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

[Cconvert2G36]

Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?

Do you oppose central control or do you not?

Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.

Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.

Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.

Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?

Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.)

I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose.

Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak.

Land owners?  

Surely you are not proposing these companies are legitimate owners of all this rain forest they are cutting down.

Anyway, I see you didn't quite get the idea I was attempting to get through to you.

How about big game hunters? No reason we should enforce laws about this right? I'm guessing you are fine with them self-governing the hunting of endangered species?

You've replaced one bad analogy with another. Both reeking of statist sentiment.

Bigger blocks aren't going to destroy the rainforest and kill endangered species, and you should be ashamed for using such comparisons. Mircea would be appalled. The decentralized relay network is an asset to the miners, they would be fools to destroy it.

I mean it this time chartbuddy. 

[brg444]

I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:

Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.

Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.

This is complete bogus as usual Peter.

The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.

In this case they unanimously chose to retain the 1 MB cap until a better proposition comes along.

Maybe they're waiting for "Bitcoin unlimited"? 

[Fatman3001]

Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.

Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?

Lots of stupid analogies today. The Blockhain isn't the Amazon rainforest. Increasing blocksize will not lead to any analogous detrimental effects.

I guess we could force your analogy into the carbon footprint debate. Do you want to shut Bitcoin down or go from PoW to PoS?

[Peter R]

I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:

Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.

Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.

This is complete bogus as usual Peter.

The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.

If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc.  That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.  

However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose.  And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.  

[brg444]

Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?

Do you oppose central control or do you not?

Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.

Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.

Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.

Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?

Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.)

I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose.

Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak.

Land owners?  

Surely you are not proposing these companies are legitimate owners of all this rain forest they are cutting down.

Anyway, I see you didn't quite get the idea I was attempting to get through to you.

How about big game hunters? No reason we should enforce laws about this right? I'm guessing you are fine with them self-governing the hunting of endangered species?

You've replaced one bad analogy with another. Both reeking of statist sentiment.

Bigger blocks aren't going to destroy the rainforest and kill endangered species, and you should be ashamed for using such comparisons. Mircea would be appalled. The decentralized relay network is an asset to the miners, they would be fools to destroy it.

I mean it this time chartbuddy. 

Who said they'd destroy it?

Given the incentives under a unlimited block size what'll happen is they will slowly but surely bloat it until it eventually becomes so large that only large datacenters will be able to act as peers on the network. It's a very simple dynamic but one that necessarily leads to capture of the network by the same statists you resent.

[JayJuanGee]

Dash? Monero? (less traceable) Bitshares? (much much larger transaction capacity, built in smart contracts, etc) Should I go on?  Network effect didn't save MySpace.

 

So a pre-mined POS & a ripple rip-off are going to steal Bitcoin's lunch money? Please...

Comparing Bitcoin network effect to Myspace confirms my suspicions: you are beyond retarded.

Ok, so humor a retard, Einstein. what's wrong with the comparison? What make a four billion dollar first mover advantage so insurmountable in a world where WhatsApp gets sold to FB for 19 billion?

Cost, retard.

Moving from Myspace to Facebook entails no cost for the user.

Divesting from Bitcoin to some other cryptocurrency "because it is better" undermines the very trust that holds the concept together and would result in a complete destruction of any value created over the years. If we are to assume that something better will always come along why would I invest myself into the current "implementation"?

Your economics, it's broken  

That's a really good question, but I'm glad people are pumping now as it allows me to divest with lower cost. Don't worry though. I'll buy back in probably when a scaling solution is implemented, assuming I haven't found a better altcoin by then.

If you don't want that "complete destruction" you mentioned, you'd be wise to help ensure that there isn't something better by supporting improvements to the protocol.

So NOW you are abandoning ship?  That's a little bit crazy.

I doubt that this lack of a clear direction regarding BTC's scalability is going to be as detrimental to either its long-term or short-term success as you seem to be making it out to be.

Yes, you may be able to profit with some of the volatility of various other investments, yet BTC seems to remain a good long-term and fairly secure vehicle to place a decent amount of capital, currently.  Also there are decent upside potentials with BTC and even considerable likelihood that we could experience a sudden and unannounced doubling or tripling of value with little to NO notice and thereafter NO return to previous price levels....

So ultimately, for your own good, I hope you are NOT being too rash with your seemingly emotional decision to diversify (and/or as you put it "divest" out of BTC).

[brg444]

Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.

Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?

Lots of stupid analogies today. The Blockhain isn't the Amazon rainforest. Increasing blocksize will not lead to any analogous detrimental effects.

I guess we could force your analogy into the carbon footprint debate. Do you want to shut Bitcoin down or go from PoW to PoS?

Yes, it has a direct effect on the cost of running a node.

[brg444]

I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:

Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.

Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.

This is complete bogus as usual Peter.

The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.

If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc.  That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.  

However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose.  And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.  

Solve it how exactly? By a vote?

Did you learn nothing from the XT fiasco? For all I care I could put up 10,000 nodes that "express" support for 0.5MB block size. What then?

[Fatman3001]

Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?

Do you oppose central control or do you not?

Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.

Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.

Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.

Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?

Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.)

I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose.

Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak.

Land owners?  

Surely you are not proposing these companies are legitimate owners of all this rain forest they are cutting down.

Anyway, I see you didn't quite get the idea I was attempting to get through to you.

How about big game hunters? No reason we should enforce laws about this right? I'm guessing you are fine with them self-governing the hunting of endangered species?

You've replaced one bad analogy with another. Both reeking of statist sentiment.

Bigger blocks aren't going to destroy the rainforest and kill endangered species, and you should be ashamed for using such comparisons. Mircea would be appalled. The decentralized relay network is an asset to the miners, they would be fools to destroy it.

