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

[JorgeStolfi]

Buy time is running out. This is not financial advice, but the only way to ensure you end up on the right side of the upcoming fork is to have control of the coins before the fork happens. This way you ensure that your coins will be spendable on both forks.

Alternately, you could just sell everything now and wait until one fork wins. There's a chance the price might run away from you before this whole thing resolves, but there's also a chance this whole thing just collapses under the weight of all the in-fighting and bickering.

Hopefully the FUD being spread by the developers (how I love to say that!  ) will subside, everybody will upgrade to some big-block version, and the fork will be uneventful, with the old branch dead at birth.

But otherwise that is good advice.  If you have coins in an exchange or some other place where you don't have all the private keys, then after the fork you may be able to withdraw only the version of coins that the service owner chose to work with.

[JorgeStolfi]

I would've thought even the Winklevii themselves would've been cringing when they described the present set of exchanges they'd have to buy from.

'Well, there's this Bulgarian or Russian or Cyprus one. No one knows who runs it. You got this Slovenian one that's based out of a small box on a UK industrial estate. There's this Hong Kongy one that might using the code from an old site that raped its customers and claims to be in beta still. You've got Mt Gox which is the longest established... no, wait. Er, that's it.'

They have such a list in their SEC filing document, in a lengthy section where they discuss the risks of the fund.  One of the things that they fixed in the 5th amended filing was removing MtGOX from that list.

[necrita]

Buy time is running out. This is not financial advice, but the only way to ensure you end up on the right side of the upcoming fork is to have control of the coins before the fork happens. This way you ensure that your coins will be spendable on both forks.

Alternately, you could just sell everything now and wait until one fork wins. There's a chance the price might run away from you before this whole thing resolves, but there's also a chance this whole thing just collapses under the weight of all the in-fighting and bickering.

Hopefully the FUD being spread by the developers (how I love to say that!  ) will subside, everybody will upgrade to some big-block version, and the fork will be uneventful, with the old branch dead at birth.

But otherwise that is good advice.  If you have coins in an exchange or some other place where you don't have all the private keys, then after the fork you may be able to withdraw only the version of coins that the service owner chose to work with.

One good outcome of the block size FUD campaign is the supply of coinage that will be removed from exchanges pre-fork.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[phoenix1]

FWIW I'm seriously thinking to cut my loose at $200. I want to be ready for $1xx.

This rift in the core developer camp is really starting to eat at me. I honestly don't know on what side of the debate I fall. I like Gavin, but tell me we're not becoming Ripple. Someone please tell me that.

Wasn't there some talk about an 8MB compromise? For regular users there is no "side" to take. If a hard fork lasts for more than a few hours we are really going to see both double and single digits. But they can't be that stupid.

Yes there is a side to take. If BTC can be hard-forked, how can it be totally trusted as a Store of Value? Currency, in and out, sure, no problem. But if someone has the power to hard fork, we are back to centralisation again, which is the antithesis of BTC. Does not matter if it is put out there as 2 options for people to choose between. Fact remains, there is the power to change the parameters, push out a fork, and the value of your savings is dependent upon what the majority choose. Does not sound like the trustless currency that I thought BTC was.

[BlackSpidy]

Hey guys, I was wondering... how would a bitcoin miner perform at distilling alcohol from fermented fruits/vegetables?

[phoenix1]

Hey guys, I was wondering... how would a bitcoin miner perform at distilling alcohol from fermented fruits/vegetables?

Do you really need to ask ...
You gonna get top quality MOONSHINE !! 

[Xiaoxiao]

Hello Bulls and Bears!  Good day to you all!

[aztecminer]

chinese panic-- summer edition... incoming.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[AZwarel]

FWIW I'm seriously thinking to cut my loose at $200. I want to be ready for $1xx.

This rift in the core developer camp is really starting to eat at me. I honestly don't know on what side of the debate I fall. I like Gavin, but tell me we're not becoming Ripple. Someone please tell me that.

Wasn't there some talk about an 8MB compromise? For regular users there is no "side" to take. If a hard fork lasts for more than a few hours we are really going to see both double and single digits. But they can't be that stupid.

Yes there is a side to take. If BTC can be hard-forked, how can it be totally trusted as a Store of Value? Currency, in and out, sure, no problem. But if someone has the power to hard fork, we are back to centralization again, which is the antithesis of BTC. Does not matter if it is put out there as 2 options for people to choose between. Fact remains, there is the power to change the parameters, push out a fork, and the value of your savings is dependent upon what the majority choose. Does not sound like the trustless currency that I thought BTC was.

