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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[fonsie]

Food for thought:

If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.

BictoinXT is just an alt-client...same as Toshi from Coinbase and others

It is surprising how there are so many people that don't know what they are talking about and yet they have very strong opinion about it

There were already more clients before XT...the Bitcoin client development should not be centralized...You never know what real intentions of Blockstream are...And i don't think for profit company should lead development of open source decentralised software...they can develop, sure, but they can't be the only one, because these guys can be corrupted

I know, I agree with you 100%. ForkingUsing another client that is capable of forking is the best way to vote (=just my opinion)

It's just something we have to remember for next year when some idiot comes telling us that bitcoin will be replaced by a better altcoin.
We can just say then:

A) It already happend, XT
B) It didn't work, XT tried

And put him on ignore....  

[hdbuck]

Food for thought:

If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.

BictoinXT is just an alt-client...same as Toshi from Coinbase and others

It is surprising how there are so many people that don't know what they are talking about and yet they have very strong opinion about it

There were already more clients before XT...the Bitcoin client development should not be centralized...You never know what real intentions of Blockstream are...And i don't think for profit company should lead development of open source decentralised software...they can develop, sure, but they can't be the only one, because these guys can be corrupted

I know, I agree with you 100%. Forking is the best way to vote (=just my opinion)

It's just something we have to remember for next year when some idiot comes telling us that bitcoin will be replaced by a better altcoin.
We can just say then:

A) It already happend, XT
B) It didn't work, XT tried

And put him on ignore.... 

cant wait for gavin and hearn to be muted tho.

the sooner they fork off the better for bitcoin and its price.

[fonsie]

Food for thought:

If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.

BictoinXT is just an alt-client...same as Toshi from Coinbase and others

It is surprising how there are so many people that don't know what they are talking about and yet they have very strong opinion about it

There were already more clients before XT...the Bitcoin client development should not be centralized...You never know what real intentions of Blockstream are...And i don't think for profit company should lead development of open source decentralised software...they can develop, sure, but they can't be the only one, because these guys can be corrupted

I know, I agree with you 100%. Forking is the best way to vote (=just my opinion)

It's just something we have to remember for next year when some idiot comes telling us that bitcoin will be replaced by a better altcoin.
We can just say then:

A) It already happend, XT
B) It didn't work, XT tried

And put him on ignore.... 

cant wait for gavin and hearn to be muted tho.

the sooner they fork off the better for bitcoin and its price.

Buddy, if it ever forks, you'll be on the wrong side, hope you realize that.

[hdbuck]

Food for thought:

If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.

BictoinXT is just an alt-client...same as Toshi from Coinbase and others

It is surprising how there are so many people that don't know what they are talking about and yet they have very strong opinion about it

There were already more clients before XT...the Bitcoin client development should not be centralized...You never know what real intentions of Blockstream are...And i don't think for profit company should lead development of open source decentralised software...they can develop, sure, but they can't be the only one, because these guys can be corrupted

I know, I agree with you 100%. Forking is the best way to vote (=just my opinion)

It's just something we have to remember for next year when some idiot comes telling us that bitcoin will be replaced by a better altcoin.
We can just say then:

A) It already happend, XT
B) It didn't work, XT tried

And put him on ignore....  

cant wait for gavin and hearn to be muted tho.

the sooner they fork off the better for bitcoin and its price.

Buddy, if it ever forks, you'll be on the wrong side, hope you realize that.

meheh you're better at trollin than talking about things you dont understand.

so plz keep diggin, buddy.

[DieJohnny]

We should absolutely avoid the danger of instilling into Bitcoin users some kind of belief that they have a right to free transactions.

 

This post is full of misguided assumptions.

It should come as a rational observation considering the shortcomings you have pointed out that there exist absolutely no incentive to purchase bitcoins to make purchases.

As is yours. Making the assumption that bitcoin was never intended to be a transaction system is probably the biggest assumption of them all.
 

