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

[harrymmmm]

...and we're still above $420. Dafuq

bitcoin = #bizarroworld

watch it crumble when its confirmed the some of the Blockstream guys have veto power.

It did have weasel-words in it to that effect.
It had to though. Adam has no power to force even blockstream employees to go along with it.

So, imho, you can assume that's confirmed already. Doesn't mean it will happen that way tho.
Up to the point where that decision is necessary, I imagine a lot of discussion will take place inside and outside blockstream

[adamstgBit]

Adam told you it wasn't. Close to a month ago, but don't mention that,
'Course (iirc) he also offered a fix for the issue, but don't mention that.

Yep, better to see if the angry mob can be used to fuck with the price a bit more. /s

if there's an angry mob it's not because of 1 small oversight.
I was and still am perfectly willing to support segwit.
i'm angry because, we had this agreement and now it's falling apart, who's making it fall apart? Blockstream guys...


BTW, has it been confirmed that Blockstream can/have veto the agreement???

Grrr. I had a bad day yesterday. I meant 'peter todd told you', not 'adam told you', of course. Lol.
Sry if that caused confusion in your reply. I'll assume it didn't...

I'm surprised at your mood swings tho. You do seem angry and unreasonable lately.
I see you joining the group who mislead as you did on the image i quoted above. There's a lot of fud here lately ... just thought I'd 'out' something rather obvious.

Maybe you're just angry, impatient, and not checking your facts like you used to.

Re the agreement:
I'm not sure it could be considered a contract in any sense. It was more like a memorandum of understanding, so 'falling apart' isn't that much of a betrayal. If indeed it is even falling apart.

I can understand adam's signature. He's a rep of a company that's guaranteed the employess free speech on the bitcoin topics, so kinda hard to sign off as the company prez. I'm sure he tried to get away with the 'individual' sig, but eventually was obliged to change it to prez. Understandable I think. It was a difficult call and may still cause trouble back at blockstream.

Maaku's comments just reinforce that.

The overall view tho, is that many players signed it, so there's some kind of commitment to modify the roadmap with a decent consideration of a hard fork in some months. That's better than you had (from core devs) before this agreement, right? Previously, there was just a vague mention of a future hard fork to clean up some stuff, rebase segwit's merkle tree, etc.

Not what either side wanted, but better overall than what could have happened.

i am livid.

[adamstgBit]

i'm trying hard to remain calm and get some anwers https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1376895.0

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BitUsher]

i'm trying hard to remain calm and get some anwers https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1376895.0

Blockstream and their employees are damned if they do and damned if they don't with some of you guys.

 First, the conspiracy was that Blockstream was a unified cabal of developers with a vision to control bitcoin and a plan to force everyone to use their subscription sidechain products.

Now when the nutters find out that Blockstream has a contract which allows developers to independently express their thoughts without being coerced into following a unified company plan and are free to independently develop and contribute what they want with autonomy than they scream foul as if this is some attempt to further stall development.

f2pool could have been mature about this matter and simply emailed Adam a friendly email to clarify what the issue was , but instead they decided to stir up some really petty drama so they could appease the widest audience with their political games of using false nVersion's to give miners on their pool a false sense they are "voting" for classic when the nodes are really running core. These political games aren't that big of a deal in of themselves besides being unprofessional , but when they are done with the ignorance of the inherent risks that using false nVersion's creates, is really harmful to our ecosystem*.


* Using false nVersion's risk triggering safety warnings or potential forks.  

[bitebits]

Note: This is our initial roadmap proposal. We will run this by miners, companies and users for feedback, before it is finalized.

Bitcoin Classic 2016 Roadmap
 
The Bitcoin Classic team will help realize Satoshi’s vision of making Bitcoin scale into a global peer to peer cash system, and not just a settlement network. We believe on-chain scaling is crucial for the long term health of Bitcoin. On-chain scaling maximizes transaction volume, whose fees are needed to replace miner rewards on the medium to long term scale.
 
