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

[billyjoeallen]

-snip-
The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.

People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK.

The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it.

The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial".

Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits, so that is the reality of the technological limit on the network today.

How that changes in the future is the subject of much debate, as you well know.

I was attempting to get causality straight in BJA's mind.

You have to admit that Core has a certain sort of inertia. There's a big chunk of operators still plugging along on previous versions of Core. I also haven't seen an alternative that has the level of ongoing support that I'm comfortable with... so far. I really had high hopes for some kind of good will compromise between the opposing forces (ala garzik), bringing us back together with a common purpose... but it appears that is not going to be the case.

Yes, there is a huge amount of inertia and for a very good reason, that is very organic and was to be expected if you have the right experience.

Most people will not be aware that actual operational software in critical infrastructure changes very slowly, much slower than bitcoin Core (which is very high risk by comparison but it is still 'beta'). 90% of fortune 500 companies run RedHat operating systems on their back-office servers and they have very long term support for old versions for those reasons. Apparently the Banks still have some COBOL code running on old mainframes that still do the actual monetary-base and settlement calculations, so-called "green screen" functions because they are too scared to touch it.

Nuclear power plants and oil-rig safety shutdown systems that include software hardly ever make changes to their code after it has been commissioned and the plant "goes live" with active material. It takes committees of programmers and managers poring over every line to get even the simplest changes into an active system.

The disconnect between what is happening here and what the public have been told to "want to happen" is astounding for anybody with any experience in high-risk industrial software systems. The bitcoin protocol is almost complete now and will hardly ever change from now or else it will risk catastrophic failure. It is just very, very unfortunate that Gavin and Hearn "went there" with the whole hard fork MAD power grab, against the vast majority of the development community's technically better judgement and in an entirely reckless manner for critical infrastructure software management.

You can't grab power you already have. Gavin was lead developer and shepherded Bitcoin into where it is today. Satoshi himself gave him the reins. it's the other core developers who are grabbing power, but I guess that's how you spin propaganda. Claim the opposition is guilty of the very sin you are committing. That 1 MB limit was a temporary kludge included when bitcoin had NO monetary value and was useful only then. Gavin knew that and has been trying to get rid of it for years. This fee market is just rent-seeking and it will keep Bitcoin a financial backwater if it is left in place.

Blockstreamers may know software, but they don't know business and they sure as hell don't know economics, so if they can't fix the scaling problem without changing everything that makes Bitcoin Bitcoin, then they need to get out of the way and make room for people who can.

[Cconvert2G36]

Yes, there is a huge amount of inertia and for a very good reason, that is very organic and was to be expected if you have the right experience.

-snip-

Nuclear power plants and oil-rig safety shutdown systems that include software hardly ever make changes to their code after it has been commissioned and the plant "goes live" with active material. It takes committees of programmers and managers poring over every line to get even the simplest changes into an active system.

The disconnect between what is happening here and what the public have been told to "want to happen" is astounding for anybody with any experience in high-risk industrial software systems. The bitcoin protocol is almost complete now and will hardly ever change from now or else it will risk catastrophic failure. It is just very, very unfortunate that Gavin and Hearn "went there" with the whole hard fork MAD power grab, against the vast majority of the development community's technically better judgement and in an entirely reckless manner for critical infrastructure software management.

How does segwit fit with this critical infrastructure stasis analogy? Where garzik's plan does not.

I agree that most of the network didn't want to jump into the arms of a benevolently dictatorial Hearn, but that does not preclude future possibility of hard forking from the previously dominant implementation's centrally planned capacity policy.

[marcus_of_augustus]

You can't grab power you already have. Gavin was lead developer and shepherded Bitcoin into where it is today. Satoshi himself gave him the reins. it's the other core developers who are grabbing power, but I guess that's how you spin propaganda. Claim the opposition is guilty of the very sin you are committing. That 1 MB limit was a temporary kludge included when bitcoin had NO monetary value and was useful only then. Gavin knew that and has been trying to get rid of it for years. This fee market is just rent-seeking and it will keep Bitcoin a financial backwater if it is left in place.

Gavin had already long stood down as lead maintainer when he pushed his hard fork to the XT repo. Wladimir vander Laan has been chief maintainer since Sept. 2014. Trying to rewrite history is plain deception or just lying. Gavin made some major mistakes (notably BIP 16/17 and BIP 70) in his time but was an adequate caretaker for the tumultuous time Bitcoin went through while he was contributing.

The fee market will develop because the node operators want it to. They will raise the limit when the fees they pay for THEIR OWN transactions naturally incentivises them to want to ... that is the in-built incentive mechanism to stop fees going to infinity as the doom-mongers and catastrophic-cliff screamers will try to scare you with.

This system has been designed very well, the built-in incentive structures will only become apparent as it fully ramps up and comes on-line. We are still in the commissioning phase, just relax and watch if you don't feel like you can understand everything that is happening.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

Yes, there is a huge amount of inertia and for a very good reason, that is very organic and was to be expected if you have the right experience.

-snip-

Nuclear power plants and oil-rig safety shutdown systems that include software hardly ever make changes to their code after it has been commissioned and the plant "goes live" with active material. It takes committees of programmers and managers poring over every line to get even the simplest changes into an active system.

The disconnect between what is happening here and what the public have been told to "want to happen" is astounding for anybody with any experience in high-risk industrial software systems. The bitcoin protocol is almost complete now and will hardly ever change from now or else it will risk catastrophic failure. It is just very, very unfortunate that Gavin and Hearn "went there" with the whole hard fork MAD power grab, against the vast majority of the development community's technically better judgement and in an entirely reckless manner for critical infrastructure software management.