Good point! Actually, the most important summarize of the problem about this whole "block size debate". It is not about HD space, it is about "what?? you can halt and fork the whole thing while i am sleeping and next morning am on the worthless losing fork? WTF!".

Also, i do not understand people who are against it (well, other than the solid arguments against "tweeking to unknown").

Anyone who: runs a full node, mining for more than pocket change, and has potentially hundreds/thousands of dollars worth in BTC, can not realistically speak against a 100-200$ TB hard drive, which maybe full in 3 years, when blocks really fill up to 20mb (or 100mb, whatever). I run a full node on my home PC, my workplace laptop as well, and i would totally get a few TBs of HD space, just to continue to support the network - ON PRINCIPLE -, so i laugh at people who worry about cheap ass "maybe" costs - especially million dollar businesses.. cmon.

Running a full node is not for everyone , and it should not be for the technically illiterate (easy to corrupt and capture PCs, botnets and so on), but those who does it, do not really care about 1-2 more HD racks in the coming YEARS:). And yes, a poor guy in the sub-Sahara with shitty up/download can not run a full node. Who cares. Does who can will, and many people does it for goodwill, and rational self interest, it does not have to spread equally on the globe. As long as honest nodes/miners > non-honest ones, we win.

Just my 2 mBTCs.

[YourMother]

FWIW I'm seriously thinking to cut my loose at $200. I want to be ready for $1xx.

This rift in the core developer camp is really starting to eat at me. I honestly don't know on what side of the debate I fall. I like Gavin, but tell me we're not becoming Ripple. Someone please tell me that.

Wasn't there some talk about an 8MB compromise? For regular users there is no "side" to take. If a hard fork lasts for more than a few hours we are really going to see both double and single digits. But they can't be that stupid.

Yes there is a side to take. If BTC can be hard-forked, how can it be totally trusted as a Store of Value? Currency, in and out, sure, no problem. But if someone has the power to hard fork, we are back to centralisation again, which is the antithesis of BTC. Does not matter if it is put out there as 2 options for people to choose between. Fact remains, there is the power to change the parameters, push out a fork, and the value of your savings is dependent upon what the majority choose. Does not sound like the trustless currency that I thought BTC was.

I guess that you can postpone the mass adoption for another 2-3 years because of the uncertainties brought by the scalability issues, forking and halving.   

I hope that next time they will implement some sort of voting system into the software, because when i see how these manchilds are handling the situation, and by that arguing at bottom of the cesspit in some obscure reddit threads, i really start to appreciate Dash's Masternode voting and Bitshares Delegated Proof of Stake more and more.

There is also that discussion about the increasing of centralization because of the 20mb blocks. A non-issue, considering the fact that Intel/Micron/Toshiba will be releasing the newest 3D NAND SSD's by the end of 2015, thus making an additional 1TB of Blockchain per year easier to digest. Don't forget that you can also take in consideration the blockchain pruning solution. Even if you come with the argument that the hosting/bandwidth/speed is not enough or too expensive for normal users to run full nodes, then why not let the bitcoin businesses (or those who can really afford it) run the full nodes, as is in their best interests, and just let the normal users use the available SPV/Electrum type wallets ? More adoption > More btc businesses > More nodes > Less centralization.

But then again, a fork could cause an immense damage to Bitcoin. If the mining power switches to Gavincoin, you would almost be a participant in a shitcoin (MIT + Gavin in charge) and a lot of people could end up in a cloud of confusion. On the other hand, if you don't adopt it, you could end up missing much better features and less reliance on off chain solutions.

But then, again, if the adoption happens fast and you want to use bitcoin for microtransactions and destroy Visa,Paypal,Stripe etc, then you will have to face the hard fact that:

7 Billion people doing 2 blockchain transactions per day will require:
 - 24GB blocks
 - 3.6 TB/Day
 - 1.27 PetaBytes/year


So you will realize pretty fast that Moore's/Nielsen's laws cannot keep up with a hyper-growth scenario like this. In the end you will still have to rely on off chain solutions. You see, you can argue on these 2 decisions forever and that's why the best way to make them is via voting. Legit voting which is almost impossible to do at the moment.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Malin Keshar]

Hey guys, I was wondering... how would a bitcoin miner perform at distilling alcohol from fermented fruits/vegetables?

they would most likely let the liquid leak to the miners and destroy them.

I know no mining hardware that is water proof

[JorgeStolfi]

It is not about HD space, it is about "what?? you can halt and fork the whole thing while i am sleeping and next morning am on the worthless losing fork? WTF!".

The new version of the basic software will be deployed now, but the max block size increase and the fork will only happen after a scheduled block number, to be mined at least 6 months from now.  So there would be plenty of time for people to upgrade (if they want to) and the fork time will be known in advance, except for the variation in block mining time.

After the hard fork, you will automatiall have the same amount of bitcoins in both chains.  Hopefully a consensus would have been reached before that time so one of the clones will be worthles and unusable for lack of miners, and "bitcoin" will be the other clone.  In the unlikely chance that both versions survive, if you have the privatekeys you will be able to move or sell each clone independently by using the proper version of the software.

That was the original plan, but now people are discussing fancier (and unpredictable) schemes for triggering the fork, and fancy dynamic block size limits that will require lots of changes to programs that parse the blockchain, and will make it impossible to predict the memory needed to run a node or client.  I hope that folly prevails... 

[(Lithium)]

It is not about HD space, it is about "what?? you can halt and fork the whole thing while i am sleeping and next morning am on the worthless losing fork? WTF!".

The new version of the basic software will be deployed now, but the max block size increase and the fork will only happen after a scheduled block number, to be mined at least 6 months from now.  So there would be plenty of time for people to upgrade (if they want to) and the fork time will be known in advance, except for the variation in block mining time.

After the hard fork, you will automatiall have the same amount of bitcoins in both chains.  Hopefully a consensus would have been reached before that time so one of the clones will be worthles and unusable for lack of miners, and "bitcoin" will be the other clone.  In the unlikely chance that both versions survive, if you have the privatekeys you will be able to move or sell each clone independently by using the proper version of the software.

Sad.

I was making plans about what to do with the money I would earn by doublespending my coins, like happened to some people in march, 2013, but looks like they are doing everything to prevent it

[aztecminer]

FWIW I'm seriously thinking to cut my loose at $200. I want to be ready for $1xx.

This rift in the core developer camp is really starting to eat at me. I honestly don't know on what side of the debate I fall. I like Gavin, but tell me we're not becoming Ripple. Someone please tell me that.

Wasn't there some talk about an 8MB compromise? For regular users there is no "side" to take. If a hard fork lasts for more than a few hours we are really going to see both double and single digits. But they can't be that stupid.

Yes there is a side to take. If BTC can be hard-forked, how can it be totally trusted as a Store of Value? Currency, in and out, sure, no problem. But if someone has the power to hard fork, we are back to centralisation again, which is the antithesis of BTC. Does not matter if it is put out there as 2 options for people to choose between. Fact remains, there is the power to change the parameters, push out a fork, and the value of your savings is dependent upon what the majority choose. Does not sound like the trustless currency that I thought BTC was.

I guess that you can postpone the mass adoption for another 2-3 years because of the uncertainties brought by the scalability issues, forking and halving.   

i think the chinese panic has been postponed too. can't hardly believe what i am reading.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[JorgeStolfi]

Sad.

I was making plans about what to do with the money I would earn by doublespending my coins, like happened to some people in march, 2013, but looks like they are doing everything to prevent it

Well, a clean hard fork would be the most reasonable and safest option, IMHO.

But, in the discussion lists, some people seem totally  convinced that hard forks are tools of the Devil.  So they would rather have some sloppy mushy sticky gooey fork situation --- by which a client will never know which chain will process his transactions, leading to possible double spends and unfixable inconsistent wallets.  

I read that Mircea Popescu even promised that, if a hard fork happens, he will re-send on one chain all transaction requests that are intended for the other, so as to frustrate the fork.  

So you may still keep your hope.  As for me, I am drooling at the thought...  

[kazuki49]

Sad.

I was making plans about what to do with the money I would earn by doublespending my coins, like happened to some people in march, 2013, but looks like they are doing everything to prevent it

Well, a clean hard fork would be the most reasonable and safest option, IMHO.

But, in the discussion lists, some people seem totally  convinced that hard forks are tools of the Devil.  So they would rather have some sloppy mushy sticky gooey fork situation --- by which a client will never know which chain will process his transactions, leading to possible double spends and unfixable inconsistent wallets. 

I read that Mircea Popescu even promised that, if a hard fork happens, he will re-send on one chain all transaction requests that are intended for the other, so as to frustrate the fork. 

So you may still keep your hope.  As for me, I am drooling at the thought... 

And he won't be the only one. It doesnt even need to be done on purpose, it should naturally occur.