Our preferred strategy for on-chain scaling, is to eliminate the need for blocks to be synced within seconds. We will implement solutions that make continuous block syncing possible. Instead of transmitting the data for a new block all at once when it is found, we can significantly optimize current bandwidth by sending data during the full ten-minute interval between blocks.

This will enable the Bitcoin network to scale to significant new levels, without endangering decentralization.  We will scale using a 3-pronged approach.

[...]

[BitUsher]

Note: This is our initial roadmap proposal. We will run this by miners, companies and users for feedback, before it is finalized.

 
Bitcoin Classic 2016 Roadmap

 
The Bitcoin Classic team will help realize Satoshi’s vision of making Bitcoin scale into a global peer to peer cash system, and not just a settlement network. We believe on-chain scaling is crucial for the long term health of Bitcoin. On-chain scaling maximizes transaction volume, whose fees are needed to replace miner rewards on the medium to long term scale.
 
Our preferred strategy for on-chain scaling, is to eliminate the need for blocks to be synced within seconds. We will implement solutions that make continuous block syncing possible. Instead of transmitting the data for a new block all at once when it is found, we can significantly optimize current bandwidth by sending data during the full ten-minute interval between blocks.

This will enable the Bitcoin network to scale to significant new levels, without endangering decentralization.  We will scale using a 3-pronged approach.

[...]

You forgot the link... reading now..

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

[Fatman3001]

i'm trying hard to remain calm and get some anwers https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1376895.0

Blockstream and their employees are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 First, the conspiracy was that Blockstream was a unified cabal of developers with a vision to control bitcoin and a plan to force everyone to use their subscription sidechain products.

Now when the nutters find out that Blockstream has a contract which allows developers to independently express their thoughts without being coerced into following a unified company plan and are free to independently develop and contribute what they want with autonomy than they scream foul as if this is some attempt to further stall development.

f2pool could have been mature about this matter and simply emailed Adam a friendly email to clarify what the issue was , but instead they decided to stir up some really petty drama so they could appease the widest audience with their political games of using false nVersion's to give miners on their pool a false sense they are "voting" for classic when the nodes are really running core. These political games aren't that big of a deal in of themselves besides being unprofessional , but when they are done with the ignorance of the inherent risks that using false nVersion's creates, is really harmful to our ecosystem*.


* Using false nVersion's risk triggering safety warnings or potential forks.  

You are conflating different peoples views. Both sides have a wide variety of overlapping consensus. If you start conflating peoples opinions it will necessarily look ridiculous.

Anyhew. What was the point of the meeting? Why would the miners agree to these concessions if the other side had only glass beads to offer back?

There's a lot of money at stake. Devs are gambling with the future of these peoples companies. The miners came to do business and expected the other side to do so as well. If the devs are so unconcerned with throwing everyone else under the bus they will discover what decentralized really means.

We'll see if Adams attempt to unring the bell will work, but it's pretty obvious that his and other devs commitment to this "consensus" is far less meaningful than the miners were lead to believe.

[becoin]

The Bitcoin Classic team will help realize Satoshi’s vision of making Bitcoin scale into a global peer to peer cash system, and not just a settlement network.

Blah-blah-blah... Big blcktards continue to abuse Satoshi's name in their failed altcoin fork.

[BitUsher]

You forgot the link... reading now..

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

Initial Impression --

The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks  (Also Found in Core's roadmap)

The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of  Segwit till the end of the year

The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016  adaptive rule for a block size limit that  heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.

[BitUsher]

Anyhew. What was the point of the meeting? Why would the miners agree to these concessions if the other side had only glass beads to offer back?

The devs that signed the proposal were some of the more pessimistic and cautious core devs regarding raising the blocksize . Most of the other devs will be easier to hear and convince to rally behind once the technical details are fully elaborated.

There's a lot of money at stake. Devs are gambling with the future of these peoples companies.

This is ridiculous statement to make. Devs have absolutely no control over the miners, merchants, payment processors, users. We all have to choose to run or upgrade to their software.... that is the VOTE! Their influence over our ecosystem is completely indirect because even those that hate them secretly respect their expertise and efforts. Do not become bitter that you cannot force devs to write and maintain code for you that goes against their advice or moral conscience.  

