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

[cbeast]

Fears of centralization are real, fear of 3 tps being a huge bottleneck are real.

Calling large miners centralized is like saying Kenya rigs the Boston Marathon. Bitcoin needs to be competitive. Should they limit the run to only white middle-class factory workers from Peoria? Watching them drop dead from heart attacks wouldn't be much fun, nor does watching blocks take days to process and get dropped. You can't make rules that exclude people because they are good at what they do.

"This forum is comatose"

Lulz.

Looks like the bitco.in forum exiles are back in full force.

Go back to your ad hominem thread instead of destroying this thread.

Sorry, wrong guy. I don't own any forums and I was never banned. This forum is no longer used much by devs, mostly it's for speculators and non-bitcoin related discussions. It's still fun to come here every once-and-again.

[Cconvert2G36]

What exactly happened? The 2-3 giant mining operations who accounted for a majority of GHash's power dispersed into different mining pools so as to camouflage their actual share of the network and give the appearance of decentralization?

Are you suggesting protocol level changes to combat this? Economies of scale guarantee there will be a relative level of centralization in mining.

[jbreher]

Fears of centralization are real, fear of 3 tps being a huge bottleneck are real.

Calling large miners centralized is like saying Kenya rigs the Boston Marathon. Bitcoin needs to be competitive. Should they limit the run to only white middle-class factory workers from Peoria? Watching them drop dead from heart attacks wouldn't be much fun, nor does watching blocks take days to process and get dropped. You can't make rules that exclude people because they are good at what they do.

"This forum is comatose"

Lulz.

Looks like the bitco.in forum exiles are back in full force.

Go back to your ad hominem thread instead of destroying this thread.

You wouldn't be trying to censor me now would you 

Well, obviously not. If Zarathustra were to somehow start deleting your posts, then that would be censorship.

[Dilla]

Hey hey who cares look at the price

[brg444]

What exactly happened? The 2-3 giant mining operations who accounted for a majority of GHash's power dispersed into different mining pools so as to camouflage their actual share of the network and give the appearance of decentralization?

Are you suggesting protocol level changes to combat this? Economies of scale guarantee there will be a relative level of centralization in mining.

I'm not. To be fair I'm not too concerned with miners centralization but it's another thing to pretend that things are all jolly and there's no consolidation going on behind the scenes.

[brg444]

Fears of centralization are real, fear of 3 tps being a huge bottleneck are real.

Calling large miners centralized is like saying Kenya rigs the Boston Marathon. Bitcoin needs to be competitive. Should they limit the run to only white middle-class factory workers from Peoria? Watching them drop dead from heart attacks wouldn't be much fun, nor does watching blocks take days to process and get dropped. You can't make rules that exclude people because they are good at what they do.

"This forum is comatose"

Lulz.

Looks like the bitco.in forum exiles are back in full force.

Go back to your ad hominem thread instead of destroying this thread.

Sorry, wrong guy. I don't own any forums and I was never banned. This forum is no longer used much by devs, mostly it's for speculators and non-bitcoin related discussions. It's still fun to come here every once-and-again.

I couldn't sworn you were part of frapdoc's little clique?

Oh well, my apologies.

[hdbuck]

What exactly happened? The 2-3 giant mining operations who accounted for a majority of GHash's power dispersed into different mining pools so as to camouflage their actual share of the network and give the appearance of decentralization?

Are you suggesting protocol level changes to combat this? Economies of scale guarantee there will be a relative level of centralization in mining.

I'm not. Too be fair I'm not too concerned with miners centralization but it's another thing to pretend that things are all jolly and there's no consolidation going on behind the scenes.

if the miners go rogue or gets too much power in a disruptive way, trust in the network will dissipate and everybody looses..
and especially them who has spend millions building top notch infrastructures.

[Hyperjacked]

The composite operator is having fun...Always feed the homeless ! Giving is better than receiving!

[Fatman3001]

Miners are sufficiently incentivized to choose an appropriate block size. Too big and their chances of being orphaned increase. This is the decentralized solution for a decentralized system.  

I'm not sure if you're thinking of "no block size limit" or BIP100, I'm guessing the latter. As a miner myself, and from keeping an eye on the mining field, I can tell you that giving miners this kind of power might lead to some very odd behavior. Most of the companies and pools should not be trusted with that kind of power. It's no point with incentives if you don't understand the consequences of your actions. Just look at Ghash.io's 51% attack scare last summer. There's also the fact that we have no idea who the big actors in the field will be in five years time, nor their motives. The devs need to find a clearly defined solution and implement it. Preferably before we hit the wall.

I meant the former. BIP100 adds a convoluted voting mechanism in an effort to mimic what the free market would do on its own. Go ahead and look at the Ghash debacle, it will show you that mining isn't quite as centralized as it appears.

The miners already have the power, it's just that right now Core serves as a veneer of "community" central control. The same factors that prevent malicious mining behavior (killing the golden goose and mutually assured destruction) will work in this case too.

On the "before hitting the wall" vs "after"... wholeheartedly agree.  

Ok, if you were thinking of the former then my objections don't really apply.

[brg444]

What exactly happened? The 2-3 giant mining operations who accounted for a majority of GHash's power dispersed into different mining pools so as to camouflage their actual share of the network and give the appearance of decentralization?

Are you suggesting protocol level changes to combat this? Economies of scale guarantee there will be a relative level of centralization in mining.

I'm not. Too be fair I'm not too concerned with miners centralization but it's another thing to pretend that things are all jolly and there's no consolidation going on behind the scenes.

if the miners go rogue or gets too much power in a disruptive way, trust in the network will dissipate and everybody looses..
and especially them who has spend millions building top notch infrastructures.

Absolutely agree with that. To be clear: I'm not concerned with miner's centralization under current parameters.

Leaving them decision power over block size is just begging to fuck shit up and skew the incentives.

[Cconvert2G36]

What exactly happened? The 2-3 giant mining operations who accounted for a majority of GHash's power dispersed into different mining pools so as to camouflage their actual share of the network and give the appearance of decentralization?

Are you suggesting protocol level changes to combat this? Economies of scale guarantee there will be a relative level of centralization in mining.

I'm not. Too be fair I'm not too concerned with miners centralization but it's another thing to pretend that things are all jolly and there's no consolidation going on behind the scenes.

I can roll with that perspective.

Also, I will say I've had some good conversations on these issues with you brg444. Both sides can get heated at times but your sentiment comes across as honest. We can't have light without a little heat.

Let's drop the ad homs and enjoy these lofty levels for a moment.





No more dumps here? I'm pretty sure more fiat will be hitting exchanges this week.   

[hdbuck]

What exactly happened? The 2-3 giant mining operations who accounted for a majority of GHash's power dispersed into different mining pools so as to camouflage their actual share of the network and give the appearance of decentralization?

Are you suggesting protocol level changes to combat this? Economies of scale guarantee there will be a relative level of centralization in mining.

I'm not. Too be fair I'm not too concerned with miners centralization but it's another thing to pretend that things are all jolly and there's no consolidation going on behind the scenes.

if the miners go rogue or gets too much power in a disruptive way, trust in the network will dissipate and everybody looses..
and especially them who has spend millions building top notch infrastructures.

Absolutely agree with that. To be clear: I'm not concerned with miner's centralization under current parameters.

Leaving them decision power over block size is just begging to fuck shit up and skew the incentives.

imo that's just part of the game. it's all smoke and distraction..

until well.. someone feeling the urge to transact now? buying a coffee maybe?

[Cconvert2G36]

What exactly happened? The 2-3 giant mining operations who accounted for a majority of GHash's power dispersed into different mining pools so as to camouflage their actual share of the network and give the appearance of decentralization?

Are you suggesting protocol level changes to combat this? Economies of scale guarantee there will be a relative level of centralization in mining.

I'm not. Too be fair I'm not too concerned with miners centralization but it's another thing to pretend that things are all jolly and there's no consolidation going on behind the scenes.

if the miners go rogue or gets too much power in a disruptive way, trust in the network will dissipate and everybody looses..
and especially them who has spend millions building top notch infrastructures.

You're so close hdbuck 

[Zarathustra]

this shorter is going all in

What shorter? There's only 9300 BTC swaps on BFX. It's just a seller. 

BTW, thanks bulls. I just made so much money shorting today, that I can dump again if you wanna take another swipe at $420.

So you opened you're just when exactly? When we busted through 380? 400?  

I call BS

I started shorting @ $399 and kept shorting the whole way up.  I could have shorted twice as much, but after covering @$380, I know have enough to safely short Three times as much if we come anywhere close to $420 again.  I also transferred in some coins I was using for arbitrage just so I have some extra margin.

Try it again, Bulls. I double dare you.  See if I'm bluffing.   

dude you've really gone off the rails, sort yourself out.

first with all the big block crap and now this shorting shit ... you used to be a model bitcoiner, what happened to you?

Smallblockers happened to me. Scale or die.

[–]chinawat

I strongly believe the block size increase problem is already solved. An implementation exists right now and only needs adoption. Should a more popular solution arise in the meantime, that will be adopted instead, but BIP 101 is like Bitcoin itself, it can't be uninvented.


[–]Ant-n

Interresting point, I think your right,

(My anxiety level dropped a bit..)


[–]solex1

Yes. I think the Bitcoin ecosystem will move to a big-blocks version whether Core updates or not.

However, there would be a lot more price volatility and bad publicity the longer Core Dev continues with the "settlement layer" fantasy.

[brg444]

What exactly happened? The 2-3 giant mining operations who accounted for a majority of GHash's power dispersed into different mining pools so as to camouflage their actual share of the network and give the appearance of decentralization?

Are you suggesting protocol level changes to combat this? Economies of scale guarantee there will be a relative level of centralization in mining.

I'm not. Too be fair I'm not too concerned with miners centralization but it's another thing to pretend that things are all jolly and there's no consolidation going on behind the scenes.

if the miners go rogue or gets too much power in a disruptive way, trust in the network will dissipate and everybody looses..
and especially them who has spend millions building top notch infrastructures.

You're so close hdbuck 

Some of the giant chinese mining pools are currently centralizing the validation of every transactions they mine.

Do you find that to be a concern?

[brg444]

[–]solex1

Yes. I think the Bitcoin ecosystem will move to a big-blocks version whether Core updates or not.

However, there would be a lot more price volatility and bad publicity the longer Core Dev continues with the "settlement layer" fantasy.
[/i]

Yeah we get it. We didn't reject it. We're "just not ready".

Seriously, take your meds.

[Cconvert2G36]

Some of the giant chinese mining pools are currently centralizing the validation of every transactions they mine.

Do you find that to be a concern?

I do. And I recall some of them paid dearly for that recently, so they might be thinking about it too.

[celes8]

Also


People have been discussing/wondering why the price has seen such a dramatic climb the last week or so.


I dont believe it has anythign to do with a MMM scam that has 12k likes on facebook. The biggest clue is that China is leading, and they are trading at a premium. If you were an institutional investor where would you trade? If you were looking to plow 20million$ into bitcoins, why would you go to China unless you feel like yoru business contacts are 10000% rock solid? Again, China has been leading this run, and even if you're looking to plow through $10m into bitcoin, why would you buy at a premium once you start the bull run and cause gigantic spread?


No, you'd come back to the US and buy on gemini, coinbase, and finex. Or you wouldve went to bitpay and and purchased them offline. Or went to Barry Silbert.


Now, there can be family run investment vehicles retail buying. I think that's very possible, but none of those family run businesses would go to china. They would stay at coinbase/bitpay/finex/gemini.


So I kind of really really discredit the idea that this run has been caused by institutional investors coming into the marketplace. Not saying that they havent since, but most certainly that they did not start the pump.

/tinfoil_on

wouldnt that be the exact thing the guys want the sheeps to think?

/tinfoil_off

imo i think reenabled chinese bank transfers definietly play a role here!

So you'd be willing to pay 4-8% premium on every bitcoin just to mask the fact that you're an american buying on a chinese site?


lmao.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

Explanation

[hdbuck]

this shorter is going all in

What shorter? There's only 9300 BTC swaps on BFX. It's just a seller.  

BTW, thanks bulls. I just made so much money shorting today, that I can dump again if you wanna take another swipe at $420.

So you opened you're just when exactly? When we busted through 380? 400?  

I call BS

I started shorting @ $399 and kept shorting the whole way up.  I could have shorted twice as much, but after covering @$380, I know have enough to safely short Three times as much if we come anywhere close to $420 again.  I also transferred in some coins I was using for arbitrage just so I have some extra margin.

Try it again, Bulls. I double dare you.  See if I'm bluffing.  

dude you've really gone off the rails, sort yourself out.

first with all the big block crap and now this shorting shit ... you used to be a model bitcoiner, what happened to you?

Smallblockers happened to me. Scale or die.

[–]chinawat

I strongly believe the block size increase problem is already solved. An implementation exists right now and only needs adoption. Should a more popular solution arise in the meantime, that will be adopted instead, but BIP 101 is like Bitcoin itself, it can't be uninvented. 


[–]Ant-n

Interresting point, I think your right,

(My anxiety level dropped a bit..)


[–]solex1

Yes. I think the Bitcoin ecosystem will move to a big-blocks version whether Core updates or not.

However, there would be a lot more price volatility and bad publicity the longer Core Dev continues with the "settlement layer" fantasy.