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

[Fakhoury]

... sounds like consensus to me, tally-ho game on.

Me as well, I like the fact that it was a quicke.

[megadeth]

... sounds like consensus to me, tally-ho game on.

Me as well, I like the fact that it was a quicke.

Gives inordinate power to miners.

[notme]

... sounds like consensus to me, tally-ho game on.

Me as well, I like the fact that it was a quicke.

Gives inordinate power to miners.

You mean like the ability to decide which transactions to include and which blocks to build on?

[shmadz]

... sounds like consensus to me, tally-ho game on.

Me as well, I like the fact that it was a quicke.

Gives inordinate power to miners.

Although I don't mine my own blocks, I can choose which pool to direct my hash rate.  As demonstrated by fake nodes, the only voting that can not be faked is either voting by mining blocks (proof of work) or voting by signing messages with private keys that prove how much bitcoin you have control over (proof of stake).

The process of mining is what makes the Blockchain secure. The security is what gives it value.

Bip100 =>> http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

It's quite ambitious actually, and not quite ready yet? (I think there's a compatibility problem with the headers first thing, but I need to look closer) - but I'm fine with the miners deciding the blocksize.

There is a symbiotic balance between the miners and the nodes, but do not kid yourselves, it is the miners that are running the show. You cannot force the miners to do anything. The best you can hope for is coercion. Meanwhile, if the miners choose one direction and the nodes disagree, the nodes are stuck, they cannot make transactions without mining. (Unless of course they all just switch to proof of stake :-/ could happen, who knows?)

[hmmkay]

... sounds like consensus to me, tally-ho game on.

Me as well, I like the fact that it was a quicke.

Gives inordinate power to miners.

If bitcoin becomes one of the biggest financial instruments, and there is a fork, favouring miners mostly, my guess is that everyone (techsavvy enough) will fire up their computer to mine. Suddenly those mining pools will look very small compared to billion+ computers running against them.

Also, miners would shoot themselves in their foot if they'd support a fork which only benefits miners instead of the users.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[abercrombie]

Bitfinex changed banks to CTBC BANK Co.  Notifications sent out via email this morning.

Heard withdrawals are being manually approved after the data corruption issue stated on Twitter.  The oldest of my 4 withdrawals is going on 24 hours.  As a result of this holdup, I'm not trading until this is fixed.

Is abercrombies cryptos dead?



Sorry in advance. I know I'm an asshole. I just couldn't help it.

Haha...  

Ok Bitfinex apparently was migrating to a new multisig wallet.  When the Withdrawals started working again they did a double send, one from the old and one from the new.  So I received duplicate Bitcoin transactions and double the Bitcoin at my destination address.  Confirmed with another Bitfinex user. 

A few hours later, once they figured it their blunder they deducted the respective amount from the current USD deposits.

Shakes my confidence in Bitfinex.  Is crypto... (you know the rest)

[hmmkay]

Bitfinex changed banks to CTBC BANK Co.  Notifications sent out via email this morning.

Heard withdrawals are being manually approved after the data corruption issue stated on Twitter.  The oldest of my 4 withdrawals is going on 24 hours.  As a result of this holdup, I'm not trading until this is fixed.

Is abercrombies cryptos dead?



Sorry in advance. I know I'm an asshole. I just couldn't help it.

Haha...  

Ok Bitfinex apparently was migrating to a new multisig wallet.  When the Withdrawals started working again they did a double send, one from the old and one from the new.  So I received duplicate Bitcoin transactions and double the Bitcoin at my destination address.  Confirmed with another Bitfinex user.  

A few hours later, once they figured it their blunder they deducted the respective amount from the current USD deposits.

Shakes my confidence in Bitfinex.  Is crypto... (you know the rest)

So you have double the coins and complain they corrected it in the best way possible. Greedy much...?

[dropt]

If bitcoin becomes one of the biggest financial instruments, and there is a fork, favouring miners mostly, my guess is that everyone (techsavvy enough) will fire up their computer to mine. Suddenly those mining pools will look very small compared to billion+ computers running against them.

Also, miners would shoot themselves in their foot if they'd support a fork which only benefits miners instead of the users.

Not a chance.

[hmmkay]

If bitcoin becomes one of the biggest financial instruments, and there is a fork, favouring miners mostly, my guess is that everyone (techsavvy enough) will fire up their computer to mine. Suddenly those mining pools will look very small compared to billion+ computers running against them.

Also, miners would shoot themselves in their foot if they'd support a fork which only benefits miners instead of the users.

Not a chance.

Explain. Because people do like to vote with their 'wallet'.

[TerraMaster]

So much for Bip 100 doing anything much for price  A consensus should bring confidence in price,,, one might think lol

[shmadz]

If bitcoin becomes one of the biggest financial instruments, and there is a fork, favouring miners mostly, my guess is that everyone (techsavvy enough) will fire up their computer to mine. Suddenly those mining pools will look very small compared to billion+ computers running against them.

Average user cpu mining might get around 20 mh/s if they're lucky (see: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non-specialized_hardware_comparison#CPUs.2FAPUs)

The current network hashrate is estimated at nearly 400,000 TH/s - meaning, you need about 20 billion average users to mine bitcoin with their computers...

