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

[adamstgBit]

painting lines on chart and pretenting t o know where price was going in the short term was fun, what happened to the good old days... 

[1714823904]

1714823904

[1714823904]

1714823904

[1714823904]

1714823904

[BitUsher]

check out the definition of the word Coup

OED good?
coup, n
1.1 A blow, stroke; the shock of a blow, engagement, or combat; = cope n.2 Obs.
2.2 A fall, upset, overturn. Sc.

You linked to Coup d'état which is more specific and not something I mentioned.

[BlackSpidy]

painting lines on chart and pretenting t o know where price was going in the short term was fun, what happened to the good old days... 

They don't fit in the block anymore.

[adamstgBit]

WHAT?! well they have a strange way of showing it, people left and right are saying core doesn't want to scale the mainchain at all, any increase is a compromise in their view.

133MB ... eventually .... may take 30-40 years. Cores plan hinges upon payment channels settling to the main chain as a settlement network. The best hope now is the lightning network. The LN documents and developers have been clear from the  beginning that the block size needs to eventually increase a lot to scale. The 133MB number is from their own slides ...

https://lightning.network/

Perhaps if you did more listening and reading rather than speculating and assuming you would know this?

There is a lot of misinformation being spread for one reason or another about Core. In reality we are all "big blockers" except for a small group of Bitcoin must never change which is around 50-100 people worldwide.

i was vaguely aware that lighting would require bigger blocks...

so we can have 133MB blocks years from now, but we have to wait a full year for 2MB.

because 2MB today would centralize bitcoin?

[adamstgBit]

painting lines on chart and pretenting t o know where price was going in the short term was fun, what happened to the good old days... 

They don't fit in the block anymore.

lol!

[adamstgBit]

WHAT?! well they have a strange way of showing it, people left and right are saying core doesn't want to scale the mainchain at all, any increase is a compromise in their view.

133MB ... eventually .... may take 30-40 years. Cores plan hinges upon payment channels settling to the main chain as a settlement network. The best hope now is the lightning network. The LN documents and developers have been clear from the  beginning that the block size needs to eventually increase a lot to scale. The 133MB number is from their own slides ...

https://lightning.network/

Perhaps if you did more listening and reading rather than speculating and assuming you would know this?

There is a lot of misinformation being spread for one reason or another about Core. In reality we are all "big blockers" except for a small group of Bitcoin must never change which is around 50-100 people worldwide.

i was vaguely aware that lighting would require bigger blocks...

so we can have 133MB blocks years from now, but we have to wait a full year for 2MB.

because 2MB today would centralize bitcoin?

let's be honest here

the true reason to delay blockincress ( we all agree block size increase is INEVITABLE  ) is to get poeple use to using the second layer sooner rather than later.

[cbeast]

SegWit will allow 4-5 tps. That will help some banks participate, but not many. If banks can't even use Bitcoin, who will?

[ahpku]

check out the definition of the word Coup

OED good?
coup, n
1.1 A blow, stroke; the shock of a blow, engagement, or combat; = cope n.2 Obs.
2.2 A fall, upset, overturn. Sc.

You linked to Coup d'état which is more specific and not something I mentioned.

Nakamoto consensus remains and the immutable blockchain has remained resilient against multiple political coups.

Yeah, that's coup d'etat. Now you know.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BitUsher]

i was vaguely aware that lighting would require bigger blocks...

so we can have 133MB blocks years from now, but we have to wait a full year for 2MB.

because 2MB today would centralize bitcoin?

No, Core's plan is giving us an effective 2 MB (1.7MB-2MB average) in April + LN in 3-4 th quarter this year increasing that capacity. I suppose you meant to say 3.4MB to 4 MB would centralize Bitcoin?

Why do you keep making this mistake when I have corrected you multiple times?

SegWit will allow 4-5 tps. That will help some banks participate, but not many. If banks can't even use Bitcoin, who will?

I would like to see your math. My math reflects current 4-7TPS with segwit getting us to 6.8 - 14 TPS. Who the hell cares about the banks anyways? Bitcoin is for us , not the banks to use.

[adamstgBit]

SegWit will allow 4-5 tps. That will help some banks participate, but not many. If banks can't even use Bitcoin, who will?

no one unless they NEED to do a settlement TX, for everything else there's Lighting.

the idea is that bitcoin is the backbone, not a "commercial bank" but a "central bank."

[coins101]

...
the true reason to delay blockincress ( we all agree block size increase is INEVITABLE  ) is to get poeple use to using the second layer sooner rather than later.

Blockstream needs forks to get its $75m worth of protocols into Core:

> Recruit as many core devs as possible
> Cause crisis
> Keep crisis going for months / years while you prepare
> Agree to bend, if xyz gets accepted

Pretty clever negotiating tactics, when all you have at the start is a weak hand.

[Adrian-x]

If these proposals were merely framed in terms of technical increases to the blocksize without attempts at hardforks and changes in governance or consensus, they probably would have gone through by now... But they are not about technical increases.

