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

[Killerpotleaf]

It is just another orphaned block.

You are wrong here, either intentionally or ignorant of the situation.

Namely, the miner loses out on the subsidy + fees and any transactions not already included in a block are put back in the mempool. Nobody gets hurt except the miner who found the block.

No wrong and wrong again ... any miner who runs BU >1MByte is wasting electricity and resources on every hash they do ... they are buying tickets for a lottery that doesn't exist.

BU is a radioactive mess, anyone who touches it is getting burned and sick. In a way they deserve it, but assholes like you who shill for BU deserve a special place in BU's hell of its own making. You should set up a BU mining farm, to show us all how dedicated to the cause you are ... pit all your money, time and resources into the biggest losing proposition in bitcoin, do it!

how many BU blocks will be mined tomorrow tho?
how many BU blocks were mined today?!

[1714243975]

1714243975

[1714243975]

1714243975

[1714243975]

1714243975

[marcus_of_augustus]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

maybe you're right.

maybe its best that consensus rules are enforced by limiting the options nodes have, when it comes to the software they choose to run.

all hail core, they are the bitcoin gods, they determine what is bitcoin and what's good for it.

anyone can run their own code ... i support and encourage people compile their own code on hardware they control and trust with their own mods in it.

There is no "all hail core", you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone can go on core github and argue their technical case any time they like if you have something better to add.

BU is a huge mess, stay away from it ... do your own thing, follow core, run whatever you like but BU is the biggest steaming pile of politicised shit since Ethereum.

[notme]

It is just another orphaned block.

You are wrong here, either intentionally or ignorant of the situation.

Namely, the miner loses out on the subsidy + fees and any transactions not already included in a block are put back in the mempool. Nobody gets hurt except the miner who found the block.

No wrong and wrong again ... any miner who runs BU >1MByte is wasting electricity and resources on every hash they do ... they are buying tickets for a lottery that doesn't exist.

I agree.  BU miners should keep their produced blocks below 1MB for now.  A larger setting is dumb, but it won't hurt anyone but themselves.

BU is a radioactive mess, anyone who touches it is getting burned and sick. In a way they deserve it, but assholes like you who shill for BU deserve a special place in BU's hell of its own making. You should set up a BU mining farm, to show us all how dedicated to the cause you are ... pit all your money, time and resources into the biggest losing proposition in bitcoin, do it!

I think I'll pass on setting up a mining pool with retarded parameters.  I'll say a prayer for you.  You obviously have a lot of hate in your heart.

[sidhujag]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

If you want a cleaner implementation, bitcoin classic also supports a flag for specifying block size.  As for the "shit show" comment, can you explain why letting miners determine blocksize is a problem?  If it is a problem, we'd better hope they aren't able to get their hands on gcc or we are all screwed.

There are game theoretical implications of mining bigger blocks from what I understand... the 2 main issues I know of are selfish mining and undercutting

[marcus_of_augustus]

I think I'll pass on setting up a mining pool ... 'with BU parameters'.  I'll say a prayer for you.  You obviously have a lot of hate in your heart.

Ok, a passive-aggressive pussy who lacks the courage of their convictions.

You should just paste that in your signature so next time I'll know not to bother logging on ...

[notme]

I think I'll pass on setting up a mining pool with retarded parameters.  I'll say a prayer for you.  You obviously have a lot of hate in your heart.

Ok, a passive-aggressive pussy who lacks the courage of their convictions.

You should just paste that in your signature so next time I'll know not to bother logging on ...

Open up your hate and let it flow into me.

[Killerpotleaf]

Block #450691 Relayed By   Bitcoin.com 

[JayJuanGee]

You may be correct.. no harm, no foul.. but my understanding is that there is a reason for blocksize limits, and some of it has to do with bloat and bandwith, etc etc..

The reason for the blocksize limit is that at the time it was implemented, bitcoins were worthless and blocks were easy to generate with a CPU.  Anyone could build huge blocks for no cost.  The blocksize limit was added as an antispam measure since it was basically free to spam.

