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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[bambou]

Bitcoin is only decentralized as it stands because the people mining are not the same as the ones running nodes.

An inconsiderate block size increase would change this dynamic and forever lead to more centralization.

it will always be decentralized in the sense that no one corporation or government controls it, so who cares.  

Centralization is a spectrum, if we get to close to the centralize edge you should absolutely care

i foresee a future where bitcoin is the world reserve currency and governments secure the blockchain

expecting bitcoin to grow and always allow full nodes to run off of a 500$ computer is a silly fantasy.

wait wut?

[aztecminer]

Bitcoin is only decentralized as it stands because the people mining are not the same as the ones running nodes.

An inconsiderate block size increase would change this dynamic and forever lead to more centralization.

it will always be decentralized in the sense that no one corporation or government controls it, so who cares. 

Centralization is a spectrum, if we get to close to the centralize edge you should absolutely care

i foresee a future where bitcoin is the world reserve currency and governments secure the blockchain

expecting bitcoin to grow and always allow full nodes to run off of a 500$ computer is a silly fantasy.

wait wut?

no need to worry. they have a lot more problems to fix besides blockchain drama ..

the govy will use sanctions on gun owners by blacklisting them from the blockchain .

obviously that is a huge problem using blockchain to intimidate the populace ..

talk about bear fud.. blockchain blacklists... u guys really come up with some whoppers .

[JorgeStolfi]

all this time we were worried about central control systems from outside but it turns out they are like cancer they grow from within.  

And they thrive because the organism fails to recognize tumors as malignant, and even feeds them more than the sane organs.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Soon bulls be like

either that or:


imho we enter in the pump zone if it crosses 240:

[JorgeStolfi]

Bitcoin can't be owned, says Japanese court http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/07/bitcoin_cant_be_owned_says_japanese_court_as_karpeles_cackles_away/

That is very old news (and very old misreading of the news).

What happened is that some MtGOX victim tried to bypass the bankruptcy process by claiming that some of the remaining 200 kBTC in MtGOX's spoils were his property, and he was entitled to have his property back. 

(As one redditor explained, it would be like a customer of a bankrupt dry cleaner demanding to repossess his suit that he had left there for cleaning, rather than seeing it to be auctioned and the money divided among creditors.) 

But the court said nope, the bitcoins in MtGOX wallets (like the dollars in MtGOX bank accounts) were owned by MtGOX and not by the depositors, because one cannot claim ownership of specific bitcoins, but only the right to receive their value (like one cannot claim ownership of specific dollar bills or euro bills, but only the right to receive their value).  So that customer was told to file a claim and wait for his share of the spoils, like the other MtGOX victims and creditors.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[lemmyK]

astra             
BTC

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Norway]

Gotta love this cute Shapeshift ad:

[billyjoeallen]

all this time we were worried about central control systems from outside but it turns out they are like cancer they grow from within.  

And they thrive because the organism fails to recognize tumors as malignant, and even feeds them more than the sane organs.

I am in agreement with Stolfi? This isn't the end of Bitcoin. It's the end of the world! 

1. Seriously, the core dev's involvement with Blockstream is a real conflict of interest. Sidechains can be used as a way to route around a bottleneck. They will profit from bottlenecks that they created in the first place.

2. There is something wrong with a protocol if there is no diversity of code running on top of it, or that can run on top of it.

3. It's silly to argue about the trade-offs in scalability vs mining decentralization when code development is so centralized that it is essentially a monopoly.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

What conference and when it will be held ?

https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/

I wouldn't be holding out for a solution from that particular 150$CAD-a-head geek-in :
 

This event will not host sessions on the topic of any specific proposals involving changes to the Bitcoin protocol. Such proposals would be the topic of a 2nd, follow-on Phase 2 workshop described below; this event is intended to “set the stage” for work on and evaluation of specific proposals in the time between the workshops

Better wait for HK in December.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

i foresee a future where bitcoin is the world reserve currency and governments secure the blockchain

expecting bitcoin to grow and always allow full nodes to run off of a 500$ computer is a silly fantasy.

I foresee a world where central governments are forced to either include crypto as part of their central bank reserves or get out of the counterfeiting business altogether, but that's a long way off and there is no guarantee Bitcoin will be the crypto that prevails.