Somehow, I don't think that everyone (techsavvy enough) will have even the slightest effect.

[TerraMaster]

now if everyone fired up an ant miner S5 at 1.1 TH then ya maybe   

[shmadz]

Ok Bitfinex apparently was migrating to a new multisig wallet.  When the Withdrawals started working again they did a double send, one from the old and one from the new.  So I received duplicate Bitcoin transactions and double the Bitcoin at my destination address.  Confirmed with another Bitfinex user.  

A few hours later, once they figured it their blunder they deducted the respective amount from the current USD deposits.

Shakes my confidence in Bitfinex.  

Wait a minute, they sent you double bitcoin? I'm going to assume you weren't the only person this happened to. So what happens if they sent you double and you had no fiat or bitcoin left on account?

These kind of mistakes do not inspire confidence, I must agree. (Gives new twist to "double spend" though )

[TerraMaster]

Bitfinex changed banks to CTBC BANK Co.  Notifications sent out via email this morning.

Heard withdrawals are being manually approved after the data corruption issue stated on Twitter.  The oldest of my 4 withdrawals is going on 24 hours.  As a result of this holdup, I'm not trading until this is fixed.

Is abercrombies cryptos dead?



Sorry in advance. I know I'm an asshole. I just couldn't help it.

Haha...  

Ok Bitfinex apparently was migrating to a new multisig wallet.  When the Withdrawals started working again they did a double send, one from the old and one from the new.  So I received duplicate Bitcoin transactions and double the Bitcoin at my destination address.  Confirmed with another Bitfinex user.  

A few hours later, once they figured it their blunder they deducted the respective amount from the current USD deposits.

Shakes my confidence in Bitfinex.  Is crypto... (you know the rest)

So you have double the coins and complain they corrected it in the best way possible. Greedy much...?

Do you see both of those Transactions in the block explorer with same TX number? hmmm can't be 2 of the same number.. strange occurrence. Both confirm?   (If I am understanding this correctly)

[JorgeStolfi]

Hm, why are people euphoric about BIP100 superseding BIP101?

AFAIK, there is no implementation yet of BIP100, and its details are not even fully specified.  (Is there one?)

Moreover, BIP100 will allow blocks larger than 1 MB, won't it?

Moreover, BitcoinCore does not implement BIP100, and so fat Blockstream has been totally opposed to any increase.  So, if BIP100 gets into effect, it will be by some other implementation, right?.

Am I missing something?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[hmmkay]

If bitcoin becomes one of the biggest financial instruments, and there is a fork, favouring miners mostly, my guess is that everyone (techsavvy enough) will fire up their computer to mine. Suddenly those mining pools will look very small compared to billion+ computers running against them.

Average user cpu mining might get around 20 mh/s if they're lucky (see: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non-specialized_hardware_comparison#CPUs.2FAPUs)

The current network hashrate is estimated at nearly 400,000 TH/s - meaning, you need about 20 billion average users to mine bitcoin with their computers...

Somehow, I don't think that everyone (techsavvy enough) will have even the slightest effect.

Well, that's concerning to say the least.

[Peter R]

Hm, why are people euphoric about BIP100 superseding BIP101?

AFAIK, there is no implementation yet of BIP100, and its details are not even fully specified.  (Is there one?)

Moreover, BIP100 will allow blocks larger than 1 MB, won't it?

Moreover, BitcoinCore does not implement BIP100, and so fat Blockstream has been totally opposed to any increase.  So, if BIP100 gets into effect, it will be by some other implementation, right?.

Am I missing something?

I don't think you are.  However, I think this will be a good thing (yes, I know, I see everything as good for bitcoin )

Imagine this: Core refuses to pull BIP100 because of developer deadlock (perhaps Gavin objects [I hope he does], or perhaps Greg disagrees).  Then Jeff Garzik forks Core into "Bitcoin-100" perhaps along with Gavin.  We end up with three competing implementations: Core (1 Mb), XT (BIP101) and Bitcoin-100 (BIP100).  Node operators then express their choice by downloading and running their favourite client.  Eventually, the losing dev teams cave (they don't want to lose all of their user base) and implement changes to make their code compatible with whatever appears to be the favourite scaling solution.

This has two benefits:

1.  Consensus is achieved for larger blocks

2.  We end up decentralizing development so that the circle on the right in the image below contains three slices of (hopefully) significant size.  

[brg444]

Hm, why are people euphoric about BIP100 superseding BIP101?

Because BIP101 is broken.

Moreover, BIP100 will allow blocks larger than 1 MB, won't it?

Yes, correct, this is the purpose of BIP 100.

Moreover, BitcoinCore does not implement BIP100, and so fat Blockstream has been totally opposed to any increase.  So, if BIP100 gets into effect, it will be by some other implementation, right?.

Blockstream is leading the development of a block size increase with a number of upcoming BIPXXX release as I understand it.

I don't trust much the votes from the miners but one thing is for sure they want no business with 8 MB blocks.

Am I missing something?

Everything!