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

[Fatman3001]

wall street money pouring in.

WEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeee.......

[1714474675]

1714474675

[1714474675]

1714474675

[1714474675]

1714474675

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[JorgeStolfi]

Then the hard fork would be a non-event and NOTHING bad would happen from it.

lol, a hard fork being a "non-event"..
sounds like a true acaderpic.

Yes, "hard forks are terrible things" is part of the FUD that Blockstream created. 

Maybe because they invented the concept of  "soft fork", namely a change in the protocol that is deployed by the devs without the community being told about it; and that fits better with the time-honored hacker's approach to software project management. 

[muyuu]

Then the hard fork would be a non-event and NOTHING bad would happen from it.

lol, a hard fork being a "non-event"..
sounds like a true acaderpic.

Yes, "hard forks are terrible things" is part of the FUD that Blockstream created. 

Maybe because they invented the concept of  "soft fork", namely a change in the protocol that is deployed by the devs without the community being told about it; and that fits better with the time-honored hacker's approach to software project management. 

They didn't. Gavin did.

[JorgeStolfi]

Then the hard fork would be a non-event and NOTHING bad would happen from it.

lol, a hard fork being a "non-event"..
sounds like a true acaderpic.

Yes, "hard forks are terrible things" is part of the FUD that Blockstream created.  

Maybe because they invented the concept of  "soft fork", namely a change in the protocol that is deployed by the devs without the community being told about it; and that fits better with the time-honored hacker's approach to software project management.  

They didn't. Gavin did.

I stand corrected. But it is Blockstream who is "selling" soft forks as if they were completely safe and different from hard forks, even though there is no technical diffrerence between them -- especially since the possibility of miners cheating, hiding, or changing their mind about their preferences, before and after the fork, is no longer just a theoretical possibility.

[Tzupy]

wall street money pouring in.

Yup, currently 3.2 thousand dollars bids at Gemini, this looks sooo bullish...
The bid sum / ask sum ratio is about 20$, might be an insight into the future of bitcoin...

[iCEBREAKER]

I wrote a few other reports and analyses here on bitcointalk, but nothing deep enough to be worth submitting to a journal, unfortunately.

I enjoyed your take on the "religious schism" between Core and XT playing out in fast motion...the inquisition...the banishing of the heretics...etc etc.  What I would love to see--although it would be difficult and perhaps infeasible at this point in time--is a scholarly article addressing the politics of Bitcoin governance.  How do we come to consensus?  What does "consensus" really mean in the context of Bitcoin?

You should be asking me those questions.  Unlike Prof. "I think XT will win" Stolfi, my predictions about XT's fate ("gonna get rekt like Stannis on the Blackwater") were proven exactly correct.  Obviously, Stolfi couldn't recognize a socioeconomic majority even if one bit him on the ass.   

I was the first to observe the obsequious suits vs GFY cypherpunks doctrinal conflict coming to the fore and invoke the "Great Schism" frame.

Bitcoin's net-worth overall will increase regardless of transaction volume simply because it has the 1st mover, digital reserve currency advantages and status.  It doesn't need, nor should we seek, a monopoly on digital currency, because a Nash distribution is of more economic utility than top-heavy ones.  Bitcoin has a natural monopoly on high-value wealth preservation and transfers, not retail point-of-sale, paywalls, or tipping.

The hubristic Bitcoin2 project seeks to sacrifice current use cases and users for the hope of gaining future uses and users.

That is trading a bird in hand for two in the bush, and fixing what is not broken.  Two famously bad ideas.

Relying of the desirability of future pruning/compression mechanisms still in the vapor stage to fix 20MB blocks' undesirable effects is also a bad idea.

This logic of "we have to break the network to save the network" is appalling.  We need to get this right, not rush and act in haste.

First, we must wait and see how the infrastructure and ecosystem react/adapt to scarcity.   Without this crucial empirical data, we cannot make informed future decisions about ideal block sizing.  We cannot risk a civil war between BTC1 and BTC2 camps by forcing the issue prematurely (but if I were actually anti-BTC and pro-alt, I'd relish such a Great Schism).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10400700#msg10400700

BTW, that post also coined the (blocksize) "civil war" phrasing ultimately used by Szabo in his interview.   

How telling that PR would rather query Professor Buttcoin for incorrect but pleasing opinions, rather than ask someone with a demonstrated record of competent hypotheses creation for answers which risk discord with his prejudices.

PR should teach law school, since he's got the all-important 'Never ask a question you don't know/want the answer to" lesson down pat.   

[muyuu]

I stand corrected. But it is Blockstream who is "selling" soft forks as if they were completely safe and different from hard forks, even though there is no technical diffrerence between them -- especially since the possibility of miners cheating, hiding, or changing their mind about their preferences, before and after the fork, is no longer just a theoretical possibility.

Just because you say so in terms you just defined on the spot, it doesn't mean they are equally severe in all respects. There are real differences that cannot be obviated.

I agree that hard forks are not strictly more severe (it depends on each case). But the distinction is meaningful and there are technical differences between them that one shouldn't ignore.

[Fatman3001]

wall street money pouring in.

Yup, currently 3.2 thousand dollars bids at Gemini, this looks sooo bullish...
The bid sum / ask sum ratio is about 20$, might be an insight into the future of bitcoin...

And those are probably just nerds from this forum "Taking Part in History!!!".

[JorgeStolfi]

I agree that hard forks are not strictly more severe (it depends on each case). But the distinction is meaningful and there are technical differences between them that one shouldn't ignore.

As I explain in the linked post, there is no technical difference.  As the two events are usually defined, in both cases after the fork there are two versions of the rules, "permissive" and "restrictive"; and what happens next depends only on which version has the majority of the hashpower (which of course may change after the fork, and in principle could even go back and forth several times). 

The system's evolution does not depend at all on which rules were in force before the fork (i.e. whether the fork was "hard"or "soft").  The only way to make the fork "safe" is for all miners to adopt the same version, whatever that is, before the change is activated.  If that is not possible, one must hope for a strong majority, for either version, when the fork happens; so that the minority is motivated to switch too as quickly as possible.

Moreover, the soft/hard is an incomplete picture: there are changes that are neither restrictive nor permissive. In the extreme case, a "clean fork" is when the two rule-sets after the fork are totally incompatible -- no transaction or block is valid for both versions.  IMHO, the safest forks would be such clean forks, at periodic pre-scheduled dates...

[Fiat_Hodler]

all these people crying about gemini... give it a few weeks/months to actually get online properly... rome wasnt built in a day...

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Cconvert2G36]

all these people crying about gemini... give it a few weeks/months to actually get online properly... rome wasnt built in a day...

twasn't... it was burned in 9 tho...

[Fatman3001]

all these people crying about gemini... give it a few weeks/months to actually get online properly... rome wasnt built in a day...

They're not building Rome.

[muyuu]

I agree that hard forks are not strictly more severe (it depends on each case). But the distinction is meaningful and there are technical differences between them that one shouldn't ignore.

As I explain in the linked post, there is no technical difference.  As the two events are usually defined, in both cases after the fork there are two versions of the rules, "permissive" and "restrictive"; and what happens next depends only on which version has the majority of the hashpower (which of course may change after the fork, and in principle could even go back and forth several times). 

The system's evolution does not depend at all on which rules were in force before the fork (i.e. whether the fork was "hard"or "soft").  The only way to make the fork "safe" is for all miners to adopt the same version, whatever that is, before the change is activated.  If that is not possible, one must hope for a strong majority, for either version, when the fork happens; so that the minority is motivated to switch too as quickly as possible.

Moreover, the soft/hard is an incomplete picture: there are changes that are neither restrictive nor permissive. In the extreme case, a "clean fork" is when the two rule-sets after the fork are totally incompatible -- no transaction or block is valid for both versions.  IMHO, the safest forks would be such clean forks, at periodic pre-scheduled dates...

Of course there is a technical difference. The definition of the difference is purely technical.

And there is a major difference in what you are calling "safe". In the case of a soft fork, the miner risks mainly itself by not adopting the majority rule. In the case of a hard fork, the whole consensus on the valid chain can be at risk and there can be long chain reorgs. This doesn't happen in soft forks and this is a MAJOR difference.

[Mervyn_Pumpkinhead]

The veil has been lifted with proper rules and regulations. No simulating trades by the exchange to give impression of demand and interest. I wonder if this will cause this avalanche that I've been waiting for.

[dothebeats]

Just my opinion, I think it is already at the top now and wouldn't continue to push upwards. I don't know, gut feeling tells me that this is the top.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[noobtrader]

Just my opinion, I think it is already at the top now and wouldn't continue to push upwards. I don't know, gut feeling tells me that this is the top.

thats exactly what they want you to think.... im sure this will at least reach 270

[inca]

Just my opinion, I think it is already at the top now and wouldn't continue to push upwards. I don't know, gut feeling tells me that this is the top.

The market is zzz.