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

[infofront]

But if we want Bitcoin to succeed as the financial backbone of the planet, what are our choices?
1) SV's openness to storing arbitrarily huge amounts of data may lead to a small number of players at each task within the system, governed only by open competition. As a bonus, in the huge data scenario it becomes the backbone of the Internet.
2) BTC has already abandoned being the default money for the world, being utterly unable to even onboard the world to LN in less than a quarter century.
3) BCH is headed towards unlimited numbers of txs, albeit each one limited in size. At the cost of the perhaps unforgivable sin of centralized checkpointing.

So far, SV still looks like the preferable route forward to me. Current market share notwithstanding.

1) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics
2) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics, but those changes can (will?) be rolled back by miners
3) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics

You missed one:
4) The Real Bitcoin™

As in TMSR, or pre-(what was it)-0.85 Bitcoin? OK. Add it to the list. Again, I believe its tx per unit time will be its downfall, just like BTC.

YMMV. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. Not to be used for the other purpose. This furniture product is not a gateway to Narnia. Keep chain from testicles.

eta: If rollback occurs upon 2), then it collapses into 4), no?

Pretty much - it's based on 0.5.3.

Thanks. I had lost track of the specifics.

And as to that question - yes. I was hesitant to give TRB a new number. We could call it 2.5.

As for more TX/s, I'm leaning toward the TMSR/Shelby school of thought that the 1MB blocksize is an immutable part of the protocol. Do you think Bitcoin was intended to scale to the masses?

Yes. Public utterances by Satoshi tend to corroborate that postulate. Though I admit that it is impossible to know what is really in the mind of another.

We may never know for sure. Dan Held made a pretty good thread laying out the argument that Satoshi intended bitcoin to be a store of value, first and foremost: https://twitter.com/danheld/status/1084848063947071488?lang=en

Further edit: in regards to 'Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics', specifics would be helpful. Up until the blockalypse, Bitcoin was utterly unaffected by any block size limitation (+/- a day or two). Something else you're thinking of?

"Originally, Bitcoin's block size was limited by the number of database locks required to process it (at most 10000). This limit was effectively around 500-750k in serialized bytes, and was forgotten until 2013 March. In 2010, an explicit block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto. He added it hidden in two commits[1][2][3] in secret. This limit was effectively a no-op due to the aforementioned forgotten limit."

The lock limit is not a limitation that was manifested within the protocol (i.e., on the wire). It was strictly a limitation of Bitcoin's client SW implementation. As a professional protocol developer, I look at things that are not enforceable 'on the wire' as not being part of the specification. As a system that works only to the extent that it ingeniously and carefully balances incentives, it is absurd to consider aspects that could be overridden by another client SW implementation as being intentional design decisions. We know (or surmise) from other suboptimal threading aspects of the SW that the original implementation suffers from the programmers' poor understanding of multithreading dynamics.

That's a good point. Technically you're correct about the blocksize limit not being part of the protocol, of course.
Though if everyone is running a client with a different blocksize, the network will become a clusterfuck. That's why BCH and BSV forked away, and created their own networks, after all (argument about who forked away from who notwithstanding).

The immutability of the 1MB blocksize still stands if we throw out the word "protocol". Satoshi knew that once he slipped that blocksize limit into the core client, it would be there forever, and become the de facto standard in all bitcoin software implementations. That's why Garzik and the others were opposed to it at the time. Satoshi said that it was temporary, but he knew enough about game theory to realize 1MB blocks would become a Schelling Point within the bitcoin network if it was left in the core client long enough.

[VB1001]

Jimmy Song: Genuinely New Money Entering The Crypto Markets

Bitcoin’s price has been a hot topic over the past several days with the return of price exuberance.
Bitcoin expert, developer, and influencer Jimmy Song noted a price pullback for the asset might be logical.

https://cryptopotato.com/jimmy-song-genuinely-new-money-entering-the-crypto-markets/

Good Morning WO,s

[VB1001]

https://twitter.com/ChartsBtc/status/1130939134942429184

It's BTCitcoin

[DaRude]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

You seem to be a lovely chap.  I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains.

Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page?  It’s both hilarious and pathetic.

Could be, or you just too naive to realize that you aren't the intended audience. These papers are not for you to consume, all of his actions can be easily explained if you think of him as a man preparing a case for litigation. He's just preparing documents that he'll be submitting to court. Probably will try to trademark "Bitcoin" next.

[Phil_S]

Nah. 3x year/year is too optimistic. It's very unlikely we'll ever reach that dashed line.

[nutildah]

These papers are not for you to consume, all of his actions can be easily explained if you think of him as a man preparing a case for litigation. He's just preparing documents that he'll be submitting to court. Probably will try to trademark "Bitcoin" next.

