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

[Erdogan]

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
http://pastebin.com/Ct5M8fa2

kLee you are fucking amazing. Who informed you about that? Thanks!

Twitter!

Ok, while I think it's great that "Satoshi" has resurfaced to fight the Gavinistas, I do think that the hard limit must indeed increase (perhaps to 2mb, maybe in a few years it could go higher?)

But the 101 proposal of doubling every couple years is pure insanity.

This is not just a ledger that might exist on a few select locations around the world. This is a ledger that should exist on every computer around the world. The best security or guarantee of authentic transactions is when as many as possible can hold and parse the full Blockchain. This will not happen if you just double by arbitrary rule instead of calculated increases decided by need.

Technically speaking I have NO opinion on the block size. I just know when I see assholes (Mike + Gavin).

But they are our assholes.

[klee]

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
http://pastebin.com/Ct5M8fa2

kLee you are fucking amazing. Who informed you about that? Thanks!

Twitter!

Ok, while I think it's great that "Satoshi" has resurfaced to fight the Gavinistas, I do think that the hard limit must indeed increase (perhaps to 2mb, maybe in a few years it could go higher?)

But the 101 proposal of doubling every couple years is pure insanity.

This is not just a ledger that might exist on a few select locations around the world. This is a ledger that should exist on every computer around the world. The best security or guarantee of authentic transactions is when as many as possible can hold and parse the full Blockchain. This will not happen if you just double by arbitrary rule instead of calculated increases decided by need.

Technically speaking I have NO opinion on the block size. I just know when I see assholes (Mike + Gavin).

But they are our assholes.

I know, that's why we should be short until they are gone...

[billyjoeallen]

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
http://pastebin.com/Ct5M8fa2

kLee you are fucking amazing. Who informed you about that? Thanks!

Twitter!

Ok, while I think it's great that "Satoshi" has resurfaced to fight the Gavinistas, I do think that the hard limit must indeed increase (perhaps to 2mb, maybe in a few years it could go higher?)

But the 101 proposal of doubling every couple years is pure insanity.

This is not just a ledger that might exist on a few select locations around the world. This is a ledger that should exist on every computer around the world. The best security or guarantee of authentic transactions is when as many as possible can hold and parse the full Blockchain. This will not happen if you just double by arbitrary rule instead of calculated increases decided by need.

That reminds me of the Statists who claim that government expenditures should be based on need. What is not said but logically follows is that whoever determines the "need" ends up with all the power. Let the market decide.

[Erdogan]

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
http://pastebin.com/Ct5M8fa2

kLee you are fucking amazing. Who informed you about that? Thanks!

Twitter!

Ok, while I think it's great that "Satoshi" has resurfaced to fight the Gavinistas, I do think that the hard limit must indeed increase (perhaps to 2mb, maybe in a few years it could go higher?)

But the 101 proposal of doubling every couple years is pure insanity.

This is not just a ledger that might exist on a few select locations around the world. This is a ledger that should exist on every computer around the world. The best security or guarantee of authentic transactions is when as many as possible can hold and parse the full Blockchain. This will not happen if you just double by arbitrary rule instead of calculated increases decided by need.

Technically speaking I have NO opinion on the block size. I just know when I see assholes (Mike + Gavin).

But they are our assholes.

I know, that's why we should be short until they are gone...

Short now, or forever hold your longs...

[shmadz]

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
http://pastebin.com/Ct5M8fa2

kLee you are fucking amazing. Who informed you about that? Thanks!

Twitter!

Ok, while I think it's great that "Satoshi" has resurfaced to fight the Gavinistas, I do think that the hard limit must indeed increase (perhaps to 2mb, maybe in a few years it could go higher?)

But the 101 proposal of doubling every couple years is pure insanity.

This is not just a ledger that might exist on a few select locations around the world. This is a ledger that should exist on every computer around the world. The best security or guarantee of authentic transactions is when as many as possible can hold and parse the full Blockchain. This will not happen if you just double by arbitrary rule instead of calculated increases decided by need.

Technically speaking I have NO opinion on the block size. I just know when I see assholes (Mike + Gavin).

But they are our assholes.

Not my assholes, those two stink to high heaven.