Were do I mention that Bitcoin is not intended for transactions?

see above

I see. Maybe that came off wrong but that wasn't my point. The point being it makes little sense for the average consumer to have to jump through all the hoops of buying bitcoins just to make a purchase. Now don't get me wrong it might serve some niche use cases but this is simply not something you can sell to mainstream consumers, even if they can make 100000000000000 transactions for free.

Technology changes, systems change. Today you are right, nobody (I know) ever buys bitcoin for purchases because of simplicity or tangible rewards. However, that may not always be the case.

What bothers me about this debate is you have two sides, but only one side wants to declare now what Bitcoin's future should be, the other treats bitcoin more like infrastructure and is willing to support ANY future or features that may come on top of that infrastructure.

[fonsie]

Food for thought:

If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.

BictoinXT is just an alt-client...same as Toshi from Coinbase and others

It is surprising how there are so many people that don't know what they are talking about and yet they have very strong opinion about it

There were already more clients before XT...the Bitcoin client development should not be centralized...You never know what real intentions of Blockstream are...And i don't think for profit company should lead development of open source decentralised software...they can develop, sure, but they can't be the only one, because these guys can be corrupted

I know, I agree with you 100%. Forking is the best way to vote (=just my opinion)

It's just something we have to remember for next year when some idiot comes telling us that bitcoin will be replaced by a better altcoin.
We can just say then:

A) It already happend, XT
B) It didn't work, XT tried

And put him on ignore....  

cant wait for gavin and hearn to be muted tho.

the sooner they fork off the better for bitcoin and its price.

Buddy, if it ever forks, you'll be on the wrong side, hope you realize that.

meheh you're better at trollin than talking about things you dont understand.

so plz keep diggin, buddy.

Thank you, you seem to be great at talking about things you don't understand.

Keep talking, it's hilarious.

[ssmc2]

http://consumerist.com/2015/09/02/ncr-confirms-technical-issue-resulted-in-duplicate-charges-for-some-shoppers-at-multiple-retailers/


This is the kinda thing that, if it happened to enough people, would get them considering alternatives, i.e. BTC.

"Shoppers who were overcharged should see those charges reversed “within five business days” of the incdient, which would mean this Friday, Sept. 4."

[notme]

Many people mocked me many pages ago for my concern that the block size could not simply scale exponentially for the next 20 years, but I still believe we are reaching the limits of physics and any further significant exponential type gains in computing power beyond asic will likely take us beyond the singularity. I just hope our new synthetic overlords accept bitcoin. (Ok, yes, I've been watching too much humans (tv show))

Block size MUST scale exponentially whether it's simple or not. A crypto with a block size limit is analogous to an Internet with a bandwidth limit of 56K modems.  No video. No VOIP. Vastly more limited functionality.  It may be hard, but don't fucking tell me it's impossible. Some other crypto will do it if we don't.

You are clearly clueless about why the block size limit is necessary and there in the first place. Go back to your homeworks. First assignement:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/007880.html

Code:

To elaborate, in my view there is a at least a two fold concern on this
particular ("Long term Mining incentives") front:

One is that the long-held argument is that security of the Bitcoin system
in the long term depends on fee income funding autonomous, anonymous,
decentralized miners profitably applying enough hash-power to make
reorganizations infeasible.

For fees to achieve this purpose, there seemingly must be an effective
scarcity of capacity.  The fact that verifying and transmitting
transactions has a cost isn't enough, because all the funds go to pay
that cost and none to the POW "artificial" cost; e.g., if verification
costs 1 then the market price for fees should converge to 1, and POW
cost will converge towards zero because they adapt to whatever is
being applied. Moreover, the transmission and verification costs can
be perfectly amortized by using large centralized pools (and efficient
differential block transmission like the "O(1)" idea) as you can verify
one time instead of N times, so to the extent that verification/bandwidth
is a non-negligible cost to miners at all, it's a strong pressure to
centralize.  You can understand this intuitively: think for example of
carbon credit cap-and-trade: the trade part doesn't work without an
actual cap; if everyone was born with a 1000 petaton carbon balance,
the market price for credits would be zero and the program couldn't hope
to share behavior. In the case of mining, we're trying to optimize the
social good of POW security. (But the analogy applies in other ways too:
increases to the chain side are largely an externality; miners enjoy the
benefits, everyone else takes the costs--either in reduced security or
higher node operating else.)

