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

[aztecminer]

In Bitcoin the amount of USD you can throw around, unless you buy BTC with it, is pretty much irrelevant.

Yup.

Thusly the companies who facilitate USD/BTC or CNY/BTC exchanging are going to have an enormous amount of sway. All they have to do is ignore the chain they don't like and it's pretty much goodnight. It trickles down to payment processors, miners meeting bills and everything else.

sounds more like a cluster disaster.. which chain do we use ?? maybe we should charge twice once on each chain to be sure. bullish .

[brg444]

A bunch of startups "running the show".... Gimme a break

What do you think would happen if it came to a fork of some kind, let's not necessarily assume XT/Core but anything else.
Bitpay choses to no longer process payments coming from one chain but only from the other.
Which chance of survival would you give the other chain?
I'd say zero.

Bitpay's "payment processing" is an irrelevant, marginally small aspect of Bitcoin as it is now.

Are you really under the impression that people are actually buying stuff with Bitcoin? By that I mean any significant amount?

It doesn't matter how marginally tiny the effect is.
Two coins, both alike, one with the added benefit of being usable in thousands of online stores, the other not so much, that's a no-brainer.

I thought this debate made it clear that no one w/ half a brain really cares about spending Bitcoin at online stores. If Bitpay decides for some reason to support Bitcoin XT then by all means go ahead. They'll be left with no users in no time. The economic majority (people who actually hold coins) couldn't care less what Bitpay decides to do, they're not trying to spend their coins anyway.

I'm sorry but your logic is very stupid.

[Richy_T]

That's if you actually believe that Gavin & Mike are not government agents trying to break Bitcoin which a good case can be made for..

It seems more likely the government agents are on the other side if anything

http://pastebin.com/4BcycXUu

[onurakkas]

i thought bitcoin price increase this week. i waiting for sale best price therefore i waiting 3-4 days.

[Richy_T]

it has like 2% hashing power voting for it while BIP100 or 8MB options are both at like 20%

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools

OTOH, it's been out for two weeks, we have still a good way to go till 2016 and full blocks are not yet particularly much of an issue.

I agree that XT was always a bit of a long shot and as long as we have bigger blocks, I don't care hugely what scheme is implemented (as it can always be changed). It's just a bit early to be calling anything.

As well, BIP100 has some serious issues to be dealt with before it can be seriously considered. Also consider that XT's support is coming from people actually running it (or BIP-101 patched core) and these votes are no more than vocal support.

Plenty of time to make some popcorn...

[megadeth]

Thawing in the debate: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/636410827969421312
Consensus being reached.

[Fatman3001]

Thawing in the debate: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/636410827969421312
Consensus being reached.

Gavin is quite the diplomat.

"I think 2MB is absurdly small. Where do you get that number from, or does it just "feel right"?  Average web page size is 2MB..."

Wonder if he's spent some time in the WO thread.

[moneymanagment]

How is a decision supposed to be made with a technology that is decentralized?

[Fatman3001]

How is a decision supposed to be made with a technology that is decentralized?

[hdbuck]

How is a decision supposed to be made with a technology that is decentralized?

exactly, consensus robustness

Thawing in the debate: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/636410827969421312
Consensus being reached.

Gavin is quite the diplomat.

"I think 2MB is absurdly small. Where do you get that number from, or does it just "feel right"?  Average web page size is 2MB..."

Wonder if he's spent some time in the WO thread.

pffahahahahhaha not even close. XD

Nick Szabo ‏@NickSzabo4
@gavinandresen @adam3us If you want to store your money on the web use Mt. Gox.

szabo is on fiyaaa

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[aztecminer]

How is a decision supposed to be made with a technology that is decentralized?

exactly, consensus robustness

Thawing in the debate: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/636410827969421312
Consensus being reached.

Gavin is quite the diplomat.

"I think 2MB is absurdly small. Where do you get that number from, or does it just "feel right"?  Average web page size is 2MB..."