Hearn lost any trust of mine as soon as he began advocating for breaking fungibility. Gavin, I think, was a nice guy, but he's been compromised and can't be trusted either.

[Erdogan]

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
http://pastebin.com/Ct5M8fa2

kLee you are fucking amazing. Who informed you about that? Thanks!

Twitter!

Ok, while I think it's great that "Satoshi" has resurfaced to fight the Gavinistas, I do think that the hard limit must indeed increase (perhaps to 2mb, maybe in a few years it could go higher?)

But the 101 proposal of doubling every couple years is pure insanity.

This is not just a ledger that might exist on a few select locations around the world. This is a ledger that should exist on every computer around the world. The best security or guarantee of authentic transactions is when as many as possible can hold and parse the full Blockchain. This will not happen if you just double by arbitrary rule instead of calculated increases decided by need.

Technically speaking I have NO opinion on the block size. I just know when I see assholes (Mike + Gavin).

But they are our assholes.

Not my assholes, those two stink to high heaven.

Hearn lost any trust of mine as soon as he began advocating for breaking fungibility. Gavin, I think, was a nice guy, but he's been compromised and can't be trusted either.

I don't care, I want gigantic blocks.

[klee]

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
http://pastebin.com/Ct5M8fa2

kLee you are fucking amazing. Who informed you about that? Thanks!

Twitter!

Ok, while I think it's great that "Satoshi" has resurfaced to fight the Gavinistas, I do think that the hard limit must indeed increase (perhaps to 2mb, maybe in a few years it could go higher?)

But the 101 proposal of doubling every couple years is pure insanity.

This is not just a ledger that might exist on a few select locations around the world. This is a ledger that should exist on every computer around the world. The best security or guarantee of authentic transactions is when as many as possible can hold and parse the full Blockchain. This will not happen if you just double by arbitrary rule instead of calculated increases decided by need.

Technically speaking I have NO opinion on the block size. I just know when I see assholes (Mike + Gavin).

But they are our assholes.

Not my assholes, those two stink to high heaven.

Hearn lost any trust of mine as soon as he began advocating for breaking fungibility. Gavin, I think, was a nice guy, but he's been compromised and can't be trusted either.

I don't care, I want gigantic blocks.

TPTB please give us NANOblocks 

[shmadz]

But the 101 proposal of doubling every couple years is pure insanity.

This is not just a ledger that might exist on a few select locations around the world. This is a ledger that should exist on every computer around the world. The best security or guarantee of authentic transactions is when as many as possible can hold and parse the full Blockchain. This will not happen if you just double by arbitrary rule instead of calculated increases decided by need.

That reminds me of the Statists who claim that government expenditures should be based on need. What is not said but logically follows is that whoever determines the "need" ends up with all the power. Let the market decide.

The problem is that the market does not decide in this case. It's the "Hearn and Gavin" show that propose their decision. The market has no say, well... until the fork actually happens and then bitcoin and Gavincoin can trade freely against one another... that will be interesting.

[Erdogan]

Had a couple of beers, I sense that my posts are getting more arrogant.

During a very famous moment, Krishnamurti asked the audience if they wanted to know his secret. The lecture hall went silent, and everyone leaned forward.

“You see,” he said, “I don’t give a shit.”

[shmadz]

I don't care, I want gigantic blocks.

Your post about boot strapping fiat currency in another thread was borderline brilliant, but this is just silly.

The larger the blocks become, the more difficult to secure the block chain. If there are gigantic blocks there is no incentive to pay any fee, also no incentive to block non fee payments.

“You see,” he said, “I don’t give a shit.”

Yeah, I got that feeling, I've had a few more than I should as well,  but I'm not gonna let you off so easily.

How do you propose to incentivize chain security as distribution continues to halve?

[billyjoeallen]

But the 101 proposal of doubling every couple years is pure insanity.

This is not just a ledger that might exist on a few select locations around the world. This is a ledger that should exist on every computer around the world. The best security or guarantee of authentic transactions is when as many as possible can hold and parse the full Blockchain. This will not happen if you just double by arbitrary rule instead of calculated increases decided by need.

That reminds me of the Statists who claim that government expenditures should be based on need. What is not said but logically follows is that whoever determines the "need" ends up with all the power. Let the market decide.

The problem is that the market does not decide in this case. It's the "Hearn and Gavin" show that propose their decision. The market has no say, well... until the fork actually happens and then bitcoin and Gavincoin can trade freely against one another... that will be interesting.

something else that's interesting is that somebody just spent about 700 coins trying to punch through $263 support and got a bounce instead.  We need bigger blocks. everybody knows it. That's why we know the fork will become the main branch.

[klee]

Had a couple of beers, I sense that my posts are getting more arrogant.

During a very famous moment, Krishnamurti asked the audience if they wanted to know his secret. The lecture hall went silent, and everyone leaned forward.

“You see,” he said, “I don’t give a shit.”

Φάρμακα (Drugs) - Heraclitus

[billyjoeallen]

I don't care, I want gigantic blocks.

Your post about boot strapping fiat currency in another thread was borderline brilliant, but this is just silly.

The larger the blocks become, the more difficult to secure the block chain. If there are gigantic blocks there is no incentive to pay any fee, also no incentive to block non fee payments.

“You see,” he said, “I don’t give a shit.”

Yeah, I got that feeling, I've had a few more than I should as well,  but I'm not gonna let you off so easily.

How do you propose to incentivize chain security as distribution continues to halve?

You talk like a miner. So to you and all the (other) miners, hear this: mining is a break even pursuit. It always has been and always will be. If it was profitable beyond all other opportunities, new miners would enter the competition until it became break even again. That's true for gold, silver, bitcoin, anything. The incentive is to do better than the average miner. That incentive will continue as long as there is any block reward at all, no matter how small.  Larger blocks mean more transactions mean more transaction fees, even if the individual fees are smaller, there will be more of them.

Quit crying that mining is hard and will shortly get harder. You know or should have known that when you got into this game.  In the free market, consumer is king. Miners are producers, not consumers. Get back to work or give up and let better miners take over. You need us. We don't need you. 21 is gonna have us all mining on our smart phones and wifi routers next year anyway.

[shmadz]

The problem is that the market does not decide in this case. It's the "Hearn and Gavin" show that propose their decision. The market has no say, well... until the fork actually happens and then bitcoin and Gavincoin can trade freely against one another... that will be interesting.

something else that's interesting is that somebody just spent about 700 coins trying to punch through $263 support and got a bounce instead.  We need bigger blocks. everybody knows it. That's why we know the fork will become the main branch.

I'm personally not against a marginal increase in block size. I think 4 mb would be sufficient for the next halving interval, and perhaps we could double each 4 years after that.

It gives reason to the decision: the allocations of new coins has been cut in half, so we double the available transaction space to compensate the miners.

You all need to remember that this whole thing exists on trusting that the Blockchain can not be violated, which means trusting the miners, which means the miners must be properly incentivized, or they will turn against the system.

You've heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds" ?? What do you think happens when that hand stops feeding and the one with the teeth gets hungry?

[Erdogan]

I don't care, I want gigantic blocks.

Your post about boot strapping fiat currency in another thread was borderline brilliant, but this is just silly.

The larger the blocks become, the more difficult to secure the block chain. If there are gigantic blocks there is no incentive to pay any fee, also no incentive to block non fee payments.

“You see,” he said, “I don’t give a shit.”

Yeah, I got that feeling, I've had a few more than I should as well,  but I'm not gonna let you off so easily.

How do you propose to incentivize chain security as distribution continues to halve?

The blocks will naturally be limited by the cost and benefit balance in the market. I expect the fee will be small but not insignificant at any time. Eventually, the blocks will be limited by nature. Artificial limitation has no purpose (other than possibly to destroy bitcoin for someone with interest in other systems). For the sake of safety, I am ok with a small increase for now.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Erdogan]

[...]
How do you propose to incentivize chain security as distribution continues to halve?