Then why the sensational coingeek article? It was a well-timed pump job / maneuver backed by a well-written propaganda piece. It ultimately proves nothing, other than there is no apparent correlation between somebody's ability to invest and intelligence.

[jbreher]

Stossel harping on a new documentary concerning money:

https://reason.com/video/stossel-money-money-money

Watched Stossel's piece, have not yet watched the documentary. The docu evidently concludes we need to return to gold. Though Bitcoin is at least mentioned.

So I watched the full documentary. Final verdict: meh. It's an NPR affiliate thingy. Maybe shadow-funded by Steve Forbes, who has a new book to shill.

Given the number of architects of the current system interviewed, it came off as a fair indictment of easy money policies.

Those who don't know monetary history, or who have gobbled down the Keynesian farce might learn something from it. I think most here already know all this crap.

You're welcome.

[Dakustaking76]

More than 100 shops and restaurants where you can pay through Lightning in Arnhem Bitcoin City (Netherlands) .

https://www.arnhembitcoinstad.nl/

Now in the rest of the country 
Rotterdam, den haag and Amsterdam

[jbreher]

illogical and pie in the sky skewed nonsense when it comes to your supposed defense of the tech of SV and your nonsensical proclamations that SV supposedly adheres better to the original bitcoin vision than bitcoin itself -

You are again misrepresenting my position. Misunderstanding? Intentional misrepresentation? Only you know for sure.

My position has been consistently that SV adheres more to the original Bitcoin protocol than does BTC. This is really undebatable fact from a protocol perspective.

'Vision' is a nebulous, touchy feely thing, upon which I make no value judgement.

Satoshi's ... err ... vision may indeed have been more aligned with the current BTC. We have no way of knowing. However, if indeed that were the case, why did he not encode segwit into the original release?

[jbreher]

That's a good point. Technically you're correct about the blocksize limit not being part of the protocol, of course.
Though if everyone is running a client with a different blocksize, the network will become a clusterfuck.

No. The miners -- or rather 51% of them -- would then determine the max block size. No clusterfuck. Longest chain rules.

The immutability of the 1MB blocksize still stands if we throw out the word "protocol". Satoshi knew that once he slipped that blocksize limit into the core client, it would be there forever, 

I think the interim limits of 250KB and 500KB invalidate your assertion.

[Syke]

Satoshi knew that once he slipped that blocksize limit into the core client, it would be there forever, and become the de facto standard in all bitcoin software implementations. That's why Garzik and the others were opposed to it at the time. Satoshi said that it was temporary, but he knew enough about game theory to realize 1MB blocks would become a Schelling Point within the bitcoin network if it was left in the core client long enough.

That's simply not true. You're claiming to know the mind of Satoshi in direct opposition with his public statements.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15139#msg15139

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

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.

[DaRude]

These papers are not for you to consume, all of his actions can be easily explained if you think of him as a man preparing a case for litigation. He's just preparing documents that he'll be submitting to court. Probably will try to trademark "Bitcoin" next.

Then why the sensational coingeek article? It was a well-timed pump job / maneuver backed by a well-written propaganda piece. It ultimately proves nothing, other than there is no apparent correlation between somebody's ability to invest and intelligence.

BSV is so thinly traded a 500% pump wouldn't effect Ayre and CSW much

[600watt]

Backtest your emotions. We've seen five of these blowoff tops. Factor the next one in before it gobsmacks you.

That's some OG sense.

my problem seems to be not to recognize the blowoff tops correctly. 2013 bull move exploded from $120 to $1200 in one month. doubled within a day at the end. 2017 top went there much slower. when it was around $20k I expected a blowoff to $30k or $50k. I was monitoring BETI and it did not work for me.

maybe the blowoff momentum went into shitcoins in dec 2017. i missed it completely, was shell shocked and only able to unload 1/3 of stash around $8.5k.

I know what will happen next time around: in an attempt to not be late again I will sell at $50k and then price will paint a blowoff to $100k or $150k 

[JayJuanGee]

illogical and pie in the sky skewed nonsense when it comes to your supposed defense of the tech of SV and your nonsensical proclamations that SV supposedly adheres better to the original bitcoin vision than bitcoin itself -

You are again misrepresenting my position. Misunderstanding? Intentional misrepresentation? Only you know for sure.

My position has been consistently that SV adheres more to the original Bitcoin protocol than does BTC. This is really undebatable fact from a protocol perspective.

'Vision' is a nebulous, touchy feely thing, upon which I make no value judgement.

Satoshi's ... err ... vision may indeed have been more aligned with the current BTC. We have no way of knowing. However, if indeed that were the case, why did he not encode segwit into the original release?

