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

[billyjoeallen]

bitcoiners are on the verge of a melt down, all thanks to the blocklimit debate, which seems to have no end in sight.
market will weigh in once its all said and done
assuming core gets their way....when we can play with LN we will either love it or hate it, and boom or bust follows.
until then its probably in everyone's best interest to PUMP dat price. ( if we can  )

Miners are afraid the market will crash if they try to switch to big block code. The only way to take away that fear is to crash the market. Then they won't fear it anymore. we won't get big blocks without a crash. We won't get a new ATH until we get big blocks. The only way up is to go down first.

[bargainbin]

^^

Bankster are virus.
Bitcoin is the antivirus.

The McAfee antivirus

[nioc]

And yeah, this is one kind of the news my bank buddy makes happy: http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-10-new-firms-hyperledger-blockchain-project/ -- the company that says bitcoin can not scale helps the banks and other companies to build the blockchain that can scale.

The Linux Foundation != banks

The project also formally unveiled its governing board, which is chaired by blockchain startup Digital Asset Holdings CEO Blythe Masters

Other governing board members include JPMorgan head of new product development and emerging technologies Santiago Suarez.

[BitUsher]

Miners are afraid the market will crash if they try to switch to big block code. The only way to take away that fear is to crash the market. Then they won't fear it anymore. we won't get big blocks without a crash. We won't get a new ATH until we get big blocks. The only way up is to go down first.

Please sell everything you have for the millionth time already. You are like a battered house wife that keeps threatening to leave , but comes crawling back again over and over again. Your threats are empty and don't instill any fear in us, and for good reason.

The small amount of classic supporters and most payment processors/banks are desperate for immediate returns from the hope that simply raising bitcoins tx capacity will cause new users to flock to bitcoin in droves regardless of the two not necessarily being correlated. (Most people didn't hear the other side to Garzik's "Fidelity problem" and what Fidelity had in store for bitcoin. )

While the rest of us on the other hand do indeed care about price and mass adoption we put those priorities as secondary to decentralization/fungibility/security/robustness. We are more interested in the technology and its implications rather than just getting wealthy in the short term.

This is why your threats to crash the price don't scare us. We will simply buy into the price and get cheaper coins, as we don't need to turn a profit today and are looking at the longterm health of bitcoin. If we are betrayed by the miners than so be it , we will sell classiccoin and invest in the new coin even if we are forced to change the consensus algo for security. Classic's roadmap is indeed not aligned with our values and we will not be threatened or coerced into any conciliation that doesn't take into account blocksize externalities and new security threats.

P.S.. This isn't a ideological allegiance to a certain banner and I could be convinced to support classic if they considered security / fungibility considerations instead of focusing principally on confirmation throughput.

My guess is that you are desperate and frantic because you aren't getting your way and the majority of developers, users, and miners don't support your cause and you are too scared to sell because of FOMA during the halvening. I am calling your bluff, which in my case is really easy to do because I would love buying cheaper coins and can wait for bitcoin to  grow.

[billyjoeallen]

Miners are afraid the market will crash if they try to switch to big block code. The only way to take away that fear is to crash the market. Then they won't fear it anymore. we won't get big blocks without a crash. We won't get a new ATH until we get big blocks. The only way up is to go down first.

Please sell everything you have for the thousands time already. You are like a battered house wife that keeps threatening to leave , but comes crawling back again over and over again. Your threats are empty and don't instill any fear in us, and for good reason.

The small amount of classic supporters and most payment processors/banks are desperate for immediate returns from the hope that simply raising bitcoins tx capacity will cause new users to flock to bitcoin in droves regardless of the two not necessarily being correlated. Most people didn't hear the other side to Garzik's "Fidelity problem" and what Fidelity had in store for bitcoin.

While the rest of us on the other hand do indeed care about price and mass adoption we put those priorities as secondary to decentralization/fungibility/security/robustness. We are more interested in the technology and its implications rather than just getting wealthy in the short term.

This is why your threats to crash the price don't scare us. We will simply buy into the price and get cheaper coins, as we don't need to turn a profit today and are looking at the longterm health of bitcoin. If we are betrayed by the miners than so be it , we will sell classiccoin and invest in the new coin even if we are forced to change the consensus algo for security. Classic's roadmap is indeed not aligned with our values and we will not be threatened or coerced into any conciliation.

That's the first I've heard of a fidelity problem. What is it? I am also concerned with decentralization, specifically the centralization of mining in the People's Republic of China and the centralization of code development with the reference client. Now these two special interest groups (core and miners) are openly colluding against their customers.  How is THAT in line with your values?