[blunderer]

You forgot the link... reading now..

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

Initial Impression --

The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks  (Also Found in Core's roadmap)

The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of  Segwit till the end of the year

The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016  adaptive rule for a block size limit that  heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.

I can see this being the final nail in the home-mining coffin...



owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd.

[adamstgBit]

You forgot the link... reading now..

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

Initial Impression --

The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks  (Also Found in Core's roadmap)

The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of  Segwit till the end of the year

The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016  adaptive rule for a block size limit that  heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.

I can see this being the final nail in the home-mining coffin...



owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd.

@BitUsher

awaiting your response to this.

[BitUsher]

owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd.

Many of us still mine at home , and even profitably because we have free electricity from Sunk costs (microhydro,solar)

There is also hope/expectations that products will start to be released in the future to recycle heat from ASICs, that will than incentivize more mining at home.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Fatman3001]

Anyhew. What was the point of the meeting? Why would the miners agree to these concessions if the other side had only glass beads to offer back?

The devs that signed the proposal were some of the more pessimistic and cautious core devs regarding raising the blocksize . Most of the other devs will be easier to hear and convince to rally behind once the technical details are fully elaborated.

There's a lot of money at stake. Devs are gambling with the future of these peoples companies.

This is ridiculous statement to make. Devs have absolutely no control over the miners, merchants, payment processors, users. We all have to choose to run or upgrade to their software.... that is the VOTE! Their influence over our ecosystem is completely indirect because even those that hate them secretly respect their expertise and efforts. Do not become bitter that you cannot force devs to write and maintain code for you that goes against their advice or moral conscience.  

Which is why...

If the devs are so unconcerned with throwing everyone else under the bus they will discover what decentralized really means.

[adamstgBit]

Coin



Explanation

oh look 61% full

bitcoin is dieing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbaTYL-bP20

lmao

[blunderer]

owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd.

Many of us still mine at home , and even profitably because we have free electricity from Sunk costs (microhydro,solar)

There is also hope/expectations that products will start to be released in the future to recycle heat from ASICs, that will than incentivize more mining at home.

By "many," you mean you and 3 other guys who got their USB hubs wired to the paddle wheel you're running off your mom's garden hose?
And your cantena internet's gonna be history anyhow, your neighbor's tired of you stealing his WiFi, so moot point.



Solar mining Such backstory
Pics of your solar/hydro setup, or it didn't happen.

[Cconvert2G36]

owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd.

Many of us still mine at home , and even profitably because we have free electricity from Sunk costs (microhydro,solar)

There is also hope/expectations that products will start to be released in the future to recycle heat from ASICs, that will than incentivize more mining at home.

Which is unrelated to your concern as your stratum connection to the pool requires minimal bandwidth... or you are solo mining at home?

Here's kano's opinion...

Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21’s roundtable consensus, unless Adam Back gives us a reasonable explanation why he quietly changed his title from Blockstream President to Individual at the very last moment — without anybody noticed. We feel we’ve been cheated. I don’t know how we can trust Blockstream anymore in the future.

Hmm, couldn't all the pools just go with 2MB and tell the devs who think they control everything to stop trying to make themselves feel important?

Bitcoin is by design controlled by the consensus of the miners, not by centralised control.
It would seem that there are all sorts of parties trying to control bitcoin and I guess they all simply fail to understand the design.

Doesn't really matter how important devs think they are, if they want to be a relevant part of the blockchain decisions then they need to be miners.

...

BlockStream/Sidechains/SegWit all sounds a lot like trying pointlessly to control altcoins and make something like a partial SPV ... to me.

[adamstgBit]

owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd.

Many of us still mine at home , and even profitably because we have free electricity from Sunk costs (microhydro,solar)

There is also hope/expectations that products will start to be released in the future to recycle heat from ASICs, that will than incentivize more mining at home.

-_-
you solo mine  or pool?