I am not that concerned with distribution. Having all miners and all full nodes in one country is probably a bit to risky, but it will never come to that. Some countries having none, is not a problem. Anyway, the direction of development of home bandwith is not obvious. USA has not had the best bandwith for years. They lag on IPV6. Suddenly, bandwith can explode in a developing nation. Still, with low computer and network penetration, users in for example north korea can rely on nodes in other countries, they don't need to have country specific miners and nodes to participate. The country borders are being extinguished. The market will make sure that we don't end up with a single entity controlling all mining. The one miner will be attacked from all directions, and has to do everything right at all times over a long period. There is a low barrier to entry, as long as you have the capital to build a large mining factory. It never happens in the free market. Monopoly only happens when the state persons use their power to privilege their friends.

[shmadz]

I don't care, I want gigantic blocks.

Your post about boot strapping fiat currency in another thread was borderline brilliant, but this is just silly.

The larger the blocks become, the more difficult to secure the block chain. If there are gigantic blocks there is no incentive to pay any fee, also no incentive to block non fee payments.

“You see,” he said, “I don’t give a shit.”

Yeah, I got that feeling, I've had a few more than I should as well,  but I'm not gonna let you off so easily.

How do you propose to incentivize chain security as distribution continues to halve?

The blocks will naturally be limited by the cost and benefit balance in the market. I expect the fee will be small but not insignificant at any time. Eventually, the blocks will be limited by nature. Artificial limitation has no purpose (other than possibly to destroy bitcoin for someone with interest in other systems). For the sake of safety, I am ok with a small increase for now.

I'm ok with a small increase, and I share your hope that natural selection would limit the blocks to a reasonable level, but it still remains possible that there exists irrational actors that would not limit themselves to the "natural" limit and instead use the larger artificial limit to attack the network.

,*, edit... I'm mostly concerned that the miners will not get paid without some kind of limit. Some kind of exclusivity must exist on the main bitcoin Blockchain to incentivize the cost of proof of work needed to secure the amount of value that will eventually be stored on the blockchain.

[billyjoeallen]

The problem is that the market does not decide in this case. It's the "Hearn and Gavin" show that propose their decision. The market has no say, well... until the fork actually happens and then bitcoin and Gavincoin can trade freely against one another... that will be interesting.

something else that's interesting is that somebody just spent about 700 coins trying to punch through $263 support and got a bounce instead.  We need bigger blocks. everybody knows it. That's why we know the fork will become the main branch.

I'm personally not against a marginal increase in block size. I think 4 mb would be sufficient for the next halving interval, and perhaps we could double each 4 years after that.

It gives reason to the decision: the allocations of new coins has been cut in half, so we double the available transaction space to compensate the miners.

You all need to remember that this whole thing exists on trusting that the Blockchain can not be violated, which means trusting the miners, which means the miners must be properly incentivized, or they will turn against the system.

You've heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds" ?? What do you think happens when that hand stops feeding and the one with the teeth gets hungry?

Yeah and Workers of the World Unite! Gimme a break with your commie talk. That gets no play here. The issue is not between a 8MB block and a smaller increase. It's about a block size increase or NO block size increase. It's your fault. There are no other proposals on the table, so we are forced to chose between Gavin's proposal or doing nothing.  Doing nothing is not an option.

[Erdogan]

I don't care, I want gigantic blocks.

Your post about boot strapping fiat currency in another thread was borderline brilliant, but this is just silly.

The larger the blocks become, the more difficult to secure the block chain. If there are gigantic blocks there is no incentive to pay any fee, also no incentive to block non fee payments.

“You see,” he said, “I don’t give a shit.”

Yeah, I got that feeling, I've had a few more than I should as well,  but I'm not gonna let you off so easily.

How do you propose to incentivize chain security as distribution continues to halve?

The blocks will naturally be limited by the cost and benefit balance in the market. I expect the fee will be small but not insignificant at any time. Eventually, the blocks will be limited by nature. Artificial limitation has no purpose (other than possibly to destroy bitcoin for someone with interest in other systems). For the sake of safety, I am ok with a small increase for now.

I'm ok with a small increase, and I share your hope that natural selection would limit the blocks to a reasonable level, but it still remains possible that there exists irrational actors that would not limit themselves to the "natural" limit and instead use the larger artificial limit to attack the network.

It has not been a problem for the six years up till now. An the reason is that there is a cost to make large blocks. The market works, as it always does. Central planning efficacy is an illusion. Go with the market, freedom and private property. It is the only sustainable way.