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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[redsn0w]

I woke up to see the mess in https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/. I agree with Gavin and Mike, let the community decide.

How? In the end its just the handful of pools who will decide.

Without  x BitcoinXT nodes I think their choice is 'useful',  who is who is broadcasting the TX through the network?

*x , number.

[inca]

Single dump on finex again. Price recovered. Exciting fork drama. I will install XT next week.

Shorts now up to 14k. Nearly time for a surprise jump up to retest 300 again..

[AlexGR]

Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:

XT is supposed to make bitcoin futureproof, but how is it going to achieve that, when it can be spammed up to ~1.15gb / day, meaning that it'll take just 100 days for a determined attacker to increase the blockchain to +115gb, and around a year to take it up half a terabyte. Is this "futureproofing" or ensuring that the future of bitcoin is one where it dies out of bloat and where no-one wants to download it?

Increasing the fees within the 1mb limit is a far more acceptable strategy. If that means bitcoin not doing microtransactions (at least in the traditional / on-chain way), so be it. Gold coins weren't used for microtransactions either, they had silver and copper coins for that.

[rjclarke2000]

Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:

XT is supposed to make bitcoin futureproof, but how is it going to achieve that, when it can be spammed up to ~1.15gb / day, meaning that it'll take just 100 days for a determined attacker to increase the blockchain to +115gb, and around a year to take it up half a terabyte. Is this "futureproofing" or ensuring that the future of bitcoin is one where it dies out of bloat and where no-one wants to download it?

Increasing the fees within the 1mb limit is a far more acceptable strategy. If that means bitcoin not doing microtransactions (at least in the traditional / on-chain way), so be it. Gold coins weren't used for microtransactions either, they had silver and copper coins for that.

I am glad you have asked. Although I think I may need more of a 2 year old explanation with colourful pictures

[cyclotronmajesty]

I'm glad we dropped below 260... now people will stop talking about it.

Up we go!

[noobtrader]

is bitcoin dead again 

[dreamspark]

Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:

XT is supposed to make bitcoin futureproof, but how is it going to achieve that, when it can be spammed up to ~1.15gb / day, meaning that it'll take just 100 days for a determined attacker to increase the blockchain to +115gb, and around a year to take it up half a terabyte. Is this "futureproofing" or ensuring that the future of bitcoin is one where it dies out of bloat and where no-one wants to download it?

Increasing the fees within the 1mb limit is a far more acceptable strategy. If that means bitcoin not doing microtransactions (at least in the traditional / on-chain way), so be it. Gold coins weren't used for microtransactions either, they had silver and copper coins for that.

Good explanation.

Personally I'm still undecided.

Looking back at satoshis posts shows that he always expected the blockchain to get really big and for the vast majority of people to use 'client only mode'. Is this best path for Bitcoin? I'm not sure.

[ronald98]

Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:

XT is supposed to make bitcoin futureproof, but how is it going to achieve that, when it can be spammed up to ~1.15gb / day, meaning that it'll take just 100 days for a determined attacker to increase the blockchain to +115gb, and around a year to take it up half a terabyte. Is this "futureproofing" or ensuring that the future of bitcoin is one where it dies out of bloat and where no-one wants to download it?

Increasing the fees within the 1mb limit is a far more acceptable strategy. If that means bitcoin not doing microtransactions (at least in the traditional / on-chain way), so be it. Gold coins weren't used for microtransactions either, they had silver and copper coins for that.

Good explanation.

Personally I'm still undecided.

Looking back at satoshis posts shows that he always expected the blockchain to get really big and for the vast majority of people to use 'client only mode'. Is this best path for Bitcoin? I'm not sure.

He talked about pruning the blockchain down to remove the bloat. Unfortunately nobody can agree on any major change and discussing any change that big would probably get all the devs arguing like cat and dog. The sheer size of the blockchain as it stands today does nothing but put people off installing the QT.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Patel]

I'd say August is going to be a slow, steady downtrend.

Price target for the end of August is 250..

Then I in September I think we will have another slow start, and it will pick up to 400 by the end of the year.