This area has been subject to a small amount of academic research
(e.g. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519). But
there is still much that is unclear.

The second is that when subsidy has fallen well below fees, the incentive
to move the blockchain forward goes away.  An optimal rational miner
would be best off forking off the current best block in order to capture
its fees, rather than moving the blockchain forward, until they hit
the maximum. That's where the "backlog" comment comes from, since when
there is a sufficient backlog it's better to go forward.  I'm not aware
of specific research into this subquestion; it's somewhat fuzzy because
of uncertainty about the security model. If we try to say that Bitcoin
should work even in the face of most miners being profit-maximizing
instead of altruistically-honest, we must assume the chain will not
more forward so long as a block isn't full.  In reality there is more
altruism than zero; there are public pressures; there is laziness, etc.

There will never be no limit.  Sure, we could remove the limit from consensus requirements (which I would actually support), but transactions still have a cost.  They have to be verified and then stored until all outputs are spent.  This requires storage hardware and bandwidth.  Also, larger blocks will be orphaned more frequently, providing additional pressure for miners to voluntarily keep blocks small.

Did you bother reading this part?

The fact that verifying and transmitting transactions has a cost isn't enough, because all the funds go to pay that cost and none to the POW "artificial" cost; e.g., if verification costs 1 then the market price for fees should converge to 1, and POW cost will converge towards zero because they adapt to whatever is being applied. Moreover, the transmission and verification costs can be perfectly amortized by using large centralized pools (and efficient differential block transmission like the "O(1)" idea) as you can verify one time instead of N times, so to the extent that verification/bandwidth is a non-negligible cost to miners at all, it's a strong pressure to centralize.

This pressure for miners to keep blocks small is temporary and will eventually decline and disappear, it's already starting to seeing as numerous improvements have been made in improving general block propagation time between miners.

I read the whole thing.  I'll believe O (1) block propagation when I see an implementation  (or at least a reasonable explanation of how it could be implemented).

Besides, the vast majority of miners use pools anyway.  How would larger blocks change anything?

[notme]

Food for thought:

If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.

No, it proves that Bitcoin will not be replaced by BitcoinXT.  Anything else is overgeneralization.

[aztecminer]

bitfinex longs are climbing real good now .. we're not messing around anymore.. nothing can stop us now!

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Feri22]

Food for thought:

If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.

BictoinXT is just an alt-client...same as Toshi from Coinbase and others

It is surprising how there are so many people that don't know what they are talking about and yet they have very strong opinion about it

There were already more clients before XT...the Bitcoin client development should not be centralized...You never know what real intentions of Blockstream are...And i don't think for profit company should lead development of open source decentralised software...they can develop, sure, but they can't be the only one, because these guys can be corrupted

I know, I agree with you 100%. Forking is the best way to vote (=just my opinion)

It's just something we have to remember for next year when some idiot comes telling us that bitcoin will be replaced by a better altcoin.
We can just say then:

A) It already happend, XT
B) It didn't work, XT tried

And put him on ignore....  

cant wait for gavin and hearn to be muted tho.

the sooner they fork off the better for bitcoin and its price.

I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway

[hdbuck]

Food for thought:

If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.

BictoinXT is just an alt-client...same as Toshi from Coinbase and others

It is surprising how there are so many people that don't know what they are talking about and yet they have very strong opinion about it

There were already more clients before XT...the Bitcoin client development should not be centralized...You never know what real intentions of Blockstream are...And i don't think for profit company should lead development of open source decentralised software...they can develop, sure, but they can't be the only one, because these guys can be corrupted

I know, I agree with you 100%. Forking is the best way to vote (=just my opinion)

It's just something we have to remember for next year when some idiot comes telling us that bitcoin will be replaced by a better altcoin.
We can just say then:

A) It already happend, XT
B) It didn't work, XT tried

And put him on ignore....  

cant wait for gavin and hearn to be muted tho.

the sooner they fork off the better for bitcoin and its price.

