather it is turned on.

core is going to start using this method soon.

But even if 90% of the miners are mining something, it's the nodes that determine the longest valid chain. That's why they can't just fork off at will. Isn't it?

But it's damn cheaper to set up 1000 nodes than to run a mining farm. Any big farm that wanted to get control of the majority of nodes could temporarily set up thousands of them running the software of their choice. How many nodes would $50000 buy? That kind of money's small change to a big mining farm.

That must be where all them Classic nodes are coming from...

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

folks? still that block-discussion going on?

isnt it obv meanwhile? classic wont succeed, miners are hesitant to switch.

but core will have to accept a 2MB hardfork in 2017. miners want that.

so case closed. nothing to see here anymore.

Feel free to try to change the subject. But Adam might bite your hand.

[ImI]

folks? still that block-discussion going on?

isnt it obv meanwhile? classic wont succeed, miners are hesitant to switch.

but core will have to accept a 2MB hardfork in 2017. miners want that.

so case closed. nothing to see here anymore.

Feel free to try to change the subject. But Adam might bite your hand.

haha! hey adam, how about some soccertalk? i heard manchester united got sacked tonight? 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

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.

Smallblockers want to maintain node decentralization by centralizing code development.

I don't see any way to decentralize code development. Competing protocols doesn't seem to be the answer.

Why not? As long as we're talking 75% supermajority and a grace period to upgrade before mining incompatible blocks, what's the problem?  A few people may not get the upgrade memo in time? THAT's your big objection?

Elections are messy, expensive and inefficient. Would you prefer a government without them?

[Cconvert2G36]

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.

Nailed it.

They are not afraid of 2MB max blocks at all. They are afraid that when the sky doesn't fall... miners won't accept hot wiring Bitcoin into a settlement layer. They also fear the precedent that miners are in charge (a correct and good thing), not them.

 

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.

Smallblockers want to maintain node decentralization by centralizing code development.

I don't see any way to decentralize code development. Competing protocols doesn't seem to be the answer.

everyone codes whatever feather they want

miners vote on the feathers they are ready and willing to accept

once >90% of miners are all accepting a specific feather it is turned on.

core is going to start using this method soon.

But even if 90% of the miners are mining something, it's the nodes that determine the longest valid chain. That's why they can't just fork off at will. Isn't it?

When you want to use Bitcoin but your non mining wallet node doesn't work anymore... are you going to start mining your own blocks? Or are you going to simply upgrade your client?

Similar with segwit. Even if I hate it (as a SF that changes fee economics), I am required to upgrade if I want to keep validating all transactions on the network. Unlike a HF, someone not paying attention won't even be aware that such a dramatic change has been pushed through.

[adamstgBit]

folks? still that block-discussion going on?

isnt it obv meanwhile? classic wont succeed, miners are hesitant to switch.

but core will have to accept a 2MB hardfork in 2017. miners want that.

so case closed. nothing to see here anymore.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Coin



Explanation

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.

Smallblockers want to maintain node decentralization by centralizing code development.

I don't see any way to decentralize code development. Competing protocols doesn't seem to be the answer.

Why not? As long as we're talking 75% supermajority and a grace period to upgrade before mining incompatible blocks, what's the problem?  A few people may not get the upgrade memo in time? THAT's your big objection?

Elections are messy, expensive and inefficient. Would you prefer a government without them?

I guess, I don't know. I'd have to read more about how political concepts apply to open-source projects.

What's this got to do with Soccer??

[adamstgBit]

folks? still that block-discussion going on?

isnt it obv meanwhile? classic wont succeed, miners are hesitant to switch.

but core will have to accept a 2MB hardfork in 2017. miners want that.

so case closed. nothing to see here anymore.

Feel free to try to change the subject. But Adam might bite your hand.

haha! hey adam, how about some soccertalk? i heard manchester united got sacked tonight?  

lol sorry guys, i listen to the interview https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-bitcoin-game-34-bitcoin-core-dev-peter-todd
and i had to express my frustrations.


get me on the phone with petter todd, and hell hang up in under 5 mins, i wouldn't be able to stop myself

"
why are you going against what most poeple agree on, bigger blocks?
what do you mean small miner will need to start using pools? why you lying to me you BEEP BEEPING BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEPING BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP
"

ok all done.
lets go back to charts