Still on track I see..

[billyjoeallen]

Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:

XT is supposed to make bitcoin futureproof, but how is it going to achieve that, when it can be spammed up to ~1.15gb / day, meaning that it'll take just 100 days for a determined attacker to increase the blockchain to +115gb, and around a year to take it up half a terabyte.

Terabyte hard drives are standard now. A year from now 5 TB drives will be standard. That's a worst case scenario and could still be easily handled. 

[thefunkybits]

So how do we know which exchanges and merchants are on which chain?

I support larger block sizes but this is a shitshow

[coinpr0n]

So how do we know which exchanges and merchants are on which chain?

I support larger block sizes but this is a shitshow

Two chains can't co-exist for very long. If >75% have already chosen XT then the others will have to jump chain. Basically.

I personally lean towards XT because I find it a better solution than devs' deadlock, but I would have preferred BIP100 or some other solution.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ronald98]

Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:

XT is supposed to make bitcoin futureproof, but how is it going to achieve that, when it can be spammed up to ~1.15gb / day, meaning that it'll take just 100 days for a determined attacker to increase the blockchain to +115gb, and around a year to take it up half a terabyte.

Terabyte hard drives are standard now. A year from now 5 TB drives will be standard. That's a worst case scenario and could still be easily handled. 

It's not only the physical sizeof the hard drive needed to store the blockchain that's causing problems. The length of time it takes to index the blockchain is getting longer as the size of the blockchain increases. That creates problems for anyone running a full wallet that needs to use it in a hurry if it takes hours, days, or weeks to index.

[Andre#]

I woke up to see the mess in https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/. I agree with Gavin and Mike, let the community decide.

How? In the end its just the handful of pools who will decide.

No, the people running nodes decide. Pools just follow the market.

[redsn0w]

So how do we know which exchanges and merchants are on which chain?

I support larger block sizes but this is a shitshow

Two chains can't co-exist for very long. If >75% have already chosen XT then the others will have to jump chain. Basically.

I personally lean towards XT because I find it a better solution than devs' deadlock, but I would have preferred BIP100 or some other solution.

Not exactly, they can also abandon bitcoin and move on (another project).

[Spider-Carnage]

I think the best solution is to make this whole ordeal automatic. Obviously, we're going to need larger blocks in the future, as bitcoin becomes accepted in more and more places. If we do not increase the limit, there will be no more bitcoin. An altcoin with a less stubborn dev team will take up the mantle of the face of cryptocurrency and pick up right where bitcoin left off.
The problem with leaving it up to the community is the same as leaving the halving up to the community, I think. Sorry to say, I dont trust people with that decision, be they node runners or not. There should be a set mathematical model based on community growth rates and estimated physical storage capacity. This is a fundamental issue that satoshi did did not seem to solve, this is about as important as the distribution of bitcoin and the 21 million limit. I also agree with ronald98, downloading and/or indexing the whole thing is a pain in the ass. I've recently had to reindex the blockchain and my computer has taken about 4 days doing so. What determines how long it takes, processing power?

[fonsie]

I think the best solution is to make this whole ordeal automatic. Obviously, we're going to need larger blocks in the future, as bitcoin becomes accepted in more and more places. If we do not increase the limit, there will be no more bitcoin. An altcoin with a less stubborn dev team will take up the mantle of the face of cryptocurrency and pick up right where bitcoin left off.
The problem with leaving it up to the community is the same as leaving the halving up to the community, I think. Sorry to say, I dont trust people with that decision, be they node runners or not. There should be a set mathematical model based on community growth rates and estimated physical storage capacity. This is a fundamental issue that satoshi did did not seem to solve, this is about as important as the distribution of bitcoin and the 21 million limit. I also agree with ronald98, downloading and/or indexing the whole thing is a pain in the ass. I've recently had to reindex the blockchain and my computer has taken about 4 days doing so. What determines how long it takes, processing power?

Step 1) Buy better computer
Step 2) Start coding to fix any fundamental issue

Let us know when you are done.