I am not predicting a crash. I am not threatening a crash. I am simply saying that it is extremely unlikely that we will get a new ATH WITHOUT a crash.  What is likely is muddling through, bouncing around in this range until some event or series of events pushes us out of it one way or the other.

[bargainbin]

< BitUsher used text effects. It's super effective. >

[BitUsher]

That's the first I've heard of a fidelity problem. What is it?

It was ambiguously discussed in one of Garzik's conference speeches, which became a major selling point of why bitcoin needs to increase the blocksize immediately by suggesting that Fidelity investments is interested in using Bitcoin but cannot because the capacity is too low. What Garzik did not clarify was what they intended to use bitcoin for and how they would use the blockchain which is a crucial bit of data that is critical in context.

Fidelity wanted to make txs of zero bitcoins to track non-bitcoin related assets by storing their data in the Bitcoin network and bypass all network fees by partnering up directly with several large mining pools and paying them directly in fiat a much smaller sum. In other words , they wanted for our ecosystem to heavily subsidize their spam. Perfect example of Tragedy of the commons.

I am also concerned with decentralization, specifically the centralization of mining in the People's Republic of China and the centralization of code development with the reference client. Now these two special interest groups core and miners) are openly colluding against their customers.  How is THAT in line with your values?

You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users support classic. I understand it is difficult to approximate a uservote with all the sybil attacking/cloud node promotion going on within the classic camp but there are other ways to estimate support . One way is to compare forum volume and reddit volume for active users . Even with a large and heavy campaign to attack theymos for censorship/moderation r/bitcoin still has between 2.5-3.5x the amount of live users in their subreddit  than r/btc. If classic had the support you suggest it should be trivial for you to buy enough hashing power to mine more than 4-7% of blocks.

In fact , rather than sell all your coins , if you are so intrested in Bitcoin  and its health and decentralization why don't you invest in a bunch of ASICs so you can mine Classic?

[billyjoeallen]

That's the first I've heard of a fidelity problem. What is it?

It was ambiguously discussed in one of Garzik's conference speeches, which became a major selling point of why bitcoin needs to increase the blocksize immediately by suggesting that Fidelity investments is interested in using Bitcoin but cannot because the capacity is too low. What Garzik did not clarify was what they intended to use bitcoin for and how they would use the blockchain which is a crucial bit of data that is critical in context.

Fidelity wanted to make payments of zero bitcoins to track non-bitcoin related assets by storing their data in the Bitcoin network and bypass all network fees by partnering up directly with several large mining pools and paying them directly in fiat a much smaller sum. In other words , they wanted for our ecosystem to heavily subsidize their spam. Perfect example of Tragedy of the commons.

I would actually say it's a perfect example of a use case. Bitcoins are database-writing tokens. That's what they are. Why do you object to them being used to write data to a database?  You object to facts? Hatefacts? You think it's even possible to control what kind of data gets written to the database, when that database was specifically designed to be censorship-resistant?   That's a special kind of hubris. King Canute ain't got nothin' on you.

I am also concerned with decentralization, specifically the centralization of mining in the People's Republic of China and the centralization of code development with the reference client. Now these two special interest groups core and miners) are openly colluding against their customers.  How is THAT in line with your values?

You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users support classic. I understand it is difficult to approximate a uservote with all the sybil attacking/cloud node promotion going on within the classic camp but there are other ways to estimate support . One way is to compare forum volume and reddit volume for active users . Even with a large and heavy campaign to attack theymos for censorship/moderation r/bitcoin still has between 2.5-3.5x the amount of live users in their subreddit  than r/btc. If classic had the support you suggest it should be trivial for you to buy enough hashing power to mine more than 4-7% of blocks.

In fact , rather than sell all your coins , if you are so intrested in Bitcoin  and its health and decentralization why don't you invest in a bunch of ASICs so you can mine Classic?

I already explained why I don't mine. 1) too difficult to compete with sibsidized electricity and cheap labor in China. 2)Mining rigs are expensive, rapidly depreciating capital goods with low liquidity relative to just buying bitcoins. 3)economies of scale mean that I would basically have to do it full time to be competitive and I have other stuff to do.

[ImI]

You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users support classic.

You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users doesn't support 2MB blocks. And not only "majority" i would also say "supermajority".

[adamstgBit]

You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users support classic.

