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

[Peter R]

What exactly do you suggest when you say that Core should "support all popular BIPs"? How is that supposed to work?

I mean they could add code to support all popular BIPs.  Miners and node operators could express their free choice by activating one or several of them in the GUI or with a run-time parameter.  Eventually, either nothing would happen or one of the BIPs would be activated and the market would settle on a solution with the blessing of Core

Or...they could not do this while support continues to migrate away from Core.  This would be my preference as it ends the block size limit debate AND the governance problem.  

[hdbuck]

...

[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.

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.

Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.

[JayJuanGee]

Regarding price and walls, maybe we are going to remain in this territory of $255 to $275 for a few days.

Actually, since the weekend mostly contained retracement, maybe there will be some movement in one direction or the other by NO later than Wednesday... I remain fairly confident that the short term price direction will be upward -yet I am retaining some doubts about whether prices can go above or remain above $300 prior to the Fed auction. 

Thoughts? 

Where we going this week and in the coming 2.5 weeks prior to the Fed auction?

[brg444]

What exactly do you suggest when you say that Core should "support all popular BIPs"? How is that supposed to work?

I mean they could add code to support all popular BIPs.  Miners and node operators could express their free choice by activating one or several of them in the GUI or with a run-time parameter.  Eventually, either nothing would happen or the one of the BIPs would be activated and the market would settle on a solution with the blessing of Core

Or...they could not do this while support continues to migrate away from Core.  This would be my preference as it ends the block size limit debate AND the governance problem.  

Can you provide evidences for "support" continuing to migrate away from Core. Support from whom? Surely not the relevant actors as I've explained in my last post they are, by all accounts, still satisfied with current state of the network.

Let's be clear: either nodes unanimously decide to hard fork to a larger block size or they don't. The free floating setting you have been proposing would irremediably lead to fracture of the network into multiple forks. It makes absolutely no sense from a technical perspective.

[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.

Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.

That is absolutely not true as evidenced by the numerous accounts of interested individuals who have had no choice but to stop running their full nodes because of technical constraints.

As the blockchain continues to grow the resources required to fully validate one's own transactions will necessarily continue to increase.

[Peter R]

Can you provide evidences for "support" continuing to migrate away from Core. Support from whom?

Sorry, I can't.   

BTW, I'm still taking 1 BTC bets that a block larger than 1 MB will be included in the longest PoW chain by this time next year.  

[brg444]

Can you provide evidences for "support" continuing to migrate away from Core. Support from whom?

I can't share that information at this moment.  

BTW, I'm still taking 1 BTC bets that a block larger than 1 MB will be included in the longest PoW chain by this time next year.  

 

I guess the least I can do is show the evidence that support my position:

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

Explanation

[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.

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.

Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.

That is absolutely not true as evidenced by the numerous accounts of interested individuals who have had no choice but to stop running their full nodes because of technical constraints.

As the blockchain continues to grow the resources required to fully validate one's own transactions will necessarily continue to increase.

You'll find anecdotal evidence for everything, and there's no denying that people have different points where they find they cannot/will not continue running a node, but the fact that those people are not being replaced at a higher rate has much to do, in my opinion, with the stagnation in price since the last bubble and the lack of attractive use cases. Hopefully there will be more attractive use cases for ordinary people after the next peak. Use cases that will make Bitcoin more relevant to people and help the number of nodes to grow. Nodes run on enthusiasm and nerd-cred.

[hdbuck]

lol this edit, so you would not even present such evidence in the future?

also as per your vaillant bet, it is the fucking longest VALID chain, you dishonest fucktard.

[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.

Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.

That is absolutely not true as evidenced by the numerous accounts of interested individuals who have had no choice but to stop running their full nodes because of technical constraints.

As the blockchain continues to grow the resources required to fully validate one's own transactions will necessarily continue to increase.

You'll find anecdotal evidence for everything, and there's no denying that people have different points where they find they cannot/will not continue running a node, but the fact that those people are not being replaced at a higher rate has much to do, in my opinion, with the stagnation in price since the last bubble and the lack of attractive use cases. Hopefully there will be more attractive use cases for ordinary people after the next peak. Use cases that will make Bitcoin more relevant to people and help the number of nodes to grow. Nodes run on enthusiasm and nerd-cred.

Here's another anecdotal evidence: the number of nodes did not increase with the latest price rise.

[phishead]

Coin

Explanation

Hey sorry for the newbness, but I was reading your explanation and didn't understand exactly what each image entails... is the first image on the left the "newest" image? Or the one on the right? Or maybe showing different exchange sites?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

Explanation

[Andre#]

Aren't you busy building the next global payment system over at bitco.in?

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited 

I thought you would be thrilled being compared with Palin. 

[JayJuanGee]

Coin

Explanation

Hey sorry for the newbness, but I was reading your explanation and didn't understand exactly what each image entails... is the first image on the left the "newest" image? Or the one on the right? Or maybe showing different exchange sites?

There is a link next to each of them, so surely, the charts show a snapshot of different exchanges.

[vrzo]

Mining is not decentralized at all. If few people control (own) mining facilities in China and the rest of the world - this is not decentralization - even is none of them controls more than 10% of hashpower.

Decentralization is thousands of individuals controlling no more than 1% od hashpower each. If mining is profitable then it will be centralized.

[Elwar]

21 Inc is working on decentralizing mining in a big way.

When every kid's video game console is mining bitcoins any thoughts of centralization will be out the window.

[8up]

Mining is not decentralized at all. If few people control (own) mining facilities in China and the rest of the world - this is not decentralization - even is none of them controls more than 10% of hashpower.

Decentralization is thousands of individuals controlling no more than 1% od hashpower each. If mining is profitable then it will be centralized.

Exactly. The less profitable the mining (over time), but the more useful the network - the better for decentralization. I guess "21" prepares  for this.

Mining (in 20 years) will be like nodes. If you have a benefit of operating a node (and or mining chip) you will do it; does not matter if you are rewarded for it!

[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.

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.

Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.

That is absolutely not true as evidenced by the numerous accounts of interested individuals who have had no choice but to stop running their full nodes because of technical constraints.

As the blockchain continues to grow the resources required to fully validate one's own transactions will necessarily continue to increase.

You'll find anecdotal evidence for everything, and there's no denying that people have different points where they find they cannot/will not continue running a node, but the fact that those people are not being replaced at a higher rate has much to do, in my opinion, with the stagnation in price since the last bubble and the lack of attractive use cases. Hopefully there will be more attractive use cases for ordinary people after the next peak. Use cases that will make Bitcoin more relevant to people and help the number of nodes to grow. Nodes run on enthusiasm and nerd-cred.

Here's another anecdotal evidence: the number of nodes did not increase with the latest price rise.

There is nothing in what I wrote that should lead you to think that it should have.