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

[BitUsher]

Todd implied a one line change in his interview

ANOTHER LIE?

You sure have a funny way of reading between the lines. I didn't hear those insinuations at all.

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

Funny how you insinuate soft forks at a 95% threshold that don't boot anyone from the network is an imposition but a hardfork with a 75% threshold that does reject users upon activation is ok ...

Soft Forks cannot be contentious as core requires a 95 % threshold to activate. Soft Forks don't reject users from the network that don't want to update either. They can continue using bitcoin as normal with their old distro.

Let me clarify a few things :

1) User can still get the latest patches and releases and do not need to accept segwit ever .... Core is open source and another dev can pick and choose what they like out of future releases. In fact that is what classic has done and plans to do. So users can still be secure and never adopt segwit ever if they don't want its benefits.

2) Users who choose not to upgrade to segwit still validate not segwit transactions like normal... therefore nothing changes and them and their friends can continue to send txs to each other and fully validate all non segwit signatures. Older implementations that choose not to upgrade have absolutely no right to force those of us who do upgrade to give us our signatures of validation. If you don't like it than I suggest you reject our txs. By upgrading we acknowledge that we will only be relaying signatures for validation to upgraded nodes. There is no secret here , thats the way its designed.

[1714276732]

1714276732

[1714276732]

1714276732

[billyjoeallen]

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.

Core hasn't accepted that yet. When and if they do, it's off to the races, but not before then.  You need to understand their objection. What if we upgrade to 2MB forks and nothing bad happens? It means that we could upgrade to 4 or 8 or 20. Then the Lightning Network time frame to even be needed or viable gets pushed back possibly indefinitely, and Blockstream gets no new VC money. 

They think this is is a fight for survival for them. They will go down if they lose and we don't yet know if they are willing to take us all down with them by resisting the majority and crashing the market. That's the 65 million dollar question. Will Core remain the reference client and bankrupt their own company or will they hold us all hostage and force us to fight it out with the inevitable market crash that would bring? 

I believe people usually do what's in their own perceived best interest. Core is trying to find out how badly the miners want that 2mb fork.  Is 2MB a request or a demand? They will not honer a request. They will honor a demand if they think it is genuine. The miners may not make one. Core still hopes they can politely refuse the miners without consequence. They may be right, but if they are, Classic nodes will multiply and the market will crash. 

We have recently seen a >$50 rise in price in the middle of a hotly contested election. This is insanity.  The buyers thought that the bigblockers had Core cornered.  They do, but have you ever seen a cornered animal just give up? What would the VC backers of Blockstream think of that? If you think that core cares more about what we think than them, you're dreaming. 

The sad think is that Core doesn't even have a problem. Larger blocks will grow the network faster and actually hasten the need for LN, but they're too stupid to understand that.

[adamstgBit]

Todd implied a one line change in his interview

ANOTHER LIE?

You sure have a funny way of reading between the lines. I didn't hear those insinuations at all.

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

start at
@30:35

" ... but the change itself is surprisingly small ..."

to me a surprisingly small change implies max a few changes to 1 file.

he says that its safer to do segwit then change the MAXBLOCKSIZE define

trud manure, every word, trud manure

[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.

Core hasn't accepted that yet. When and if they do, it's off to the races, but not before then.  You need to understand their objection. What if we upgrade to 2MB forks and nothing bad happens? It means that we could upgrade to 4 or 8 or 20. Then the Lightning Network time frame to even be needed or viable gets pushed back possibly indefinitely, and Blockstream gets no new VC money. 

They think this is is a fight for survival for them. They will go down if they lose and we don't yet know if they are willing to take us all down with them by resisting the majority and crashing the market. That's the 65 million dollar question. Will Core remain the reference client and bankrupt their own company or will they hold us all hostage and force us to fight it out with the inevitable market crash that would bring? 

I believe people usually do what's in their own perceived best interest. Core is trying to find out how badly the miners want that 2mb fork.  Is 2MB a request or a demand? They will not honer a request. They will honor a demand if they think it is genuine. The miners may not make one. Core still hopes they can politely refuse the miners without consequence. They may be right, but if they are, Classic nodes will multiply and the market will crash. 

We have recently seen a >$50 rise in price in the middle of a hotly contested election. This is insanity.  The buyers thought that the bigblockers had Core cornered.  They do, but have you ever seen a cornered animal just give up? What would the VC backers of Blockstream think of that? If you think that core cares more about what we think than them, you're dreaming. 

The sad think is that Core doesn't even have a problem. Larger blocks will grow the network faster and actually hasten the need for LN, but they're too stupid to understand that.

I'm not entirely clear how LN is propietary in that sense. Is Poon on the Blockstream payroll? How will they make money off it. Sidechains are Blockstream, so maybe there. But LN?