You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users doesn't support 2MB blocks. And not only "majority" i would also say "supermajority".

node count and hashing power would seem to disagree with that...
at best we have economic marjory on our side
but when you have all the miners in HK saying " gives us effective block incress or we use classic"  one gets the sense that the tables can turn fast.

[BitUsher]

You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users doesn't support 2MB blocks. And not only "majority" i would also say "supermajority".

Which is why I support segwit and core's roadmap. So typical for a classic supporter to spread misleading information by insinuating I wasn't in favor of larger blocks.

I would actually say it's a perfect example of a use case. Bitcoins are database-writing tokens. That's what they are. Why do you object to them being used to write data to a database?  You object to facts? Hatefacts? You think it's even possible to control what kind of data gets written to the database, when that database was specifically designed to be censorship-resistant?   That's a special kind of hubris. King Canute ain't got nothin' on you.

You are helpless if you cannot see the problem with Fidelity externalizing the costs. Some of these costs are permanent as well. They would be  bypassing all tx fees and having bitcoin users carry the burden of supporting the network through inflation , Demurrage, and higher tx fees where they paid much lower tx fees and incurred none of the other costs.  Fidelity wasn't interested in paying the normal network tx fee, they weren't going to be purchasing any bitcoins, and the only person they may have slightly benefited would be 1-2 large mining pools with a backend deal.


In other words , no new Bitcoin users would come on board through their action, our fees would increase from 7-10 usd to something higher with higher node drop off and more centralization, and they would pay fractions of a penny per tx in fiat directly to miners bypassing the normal fee market.

[ImI]

You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users support classic.

You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users doesn't support 2MB blocks. And not only "majority" i would also say "supermajority".

node count and hashing power would seem to disagree with that...

you are talking about Classic. i explicitly used "2MB". many users disagree with Classic and the surroundings of Classic, others fear to loose the Core team as a capable capacity in developing and future invention. so there are a lot reasons to stand against Classic or to divide from Core and go with Classic.

But if you would ask them just 1MB or 2MB without any of the bullshit that happend the last months i think its obv what would be the answer. Imagine a user poll: WITH Core team 1MB or 2MB? I think there is absolutely n doubt users would opt for 2MB.

I a way its kind of blackmail, cause nobody wants to go further without Core. Core knows that and says: OK, then no 2MB for you. And thats EXACTLY why the community has started to realize that a second CAPABLE dev team is needed, so the next time some crucial decision is coming up we wont be held hostage by one dev team and can say "F%&* you, we go with team B. deal with it."

[ImI]

You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users doesn't support 2MB blocks. And not only "majority" i would also say "supermajority".

Which is why I support segwit and core's roadmap. So typical for a classic supporter to spread misleading information by insinuating I wasn't in favor of larger blocks.

LOL! So typical for a "smallblocker" to assume that everybody who is in favor of 2MB has to be a Classic supporter.

TBH i even dont think that 2MB are somehow urgently needed at the moment or better said i dont think everything will fall apart if we dont raise the limit anytime soon. There is a lot hysteria in this whole discussion imo.

But what i really think came to surface in this discussion is imo that (like i said before) the community is being held hostage by developers that are (at least partly) acting completely immature, irrational and extremely aggressive to others that disagree even slightly and i dont even get started about that shitty censorship that has taken place. Not by Core itself but they could have acted more decisive in that regard.   

Like i said, a second or even third team is needed so when in 2 or 3 years the next crucial decisions are coming we are able to choose.

[BitUsher]

LOL! So typical for a "smallblocker" to assume that everybody who is in favor of 2MB has to be a Classic supporter.

I apologize for insinuating you supported classic (still deserve an apology for your misleading insinuation) . What Implementation do you run?

I a way its kind of blackmail, cause nobody wants to go further without Core. Core knows that and says: OK, then no 2MB for you. And thats EXACTLY why the community has started to realize that a second CAPABLE dev team is needed, so the next time some crucial decision is coming up we wont be held hostage by one dev team and can say "F%&* you, we go with team B. deal with it."

Which makes the whole enterprise so pathetic because there is absolutely nothing stopping all or some of the devs from working on classic instead of core besides their belief that Classic roadmap and fundamentals aren't optimal. The 2 largest organizations who fund BTC development is the MIT media LAB and Blockstream and both have specific provisions to allow developers the freedom to work on any implementation they choose to unrestricted in their contract. Those 2 organization pay for a small fraction of the total developers and all the other developers are free to work on anything they want to as well because core isn't one company and isn't controlled by one entity but is a diverse and loose organization of many different people from many different backgrounds.

