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

[adamstgBit]

Here's my uneducated opinion on SegWit:

It's better than nothing. It seems like a poor design idea to make such a complicated alteration of the protocol, but it aids scaling. Seems riskier than changing a 1 to a 2, but if it works on TestNet, I'll play along.  I do not oppose SegWit and welcome it, despite it being a very poor substitute for bigger blocks.  

If there is a rough consensus attack ongoing, it means the bad guys wants us to squabble over how to scale so much that we don't scale.  They will support one side only until it looks like it's going to win and then support the other side. Even if there is not a rough consensus PsyOp, the effect is the same if we can't compromise.

I don't hate Core. I am not married to Classic. I want a scaling solution.  I'm not naive enough to think I'll get everything I want.

Should SegWit be a hard fork or a soft fork? I prefer a hard fork but I don't really care.
Should we have SegWit or 2 MB? I prefer 2MB but I don't really care.
Should we have 2MB once and see what happens or a 2-4-8 schedule? I prefer the latter, but don't care.
Should we run upgraded Core or Classic? I prefer Classic but don't really care.

Just end this crap. If we can do this, I'll close my short and help pump. If there is no solution in place and the market keeps pumping anyway, My short will blow up and I'll start liquidating my cold storage.

i think most poeple like you want some kind of scaling one way or another, they don't really care which way it gets done.
i'll admit i will go along with pretty much whatever too, until then i'll bitch and complain about what i think should be.
selling coins based on this seems a little premature, some kind of scaling is bound to happen...
i'm going to stick with my original plan to sell the news that core devs have "Done it!".
ill buy back once poeple realize we aren't out of the woods.

[1714190543]

1714190543

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[marcus_of_augustus]

Here's my uneducated opinion on SegWit:

Should SegWit be a hard fork or a soft fork? I prefer a hard fork but I don't really care.
Should we have SegWit or 2 MB? I prefer 2MB but I don't really care.
Should we have 2MB once and see what happens or a 2-4-8 schedule? I prefer the latter, but don't care.
Should we run upgraded Core or Classic? I prefer Classic but don't really care.

Just end this crap. If we can do this, I'll close my short and help pump. If there is no solution in place and the market keeps pumping anyway, My short will blow up and I'll start liquidating my cold storage.

... so your uneducated opinion leads you to actions that will keep the fight running as long as possible?

There is no 'solution' that will satisfy you because you have ill-posed the problem.

[billyjoeallen]

I would still argue against favoritism in the fee economics..

The reason this was done is 2 fold.. incentivize adoption to segwit and more importantly Reduce UTXO growth.

I will remain distrustful of Core's leadership and their conflicted interest in forcing the settlement layer architecture.

How will bitcoin scale to the mainstream if it didn't act as a settlement layer for the main chain? It certainly cant get far by continually increasing the block side.

It can't, but it won't ever need to scale if we don't keep transactions free long enough to build a critical mass of users. We're not gonna grow by having goldbugs suddenly decide it's an awesome store of value that you can't spend but only trade for fiat while paying ever increasing fees.. 

Gold is a store of value because it could be money. Bitcoin will never be a store of value if it CAN'T be money. We won't ever need to scale if we don't maintain/increase Bitcoin's utility. 

[adamstgBit]

i have found our salvation!



http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/

[bargainbin]

Everything's gonna work out just fine, I think. At times like this, not losing hope and remaining super positive is real important Because otherwise, it won't be as funny for me when the trap is sprung & your hopes are finally shattered.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I would still argue against favoritism in the fee economics..

The reason this was done is 2 fold.. incentivize adoption to segwit and more importantly Reduce UTXO growth.

I will remain distrustful of Core's leadership and their conflicted interest in forcing the settlement layer architecture.

How will bitcoin scale to the mainstream if it didn't act as a settlement layer for the main chain? It certainly cant get far by continually increasing the block side.

We won't ever need to scale if we don't maintain/increase Bitcoin's utility.  

... and who increases bitcoin utility?

deadbeats ranting and raving on forums about how terrible all the devs are ... or developers adding features, tools, layers, wallets, protocol extensions?

Only clueless dogs bite the hands that feed them.

[Cconvert2G36]

I would still argue against favoritism in the fee economics..

The reason this was done is 2 fold.. incentivize adoption to segwit and more importantly Reduce UTXO growth.

Mhmmm, it would also directly discount LN settlement transactions when/if they arrive. Apparently some transactions are more equal than others. Encouraging reduction of UTXO is the sales carrot again.

I will remain distrustful of Core's leadership and their conflicted interest in forcing the settlement layer architecture.

How will bitcoin scale to the mainstream if it didn't act as a settlement layer for the main chain? It certainly cant get far by continually increasing the block side.

I know you've had a long day, so I've bolded the important part.

You know I want second layer solutions too, just with them playing on an even (not artificially slanted) field of competition. Both a segwit discount, and dogmatically limiting native capacity... serve to slant the field in their favor.

