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

[AlexGR]

An Open Letter from Sam Cole (CEO of KNC Miner)
Post reputation: 4 Quote
Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:49 pm

Sam Cole, CEO of KNC wrote:
All.

...
The issue is by doing nothing we are actually forcing it to stop growing and stay where it is.
...

Thanks,
Sam

Med vänlig hälsning | Best regards
Sam Cole
KnC

... To put it in plane language...
I don't know what has to be done, but I feel something has to be done. So, let us do what we can do, ruin bitcoin by granting free space to every spammer on the blockchain.

+ the fact that there is no expansion space is a bullshit argument. Blocks are at ~600kb (including dust and spam), not 1mb. It has +50% capacity to reach 900kb - with 100kb to spare. If some blocks are full, so be it...

+ there are two dimensions in growth, one being the money volume the other being tx count. Money volume will continue to increase and scale even with a steady tx count as very low value txs give their place to higher value txs in a "crowded" scenario.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

+ the fact that there is no expansion space is a bullshit argument. Blocks are at ~600kb (including dust and spam), not 1mb. It has +50% capacity to reach 900kb - with 100kb to spare. If some blocks are full, so be it...

+ there are two dimensions in growth, one being the money volume the other being tx count. Money volume will continue to increase and scale even with a steady tx count as very low value txs give their place to higher value txs in a "crowded" scenario.

Meh, whatever. Its probably just academic now:

Bitfury on board for Classic

Even brg444 has tweeted his disapproval. Or disappointment. Or butthurt.

[fisheater22]

... To put it in plane language...

+ there are two dimensions in growth

TL;DR.

[Fatman3001]

+ there are two dimensions in growth, one being the money volume the other being tx count. Money volume will continue to increase and scale even with a steady tx count as very low value txs give their place to higher value txs in a "crowded" scenario.

While it is true that the tracks don't suffer from as much wear when it's upside down, there are other issues with this way of thinking.

[23who23]

350

almost there

[Fatman3001]

+ the fact that there is no expansion space is a bullshit argument. Blocks are at ~600kb (including dust and spam), not 1mb. It has +50% capacity to reach 900kb - with 100kb to spare. If some blocks are full, so be it...

+ there are two dimensions in growth, one being the money volume the other being tx count. Money volume will continue to increase and scale even with a steady tx count as very low value txs give their place to higher value txs in a "crowded" scenario.

Meh, whatever. Its probably just academic now:

Bitfury on board for Classic

Even brg444 has tweeted his disapproval. Or disappointment. Or butthurt.

[lemmyK]

wut ? we gotta do wut "blockchain blacklists" ? ok everyone all chant at same time: "china must go" "we want blockchain blacklists"!  .... follow up with a give me a "WOOT WOOT" .

Clearly their influence is making Bitcoin too inscrutable. Possibly even more dangerous than centralization.

yes.. the evil chinese miners and their evil Huobi must GO! there is no choice, the evil chinese has forced us to implement "blockchain blacklists" . we're putting chinese miners on no-fly lists too.

By the sound of it increasing blocks will invoke the great fire wall of China and btc will become more decentralised almost overnight.

It's like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas

the funny thing is chinese miners are not against bigger blocks, thats just some bullshit that hearn pulled out of his ass. the only thing chinese miners really fear is the price of bitcoin collapsing because of some kiddy-nerd-developer fights of immature folks. so they said at the last scaling bitcoin conference do what ever you have to do but do it without a big breakup or fight or whatever. they even are in favor of 2MB but they want the core team to do it without big fights and media stir.

pretty good point

[Patel]

Price is dropping because Bitcoin Classic hardfork is being priced in.

[deadpoolx]

Another day... another crash

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

looks like Core devs have thrown Theymos under the bus....

They are starting to distance themselves from the bitcoin reddits....

And bitcoin.org will now be bitcoinco.re

[AlexGR]

+ there are two dimensions in growth, one being the money volume the other being tx count. Money volume will continue to increase and scale even with a steady tx count as very low value txs give their place to higher value txs in a "crowded" scenario.

While it is true that the tracks don't suffer from as much wear when it's upside down, there are other issues with this way of thinking.

In the finance world if you say "my company transacted 1bn USD last year and 5bn USD this year and I'm expecting 20bn USD in 2 years", that kind'a counts for growth you know. Just sayin'.

[Hyperjacked]

BTC was a pivotal point on the charts...we knew it would break one way or the other!

Glad it broke down...

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

In the finance world if you say "my company transacted 1bn USD last year and 5bn USD this year and I'm expecting 20bn USD in 2 years", that kind'a counts for growth you know. Just sayin'.

Yeah, but if you cant make a bank transfer for $100m, you dont simply go back and make one for $200m so it will go through. The idea that people will transfer more money because they cant transfer less is ludicrous. I mean, seriously?

[Hyperjacked]

I am back and I am short selling this with my house.

Feed the homeless...Grandpa Munster would! 

^^This guy must be throwin a house party !

Cheers bears!

[suda123]

I am quite sure the price has not finished going down a little bit. BTC deserves a good haircut for bad management and not acting quick enough. I can only hope (for the bagholders) that when the price does get cut bij 30% or more, some people get the wake up call.

My personal opinion is that this is not going to happen any time soon. The discussion on this particular forum should not be taken as an indicator for that, I know, but I do sense that there are just to many bagholders with wrong motives in this scene.

Turn on your TV.  The markets are melting down.  Again.

Oil down to $29.50, a 12 year low.

Blockstream's fault.  Obviously.

Dow down 400.

Why, thermos, why?  

Its funny because the global economy is going to shit in a handbasket.

[AlexGR]

In the finance world if you say "my company transacted 1bn USD last year and 5bn USD this year and I'm expecting 20bn USD in 2 years", that kind'a counts for growth you know. Just sayin'.

Yeah, but if you cant make a bank transfer for $100m, you dont simply go back and make one for $200m so it will go through. The idea that people will transfer more money because they cant transfer less is ludicrous. I mean, seriously?

The concept is that you are dropping 5000 satoshi transactions for 50.000 or 500.000 satoshi or 5m satoshi txs - for as long as the network can't handle every one of them (there will be a day when that becomes a reality).

Check this guy out: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1329174.0

"Oh and I don't want to pay fees"

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[becoin]

Price is dropping because Bitcoin Classic hardfork is being priced in.

Market is telling us what is good for bitcoin and what is bad.

[DaRude]

Price is dropping because Bitcoin Classic hardfork is being priced in.

Market is telling us what is good for bitcoin and what is bad.

Consenus = good, disagreement = bad. It is quiet that simple, just the nature of open project makes things much more over blown and should not be priced in as much as say a disagreement between the CEO and the board, as i feel it is now.

[Post-Cosmic]

It's important that a distributed ledger (blockchain) network not get spammed / be vulnerable to wasteful, spammy, or malicious transactions/requests. So, this argument, in favor of small blocks, is very legitimate and must be considered.

It's also important that a distributed ledger (blockchain) network be allowed to grow in userbase, feature set, adapt to new functionalities and processing capabilities, to match the ever-evolving needs and demand from a diverse userbase, particularly in the midst of the rapidly changing technological landscape of modern societies. So, this argument, in favor of larger blocks, is also very legitimate and must be considered.


..But implementing solutions that address either, or ideally, somehow, both of of these main issues, doesn't solve bitcoin's ACTUAL biggest problem as the premier [theoretically] decentralized payment system & store of value we need it for.

Why? Because as Mike unceremoniously put it,

As long as China controls Bitcoin, it has failed it's most cardinal mission as a decentralized trustless system.

To save Bitcoin we must execute a benevolent, temporary 51% attack on Chinese pools and/or vote to change Core to blacklist them (or use any similar method, I don't know - I'm not a programmer ;3) to 'force' Chinese monopolistic miners OUT OF THEIR DDOS'ING, SELF-INTERESTED, CHINESE-WALL+AUTHORITARIAN-REGIME-PROBLEMATIC MAJORITY.

Beyond dreams of a fee market, beyond issues with full blocks ~ If Bitcoin is to succeed, CHINA MUST GO.

It now occurs to me that obviously, the problem isn't that they're Chinese, or even considering their country's regime & internet problems. That's nowhere near an issue as the centralization of power is.

So it doesn't matter which nation, ethnicity or social strata any hashing / node-operating monopolies are from. If this were a different world perhaps most the miners would be in Brazil, Indonesia, Congo, Greenland or even Greater Austro-Hungarian Polish Prusso-Lithuania, and we would have this same culture of xenophobia towards their 'fractional exchanges w/ fake volume' and 'greedy subsidized miners' - it's irrelevant, of course.

What matters is, NO POOL should be allowed more than ~6-17% of total hashing power, and advanced technical stopgaps to prevent and/or cripple this from happening should be implemented in at the protocol level if need be, even if that concedes a certain unfortunate 'central planning' cost for the greater good of safeguarding Decentralized Trustlessness against any attempts by agents into asserting more than the maximum allowed % control of the network.

A cryptocurrency's most core value proposition - trustlessness - cannot exist if its network is centralized!!!