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

[adamstgBit]

...
maybe in the future, a government will want to go to war or do something that the majority of the poeple don't want, they will fork their blockchain so that the government coins are gone or redistributed or wtv, suddenly the government is afraid of its poeple and not the other way around.
this is good.

That's exactly why governments do not use bitcoin, and never will.

Finally, the forking of bitcoin is no more of a people's choice than choosing between 2 presidential nominees in US elections. Who proposed the bigger block size? You? The people? Or was it Gavin & Co.?
The same thing that cripples representative Democracy cripples bitcoin

I did proposed a higher block size when this was talked about a while back, the 1MB limit has been a hot topic for a LONG time, and uping the limit is the solution you come up with about 30 seconds into your analysis of the problem.

problem: the block size of 1MB allows for only 7TX per second
first thought: why not up the limit?

the reasons why not, include hypothetical scenarios that don't even lead to major problem ( in my view, large mining pools aren't a problem. )

and so the majority want to up the limit.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Hmm...

[BayAreaCoins]

So if Gavin is going to go develop altcoins I wonder who is going to set up to the plate?

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

I see we had the much-anticipated crash to oblivion. Wow, a massive $3 plummet.

That may have been enough to wake up the usual trolls/sockpuppets, but it's still sideways to me.

It doesn't seem to want to stay over $240 or under $230 for very long.

Yawn.

[inca]

Hmm...

Fabulous chart. Now could well be in retrospect a time when people won't believe how cheap bitcoin was..Isn't valuation a funny thing

[adamstgBit]

...
maybe in the future, a government will want to go to war or do something that the majority of the poeple don't want, they will fork their blockchain so that the government coins are gone or redistributed or wtv, suddenly the government is afraid of its poeple and not the other way around.
this is good.

That's exactly why governments do not use bitcoin, and never will.

Finally, the forking of bitcoin is no more of a people's choice than choosing between 2 presidential nominees in US elections. Who proposed the bigger block size? You? The people? Or was it Gavin & Co.?
The same thing that cripples representative Democracy cripples bitcoin

I did proposed a higher block size when this was talked about a while back, the 1MB limit has been a hot topic for a LONG time, and uping the limit is the solution you come up with about 30 seconds into your analysis of the problem.

problem: the block size of 1MB allows for only 7TX per second
first thought: why not up the limit?

the reasons why not, include hypothetical scenarios that don't even lead to major problem ( in my view, large mining pools aren't a problem. )

and so the majority want to up the limit.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that bigger blocksize isn't an attractive solution, only that it wouldn't become an option without the powers-that-be getting behind it. Core devs != community.

>its nice to see the community think about

Gavin is not "the community." The community doesn't have a clue re. tech. aspects of bitcoin. The community only moons about farting through silk.

>... and solve these potential future problems before they become an issue.

Let's hold off with patting ourselves on the back. Nothing has been solved. A hardfork (which would be a temporary solution) has been proposed, not implemented.

look around everyone's discussing it, poeple are dreaming up possible pitfalls to the proposed solution, videos have been made about it, if this isnt the community thinking about the problem IDK what is... it just so happens that "the power that be" ( Gavin ) and the majority, agree, while a smaller but still rather significant minority still and always will disagree, so your getting confused into thinking this thing is being pushed onto us.

well we have a solution thats been thought of alot and seems ready to go, which is 99% of the battle in most cases, with bitcoin tho having a good solution seems to be 1% of the problem...

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[adamstgBit]

all this talk could lead to some uncertainty, which could push price further down, we might be instore for a new all time recent low in the coming months? possible.

damn the naysayers and there need to disagree simply for arguments sake!

[liquidiser]

...
maybe in the future, a government will want to go to war or do something that the majority of the poeple don't want, they will fork their blockchain so that the government coins are gone or redistributed or wtv, suddenly the government is afraid of its poeple and not the other way around.
this is good.

That's exactly why governments do not use bitcoin, and never will.

Finally, the forking of bitcoin is no more of a people's choice than choosing between 2 presidential nominees in US elections. Who proposed the bigger block size? You? The people? Or was it Gavin & Co.?
The same thing that cripples representative Democracy cripples bitcoin

I did proposed a higher block size when this was talked about a while back, the 1MB limit has been a hot topic for a LONG time, and uping the limit is the solution you come up with about 30 seconds into your analysis of the problem.

problem: the block size of 1MB allows for only 7TX per second
first thought: why not up the limit?

the reasons why not, include hypothetical scenarios that don't even lead to major problem ( in my view, large mining pools aren't a problem. )

and so the majority want to up the limit.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that bigger blocksize isn't an attractive solution, only that it wouldn't become an option without the powers-that-be getting behind it. Core devs != community.

>its nice to see the community think about

Gavin is not "the community." The community doesn't have a clue re. tech. aspects of bitcoin. The community only moons about farting through silk.

>... and solve these potential future problems before they become an issue.

Let's hold off with patting ourselves on the back. Nothing has been solved. A hardfork (which would be a temporary solution) has been proposed, not implemented.

look around everyone's discussing it, poeple are dreaming up possible pitfalls to the proposed solution, videos have been made about it, if this isnt the community thinking about the problem IDK what is... it just so happens that "the power that be" ( Gavin ) and the majority, agree, while a smaller but still rather significant minority still and always will disagree, so your getting confused into thinking this thing is being pushed onto us.

well we have a solution thats been thought of alot and seems ready to go, which is 99% of the battle in most cases, with bitcoin tho having a good solution seems to be 1% of the problem...

Everyone's been discussing it for months. There was a huge thread for arguing about it where highly technical arguments had been raging for page after page. I cannot find it, but there are plenty of other smaller threads about raising the block size. This is a link to the latest.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1070709.0

[JorgeStolfi]

not sure what exactly the stress test proved, you can successfully spam the network with TX but no one cares because TX with a fee still go through ahead of minimal fee spam TX's. If you spam the network we will allow it but the confirmation time on that spamming will be slow, fucking inconvenient isn't it?

Actually the possibility of spamming the network was the first question that I asked on the devs subforum, more than a year ago.  I got the same answer you give above.  But the spamming is still disruptive because it blocks transactions that were OK before.  Joe got used to sending transactions with 0.00001 BTC fee and having them confirmed after 2-3 blocks at most.  But then his last transaction gets blocked for hours on end.  What can he do?

Spamming could also be used by miners to force an increase in the minimum fee.

20MB limit update is in preparation for higher TX vol in the future, we are not really bumping up against the TX limit these days, [ ... ] its not to little too late, its nice to see the community think about and solve these potential future problems before they become an issue.

Gavin's proposal, IIRC, was to deploy the new version of the software (v0.11) now, but program it to increase the max block size only one year from now, around the time of the next halving.  That is what I meant with "too little, too late".

[inca]

all this talk could lead to some uncertainty, which could push price further down, we might be instore for a new all time recent low in the coming months? possible.

damn the naysayers and there need to disagree simply for arguments sake!

sub 200$ soon? can we break 150$?

'Brand new' account

In order to get sub 200 you have to first go sub 230. One step at a time little troll.

[gentlemand]

all this talk could lead to some uncertainty, which could push price further down, we might be instore for a new all time recent low in the coming months? possible.

damn the naysayers and there need to disagree simply for arguments sake!

sub 200$ soon? can we break 150$?

'Brand new' account

But there's no septuagenarian blow jobs (yet).

[gentlemand]

Silly me. Like a red rag to a... something.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[alesx.onfire]

looks familiar.

[svein]

looks familiar.

We are in the 2011-2013 boringness again, do you mean?
sdas çkda çlkd lçadjalkcjldjlkaj kladj alk

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[hdbuck]

looks familiar.

We are in the 2011-2013 boringness again, do you mean?
sdas çkda çlkd lçadjalkcjldjlkaj kladj alk

how about we are in 2015?