[JayJuanGee]

Here's my uneducated opinion on SegWit:

It's better than nothing. It seems like a poor design idea to make such a complicated alteration of the protocol, but it aids scaling. Seems riskier than changing a 1 to a 2, but if it works on TestNet, I'll play along.  I do not oppose SegWit and welcome it, despite it being a very poor substitute for bigger blocks.  

If there is a rough consensus attack ongoing, it means the bad guys wants us to squabble over how to scale so much that we don't scale.  They will support one side only until it looks like it's going to win and then support the other side. Even if there is not a rough consensus PsyOp, the effect is the same if we can't compromise.

I don't hate Core. I am not married to Classic. I want a scaling solution.  I'm not naive enough to think I'll get everything I want.

Should SegWit be a hard fork or a soft fork? I prefer a hard fork but I don't really care.
Should we have SegWit or 2 MB? I prefer 2MB but I don't really care.
Should we have 2MB once and see what happens or a 2-4-8 schedule? I prefer the latter, but don't care.
Should we run upgraded Core or Classic? I prefer Classic but don't really care.

Just end this crap. If we can do this, I'll close my short and help pump. If there is no solution in place and the market keeps pumping anyway, My short will blow up and I'll start liquidating my cold storage.

i think most poeple like you want some kind of scaling one way or another, they don't really care which way it gets done.
i'll admit i will go along with pretty much whatever too, until then i'll bitch and complain about what i think should be.
selling coins based on this seems a little premature, some kind of scaling is bound to happen...
i'm going to stick with my original plan to sell the news that core devs have "Done it!".
ill buy back once poeple realize we aren't out of the woods.

You've told me before that you don't ever trade all of your BTC portfolio, and I hope it's true this time, as well.

Accordingly, I hope that you are betting both ways.. rather than all or nothing.


I'm not sure if I have the definitions correct, exactly; however, at this time, I am about 93.75% long (my BTC portfolio in BTC) and about 6.25% short (my BTC portfolio in $$).

[JayJuanGee]

Everything's gonna work out just fine, I think. At times like this, not losing hope and remaining super positive is real important Because otherwise, it won't be as funny for me when the trap is sprung & your hopes are finally shattered.

That's what I am saying, too.

I don't see what is wrong... bitcoin is in a pretty decent place right now, no?

[Cconvert2G36]

We're averaging 2.8-3 tps at the moment...

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/

Only so many seats on this train... time to pay up suckas.

Poors may use dog-coin. 

[billyjoeallen]

I would still argue against favoritism in the fee economics..

The reason this was done is 2 fold.. incentivize adoption to segwit and more importantly Reduce UTXO growth.

I will remain distrustful of Core's leadership and their conflicted interest in forcing the settlement layer architecture.

How will bitcoin scale to the mainstream if it didn't act as a settlement layer for the main chain? It certainly cant get far by continually increasing the block side.

We won't ever need to scale if we don't maintain/increase Bitcoin's utility.  

... and who increases bitcoin utility?

deadbeats ranting and raving on forums about how terrible all the devs are ... or developers adding features, tools, layers, wallets, protocol extensions?

Only clueless dogs bite the hands that feed them.

People like Gavin, Mike and Jeff you mean?  I help by supporting them. I would even invest/help to create some bitcoin businesses if I knew how much blockspace I could use.  There would be huge potential for title registry/xfer, equities exchanges, smart contracts, etc, but I would need to know what sort of fees I'd be paying and to be certain my transaction wouldn't be locked up for days if I guessed wrong.

Core gets no special credit for just doing their damn jobs, especially when they aren't doing them. Too focused on tilting the playing field in their favor. 

[adamstgBit]

Here's my uneducated opinion on SegWit:

It's better than nothing. It seems like a poor design idea to make such a complicated alteration of the protocol, but it aids scaling. Seems riskier than changing a 1 to a 2, but if it works on TestNet, I'll play along.  I do not oppose SegWit and welcome it, despite it being a very poor substitute for bigger blocks.  

If there is a rough consensus attack ongoing, it means the bad guys wants us to squabble over how to scale so much that we don't scale.  They will support one side only until it looks like it's going to win and then support the other side. Even if there is not a rough consensus PsyOp, the effect is the same if we can't compromise.

I don't hate Core. I am not married to Classic. I want a scaling solution.  I'm not naive enough to think I'll get everything I want.

Should SegWit be a hard fork or a soft fork? I prefer a hard fork but I don't really care.
Should we have SegWit or 2 MB? I prefer 2MB but I don't really care.
Should we have 2MB once and see what happens or a 2-4-8 schedule? I prefer the latter, but don't care.
Should we run upgraded Core or Classic? I prefer Classic but don't really care.

Just end this crap. If we can do this, I'll close my short and help pump. If there is no solution in place and the market keeps pumping anyway, My short will blow up and I'll start liquidating my cold storage.

i think most poeple like you want some kind of scaling one way or another, they don't really care which way it gets done.
i'll admit i will go along with pretty much whatever too, until then i'll bitch and complain about what i think should be.
selling coins based on this seems a little premature, some kind of scaling is bound to happen...
i'm going to stick with my original plan to sell the news that core devs have "Done it!".
ill buy back once poeple realize we aren't out of the woods.