Oh gawd....

It's called scale as you go...

[600watt]

So presuming you are not a complete moron, what are you trying to accomplish by posting this here?

yeah, actually this question applies to you way better than to anyone else in here. in search of a reason for your endless spamming of this thread with you misleading/false "technical" blabla about an utterly failed attack on bitcoin I more than once came to the conclusion you must be a paid shill. or a masochist. or a class A troll. or all of it.

imho a genuine BSV supporter would not dedicate his time to preach his religious sermon to the most hardened fork-atheists in the interwebs. it makes no sense. you make no sense. even the most stupid noob will not buy bsv because you recommended it. it is annoying as fuck, please post BITCOIN related stuff in here and unload the bsv spam in a bsv forum. p l e a s e.


edit: not saying you ARE a paid shill, but you do surely act as if you are

[Majormax]

Regarding SV's latest price action, its safe to say that the majority of SV's market cap value rests on the idea that Wright is Satoshi, and not much else. There was already a bigger block experiment called BCH, and its been steadily falling in price against BTC since December 2017. The market has all but rejected it. There's no logical reason to think the market will suddenly become hungry for an even bigger block experiment given BCH's past performance.

So the value of BSV lies on Wright proving himself to be Satoshi, and not much else. It doesn't have to do with the "tech" as it is admittedly an older version of bitcoin. If you believe Wright is Satoshi, by all means, pile into SV. Let's just not pretend its about exciting new tech or that it isn't a personality-driven coin. BSV did not shoot up not based on its technical merits but because of Wright's actions. One misstep from Wright or ruling not in his favor will have the opposite effect of his recent copyright filing.

Why do you think the value of BSV is linked to Wright being Satoshi ?  Isn't it merely a piece of code, like BTC, that will garner its own support/ or not, if it is useful.

[Paashaas]

illogical and pie in the sky skewed nonsense when it comes to your supposed defense of the tech of SV and your nonsensical proclamations that SV supposedly adheres better to the original bitcoin vision than bitcoin itself -

You are again misrepresenting my position. Misunderstanding? Intentional misrepresentation? Only you know for sure.

My position has been consistently that SV adheres more to the original Bitcoin protocol than does BTC. This is really undebatable fact from a protocol perspective.

'Vision' is a nebulous, touchy feely thing, upon which I make no value judgement.

Satoshi's ... err ... vision may indeed have been more aligned with the current BTC. We have no way of knowing. However, if indeed that were the case, why did he not encode segwit into the original release?

Oh gawd....

It's called scale as you go...

We all can create our own shitcoin CLOSE to the original version.

[Totscha]

illogical and pie in the sky skewed nonsense when it comes to your supposed defense of the tech of SV and your nonsensical proclamations that SV supposedly adheres better to the original bitcoin vision than bitcoin itself -

You are again misrepresenting my position. Misunderstanding? Intentional misrepresentation? Only you know for sure.

My position has been consistently that SV adheres more to the original Bitcoin protocol than does BTC. This is really undebatable fact from a protocol perspective.

'Vision' is a nebulous, touchy feely thing, upon which I make no value judgement.

Satoshi's ... err ... vision may indeed have been more aligned with the current BTC. We have no way of knowing. However, if indeed that were the case, why did he not encode segwit into the original release?

Oh gawd....

It's called scale as you go...

Dude, don't just dismiss it right away. I think our boy is on to something here. Why don't we just make everything perfect from the start?

Take IPv4 for example. It came with CIDR/VLSM out of the box. Computers from private networks accessed the internets via NAT form day one. Because anything else would be just stupid...

[nutildah]

Why do you think the value of BSV is linked to Wright being Satoshi ?  Isn't it merely a piece of code, like BTC, that will garner its own support/ or not, if it is useful.

Because the recent price movements are 100% due to the actions of CSW, not anything else. BSV didn't suddenly cut a deal with Apple or Amazon or something. Wright filed a copyright claim, coingeek worded it in a way to make it seem like it proved he was Satoshi, and a bunch of illiterate investors got tricked into believing it.

Like I said before, the price is never wrong, but people who bought in at $100+ are likely to experience a rude awakening in the near future.

BSV is more or less a bitcoin clone (BCH fork to be precise) obviously trying to ride off the back of bitcoin's fame, just like every other coin with the word "Bitcoin" in its name. The difference in this one is that its dev is pretending to be Satoshi.

Dude, don't just dismiss it right away. I think our boy is on to something here. Why don't we just make everything perfect from the start?

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic, but I hope its the latter.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

So Shitcoin SV is up 114% in the last 14 days?

WUT !!!!!