Wonder if he's spent some time in the WO thread.

pffahahahahhaha not even close. XD

Nick Szabo ‏@NickSzabo4
@gavinandresen @adam3us If you want to store your money on the web use Mt. Gox.

szabo is on fiyaaa

he is not more famous than adam gubereuz .. no one in bitcoin is more famous than adam gubereuz.

[JorgeStolfi]

The biggest mystery to me is how we arrived at this situation, where Gavin and Mike (felt they) had to resort to the fork solution mess...

Sure, a certain number of maxblockheads resisting any and all changes to the protocol I can see as being unavoidable. But why Gavin didn't manage to convince a majority of the core devs to support some adjustment is still not entirely clear to me.

Either Gavin tried to push exclusively his idea of an adjustment (which, admittedly, can seem a bit drastic) - in that case, it's a failure on his side to compromise. Alternatively, there was a consensus by the rest of the team that the current limit better not be touched at all right now (in which case, Gavin did the right thing, even if the right thing is a huge mess as well).

Seeing that Blockstream rejected even Jeff's 2 MB attempted compromise proposal, it is undeniable that they don't want ANY incerase in the block size limit at all.  Their concerns about the effect of big blocks on nodes are just excuses.  In fact, they have clearly stated their plan for bitcoin: get the network into congestion so that users are forced to compete for space in the blocks by raising the fees.  Until most peer-to-peer traffic is driven out to off-chain solutions, leaving only high-value traffic on the blockchain -- such as settlements between hubs of some "overlay network".  Some Blocstream devs mumbled about fees in the range 10--100 USD per transaction...

Blockstream's plan makes no sense to me, and neither to Gavin and Mike.  I thought that Blocksream may have some secret agenda that justified wreching bitcoin, but maybe they are just unable to do such quantitative analyses and genuinely believe that their plan will work.  Gavin says that he has tried to convince the Blockstream devs to increase the limit for a long time, byt they refused. 

The 20 MB of Gavin's first proposal, and the automatic increases of BIP101, were clearly motivated by the FUD that Blocksrteam planted about hard forks (which in fact are not technically different from the soft forks that Blockstream likes).  A single increase to 8 MB, that the Chinese pools considered acceptable, would have been good enough; but critics would say that it would require another hard fork, a few years later.

[qwk]

I thought this debate made it clear that no one w/ half a brain really cares about spending Bitcoin at online stores. If Bitpay decides for some reason to support Bitcoin XT then by all means go ahead. They'll be left with no users in no time. The economic majority (people who actually hold coins) couldn't care less what Bitpay decides to do, they're not trying to spend their coins anyway.

You obviously don't seem to understand the peculiarities of a fork here.
For anyone holding Bitcoins before the fork, there'd be a huge incentive to spend their coins on the chain they don't feel like supporting. After all, they would still hold all coins in their respective preferred chain, while at the same time, they could go shopping "for free" with their assumed worthless Altcoins. Basically, the more convinced you are that you're on the "right" side of the chain, the stronger your motivation to push the "wrong" side.

[JorgeStolfi]

Thawing in the debate: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/636410827969421312
Consensus being reached.

Amazing generosity... 

[JorgeStolfi]

For anyone holding Bitcoins before the fork, there'd be a huge incentive to spend their coins on the chain they don't feel like supporting. After all, they would still hold all coins in their respective preferred chain, while at the same time, they could go shopping "for free" with their assumed worthless Altcoins. Basically, the more convinced you are that you're on the "right" side of the chain, the stronger your motivation to push the "wrong" side.

Except that it would be very difficult for ordinary users to get their trasactions executed in one chain only.  In principle, every transaction that gets issued, with any version of the software, will be seen by both sets of miners, and both will accept it as valida and try to include it in their blocks. 

The common view that the big-blockian branch will be "an altcoin" is incorrect; it is part of the FUD that Blockstream is using against the limit increase.  It will be no more an altcoin than the forks that happen now 2-3 times per day, and end with one block being orphaned.

