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

[notme]

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

[1714293409]

1714293409

[1714293409]

1714293409

[Ibian]

A higher price is absolutely required if bitcoin is to become anything of lasting importance. This is basic stuff we went over years ago, what the fuck dude?

So if nothing were to change to the current block size limit, you're saying that bitcoin won't have a higher price 3-5 years from now? Or even a decade from now?

I'm seriously doubting that. In fact, with no changes I think it would continue to outpace all other equities for the next decade.

Not orders of magnitude higher, and it would eventually die. Is that what you want? I insist that you answer this question, otherwise we are all forced to guess.

Oh silly me, you're so right Ibian... just change the block size limit to 8MB (or whatever), and the price will do a 10X overnight! Right?

In fact, if this is the assured answer/solution then why don't the BU gang just fork now and create their own altcoin called BTU with a 16MB block size. People will dump all their BTC and flock to it immediately!! People who didn't want any BTC will line up in droves to buy BTU. I'm sure it will skyrocket in price overnight, amI right??

What are they waiting for? Let's see it!

You did not answer the question. And so guessing commences.

[Torque]

A higher price is absolutely required if bitcoin is to become anything of lasting importance. This is basic stuff we went over years ago, what the fuck dude?

So if nothing were to change to the current block size limit, you're saying that bitcoin won't have a higher price 3-5 years from now? Or even a decade from now?

I'm seriously doubting that. In fact, with no changes I think it would continue to outpace all other equities for the next decade.

Not orders of magnitude higher, and it would eventually die. Is that what you want? I insist that you answer this question, otherwise we are all forced to guess.

Oh silly me, you're so right Ibian... just change the block size limit to 8MB (or whatever), and the price will do a 10X overnight! Right?

In fact, if this is the assured answer/solution then why don't the BU gang just fork now and create their own altcoin called BTU with a 16MB block size. People will dump all their BTC and flock to it immediately!! People who didn't want any BTC will line up in droves to buy BTU. I'm sure it will skyrocket in price overnight, amI right??

What are they waiting for? Let's see it!

You did not answer the question. And so guessing commences.

I did, and you're now playing the idiot.  I'm done.

[alexeft]

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

In that case we have centralization. In that case, who guarantees that so few people won't come together to alter the issuance of bitcoin. The bitcoin issuance schedule and the decentralization to keep the schedule unchanged is why most of us are here in the first place.

[Ibian]

The answer is becoming increasingly obvious to me. We have people who want bitcoin to grow. This also means a much, much higher price, even if just as a side effect, and it involves orders of magnitudes more people than we currently have in the bitcoin ecosystem, which will require far higher transaction capability of the network.

And we have people that want bitcoin to die.

[Ibian]

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

In that case we have centralization. In that case, who guarantees that so few people won't come together to alter the issuance of bitcoin. The bitcoin issuance schedule and the decentralization to keep the schedule unchanged is why most of us are here in the first place?

Decentralization does not mean every single bitcoin user runs a full node. It just means that no single user, individual, group or other entity controls more than 50% of the network. A few hundred people or organizations spread over a dozen countries controlling the entire bitcoin network still falls under the umbrella "decentralization", and is still as secure as today, if not more likely more so.

Besides, are you really going to argue with Satoshi?

[alexeft]

Here's a new thought. If BU forks, then only segwit stays at ~100% hashpower and we get segwit with no more fight!!!!


Fork BU, I dare you to fork right now!!!!

[Holliday]

Besides, are you really going to argue with Satoshi?

Satoshi gave us something really fantastic and I appreciate that more than most...

...but an appeal to authority is not an argument.

Besides, no one is perfect (otherwise mining pools wouldn't exist and solo mining would be the only option).

He also said the following.

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third  party.

If I have to rely on another person to provide me with the block chain data, that is clearly the need for a trusted third party.

[Killerpotleaf]

Here's a new thought. If BU forks, then only segwit stays at ~100% hashpower and we get segwit with no more fight!!!!


Fork BU, I dare you to fork right now!!!!

decentralized amongst two miners  

[Ibian]

an appeal to authority is not an argument.

No, but an appeal to genius is. And he is. In the real sense of the word.

Don't consider the rest worth anything. Maybe others will.

[notme]

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third  party.

If I have to rely on another person to provide me with the block chain data, that is clearly the need for a trusted third party.

If you run an SPV node that connects broadly to the network, only have to rely on the network being honest, not a particular node operator.  SPV nodes are even described in the whitepaper (one click away in my sig).

[york780]

Welcome back in bitcoin Just made 0.2 btc profit by pumping ZEC, it could be 3 btc but my wallet crashed and it took much time to recover and while that happened bitcoin crawled back up and ZEC was sliding down lol. But i am learning every day   Funny how everyone here is scared because of some FUD. Its always the same song: Bitcoin starts to move a little up: FOMO + whales + newbies = bubble. Then FUD appears and people start to believe it and and dump happens.

My point is: Bitcoin didnt crashed because of BU but because people were thinking that it would crash. Traders can controll the price with their minds.

[alexeft]

Here's a new thought. If BU forks, then only segwit stays at ~100% hashpower and we get segwit with no more fight!!!!


Fork BU, I dare you to fork right now!!!!

decentralized amongst two miners  

It's not the miners that matter.....

[Killerpotleaf]

72 370.84083865 BTC agree that:

Block size limit should be increased to 8 mb as soon as possible

[Meuh6879]

And 80,9% of the Bitcoin Network will reject this Bu Block over 1Mb size limit.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833771.msg18256233#msg18256233

Bitcoin Nodes don't relay a more than 1Mb Block size, it's all.
Simple.
The majority win.

Miners are not the majority, they follow the path (of all nodes).

[Killerpotleaf]

And 80,9% of the Bitcoin Network will reject this Bu Block over 1Mb size limit.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833771.msg18256233#msg18256233

its a civil attack!

[alexeft]

And 80,9% of the Bitcoin Network will reject this Bu Block over 1Mb size limit.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833771.msg18256233#msg18256233

its a civil attack!

I know I wouldn't be too civil if I wanted my own central bank! 

[marcus_of_augustus]

Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM

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.

So how does BU propose to 'phase in" their new blocksize? Is it in "versions way ahead"?

No, instead it is a really, really bad (and dangerous) fork at ANY time from then on and forever more policy. Still cannot quite fathom how it is being taken seriously, maybe people really are stupider than you can think.

[alexeft]

And 80,9% of the Bitcoin Network will reject this Bu Block over 1Mb size limit.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833771.msg18256233#msg18256233

Bitcoin Nodes don't relay a more than 1Mb Block size, it's all.
Simple.
The majority win.

Miners are not the majority, they follow the path (of all nodes).

Where can I get those stats? Thanks!

[Meuh6879]

use with complacency : http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html