[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.

ill add that LN is going to be 100 orders of magnitude more expensive and any TX FEE

how much is hours / days of trying to figure how to send your payment safely worth to you?

time is costly as fuck.

[BitUsher]

The sad think is that Core doesn't even have a problem. Larger blocks will grow the network faster and actually hasten the need for LN, but they're too stupid to understand that.

I agree with you that quickly jacking up the blocksize to 2, 4, 8 Mb within short order will both:

1) Grow The network Faster in the short term
2) Likely grow the market cap of Bitcoin Faster in the short term

at the cost of ...

1) Setting a precedent that a small majority of 75% can impose changes on a minority
2) Setting a direction where the community finds simply increasing the blocksize whenever more capacity is needed is acceptable instead of finding more novel solutions that have less negative tradeoffs
3) Escalate node and mining centralization
4) Make using Bitcoin over TOR more difficult
5) Delaying or ignoring the need for better solutions where the main chain is treated like a settlement layer

You are insinuating that we oppose larger blocks , which is simply not true for many. We want larger blocks done right. Jacking up the blocksize prematurely , regardless of it eventually happening , will have the above tradeoffs.

These things aren't a secret and I am not ashamed to admit them.

[inca]

What I find interesting is how far my views of the developers in the bitcoin community have warped since the beginning of this blocksize drama. Everyone can see the conflict of interest in the Core camp from a mile off. And verbose shills like Marcustus of Augustus / hdbuck / brg444 stand out like a sore thumb on here.

[Cconvert2G36]

Todd implied a one line change in his interview

ANOTHER LIE?

You sure have a funny way of reading between the lines. I didn't hear those insinuations at all.

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

Funny how you insinuate soft forks at a 95% threshold that don't boot anyone from the network is an imposition but a hardfork with a 75% threshold that does reject users upon activation is ok ...

I thought that miners can't make a change that a meaningful % of nodes don't want... with SFSW, they can. So we're back to defining contentious.

Soft Forks cannot be contentious as core requires a 95 % threshold to activate. Soft Forks don't reject users from the network that don't want to update either. They can continue using bitcoin as normal with their old distro.

Let me clarify a few things :

1) User can still get the latest patches and releases and do not need to accept segwit ever .... Core is open source and another dev can pick and choose what they like out of future releases. In fact that is what classic has done and plans to do. So users can still be secure and never adopt segwit ever if they don't want its benefits.

2) Users who choose not to upgrade to segwit still validate not segwit transactions like normal... therefore nothing changes and them and their friends can continue to send txs to each other and fully validate all non segwit signatures. Older implementations that choose not to upgrade have absolutely no right to force those of us who do upgrade to give us our signatures of validation. If you don't like it than I suggest you reject our txs. By upgrading we acknowledge that we will only be relaying signatures for validation to upgraded nodes. There is no secret here , thats the way its designed.

Well, thanks for clearing that up. So long as no one sends me a segwit tx (which is now incentivized by being cheaper), nothing changes.

Look, here's the difference:

If miners decide to implement segwit, I go along with them by upgrading to a segwit capable full node.

If miners decide to implement 2MB max_block_size with a HF, your crew throws their toys out of the pram and creates an altcoin.

I leave it up to the reader to decide who is being more reasonable.

[marcus_of_augustus]

What I find interesting is how far my views of the developers in the bitcoin community have warped since the beginning of this blocksize drama. Everyone can see the conflict of interest in the Core camp from a mile off. And verbose shills like Marcustus of Augustus / hdbuck / brg444 stand out like a sore thumb on here.

... didn't realise the army of the clueless was growing so quickly. Hating on the devs is kind of sick when you are living on the backs of their largely volunteer labour. What's next, hating on Satoshi and miners for not making more free shit too?

[adamstgBit]

The sad think is that Core doesn't even have a problem. Larger blocks will grow the network faster and actually hasten the need for LN, but they're too stupid to understand that.

I agree with you that quickly jacking up the blocksize to 2, 4, 8 Mb within short order will both:

1) Grow The network Faster in the short term
2) Likely grow the market cap of Bitcoin Faster in the short term

at the cost of ...

1) Setting a precedent that a small majority of 75% can impose changes on a minority
2) Setting a direction where the community finds simply increasing the blocksize whenever more capacity is needed is acceptable instead of finding more novel solutions that have less negative tradeoffs
3) Escalate node and mining centralization
4) Make using Bitcoin over TOR more difficult
5) Delaying or ignoring the need for better solutions where the main chain is treated like a settlement layer

You are insinuating that we oppose larger blocks , which is simply not true for many. We want larger blocks done right. Jacking up the blocksize prematurely , regardless of it eventually happening , will have the above tradeoffs.

These things aren't a secret and I am not ashamed to admit them.

how much damage has not doing anything cost bitcoin image?
todd saying shit like " bitcoin doesn't scale just accept it "
how many hundreds of millions are we willing to throw away postponing the inevitable?