I mean it this time chartbuddy. 

Who said they'd destroy it?

Given the incentives under a unlimited block size what'll happen is they will slowly but surely bloat it until it eventually becomes so large that only large datacenters will be able to act as peers on the network. It's a very simple dynamic but one that necessarily leads to capture of the network by the same statists you resent.

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

[Fatman3001]

Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.

Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?

Lots of stupid analogies today. The Blockhain isn't the Amazon rainforest. Increasing blocksize will not lead to any analogous detrimental effects.

I guess we could force your analogy into the carbon footprint debate. Do you want to shut Bitcoin down or go from PoW to PoS?

Yes, it has a direct effect on the cost of running a node.

That is not an "analogous detrimental effect".

[Peter R]

I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:

Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.

Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.

This is complete bogus as usual Peter.

The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.

If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc.  That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.  

However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose.  And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.  

Solve it how exactly? By a vote?

For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support.  Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time).  Non-mining nodes could show support in other ways (although this would be less reliable). The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.

[brg444]

Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?

Do you oppose central control or do you not?

Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.

Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.

Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.

Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?

Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.)

I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose.

Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak.

Land owners?  

Surely you are not proposing these companies are legitimate owners of all this rain forest they are cutting down.

Anyway, I see you didn't quite get the idea I was attempting to get through to you.

How about big game hunters? No reason we should enforce laws about this right? I'm guessing you are fine with them self-governing the hunting of endangered species?

You've replaced one bad analogy with another. Both reeking of statist sentiment.

Bigger blocks aren't going to destroy the rainforest and kill endangered species, and you should be ashamed for using such comparisons. Mircea would be appalled. The decentralized relay network is an asset to the miners, they would be fools to destroy it.

I mean it this time chartbuddy. 

Who said they'd destroy it?

Given the incentives under a unlimited block size what'll happen is they will slowly but surely bloat it until it eventually becomes so large that only large datacenters will be able to act as peers on the network. It's a very simple dynamic but one that necessarily leads to capture of the network by the same statists you resent.

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

 

Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?

In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

Explanation

[brg444]

I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:

Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.

Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.

This is complete bogus as usual Peter.

The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.

If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc.  That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.  

However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose.  And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.  

Solve it how exactly? By a vote?

For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support.  Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time).  The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.

This all sounds very tempting.... except it is not up to the miners to decide but the nodes. Now if miners are intent on forking off to their own worthless chain then by all means...

[Peter R]

I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:

Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.

Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.

This is complete bogus as usual Peter.

The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.

If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc.  That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.  

However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose.  And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.  

Solve it how exactly? By a vote?

For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support.  Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time).  The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.

This all sounds very tempting.... except it is not up to the miners to decide but the nodes.

Sure, but miners won't publish blocks that they think will be rejected by the economic majority, regardless of the outcome of any BIP voting.  They'd be mining worthless coins. 

Am I correct that your vision for Bitcoin is that the block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization?

[brg444]

I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:

Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.

Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.

This is complete bogus as usual Peter.

The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.

If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc.  That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.  

However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose.  And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.  

Solve it how exactly? By a vote?

For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support.  Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time).  The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.

This all sounds very tempting.... except it is not up to the miners to decide but the nodes.

Sure, but miners won't publish blocks that they think will be rejected by the economic majority, regardless of the outcome of any BIP voting.  

Am I correct that your vision for Bitcoin is that the block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization?

Let me get this right... you propose that miners have the ability to vote on the proposal they support (which they do already) but that they should only go ahead with mining such a chain if the economic majority agrees (nodes move forward with a similar block size adjustment)....

How is that any different than what is currently occurring?

[Fatman3001]

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

 

Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?

In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.

But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.

[Holliday]

Sure, but miners won't publish blocks that they think will be rejected by the economic majority, regardless of the outcome of any BIP voting.  They'd be mining worthless coins. 

If we already have the economic majority making the choices, why do we need to bother with complicated and resource consuming popularity contests?

The way forward for someone who wants to make changes seems straight forward enough, release the code and see what happens.

[brg444]

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

 

Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?

In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.

But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.

I think my analogy is pretty clear: in the presence of a known scarce value (rain forest & decentralization) it is necessary that controls be put in place so as to limit the potential damages cause by misaligned incentives from the various participants in the system.

[Peter R]

I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:

Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.

Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.

This is complete bogus as usual Peter.

The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.

If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc.  That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.  

However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose.  And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.  

Solve it how exactly? By a vote?

For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support.  Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time).  The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.

This all sounds very tempting.... except it is not up to the miners to decide but the nodes.

Sure, but miners won't publish blocks that they think will be rejected by the economic majority, regardless of the outcome of any BIP voting.  

Am I correct that your vision for Bitcoin is that the block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization?

Let me get this right... you propose that miners have the ability to vote on the proposal they support (which they do already) but that they should only go ahead with mining such a chain if the economic majority agrees (nodes move forward with a similar block size adjustment)....

How is that any different than what is currently occurring?

The biggest source of "friction" preventing a market process from resolving the block size limit debate is that many people view Bitcoin Core as the core of Bitcoin.  They are leery to use XT or modify the code themselves because hard forks are an unknown at the moment.  If Core were to facilitate this market process by supporting all popular BIPs, then the process would proceed much quicker.  This, of course, is the reason Core doesn't do this.   

For the record, Core's hesitance to allow the free-market to function is a good thing for Bitcoin in the long run. I am happy with how the debate is evolving.  It is getting people familiar with the idea that multiple protocol implementations are a positive thing for future Bitcoin governance.  Interestingly, have you noticed that block size limit topics are no longer as heavily censored on r/bitcoin but things related to decentralizing development are?  In fighting the community against the block size limit, Core has shown the community a much bigger problem: Bitcoin governance itself.