I haven't seen the cost of running a node go up at all as we approach the 1 MB limit. Hard drive storage is cheaper, bandwidth is cheaper, fast processors are cheaper. All this more than offsets the increased size of the chain. Can anyone out there give an argument otherwise?  Maybe I'm wrong.

[xyzzy099]

all this time we were worried about central control systems from outside but it turns out they are like cancer they grow from within.  

And they thrive because the organism fails to recognize tumors as malignant, and even feeds them more than the sane organs.

I am in agreement with Stolfi? This isn't the end of Bitcoin. It's the end of the world! 

1. Seriously, the core dev's involvement with Blockstream is a real conflict of interest. Sidechains can be used as a way to route around a bottleneck. They will profit from bottlenecks that they created in the first place.

2. There is something wrong with a protocol if there is no diversity of code running on top of it, or that can run on top of it.

3. It's silly to argue about the trade-offs in scalability vs mining decentralization when code development is so centralized that it is essentially a monopoly.

1)  I don't think see any way this can be avoided.  The top Bitcoin developers will always be in demand by the top Bitcoin-related companies, and developers are free to work for anyone they want.  I don't think it's really a problem in the long run.  If people really believe that the Bitcoin Core project is compromised by developer self-interest, someone will start a BitcoinXT-like project, and Core will no longer define what IS Bitcoin.

I would caution that you shouldn't assume out-of-hand that developers are acting purely in their own interest, like Dr. Stolfi does.  Isn't it possible that the Core devs who are also Bitstream devs have thought a lot longer and harder about this problem than most of us, and realized (like I said earlier) that there really IS no way (as of now) to have Bitcoin be both scalable AND decentralized, and set about building a project that might insure that Bitcoin will still be usable anyway?  Sure they MIGHT be acting solely (or even partly) in their own interest.  But making money out of having the foresight to anticipate this problem does not, a priori, mean that their solution is not the RIGHT solution.

2) I can't parse this.  If you think a protocol must have multiple, conflicting versions of itself, you may not understand what the word 'protocol' means.  If you mean something related to alt coins, I would point out that there are plenty of those already.

3) It's not just an issue of mining scalability - it's a matter of even being able to just run a validating node.  There is no monopoly, as Gavin and Mike have proven.  Anyone who is unhappy can fork, and if the world agrees with them, their fork will become Bitcoin.

[brg444]

all this time we were worried about central control systems from outside but it turns out they are like cancer they grow from within.  

And they thrive because the organism fails to recognize tumors as malignant, and even feeds them more than the sane organs.

I am in agreement with Stolfi? This isn't the end of Bitcoin. It's the end of the world!  

1. Seriously, the core dev's involvement with Blockstream is a real conflict of interest. Sidechains can be used as a way to route around a bottleneck. They will profit from bottlenecks that they created in the first place.

2. There is something wrong with a protocol if there is no diversity of code running on top of it, or that can run on top of it.

3. It's silly to argue about the trade-offs in scalability vs mining decentralization when code development is so centralized that it is essentially a monopoly.

That's a lie, why do you entertain it?

Code development is by necessity a monopoly as in everyone needs to run the same, unique, consensus code. A protocol, ya know.

[brg444]

all this time we were worried about central control systems from outside but it turns out they are like cancer they grow from within.  

And they thrive because the organism fails to recognize tumors as malignant, and even feeds them more than the sane organs.

I am in agreement with Stolfi? This isn't the end of Bitcoin. It's the end of the world!  

1. Seriously, the core dev's involvement with Blockstream is a real conflict of interest. Sidechains can be used as a way to route around a bottleneck. They will profit from bottlenecks that they created in the first place.

2. There is something wrong with a protocol if there is no diversity of code running on top of it, or that can run on top of it.

3. It's silly to argue about the trade-offs in scalability vs mining decentralization when code development is so centralized that it is essentially a monopoly.

1)  I don't think see any way this can be avoided.  The top Bitcoin developers will always be in demand by the top Bitcoin-related companies, and developers are free to work for anyone they want.  I don't think it's really a problem in the long run.  If people really believe that the Bitcoin Core project is compromised by developer self-interest, someone will start a BitcoinXT-like project, and Core will no longer define what IS Bitcoin.

I would caution that you shouldn't assume out-of-hand that developers are acting purely in their own interest, like Dr. Stolfi does.  Isn't it possible that the Core devs who are also Bitstream devs have thought a lot longer and harder about this problem than most of us, and realized (like I said earlier) that there really IS no way (as of now) to have Bitcoin be both scalable AND decentralized, and set about building a project that might insure that Bitcoin will still be usable anyway?  Sure they MIGHT be acting solely (or even partly) in their own interest.  But making money out of having the foresight to anticipate this problem does not, a priori, mean that their solution is not the RIGHT solution.

2) I can't parse this.  If you think a protocol must have multiple, conflicting versions of itself, you may not understand what the word 'protocol' means.  If you mean something related to alt coins, I would point out that there are plenty of those already.

3) It's not just an issue of mining scalability - it's a matter of even being able to just run a validating node.  There is no monopoly, as Gavin and Mike have proven.  Anyone who is unhappy can fork, and if the world agrees with them, their fork will become Bitcoin.

A rational post for once. 10/10. Would read again

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

1)  I don't think see any way this can be avoided.  The top Bitcoin developers will always be in demand by the top Bitcoin-related companies, and developers are free to work for anyone they want.  I don't think it's really a problem in the long run.  If people really believe that the Bitcoin Core project is compromised by developer self-interest, someone will start a BitcoinXT-like project, and Core will no longer define what IS Bitcoin.

I would caution that you shouldn't assume out-of-hand that developers are acting purely in their own interest, like Dr. Stolfi does.  Isn't it possible that the Core devs who are also Bitstream devs have thought a lot longer and harder about this problem than most of us, and realized (like I said earlier) that there really IS no way (as of now) to have Bitcoin be both scalable AND decentralized, and set about building a project that might insure that Bitcoin will still be usable anyway?  Sure they MIGHT be acting solely (or even partly) in their own interest.  But making money out of having the foresight to anticipate this problem does not, a priori, mean that their solution is not the RIGHT solution.

They don't have to be evil people to be biased in their judgement. 

2) I can't parse this.  If you think a protocol must have multiple, conflicting versions of itself, you may not understand what the word 'protocol' means.  If you mean something related to alt coins, I would point out that there are plenty of those already.

To compare:  we have firefox, chrome and IE browsers on the HTTP. We have~15% of nodes running XT, a few running old obsolete versions of core and everyone else running core. That's a monopoly when a supermajority (or even a super-duper majority "consensus" need to implement a change.  The biased core devs and greedy miners have veto power.

Scaling is a trade-off but a necessary one because we are reaching capacity.  Let's use a gold mining analogy: In the free market, there would be no way a placer miner (guy with a shovel and a pan) could consistently compete against a large mining corporation. If you change the mining rules to make him more competitive, you have left the free market.If you change the rules to make him LESS competitive, you have also left the free market, but that is not what's at issue today.  It's called "capitalism" because you need capital in order to increase your productivity.

Code development is not constrained by capital (very much) because the limiting component is creativity. There is nothing magical about being a core dev.  It does not automatically make you wise and just. 

The market will ultimately decide and if bitcoin doesn't scale, it may well decide on an altcoin.

[xyzzy099]

They don't have to be evil people to be biased in their judgement. 

I concur.  But they don't HAVE to be biased in their judgement, just because the possibility exists that they might be.  It's possible that the technical solution they propose is the BEST solution.  I don't know that it is, I am just providing counterpoint to the relentless negativity toward Blockstream I see on here.  They might be evil, or they might be RIGHT.  You should at least consider it.

To compare:  we have firefox, chrome and IE browsers on the HTTP. We have~15% of nodes running XT, a few running old obsolete versions of core and everyone else running core. That's a monopoly when a supermajority (or even a super-duper majority "consensus" need to implement a change.  The biased core devs and greedy miners have veto power.

If you look in the debug.log file of your Bitcoin Core client, you will see lots of /version/ lines - these lines are the equivalent of the user-agent sent by browsers.  There are many different implementations of the bitcoin client, in addition to the Satoshi client.  Look for yourself.