I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway

Im not following anyone. Altho i might be interested about what some people might say, i will never trust them with my bitcoins.
Gavin is a low life traitor/dictator, and should be banned from touching any bitcoin related code.
May he enjoy the rest of his pityful life hanging around in MIT/CIA/Google offices with his Hearn fella.

Good friggin riddance!

[findftp]

I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway

Satoshi does not agree with BitcoinXT.
This is what he said on the bitcoin-dev mailinglist two weeks ago(!):

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

If you follow the mailinglist further you can find some analysis it was not a spoofed email address.
But whether this was the real Satoshi or not, is doesn't matter what he thinks or wants.
Bitcoin can only have value if there is no central decision maker, and that what he also tried to explain on the mailinglist.

[Fatman3001]

I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway

Satoshi does not agree with BitcoinXT.
This is what he said on the bitcoin-dev mailinglist two weeks ago(!):

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

If you follow the mailinglist further you can find some analysis it was not a spoofed email address.
But whether this was the real Satoshi or not, is doesn't matter what he thinks or wants.
Bitcoin can only have value if there is no central decision maker, and that what he also tried to explain on the mailinglist.

The consensus seems to be that this is bull, and not the real Satoshi.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[findftp]

The consensus seems to be that this is bull, and not the real Satoshi.

Where can I find more about this consensus?
There is no reason to believe it is fake for me.
This is what Gregory Maxwell said about it, I agree:

You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the
message is unauthentic.  This is not the case.

Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed
that might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was
unauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or
apparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key.

The headers on the message check out.  The mail server in question is
also not an open relay.  At the moment the only reason I have to doubt
the authenticity of it is merely the fact that it exists after so much
air silence, but that isn't especially strong.

In the presence of doubt, it's better to take it just for its content.
And on that front it is more on-topic, civil, and productively
directed than a substantial fraction of new messages on the list.  I
certainly do not see a reason to hide it.

A focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core
messages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from
authority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the
founder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of
argument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own
act?

This whole tangest is a waste of time.  If you believe the message is
unauthentic or not the best response is the same as if it is
authentic. Focus on the content. If its worth responding to, do. If
it's not don't. Then move on with life.

[hdbuck]

The consensus seems to be that this is bull, and not the real Satoshi.

Where can I find more about this consensus?
There is no reason to believe it is fake for me.
This is what Gregory Maxwell said about it, I agree:

You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the
message is unauthentic.  This is not the case.

Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed
that might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was
unauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or
apparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key.

The headers on the message check out.  The mail server in question is
also not an open relay.  At the moment the only reason I have to doubt
the authenticity of it is merely the fact that it exists after so much
air silence, but that isn't especially strong.

In the presence of doubt, it's better to take it just for its content.
And on that front it is more on-topic, civil, and productively
directed than a substantial fraction of new messages on the list.  I
certainly do not see a reason to hide it.

A focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core
messages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from
authority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the
founder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of
argument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own
act?

This whole tangest is a waste of time.  If you believe the message is
unauthentic or not the best response is the same as if it is
authentic. Focus on the content. If its worth responding to, do. If
it's not don't. Then move on with life.

+1

Satoshi is way too smart not to sign and comply with the noobs around and their crave for authority.

That's what bitcoin is about: decentralized consensus, trustless system and no friggin dictators!

[aztecminer]

I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway

Satoshi does not agree with BitcoinXT.
This is what he said on the bitcoin-dev mailinglist two weeks ago(!):

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

If you follow the mailinglist further you can find some analysis it was not a spoofed email address.
But whether this was the real Satoshi or not, is doesn't matter what he thinks or wants.
Bitcoin can only have value if there is no central decision maker, and that what he also tried to explain on the mailinglist.

The consensus seems to be that this is bull, and not the real Satoshi.

regarding the "blockchain blacklists" scheme: "They think they're smarter than the rest of us. They're not and we're going to pay the price." http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/jim-rogers-federal-reserve-economy-slowdown/2015/08/31/id/672878/