Today, if you want to build a big block, you risk that the rest of the network will reject it.  If that happens, your block is orphaned and you lose the block reward (subsidy + fees).  In order to spam a large block, you have to take the risk that your block will be orphaned, costing you about $11,250 (12.5 btc/block * $900 / btc).  Not to mention, that larger blocks take longer to propagate than smaller blocks, so in a race condition, the smaller block will always win and the larger block will be orphaned.

Even at the time the blocksize was introduced, Satoshi himself intended for it to be increased at a later date (via a hard fork):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

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.

I also responded to this one in the seg wit / bitcoin unlimited thread... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1759891.msg17669731#msg17669731

[JayJuanGee]

I am also of the understanding that seg wit is a much better solution for a lot of matters and should be the next step, rather than rushing into BU when there does not really appear to be a need for it, not at the moment.. and seg wit is a better next step (at this time).

you have it backward.

they are rushing segwit and all its glory, when it is the thing that is not needed. Clearly a system to govern all futher block size increases is nessary, in fact we could use such a system to stabilize the fee market right now.

you can go with a silly static block size with some kind of predetermined growth rate.

but that being adopted doesn't really mean anything, the responsibility to agree to and enforce (or not) is up to nodes. Nodes ultimately have the power, BU only recognizes that power, thats all.

O.k.  I did not know that there was any kind of problem with the current fees or with transactions being stalled...... and seg wit has been tested and there is a version of it that is ready for adopting.  I don't really know too much about BU being activated and tested.  I suppose if it becomes more popular, then maybe it will get adopted... before seg wit... I doubt that I have too much to do with any of that, right?  Why should I care if BU is adopted? 

I have heard a lot of good things about seg wit, so I am looking forward to that being adopted, but I have no real reason to think that BU is necessary at this time.. because it seems that there should be a certain level of priority going to get the thing activated (seg wit) that has already been tested and seems to be fairly non controversial by technical folks.

[Killerpotleaf]

when the gr8 chain-segregation comes, and it will come!
make sure you're hodling.
its gana get nutty in here soon, if your plan isn't to bunker down with ALL the bitcoins, you're gonna have a bad time.

[ErisDiscordia]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

Perhaps that time will come, when blockstream stops behaving like censoring dictators, suspiciously backed by captains of financial industry. Maybe when people who support them (like you) stop spewing hateful insults and using arguments from authority.

Before you insult me as well, please note that I am endorsing neither BU nor Core here, just answering your question.

On a side note...WHAT is going on with the price? Shouldn't it be breaking up or down by now?

[r0ach]

There is no gold settlement... bitcoin is the only one. You try to goto fort knox to prove you own a rightful piece of that pie after paying for its claim. Good luck!

Bitcoin as a settlement layer would mean you'd always be dealing with derivatives of bitcoin in order to do day to day transactions that increase it's counter party risk even higher than it is now, and everyone knows bitcoin's counter party risk is already higher than metals in the first place.  There is no situation ever in which bitcoin has less counter party risk than metals, especially when you're using bitcoin derivatives.  

A normal human actually can be their own banker with metals, but with bitcoin there are a million external counter party risk factors that can implode it - like whatever a random bitcoin dev decides to do after waking up in the morning.  Then the fact that if people are going to claim bitcoin is never actually "finished", it's a centralized technocracy by default on the software side and centralized by economy of scale on the mining side.

Can you make money with bitcoin?  Sure.  But don't pretend it's actually solved any problems to make metals obsolete.  Contrary to popular opinion that bitcoin "works" because it's existed for 8 years, this is misleading.  You can start timing the date of whether bitcoin works or not from the point where all micro-transactions are forced off-chain and all on-chain transactions are settlement payments with derivatives of those settlements (such as LN) being used for commerce - with block reward also gone, surviving off transaction fees.