[BitUsher]

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

start at
@30:35

" ... but the change itself is surprisingly small ..."

to me a surprisingly small change implies max a few changes to 1 file.

It is surprisingly small ... He elaborates the number of lines of changes in the original XT proposal exceed Segwit changes .
This is a fair comparison because most of the XT supporters are now classic supporters insinuating that Segwit is a massive change when they were will to accept (in some regards- loc) a larger change before.

he says that its safer to do segwit then change the MAXBLOCKSIZE define

trud manure, every word, trud manure

In many ways(not all) segwit is indeed safer than simply increasing maxBlockSize. It doesn't involve a contentious hardfork(99% of people support segwit in itself ) , it allows for signature pruning which reduces costs on the network = safer , Fixes most Malleability issues= safer, creates a Linear scaling of sighash operations = safer, allows for safer deployment of softforks in future, Reduces UTXO growth , ect....

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Yeah, but then the question becomes what the people want?  And is what the people want and what wallstreet wants different?  And, can bitcoin grow and/or succeed even if wallstreet does not value it?

[billyjoeallen]

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??

Large corporations also have elections for board members, even if they have a founder with a lot of shares Like Steve Jobs, Bill gates, etc. The reason is that stakeholders can be exploited by a CEO or Board of Directors (the governing body) if there is no way to hold them accountable. 

If there is no way to hold Core accountable, then I will no longer be a stakeholder. I will sell the coins I have held for five years and go away.  The good news for me is that the market will go down if Core loses and up if it wins, so since I want them to lose, I can't lose. I'll either get rich or big blocks.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Well, each of us is likely going based on a feeling, and my feeling is that a hard fork is more dangerous than a soft fork, and I don't see any reason to do a hard fork, even based on the information that you just presented involving the potential (maybe even speculative) ability of supposedly "powerful forces" to push potentially unwanted changes via softfork.

[adamstgBit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVDB9yhdoNM

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

If Core requires 95% consensus for a soft-fork...seems democratic. Isn't it?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BitUsher]

I thought that miners can't make a change that a meaningful % of nodes don't want... with SFSW, they can. So we're back to defining contentious.

This doesn't refute my statements. I agree that economic nodes have the final vote.... they don't have to follow 95% of miners in a SF or HF.

Look, here's the difference:

If miners decide to implement segwit, I go along with them by upgrading to a segwit capable full node.

If miners decide to implement 2MB max_block_size with a HF, your crew throws their toys out of the pram and creates an altcoin.

I leave it up to the reader to decide who is being more reasonable.

I believe you are being unreasonable by allowing segwit to be forced upon you if you believe it is wrong or sets a dangerous precedence. I support your right to reject segwit and find it completely unreasonable that you would ever acquiesce to anything you found dangerous or against your principles.

This being said.... most of the individuals , including myself , have been very nuanced about our objections of the HF and a 2MB maxblocksize increase. There are many circumstances where we would be happy to make further considerations towards and I have stated one in the past . Here is another to add to the list -

Past compromise proposal -
Deploy segwit in April as SF but lower signature size from 4x to 2x and adjust incentives as well
Plan for a 1.5MB max blocksize HF for 6 months from now with a 95% threshold and 28 day grace period

New compromise proposal -
Deploy segwit in April as SF but make signature merkle tree 1MB and remove incentives (unfortunately we lose some benefits here like Reducing UTXO growth but its a compromise)
Plan for a 2MB max blocksize HF for 6 months from now with a 95% threshold and 28 day grace period

I can be reasonable and cut down the HF window from normal 1year and offer a combined proposal.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

I don't think that is what he is saying, and it seems that he is not the only force behind the opposition to either classic or xt or any other attempted at a forced change.

I am not really sure if I agree with your point about bitcoin being democratic as being descriptive of what is going on.

What I keep suggesting and even asserting is that in bitcoin there seems to be a certain momentum and presumption of validity with the status quo and defending the status quo, so anyone who wants to change the status quo has the burden of presentation and the burden of persuasion.

Core is the status quo and challengers to the status quo have neither met their burden of presentation nor their burden of persuasion in order to successfully change the status quo.  That lack of success does not mean that they will not be successful in the future to make various changes to bitcoin.... If you want to call that democratic, then sure, it could be some form of democracy to attempt to persuade and to present evidence sufficient to persuade a change.. or even to bring computing power or some other leveraged asset (such as public opinion or bitcoin user opinion), and some assets carry more bargaining power than others.  At this point, the most bargaining power seems to be with the miners and the software developers, and there seem to be various factors influencing them.... that causes the directed changes, including seg wit and whatever is going to come thereafter.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Plan for a 2MB max blocksize HF for 6 months from now with a 95% threshold and 28 day grace period

I can be reasonable and cut down the HF window from normal 1year and offer a combined proposal.

Quoted.