If you had been flowing this since 2013 you'd have a feeling for it, gate keepers have been blocking all discussion and stalling for years. Gavin's proposal was shot down, Maxwell went on a big public rampage exclaiming Gavin is no longer a lead developer and we wont follow him anymore. Gavin then released the working code as XT. Maxwell resigned from assigning BIP numbers most likely after his hand was forced a little while later after BIP101 was added to Core.    

Other Core supported were quick to point out that as total lines of code Maxwell had in fact contributed more to bitcoin than Gavin. However it was recently uncovered that Maxwell had in fact misattribute others contributions to the code by adding his e-mail address to all unclaimed contributions, something he has not corrected to this day. (he could have used any email address he chose but he didn't he chose to use his personal one)

None the less that's a rather cheep shot as adding lines of code is akin to measuring the contribution to building an airplane by measuring the adding of weight.

I think Adam Back the CEO of Blockstream knows full well what a coup is when he sees the centralized control of Core slipping away from his hands.

Bitcoin is better served by many implementation not one centralized one, its not hostile, what is hostile is the censoring of discussion.  

[BitUsher]

If these proposals were merely framed in terms of technical increases to the blocksize without attempts at hardforks and changes in governance or consensus, they probably would have gone through by now... But they are not about technical increases.

If you had been flowing this since 2013 you'd have a feeling for it, gate keepers have been blocking all discussion and stalling for years. Gavin's proposal was shot down, Maxwell went on a big public rampage exclaiming Gavin is no longer a lead developer and we wont follow him anymore. Gavin then released the working code as XT. Maxwell resigned from assigning BIP numbers most likely after his hand was forced a little while later after BIP101 was added to Core.    

There is indeed a small minority of very vocal supporters of contentious hardforks XT/BU/Classic ...
It is great that a majority of the miners, developers , and users support core's plan of a settlement network.  Processing every tx on the chain is futile and won't get us anywhere.

[Adrian-x]

SegWit will allow 4-5 tps. That will help some banks participate, but not many. If banks can't even use Bitcoin, who will?

Be your own bank. we get an extra 4-5tps written to the blockchain but the Witness data that get trimmed puts a 4X increase on the bandwidth needed by the network.

[ahpku]

... Processing every tx on the chain is futile and won't get us anywhere.

Other than the fact that no one is suggesting to have every transaction on-chain, would that be as futile as your solar/micro hydro solo mining farm?
Or ...not quite?

[BitUsher]

SegWit will allow 4-5 tps. That will help some banks participate, but not many. If banks can't even use Bitcoin, who will?

Be your own bank. we get an extra 4-5tps written to the blockchain but the Witness data that get trimmed puts a 4X increase on the bandwidth needed by the network.

Even though it makes my cause look favorable , I have to correct you . Segwit gets us 1.7-2MB realistically, not 4x.

6.8 - 14 TPS

Other than the fact that no one is suggesting to have every transaction on-chain, would that be as stupid as your solar/micro hydro solo mining farm?
Or ...not quite?

Actually quite a few Classic supporters are suggesting everything onchain, and there are no plans for payment channels in Classics roadmap-
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

[adamstgBit]

i was vaguely aware that lighting would require bigger blocks...

so we can have 133MB blocks years from now, but we have to wait a full year for 2MB.

because 2MB today would centralize bitcoin?

No, Core's plan is giving us an effective 2 MB (1.7MB-2MB average) in April + LN in 3-4 th quarter this year increasing that capacity. I suppose you meant to say 3.4MB to 4 MB would centralize Bitcoin?

Why do you keep making this mistake when I have corrected you multiple times?

its miscommunication

segwit is not a blocksize increase, it doesn't add more load to the network, in the same way a real blocksize increase ( and subsequent rise in TX vol) does.

when i say 2MB i mean 2MB

when you say 2MB you mean 1MB + segwit

it's all very confusing

[adamstgBit]

if we segwit then we will blocksize incress and HARD targeting 4MB effective block space.

wait that came out all wrong.

then next block increase is critical!!

[Adrian-x]

SegWit will allow 4-5 tps. That will help some banks participate, but not many. If banks can't even use Bitcoin, who will?

Be your own bank. we get an extra 4-5tps written to the blockchain but the Witness data that get trimmed puts a 4X increase on the bandwidth needed by the network.

Even though it makes my cause look favorable , I have to correct you . Segwit gets us 1.7-2MB realistically, not 4x.

6.8 - 14 TPS

I'm not looking at the 1.7-2MB in block size but the extra Multi sig data that is transmitted prior to being written to a block. That extra data is putting more strain on the infrastructure for fewer transactions, and its giving a discount to those transactions what use LN and carry more data. it's a new economic policy favoring the off chain solutions at the expense of mining rewards needed to secure the network.  I'm all fore it, but cost it on the broadcast tx size not the trimmed text size that's written to a block.