Bitcoin can currently derive price entirely from just being a wild speculative gamble, but the closer you get to the endgame, the more the price will be derived from if the economics and use case makes any sense - and whether economy of scale makes it completely centralized or not.  As I said above, I don't think it has a valid use case as a store of value or settlement layer, so this means it's only hope is LN + vast amounts of transactions and then it's value I guess would be held up by acting as some type of paypal-like processor.

As everybody knows, gold and silver don't really require high transaction flow and turnover, but bitcoin's price is entirely high transaction flow based.  This is why bitcoin as a settlement layer without derivatives of those settlements that are also deemed to be "trustless" has never made any sense.

[JayJuanGee]

On a side note...WHAT is going on with the price? Shouldn't it be breaking up or down by now?

What you talkin bout, willis?  Prices? what does that have to do with anything?   


O.k... o.k.   I  will settle down and go along with your point...

What are you gonna call it?   Consolidation no?  This is not unusual.. .we got a narrowing in on a price range of about $908 to $922..... but even deviating 1% from that range in one direction or another may still be kind of captured within the consolidation range...... fairly low volume too, and maybe even a well needed rest for some battlers.....

 so wouldn't our price break out need to be a bit more than 2% from one end or another before it becomes significant...?    I am still kind of thinking that up is a bit more likely than down, but I am not giving a lot of difference in my bet in regards to the point spread.... and even if it breaks down for a short period, I cannot really see more than a 10% down... but a 10% up seems more plausible than a 10% down.. in my current thinking... even though it could take a bit of time before we witness the break out.

[Ricky64]

i think we are reaching the end of the handle tbh

[simmo77]

i think we are reaching the end of the handle tbh

Which time scale are you looking at?

Very small handle.

[Miz4r]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

Perhaps that time will come, when blockstream stops behaving like censoring dictators, suspiciously backed by captains of financial industry. Maybe when people who support them (like you) stop spewing hateful insults and using arguments from authority.

What does blockstream have to do with supposed censorship on some forum or subreddit? And what does that have to do with the development of the Bitcoin protocol? And this is the internet, some people are always going to spew hateful insults on both sides of any argument. You have to be able to filter that out or there will never be a resolution.

[ErisDiscordia]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

Perhaps that time will come, when blockstream stops behaving like censoring dictators, suspiciously backed by captains of financial industry. Maybe when people who support them (like you) stop spewing hateful insults and using arguments from authority.

What does blockstream have to do with supposed censorship on some forum or subreddit? And what does that have to do with the development of the Bitcoin protocol? And this is the internet, some people are always going to spew hateful insults on both sides of any argument. You have to be able to filter that out or there will never be a resolution.

It has to do with the issue of trust. It should come as no surprise, that people in the ecosystem of Bitcoin - an invention with the stated purpose of not having to trust a single central authority - will not trust central authorities. You might be convinced of technological superiority of core's approach (for the record: I am on the fence about this) but failing to realize this simple issue about trust isn't helping anyone and keeps fostering an unnecessary divide in the community. Is it really that hard to understand, that people are going to be skeptical of centrally mandated policies? Especially when they are coming from people who have been shown to engage in censorship and breaking promises, while being funded by the very financial institutions their product is officially meant to replace?

Honestly, the dogmatism and arrogance of (many vocal) core-supporters has been the biggest reason why I can't get behind the core/blockstream agenda. To be fair, you have always been polite about this.

[yefi]

Someone took a risk and set their blocksize larger than 1mb.  It was a foolish thing to do with the current state of the blocksize debate, but it only hurt the miner who chose that setting. 

Isn't it the case that this was a *bug* in BU code, rather than the pool operator going gung-ho with larger block sizes?

[Hunyadi]

Someone took a risk and set their blocksize larger than 1mb.  It was a foolish thing to do with the current state of the blocksize debate, but it only hurt the miner who chose that setting. 

Isn't it the case that this was a *bug* in BU code, rather than the pool operator going gung-ho with larger block sizes?

AFAIK it was a bug. No need to sugar coat it.

[abz99]

"the absence of CNY currency volatility may dampen the price of Bitcoin" -- Arthur Hayes, BitMEX Crypto Trader Digest @BitMEXdotcom