If the size limit fork starts with at least 75% big-blockians and no more than25% small-blockians, as BIP101 tries to ensure, the small-blockians will be unable to process all the traffic in a timely fashion.  Mst transactions will pile up in the small-blockian queues, where they may remain for up to two months.  Meanwhile, the big-blockian miners will still be able to confirm every transaction with average delay 10-20 minutes.  That is one reason why the small-blockians will want to switch as soon as possible, if they realize that they are a minority.

[hdbuck]

bwaahhaahahaa man this is sooo good!

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/636569665284775937

[brg444]

The biggest mystery to me is how we arrived at this situation, where Gavin and Mike (felt they) had to resort to the fork solution mess...

Sure, a certain number of maxblockheads resisting any and all changes to the protocol I can see as being unavoidable. But why Gavin didn't manage to convince a majority of the core devs to support some adjustment is still not entirely clear to me.

Either Gavin tried to push exclusively his idea of an adjustment (which, admittedly, can seem a bit drastic) - in that case, it's a failure on his side to compromise. Alternatively, there was a consensus by the rest of the team that the current limit better not be touched at all right now (in which case, Gavin did the right thing, even if the right thing is a huge mess as well).

Seeing that Blockstream rejected even Jeff's 2 MB attempted compromise proposal, it is undeniable that they don't want ANY incerase in the block size limit at all.  Their concerns about the effect of big blocks on nodes are just excuses.  In fact, they have clearly stated their plan for bitcoin: get the network into congestion so that users are forced to compete for space in the blocks by raising the fees.  Until most peer-to-peer traffic is driven out to off-chain solutions, leaving only high-value traffic on the blockchain -- such as settlements between hubs of some "overlay network".  Some Blocstream devs mumbled about fees in the range 10--100 USD per transaction...

Blockstream's plan makes no sense to me, and neither to Gavin and Mike.  I thought that Blocksream may have some secret agenda that justified wreching bitcoin, but maybe they are just unable to do such quantitative analyses and genuinely believe that their plan will work.  Gavin says that he has tried to convince the Blockstream devs to increase the limit for a long time, byt they refused.  

The 20 MB of Gavin's first proposal, and the automatic increases of BIP101, were clearly motivated by the FUD that Blocksrteam planted about hard forks (which in fact are not technically different from the soft forks that Blockstream likes).  A single increase to 8 MB, that the Chinese pools considered acceptable, would have been good enough; but critics would say that it would require another hard fork, a few years later.

Let it be known that every single word is patently false and a blatant misrepresentation of reality.

The Blockstream guys AND a group of other developers are apparently working hard behind the scene testing, formalizing, validating new & refined proposals that I imagine is the plan for them to present at the ScalingBitcoin workshop. There will be compromise and it is very doubtful 8 MB blocks will be in the discussion or contention. This proposal has generally been met with little interest from the network other than the minions of Gavin & Mike's lobbying. I would wager to say it will hover around Jeff's proposition as far as immediate increased is concerned but the whole proposal might see some reworking.

I plan to be there.

[coinpr0n]

Thawing in the debate: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/636410827969421312
Consensus being reached.

Amazing generosity... 

I think that signed joint statement made by BC.i, Circle, etc.. is what turned the tides and caused a sense of urgency in the discussion. (At least for most of these guys, Szabo still sticking to his guns.)

[brg444]

I thought this debate made it clear that no one w/ half a brain really cares about spending Bitcoin at online stores. If Bitpay decides for some reason to support Bitcoin XT then by all means go ahead. They'll be left with no users in no time. The economic majority (people who actually hold coins) couldn't care less what Bitpay decides to do, they're not trying to spend their coins anyway.

You obviously don't seem to understand the peculiarities of a fork here.
For anyone holding Bitcoins before the fork, there'd be a huge incentive to spend their coins on the chain they don't feel like supporting. After all, they would still hold all coins in their respective preferred chain, while at the same time, they could go shopping "for free" with their assumed worthless Altcoins. Basically, the more convinced you are that you're on the "right" side of the chain, the stronger your motivation to push the "wrong" side.

You obviously don't seem to understand the reality of what we have to deal with here.

The millions of coins held on cold storage and paper wallets will NEVER risk the security of their holdings by starting to shop their coins around in the event of a fork. That's just outrageous to say.