How does segwit fit with this critical infrastructure stasis analogy? Where garzik's plan does not.

I agree that most of the network didn't want to jump into the arms of a benevolently dictatorial Hearn, but that does not preclude future possibility of hard forking from the previously dominant implementation's centrally planned capacity policy.

That's a damn good question, but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer from the cripplecoiners. They're only conservative when it comes to the obsolete blocksize limit. Lightning networks, sidechains, segwit, well that's just innovation!

[Cconvert2G36]

-snip-
Take a look at the most recent blocks found and their size.  If any of the BS you rant about had merit there would be countless people complaining about stuck transactions, the price would be crashing, and people would be screaming from the rooftops.  But they're not, are they?
-snip-

Well, if they're anywhere near 10min blocks... they're pretty well full. If miners thought they would risk orphaning because of size and validation time, they would be smaller.

It's "fine" if you want to block small legit transactions to steer them into other providers and solutions, but at least admit it, and sign a statement clearly stating this is the direction of Core. This is going to be a change to the steady state economic operation of Bitcoin since the genesis block.

[billyjoeallen]

You can't grab power you already have. Gavin was lead developer and shepherded Bitcoin into where it is today. Satoshi himself gave him the reins. it's the other core developers who are grabbing power, but I guess that's how you spin propaganda. Claim the opposition is guilty of the very sin you are committing. That 1 MB limit was a temporary kludge included when bitcoin had NO monetary value and was useful only then. Gavin knew that and has been trying to get rid of it for years. This fee market is just rent-seeking and it will keep Bitcoin a financial backwater if it is left in place.

Gavin had already long stood down as lead maintainer when he pushed his hard fork to the XT repo. Wladimir vander Laan has been chief maintainer since Sept. 2014. Trying to rewrite history is plain deception or just lying. Gavin made some major mistakes (notably BIP 16/17 and BIP 70) in his time but was an adequate caretaker for the tumultuous time Bitcoin went through while he was contributing.

The fee market will develop because the node operators want it to. They will raise the limit when the fees they pay for THEIR OWN transactions naturally incentivises them to want to ... that is the in-built incentive mechanism to stop fees going to infinity as the doom-mongers and catastrophic-cliff screamers will try to scare you with.

This system has been designed very well, the built-in incentive structures will only become apparent as it fully ramps up and comes on-line. We are still in the commissioning phase, just relax and watch if you don't feel like you can understand everything that is happening.

Node operators will chose the scaling solution most likely to gain a critical mass, but they may not do it until a market crash instills a sense of urgency. If they are as conservative as you suggest, then Garzik's 2 MB kick-the-can is more likely and if that doesn't cause some catastrophic miner centralization or other security problem, then large block size it is, Baby.  Blockstreamers will be discredited.

Your only hope is that pyramid schemers in the East will pump your settlement network permanently, and that's not how pyramid schemes work. Time is more my friend than yours. Let's find out.

[Richy_T]

The bitcoin protocol is almost complete now and will hardly ever change from now or else it will risk catastrophic failure.

As if. They're lumping in new, barely tested stuff from their pet projects all the time.

[Cconvert2G36]

http://hackingdistributed.com/2015/12/23/bitcoin-fee-market/

I do not have experience with my old age. I do not go around artificially inducing osteoporosis [2] to get ready for my old days -- instead, I make the best of my working days when I'm blessed to have a working skeleton.

 

[billyjoeallen]

Gavin had already long stood down as lead maintainer when he pushed his hard fork to the XT repo. Wladimir vander Laan has been chief maintainer since Sept. 2014. Trying to rewrite history is plain deception or just lying. Gavin made some major mistakes (notably BIP 16/17 and BIP 70) in his time but was an adequate caretaker for the tumultuous time Bitcoin went through while he was contributing.

So Wladimir took over two months before the longest bear market in bitcoin history? That's just awesomsauce.

[idecable]

450's.....now the question is - Can this hold over the holiday period?

I think it will.  Things are picking up ever since mid-September. This is great.

[r0ach]

Bitcoin is going to the moon after they implement these two new taxes:


Rape Culture Tax

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7uVxHLT-aY

Caucasian Tax

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYwY85K1MB0

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Cconvert2G36]

[TERA]

I just want to point out that that the beginning of this move was set off by a 2K coin bid wall on OKcoin. So this still is some hope left for wall observation if you look closely.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I just want to point out that that the beginning of this move was set off by a 2K coin bid wall on OKcoin. So this still is some hope left for wall observation if you look closely.

I also noted a big uptick in bear trolling preceded the up move also, short squeeze might be a big part of it.

The usual bigblock whinging and complaining seems to be cat-to-kick go to for sold out bulls and poor-loser shorts.

[jbreher]

... there is no way to differentiate between "small legit transactions" and fee-paying spam if they pay the same fee

Can you articulate your definition of 'fee-paying spam'?

Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits

Upon what do you base this bald assertion?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits

Upon what do you base this bald assertion?

Currently any block greater than 1MByte will be rejected as invalid by the vast majority of nodes.

[jbreher]

Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits

Upon what do you base this bald assertion?

Currently any block greater than 1MByte will be rejected as invalid by the vast majority of nodes.

So the fact that, to the average node operator, they have no real alternative -- you are marking that as a solid preference for 1MB blocks?

... there is no way to differentiate between "small legit transactions" and fee-paying spam if they pay the same fee

Can you articulate your definition of 'fee-paying spam'?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation