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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[1714470235]

1714470235

[1714470235]

1714470235

[1714470235]

1714470235

[1714470235]

1714470235

[1714470235]

1714470235

[Adrian-x]

Someone many pages back linked the Gavin interview, https://youtu.be/B8l11q9hsJM

Pay special attention at roughly 1:14:40 , the first and maybe only interesting question, let me paraphrase:

Brian: "so, if this fork succeeds, how will decisions be made in the future?"

Gavin: "Mike Hearn will be the benevolent dictator, he will be the ultimate decision maker."

...

He goes on to explain how he does not want to be in complete control, nor do any of the devs that currently have commit ability, but he is completely happy and ok with Mike as the sole controller and decider. He even goes in to mention that future changes will be much easier and will happen much more quickly once this change is made.

I know XT is already dead, but I just wanted to point out to anyone that was still unconvinced that Gavin has been compromised... He is either completely brain dead, or he is deliberately trying to end bitcoin's function as a permissionless, censorship-proof means of storing and transmitting value.

It's ok to have dictators if we have many Bitcoin implications.Mike can do what he likes with XT if it's not good for Bitcoin use another centrally controlled implementation. The problem now is we only have one choice with the centrally controlled development of Core.

[JorgeStolfi]

It seems that a major concern for BIP100 supporters is that miners with slow internet connections are disadvantaged by larger blocks. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, why should the rest of us subsidize these slow miners? They are mostly in China

Except that the Chinese miners were the first to declare, with signatures and stamps, that they would be OK with a block size LIMIT of 8 MB.

The support for BIP100 seems to be mostly (a) miners who like the idea of deciding things on their own, (b) nerds who like the proposal because it is a nerdish solution, and (c) Blockstream supporters who are pushing BIP100 as a "divide and conquer" strategy against Bitcoin[REDACTED].

By the way, BTC Drak, a co-founder of Viacoin and apparent friend of Blockstream, has just proposed BIP105, another dynamic block size limit adjustment proposal.

And did I mention my own BIP99½?

(I honestly and modestly think that it is the best max block size increase proposal.  I posted it in order to make sure that bitcoiners will not implement it.   That would spoil the fun by ending the size war and giving us another 3-4 years of the same boring agony.  Don't tell that to the bitcoiners.)

[aminorex]

If someone had told me two years ago that Blythe Masters would be pitching the blockchain on the cover of Bloomberg Markets, and the price would be below 250 USD, I would have recommended an antipsychotic.

[macsga]

If someone had told me two years ago that Blythe Masters would be pitching the blockchain on the cover of Bloomberg Markets, and the price would be below 250 USD, I would have recommended an antipsychotic.

Blythe represents the mother of the Devil herself. She knows what's at stake better than anyone (she even engineered a portion of the economic disaster of 2008 with the CDS). The current scheme of bloated fiat money is in for a wild ride the upcoming month(s). We will probably witness the end of the global economic infrastructure as we know it. Chances are certain individuals have organized the monetary situation to reach a dead end in order for the new system to rush in boldly.

Interesting times.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Cconvert2G36]

It seems that a major concern for BIP100 supporters is that miners with slow internet connections are disadvantaged by larger blocks. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, why should the rest of us subsidize these slow miners? They are mostly in China

Except that the Chinese miners were the first to declare, with signatures and stamps, that they would be OK with a block size LIMIT of 8 MB.

The support for BIP100 seems to be mostly (a) miners who like the idea of deciding things on their own, (b) nerds who like the proposal because it is a nerdish solution, and (c) Blockstream supporters who are pushing BIP100 as a "divide and conquer" strategy against Bitcoin[REDACTED].

By the way, BTC Drak, a co-founder of Viacoin and apparent friend of Blockstream, has just proposed BIP105, another dynamic block size limit adjustment proposal.

And did I mention my own BIP99½?

(I honestly and modestly think that it is the best max block size increase proposal.  I posted it in order to make sure that bitcoiners will not implement it.   That would spoil the fun by ending the size war and giving us another 3-4 years of the same boring agony.  Don't tell that to the bitcoiners.)

Stolfi is a bitcoiner. He just predicts a spectacular implosion that will provide him Cheap Coinz™ at some opportune time in the future...   

If someone had told me two years ago that Blythe Masters would be pitching the blockchain on the cover of Bloomberg Markets, and the price would be below 250 USD, I would have recommended an antipsychotic.

Give them (not Blythe, she gets it) a little time to understand the difference between a permissioned database and the blockchain, in fact, it's nice that we can take off the 1MB training wheels (or "breaks" if you prefer) beforehand.

[billyjoeallen]

The support for BIP100 seems to be mostly (a) miners who like the idea of deciding things on their own, (b) nerds who like the proposal because it is a nerdish solution, and (c) Blockstream supporters who are pushing BIP100 as a "divide and conquer" strategy against Bitcoin[REDACTED].

Ahhh. I think the answer is (d)  people who mine over the notoriously slow TOR network to not pay taxes and buy drugs, etc.  I am all in favor of drugs and cheating on taxes, but not at the cost of choking the network. Those people can use dash or monero. 

I think this may be the real disagreement. The cost of going mainstream will be to push the black markets farther out to the crypto frontier. 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Andre#]

Someone many pages back linked the Gavin interview, https://youtu.be/B8l11q9hsJM

Pay special attention at roughly 1:14:40 , the first and maybe only interesting question, let me paraphrase:

Brian: "so, if this fork succeeds, how will decisions be made in the future?"

Gavin: "Mike Hearn will be the benevolent dictator, he will be the ultimate decision maker."

...

He goes on to explain how he does not want to be in complete control, nor do any of the devs that currently have commit ability, but he is completely happy and ok with Mike as the sole controller and decider. He even goes in to mention that future changes will be much easier and will happen much more quickly once this change is made.

I know XT is already dead, but I just wanted to point out to anyone that was still unconvinced that Gavin has been compromised... He is either completely brain dead, or he is deliberately trying to end bitcoin's function as a permissionless, censorship-proof means of storing and transmitting value.

Hearn would only be the dictator of XT development, not the protocol. XT is only one implementation of BIP101.  Other implementations would be compatible, as XT is currently compatible with core. ANY change in the code that would make XT incompatible would orphan XT, not the other implementations. Anyone can write code using core or BIP101 components and run it on test net to see if it works and then release it into the wild.  This is open source. XT will only succeed if people use it.

A certain amount of skepticism is healthy, but I think we all need to take off our tin foil hats. We just end up talking past each other and getting nowhere.

I read the BITfury white paper in support of BIP100. There are some good points in it, but it doesn't address the big problems that are holding up infrastructure development and mainstream adoption. Entrepreneurs can't build business models around how miners may or may not vote. Issues such as node centralization are secondary.  A fully validating node is and likely will always be many orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to setup and run than a profitable mining operation.

It seems that a major concern for BIP100 supporters is that miners with slow internet connections are disadvantaged by larger blocks. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, why should the rest of us subsidize these slow miners? They are mostly in China which means that if they have less of a competitive advantage then mining will likely become LESS centralized with large blocks rather than more.

Miners are producers. They are essential to the network but we know what happens when producers are in control of the economy. We saw it in the Soviet Union, North Korea, East Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, and Red China. Rent-seeking behavior kills growth. In the free market, the consumer is king which is actually more fair because we are all consumers.

If we want bitcoin to survive, it has to grow. If we want it to grow, it has to scale. If we want it to scale, then we have to make some trade-offs that will benefit various people and groups differently. This is unavoidable. What is also unavoidable is technology proliferation. If we don't fix this scaling problem, banksters are going to jack our tech,  make their own coin(s), and wave at us as they leave us in the dust.

Scale or die.

Well said!

[fonsie]

BIP 99½ DISCLAIMER

  It doesn't get more pathetic than that.

Jorge:

I like bitcoin, but I don't like the miners, they ruined my little hobby play time, so now I'm a full time troll instead. [Cries a little]

[Fatman3001]

It seems that a major concern for BIP100 supporters is that miners with slow internet connections are disadvantaged by larger blocks. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, why should the rest of us subsidize these slow miners? They are mostly in China

Except that the Chinese miners were the first to declare, with signatures and stamps, that they would be OK with a block size LIMIT of 8 MB.

The support for BIP100 seems to be mostly (a) miners who like the idea of deciding things on their own, (b) nerds who like the proposal because it is a nerdish solution, and (c) Blockstream supporters who are pushing BIP100 as a "divide and conquer" strategy against Bitcoin[REDACTED].

By the way, BTC Drak, a co-founder of Viacoin and apparent friend of Blockstream, has just proposed BIP105, another dynamic block size limit adjustment proposal.

And did I mention my own BIP99½?

(I honestly and modestly think that it is the best max block size increase proposal.  I posted it in order to make sure that bitcoiners will not implement it.   That would spoil the fun by ending the size war and giving us another 3-4 years of the same boring agony.  Don't tell that to the bitcoiners.)

I never thought I'd see the day.

You're still trying to cling on to the illusion that you're looking in from the outside, but your inner nerd has completely and truly capitulated!

WELCOME TO BITCOIN!!!

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Globb0]

I think the rumblings are "they" are already working on their own block chains.

The illusion "they" don't understand and "they" need the miners and coins to pay them is a false one. They can connect their banks as the computing power for the network.

Same goes for anything similar a copyright chain, a land registry chain, even maintaining the network may be the cost of transacting.



Is bitcoin looking weaker as a result? granted you have well established infrastructures and existing systems and services. Will that inertia be enough?

[RenegadeMan]

Someone many pages back linked the Gavin interview, https://youtu.be/B8l11q9hsJM

Pay special attention at roughly 1:14:40 , the first and maybe only interesting question, let me paraphrase:

Brian: "so, if this fork succeeds, how will decisions be made in the future?"

Gavin: "Mike Hearn will be the benevolent dictator, he will be the ultimate decision maker."

...

He goes on to explain how he does not want to be in complete control, nor do any of the devs that currently have commit ability, but he is completely happy and ok with Mike as the sole controller and decider. He even goes in to mention that future changes will be much easier and will happen much more quickly once this change is made.

I know XT is already dead, but I just wanted to point out to anyone that was still unconvinced that Gavin has been compromised... He is either completely brain dead, or he is deliberately trying to end bitcoin's function as a permissionless, censorship-proof means of storing and transmitting value.

Hearn would only be the dictator of XT development, not the protocol. XT is only one implementation of BIP101.  Other implementations would be compatible, as XT is currently compatible with core. ANY change in the code that would make XT incompatible would orphan XT, not the other implementations. Anyone can write code using core or BIP101 components and run it on test net to see if it works and then release it into the wild.  This is open source. XT will only succeed if people use it.

A certain amount of skepticism is healthy, but I think we all need to take off our tin foil hats. We just end up talking past each other and getting nowhere.

I read the BITfury white paper in support of BIP100. There are some good points in it, but it doesn't address the big problems that are holding up infrastructure development and mainstream adoption. Entrepreneurs can't build business models around how miners may or may not vote. Issues such as node centralization are secondary.  A fully validating node is and likely will always be many orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to setup and run than a profitable mining operation.

It seems that a major concern for BIP100 supporters is that miners with slow internet connections are disadvantaged by larger blocks. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, why should the rest of us subsidize these slow miners? They are mostly in China which means that if they have less of a competitive advantage then mining will likely become LESS centralized with large blocks rather than more.

Miners are producers. They are essential to the network but we know what happens when producers are in control of the economy. We saw it in the Soviet Union, North Korea, East Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, and Red China. Rent-seeking behavior kills growth. In the free market, the consumer is king which is actually more fair because we are all consumers.

If we want bitcoin to survive, it has to grow. If we want it to grow, it has to scale. If we want it to scale, then we have to make some trade-offs that will benefit various people and groups differently. This is unavoidable. What is also unavoidable is technology proliferation. If we don't fix this scaling problem, banksters are going to jack our tech,  make their own coin(s), and wave at us as they leave us in the dust.

Scale or die.

Well said!

Yes I agree. You're slowly growing on me billyjoeallen. Well written post.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Fatman3001]

It seems that a major concern for BIP100 supporters is that miners with slow internet connections are disadvantaged by larger blocks. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, why should the rest of us subsidize these slow miners? They are mostly in China which means that if they have less of a competitive advantage then mining will likely become LESS centralized with large blocks rather than more.

This problem would only be applicable to mines located in remote areas. And it is solved by joining a pool. If you insist on solo mining you can start a private pool with a pool server somewhere where internet access is good, like a data center with fiber, and only send work to the mines. In other words: it's a BS argument.

PS: I don't know if I'm fighting straw men here.

[fonsie]

It seems that a major concern for BIP100 supporters is that miners with slow internet connections are disadvantaged by larger blocks. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, why should the rest of us subsidize these slow miners? They are mostly in China which means that if they have less of a competitive advantage then mining will likely become LESS centralized with large blocks rather than more.

This problem would only be applicable to mines located in remote areas. And it is solved by joining a pool. If you insist on solo mining you can start a private pool with a pool server somewhere where internet access is good, like a data center with fiber, and only send work to the mines. In other words: it's a BS argument.

PS: I don't know if I'm fighting straw men here.

Biggest miners in China making millions of dollars and here we are, worried they have to upgrade their internet connection... Oh poor miners... Give me a break!

As Fatman3001 said: BS

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Feri22]

I think BIP100 is very dangerous idea adding more risk to Bitcoin