Classic even has an adopt a developer program where they are attempting to bribe developers to work on their implementation....and it still isn't working! The best they have come up with is hiring a few outside inexperienced developers and getting Sergio Lerner to agree to sometimes peak at their code and check to see if there are any glaring bugs being introduced out of pity for the poor classic users without a competent team of developers supporting them.

So why aren't developers supporting classic, XT , or BU ?

[edgar]

time for a new poll...


when will aztecmaggot slit his wrists & spare us from his complete fuckwittery?

(or get carted off to the looney bin)


Someone make it so

[adamstgBit]

time for a new poll...


when will aztecmaggot slit his wrists & spare us from his complete fuckwittery?

(or get carted off to the looney bin)


Someone make it so

wow such hostitliy for aztecmaggot
who is aztecmaggot?

you know what its probably best i just delete his comment....

[adamstgBit]

So why aren't developers supporting classic, XT , or BU ?

because all (legitimate) devs are core devs?

[billyjoeallen]

You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users doesn't support 2MB blocks. And not only "majority" i would also say "supermajority".

Which is why I support segwit and core's roadmap. So typical for a classic supporter to spread misleading information by insinuating I wasn't in favor of larger blocks.

I would actually say it's a perfect example of a use case. Bitcoins are database-writing tokens. That's what they are. Why do you object to them being used to write data to a database?  You object to facts? Hatefacts? You think it's even possible to control what kind of data gets written to the database, when that database was specifically designed to be censorship-resistant?   That's a special kind of hubris. King Canute ain't got nothin' on you.

You are helpless if you cannot see the problem with Fidelity externalizing the costs. Some of these costs are permanent as well. They would be  bypassing all tx fees and having bitcoin users carry the burden of supporting the network through inflation , Demurrage, and higher tx fees where they paid much lower tx fees and incurred none of the other costs.  Fidelity wasn't interested in paying the normal network tx fee, they weren't going to be purchasing any bitcoins, and the only person they may have slightly benefited would be 1-2 large mining pools with a backend deal.


In other words , no new Bitcoin users would come on board through their action, our fees would increase from 7-10 usd to something higher with higher node drop off and more centralization, and they would pay fractions of a penny per tx in fiat directly to miners bypassing the normal fee market.

You can't control what kind of data gets written to a censorship-resistant database. That would be censorship.  Why can't you damn cripplecoiners get that through your heads? Who isn't being true to our values here?

You object to Fidelity getting fee discounts but not SegWit users getting discounts? You gripe about externalizing costs while you helped cause the value of my investment to lose 60% in the last 27 months. Kinda rich coming from you.

You can't have it both ways.  Censorship-resistance means people are going to do stuff with their freedom that you don't like. We tolerate that because it mean we can do what they don't like. That's freedom, if you can't handle it, Bitcoin maybe isn't for you.

Classic helps mitigate the selfish mining advantage the Chinese get behind the Great Firewall.  Faster block propagation means less of a mining Cartel for Fidelity et. al. with which to collude.

[BitUsher]

So why aren't developers supporting classic, XT , or BU ?

because all (legitimate) devs are core devs?

You are suggesting it is a popularity thing that developers are trying to pad their resume with the "principally important" implementation?

This seems highly unlikely because ...

1) When Developers aren't being paid, they are principally concerned with working on items they are technically interested in or that make sense(are feasible). Bitcoin Core doesn't pay any salaries , and all other sources have no restrictions on what implication to work on , in fact the only implementation to bribe developers to work on it is Classic and perhaps Bitpay's Bitcore(not to be confused with Bitcoin core).

2) Developers aren't idiots , if they really believed in Classics roadmap than they would simply move over , miner would instantly agree as they aren't against classic per say, and than Classic would become the reference implementation with their resume padded on the right one.
 

[adamstgBit]

bitcoiners are on the verge of a melt down, all thanks to the blocklimit debate, which seems to have no end in sight.
market will weigh in once its all said and done
assuming core gets their way....when we can play with LN we will either love it or hate it, and boom or bust follows.
until then its probably in everyone's best interest to PUMP dat price. ( if we can  )

Miners are afraid the market will crash if they try to switch to big block code. The only way to take away that fear is to crash the market. Then they won't fear it anymore. we won't get big blocks without a crash. We won't get a new ATH until we get big blocks. The only way up is to go down first.

i get your point,

if you jump first i'll fallow