You've told me before that you don't ever trade all of your BTC portfolio, and I hope it's true this time, as well.

Accordingly, I hope that you are betting both ways.. rather than all or nothing.

I'm not sure if I have the definitions correct, exactly; however, at this time, I am about 93.75% long (my BTC portfolio in BTC) and about 6.25% short (my BTC portfolio in $$).

for sure i will not sell everything, But I will get more aggressive with my sells now that price is high enough for me to comfortably handle missing the mark and getting left behind, a bag full of fiat is not a terrible consolation prize... ( remember i'm targeting 750 ish )

I am similarly positioned at this time, I happen to have a few hundred dollars left on 1 exchange thats it. i went from 80% in, to 99% in last week or was it the week b4.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

We're averaging 2.8-3 tps at the moment...

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/

Only so many seats on this train... time to pay up suckas.

Poors may use dog-coin.  

Nick Szabo is on about Ethereum, Peter Todd and Gmax have a Monero fetish. Companion coins are all the rage. Get on board.

[adamstgBit]

I don't see what is wrong... bitcoin is in a pretty decent place right now, no?

the only real problem right now is all the uneducated complaining about scalability. makes us look very conflicted... but in reality we are all ready to say "I prefer X but Y is good too".

segwit in may, and then we go and push for a HF 2MB again when blocks become full again.

[marcus_of_augustus]

... and who increases bitcoin utility?

deadbeats ranting and raving on forums about how terrible all the devs are ... or developers adding features, tools, layers, wallets, protocol extensions?

Only clueless dogs bite the hands that feed them.

rah-de-rah rant-de-rant rah

Core gets no special credit for just doing their damn jobs, especially when they aren't doing them. 

noone gets to tell devs what they can and can't do ... you choose who you follow, the genuine or the charlatans and deceivers

what is your "damned job" (besides ranting on here about how bad core devs are)?

I would even invest/help to create some bitcoin businesses if I knew how much blockspace I could use.  There would be huge potential for title registry/xfer, equities exchanges, smart contracts, etc, but I would need to know what sort of fees I'd be paying and to be certain my transaction wouldn't be locked up for days if I guessed wrong.

You could do all of this on namecoin blockchain for free with as good as security as you'll ever need for these functions ... no, I suspect that your problem isn't that "can't start mah bidness without bigger blocks" ... it's just that your a disaffected trash talker who has found a convenient cause-de-jour to rant about.

[adamstgBit]

... and who increases bitcoin utility?

deadbeats ranting and raving on forums about how terrible all the devs are ... or developers adding features, tools, layers, wallets, protocol extensions?

Only clueless dogs bite the hands that feed them.

rah-de-rah rant-de-rant rah

Core gets no special credit for just doing their damn jobs, especially when they aren't doing them.  

noone gets to tell devs what they can and can't do ... you choose who you follow, the genuine or the charlatans and deceivers

what is your "damned job" (besides ranting on here about how bad core devs are)?

I would even invest/help to create some bitcoin businesses if I knew how much blockspace I could use.  There would be huge potential for title registry/xfer, equities exchanges, smart contracts, etc, but I would need to know what sort of fees I'd be paying and to be certain my transaction wouldn't be locked up for days if I guessed wrong.

You could do all of this on namecoin blockchain for free with as good as security as you'll ever need for these functions ... no, I suspect that your problem isn't that "can't start mah bidness without bigger blocks" ... it's just that your a disaffected trash talker who has found a convenient cause-de-jour to rant about.

poeple don't realize this but you can easily have the blockchain record a 5GB file with a 256btye TX
just hash your file and dump that hash on the blockchain
now anyone can validate the 5GB file.
i think businesses looking to use the blockchain for timestamps and record keeping are doing it wrong. they should use the blockchain to record the proof of existence and authenticity only, sure if you upload the whole file to the blockchain you get the same effect, but it's not necessary.
a system that creates 1 TX on blockchain in order to timestamp every single "whatever" is nutty.


but i've said this b4, and i'll say it again, if they pay the appropriate fee i'm ok with them using it incorrectly.

[Cconvert2G36]

I don't see what is wrong... bitcoin is in a pretty decent place right now, no?

the only real problem right now is all the uneducated complaining about scalability. makes us look very conflicted... but in reality we are all ready to say "I prefer X but Y is good too".

segwit in may, and then we go and push for a HF 2MB again when blocks become full again.

People are complaining because the solution was already stated quite simply:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

For years, after getting involved in 2011, I thought it was a no brainer that we would gracefully upgrade.

Years later, gmax's theory that Bitcoin was inherently broken led him to form a company to fix it... and he's been given the power to bend the protocol to his will. His email literally becomes the Core roadmap. It's frustrating.

@BMB your flip flopping is only slightly less frustrating. Marcus might have the correct view on that.  

Edit: I don't think satoshi used 115,000 purely at random, important to note we are approaching block 400,000(!) with long strings of 900k+ blocks.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[adamstgBit]

ok did we get all that shit out of our systems?

GOOD!

on word! (>°0°)>

to the moon! ┗(°0°)┛

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrUvu1mlWco