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

[rebuilder]

and pepper... http://trilema.com/2015/theres-a-one-bitcoin-reward-for-the-death-of-pieter-wuille-details-below/

Wow. It's been pretty obvious MP is an egomaniac only interested in self-aggrandizement, but I didn't expect his superman syndrome to cloud his judgment quite so far as to publicly offer a death bounty on someone. Unsurprisingly trilema.com is now down, but I checked the cached version of that article and it really is what the URL implies.

This is the kind of thing that gets people locked up.

[oda.krell]

   

• Very soon libsecp256k1 will be used for verification, which speeds up initial sync time by 400%-700% and reduces CPU load for all full nodes.
• A segregated witness softfork will be done ASAP (within 3-6 months, probably). This will at least double the effective transaction capacity (ie. it is equal to or better than BIP 102), and at the same time it will provide features important for safely scaling even more in the future.
• There will not be any hardfork for at least the next ~year.
• To pave the way for scalable hardfork max block size increases (which will eventually be necessary), and because it is already dearly needed, improved block/tx broadcasting technology such as weak blocks and IBLT will be implemented, hopefully soon after SegWit.
• The BIPs necessary for efficient deployment of Lightning are already in the pipeline and should be rolled out in 2016. Lightning will allow for almost all of the security, features, and decentralization of Bitcoin transactions while drastically reducing the number of on-blockchain transactions that each individual will need to perform. This is expected to be the real eventual solution to scaling.

Excellent!
Exactly my vision.

It's more, and better, than what I feared the result would be a few months ago, but then again, maybe that says more about the low expectations I had.

I suspect the statement is read in very different ways by different groups. Some will read this line

There will not be any hardfork for at least the next ~year

and will draw very different conclusions about the future than some reading this line

To pave the way for scalable hardfork max block size increases (which will eventually be necessary)

[acquafredda]

   

• Very soon libsecp256k1 will be used for verification, which speeds up initial sync time by 400%-700% and reduces CPU load for all full nodes.
• A segregated witness softfork will be done ASAP (within 3-6 months, probably). This will at least double the effective transaction capacity (ie. it is equal to or better than BIP 102), and at the same time it will provide features important for safely scaling even more in the future.
• There will not be any hardfork for at least the next ~year.
• To pave the way for scalable hardfork max block size increases (which will eventually be necessary), and because it is already dearly needed, improved block/tx broadcasting technology such as weak blocks and IBLT will be implemented, hopefully soon after SegWit.
• The BIPs necessary for efficient deployment of Lightning are already in the pipeline and should be rolled out in 2016. Lightning will allow for almost all of the security, features, and decentralization of Bitcoin transactions while drastically reducing the number of on-blockchain transactions that each individual will need to perform. This is expected to be the real eventual solution to scaling.

Excellent!
Exactly my vision.

It's more, and better, than what I feared the result would be a few months ago, but then again, maybe that says more about the low expectations I had.

I suspect the statement is read in very different ways by different groups. Some will read this line

There will not be any hardfork for at least the next ~year

and will draw very different conclusions about the future than some reading this line

To pave the way for scalable hardfork max block size increases (which will eventually be necessary)

I'm with you and it seems like the best compromise to calm the waters and then accomplish what it was said and thought long ago. I read the second line you have posted and then everything seems pretty clear.
I'm confused though.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[wachtwoord]

@BJA Tim Swanson wrote a paper about how adding exogenous value onto a network that cannot detect and dynamically protect the exogenous value is a bad idea. It was hard to disagree.

The metacoins and colored coin projects listed above unquestionably increase the social value
of the chain, yet they do not proportionally incentivize security beyond the existing block
reward (seigniorage) subsidy.  This could lead to an economic incentive to attack the chain, a
type of fat tail risk that could dramatically impact any layer residing on top of the Bitcoin
network.

The network is ridiculously oversecure for it's current market cap.  How many goddamn exaflops or whatever?

You might be able to snow the noobs with technobabble but I've been around too long. I'm not buying.

Security is the most important feature. Without a block subsidy today the Bitcoin network would be extremely insecure. The subsidy is going to go away. I want Bitcoin to work long term. It doesnt seem that those that want to increase the block size want that....

You don't overinsure a house for fire damage. It's called "moral hazard" and it makes the house statistically MORE likely to burn.  You don't put a $1000 case ona $100 phone. It means someone will be MORE likely to steal it. If you put too much armor on an armored truck, you limit it's cargo capacity to the point that you have to make two trips INCREASING the chance of losing the cargo. There IS such a thing as too much security.

Insurance is different from security. Thats not hard to comprehend is it?

[rebuilder]

Insurance is different from security. Thats not hard to comprehend is it?

It's about finding the balance between security and cost. For rough purposes, security = miner revenue. If we're defending against a 51% attack, we should be able to estimate the minimum cost of mining sufficient to provide security: It should be more than the profits an attacker can gain at any given time, but not much  more.

Currently, the cost seems too high to me in terms of % of value spent on mining yearly. Largely this is because of the block subsidy, so hopefully as the block subsidy dwindles, fees *will not* go up proportionally. I'm hoping we're currently overspending on security - if that's not the case and the current resource usage is necessary for network security, I think we have much bigger problems than transaction rate.

[aztecminer]

Sometimes you are so fucking contradictory that I am not even sure whether you can recognize your own lack of coherence.


You claim to be a libertarian and wanting to allow the free "market" to cause effects within such amorphous powers, then at the same time, you are complaining that the free market is over doing the bitcoin computing power because, in your infinite wisdom, they are too secure and "they" are causing you to have to pay more than is necessary in some amorphous and unsubstantiated claim that you have about having extra costs on yourself and presumably other bitcoin users... and what the fuck does it matter anyhow? even if there happens to develop 10x the computing power (excess capacity) to secure the blockchain, because these various individuals have been making their own internal calculations and they have been deciding to take various risks on the gamble that they are going to profit from such apparently excessive cumulative investment of mining power.  

Who gives a shit?  In the end, if we leave it to such free market and let individuals to decide for themselves if it is worth it to them to keep investing in mining,  it is all going to work itself out, no?, and some balance between price and security will work itself out, no?, without you trying to dictate what you believe is best.  

like you said, you can vote with your feet too, and leave bitcoin, which would surely be nice for you to exercise such option instead of continuing to propound end-of-the world ideas about the bitcoin network supposedly being developed as too secure.

Markets, aren't perfect, but they are better than planned economies.  It's Hyek's economic calculation problem.  Prices convey information. I thought I was paying for blockspace when I was paying for bitcoin, but if I have to pay twice, well, that's a price I'm not yet willing to pay.  I guess we'll find out if anyone else is willing to pay twice but I'd rather watch that from the sidelines.

NOBODY HAS YET SHOWN that they are willing to pay high xaction fees. The market WILL decide.

The issue I have to deal with is to get my cash out of a Honk Kong exchange before the network backlog makes that difficult or impossible. So that means I have to sell one here, buy one there to sell the next one here or I expose myself to exchange rate volatility. I suspect that's possibly a reason why the price hasn't tanked yet.

Artificial scarcity of coins in addition to artificial scarcity of blockspace is just too much scarcity for me, so i'm gonna make myself scarce but I gotta cash out first.

keep a few coins in cold storage and then buy a bunch metals while they are down... that will really leave em pissed if u do that. .. then they might do something spiteful like pump or crash bitcoin some more.

[aztecminer]

Sometimes you are so fucking contradictory that I am not even sure whether you can recognize your own lack of coherence.


You claim to be a libertarian and wanting to allow the free "market" to cause effects within such amorphous powers, then at the same time, you are complaining that the free market is over doing the bitcoin computing power because, in your infinite wisdom, they are too secure and "they" are causing you to have to pay more than is necessary in some amorphous and unsubstantiated claim that you have about having extra costs on yourself and presumably other bitcoin users... and what the fuck does it matter anyhow? even if there happens to develop 10x the computing power (excess capacity) to secure the blockchain, because these various individuals have been making their own internal calculations and they have been deciding to take various risks on the gamble that they are going to profit from such apparently excessive cumulative investment of mining power.  

Who gives a shit?  In the end, if we leave it to such free market and let individuals to decide for themselves if it is worth it to them to keep investing in mining,  it is all going to work itself out, no?, and some balance between price and security will work itself out, no?, without you trying to dictate what you believe is best.  

like you said, you can vote with your feet too, and leave bitcoin, which would surely be nice for you to exercise such option instead of continuing to propound end-of-the world ideas about the bitcoin network supposedly being developed as too secure.

Markets, aren't perfect, but they are better than planned economies.  It's Hyek's economic calculation problem.  Prices convey information. I thought I was paying for blockspace when I was paying for bitcoin, but if I have to pay twice, well, that's a price I'm not yet willing to pay.  I guess we'll find out if anyone else is willing to pay twice but I'd rather watch that from the sidelines.

NOBODY HAS YET SHOWN that they are willing to pay high xaction fees. The market WILL decide.

The issue I have to deal with is to get my cash out of a Honk Kong exchange before the network backlog makes that difficult or impossible. So that means I have to sell one here, buy one there to sell the next one here or I expose myself to exchange rate volatility. I suspect that's possibly a reason why the price hasn't tanked yet.

Artificial scarcity of coins in addition to artificial scarcity of blockspace is just too much scarcity for me, so i'm gonna make myself scarce but I gotta cash out first.

keep a few coins in cold storage and then buy a bunch metals while they are down... that will really leave em pissed if u do that. .. then they might do something spiteful like pump or crash bitcoin some more.

add crash metals to the spiteful reactions list.. if u hold back some on first buy then can buy when they crash down.. that will really piss em off ... although they might try lure u back to bitcoin if u were to do that.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[tabnloz]

What happens to people who are on welfare or government paid housing for poor people if hyperinflation occurs?

All signs point to deflationary collapse.  The govt will then print endless trillions to try and stop it, but none of the money will circulate in local economies.  I'm not really sure what happens at that point.  I'm guessing a mixture of both. Some things will be getting pumped to the moon while others deflate in price.

It seems like the excess printing would eventually have to spill over to the normal economy, but you can probably collapse before that happens, so their printing basically does nothing in that case.

The US gets hyperinflation only if the market loses confidence in the government. According to people like Armstrong, the excessive printing would be a symptom not the reason for going hyper. Whilst the USD is the (slowly losing grip) reserve dollar, I think you're right, we'll see deflation. Everything points to it: rising rates, overseas economies declining, debt bombs everywhere, taxes on foreign investment withdrawn. If a good ol' recession arrives on the back of King Dollar, we'll see a range of cutting measures: either more 'forward guidance' ( aka "patience") or outright QE4, maybe even helicopter money. This will probably be late 2016 which bodes well for bitcoin - post halving, weakening dollar, hopefully block debate settled and an economic crisis in the making.

So the question is what happens after that? I also have no clue but I guess that it may be when the post 2008 game is up, everybody realizes that there is no recovery and the debt chickens come home to roost. Governments will tax everything that moves & people get the hell out of anything government, piling into everything private (stocks, gold, bitcoin, real estate). Of course we might also go full japanese and muddle along for 30 years.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

From my understanding, there is going to be an intentional wait until blocks are full before there will be any increase in capacity so the fee market can develop.

That was Blockstreams game plan from day one.

Its why there  was such vehement  opposition to big blocks, despite it being a relatively minor change. Yet the latest proposals put forward by core will make unprecedented changes to the way bitcoin works, with the added 'bonus' of allowing bigger blocks ( and ...whisper... will finally allow LN/Elements to actually work!!)

The only good thing in this debate is watching trolls like hdbuck and brg444 running around unsure of whether to sh*t or to fart and basically tear into one another.

I'd get the popcorn out just for that.   

[wachtwoord]

Insurance is different from security. Thats not hard to comprehend is it?

It's about finding the balance between security and cost. For rough purposes, security = miner revenue. If we're defending against a 51% attack, we should be able to estimate the minimum cost of mining sufficient to provide security: It should be more than the profits an attacker can gain at any given time, but not much  more.

Currently, the cost seems too high to me in terms of % of value spent on mining yearly. Largely this is because of the block subsidy, so hopefully as the block subsidy dwindles, fees *will not* go up proportionally. I'm hoping we're currently overspending on security - if that's not the case and the current resource usage is necessary for network security, I think we have much bigger problems than transaction rate.

The huge amount of security is the reason no one even tries to attack it. It serves a purpose. It's the reason Bitcoin is already a store of value.

Bitcoin sucks as a payments system and that's fine. A new payment system is not interesting in the slightest. Only security for storings vasts amounts of wealth. The plebis should leave and make their own socialistic coin (Freicoin anyone?).

The time for deadbeats is done.

[becoin]

That was Blockstreams game plan from day one.

What plan? To keep Satoshi bitcoin and not allow XT altcoin fork?

[conspirosphere.tk]

So the question is what happens after that? I also have no clue but I guess that it may be when the post 2008 game is up, everybody realizes that there is no recovery and the debt chickens come home to roost. Governments will tax everything that moves & people get the hell out of anything government, piling into everything private (stocks, gold, bitcoin, real estate). Of course we might also go full japanese and muddle along for 30 years.

The only question which bothers me is if when a 2008-style credit event happens with a vengeance, gold -and by extension bitcoin- will instant-crash 30% or so like in 2008, or not. I tend to expect a general price crash shortly followed by a run to quality (gold and bitcoin), again kinda post-2008.

[rebuilder]

The huge amount of security is the reason no one even tries to attack it. It serves a purpose. It's the reason Bitcoin is already a store of value.

Bitcoin sucks as a payments system and that's fine. A new payment system is not interesting in the slightest. Only security for storings vasts amounts of wealth. The plebis should leave and make their own socialistic coin (Freicoin anyone?).

The time for deadbeats is done.

Obviously security is important. But 10% of the stored value yearly to provide that security?  That compounds rather drastically over time, are you really saying we should not fret about it?

The obvious conclusion is that whatever the target group, users will not pay that amount. No-one is going to "store their wealth" in Bitcoin if it costs them 10% yearly to do so. Miners will simply have to settle for less in fees than they currently get as subsidy and the blockchain will hopefully remain secure enough to be attractive.

Pushing for higher miner fees is barking up the wrong tree. Either we manage with lower fees or the system fails, if you ask me. This will be the case regardless of transaction rate.

[oda.krell]

Insurance is different from security. Thats not hard to comprehend is it?

It's about finding the balance between security and cost. For rough purposes, security = miner revenue. If we're defending against a 51% attack, we should be able to estimate the minimum cost of mining sufficient to provide security: It should be more than the profits an attacker can gain at any given time, but not much  more.

Currently, the cost seems too high to me in terms of % of value spent on mining yearly. Largely this is because of the block subsidy, so hopefully as the block subsidy dwindles, fees *will not* go up proportionally. I'm hoping we're currently overspending on security - if that's not the case and the current resource usage is necessary for network security, I think we have much bigger problems than transaction rate.

The huge amount of security is the reason no one even tries to attack it. It serves a purpose. It's the reason Bitcoin is already a store of value.

Bitcoin sucks as a payments system and that's fine. A new payment system is not interesting in the slightest. Only security for storings vasts amounts of wealth. The plebis should leave and make their own socialistic coin (Freicoin anyone?).

The time for deadbeats is done.

You probably know I appreciate, respect even your opinions on a number of issues in here, but that is one hell of an all-over-the-place, strawman-y argument I must say. From "store of value" to "not intended as cash" (as if the two are mutually exclusive), from "network security" to "no capped total emission"... it doesn't make much sense.

There's an interesting argument to be had about the exact balance between different usage cases, but the blunt rhetorical tools being brought out too often (by either side) are rather unhelpful.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Finally gunna start paying your taxes, parasite?

The parasite is the state extortion racket, and its pawns.

[Elwar]

Insurance is different from security. Thats not hard to comprehend is it?

It's about finding the balance between security and cost. For rough purposes, security = miner revenue. If we're defending against a 51% attack, we should be able to estimate the minimum cost of mining sufficient to provide security: It should be more than the profits an attacker can gain at any given time, but not much  more.

Currently, the cost seems too high to me in terms of % of value spent on mining yearly. Largely this is because of the block subsidy, so hopefully as the block subsidy dwindles, fees *will not* go up proportionally. I'm hoping we're currently overspending on security - if that's not the case and the current resource usage is necessary for network security, I think we have much bigger problems than transaction rate.

The huge amount of security is the reason no one even tries to attack it. It serves a purpose. It's the reason Bitcoin is already a store of value.

Bitcoin sucks as a payments system and that's fine. A new payment system is not interesting in the slightest. Only security for storings vasts amounts of wealth. The plebis should leave and make their own socialistic coin (Freicoin anyone?).

The time for deadbeats is done.

>vasts amounts of wealth


>The time for deadbeats is done.
Finally gunna start paying your taxes, parasite?

Nobody should have to pay taxes.

The government giving away free money has nothing to do with the immorality of stealing from people in the first place.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation