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

[DaRude]

...blah blah large font...


...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.

...If Bitcoin is to succeed, CHINA MUST GO.

...even if that concedes a certain unfortunate 'central planning' cost for the greater good of safeguarding Decentralized Trustlessness...

Your logic and use of large fonts in attempt to further your point makes me think you're 16? Not sure where to even start on this but i'll just say that vigilante can be a solution to an international payment system as much as 'central planning' can be a solution to decentralization. Thankfully the badger doesn't care.

[Honest Bitcoiner27]

[...]
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!!!

How would the protocol distinguish two pools from a single pool masquerading as multiple pools (one pool split up into several pools, all still controlled by one guy)?

[BlackSpidy]

So, I'm not really all that worried about the hard fork. Seems quite a few people are looking to instill as much panic as possible, and we've just barely dropped to high $300s. It's kind of funny, really.

[lemmyK]

f2pool is now really sh*** , another ddos or what..

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[pleaseexplainagain]

So, I'm not really all that worried about the hard fork. Seems quite a few people are looking to instill as much panic as possible, and we've just barely dropped to high $300s. It's kind of funny, really.

yes it is not so long ago that "volatility" was a much talked about topic on this thread but the $200-$300 "long" period killed it off. I happen to think manipulators stopped it going down below $200 and so it 'appeared' as though volatility was less. Now that they seem to be happy with a price over $300  they have left bitcoin to ride a lot more and hence when we have a bit of a minor panic like now we will get to a period of 10% or more changes in price in a short time (ie days).. the old normal is back.

[Divitiae miserae]

Small cockers do suffer from some sort of Freudian Blockstream™-induced big(ger)-block anxiety which prevents them from seeing that Bitcoin is FUBAR unless the arbitrary limit is immediately raised.

[paul2000]

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

That'd be great. But what makes you think so? (Besides there's bitcoinco.re now)

[JorgeStolfi]

To save Bitcoin we must execute a benevolent, temporary 51% attack on Chinese pools

News for you: at this moment, the top 2 Chinese pools, Antpool and F2pool, have 28 + 23 = 51% of the  total hashpower; so all the rest together has only 49%.  With BTCC and BW.com that is 28 + 23 + 16 + 4 = 71% of the total haspower is in China.

vote to change Core to blacklist them (or use any similar method, I don't know - I'm not a programmer ;3)

That is trivial to program.  However, if you use any rule to select the "right" blockchain other than "the one that has the majority of the hashpower", including blacklisting some miners, you are no longe using the bitcoin protocol.  What you are using is a centralized payment system -- an incredibly stupid and inefficient one.

[DieJohnny]

[...]
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!!!

How would the protocol distinguish two pools from a single pool masquerading as multiple pools (one pool split up into several pools, all still controlled by one guy)?

You can't, so what we need is a open policy, no pool can exceed 5%. Then we need policemen to enforce that policy, how, DDOS attacks. Wild west baby, comply or get killed.

[Dotto]

Miners showing support so far:

Bitmain/Antpool
BitFury
BW.COM
HAOBTC.com
KnCMiner
Genesis Mining

Slush should join up on it at any time now which will bring the supporting hash rate to over 50% according to blockchain.info pool stats.

Coinbase, Bitstamp, OKCoin... Bitpay should join at any time now as well. Others will likely follow suite shortly.

Consensus is forming, brace yourselves

[BitUsher]

You can't, so what we need is a open policy, no pool can exceed 5%. Then we need policemen to enforce that policy, how, DDOS attacks. Wild west baby, comply or get killed.

Problems -
A pool with 20% hashing power can be split in 4 , appoint separate managers in separate locations and have a single owner or company control all 4 pools through convoluted shell companies

or

4 pools of 5% collude together

Either way the better solution is to focus on getting users back into mining(there are natural incentives that can accomplish this) and to improve p2p pools

[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

That'd be great. But what makes you think so? (Besides there's bitcoinco.re now)

From what has been said to me on another forum.

And this reddit which hasn't been censored yet!!

[DieJohnny]

You can't, so what we need is a open policy, no pool can exceed 5%. Then we need policemen to enforce that policy, how, DDOS attacks. Wild west baby, comply or get killed.

Problems -
A pool with 20% hashing power can be split in 4 , appoint separate managers in separate locations and have a single owner or company control all 4 pools through convoluted shell companies

or

4 pools of 5% collude together

Either way the better solution is to focus on getting users back into mining(there are natural incentives that can accomplish this) and to improve p2p pools

I love P2P pool, yes that is a great plan, but manufacturers are too greedy and want all of the profits. However, we should be DDOS every large miner constantly making it hell to scale as one entity. Make the cost of doing business as a large miner not worth it.... better to sell your miners to people and try and make money that way.

[Trolfi]

Below $375, I am a buyer. Come on, make it happen!

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[pleaseexplainagain]

according to the figures I see bitcoin is down 9.67%in USD but only 6.76% in CNY. Is such a gap usual?

[BitUsher]

I love P2P pool, yes that is a great plan, but manufacturers are too greedy and want all of the profits. However, we should be DDOS every large miner constantly making it hell to scale as one entity. Make the cost of doing business as a large miner not worth it.... better to sell your miners to people and try and make money that way.

Encouraging a more combative environment instead of a collaborative environment can lead to potential consequences. I>E> Right now bitfury has indicted they are going to sell their new chips to the widest group of people to insure decentralization, similarly some chinese mines will lease hashing power to their competitors in solidarity without profit if there is a power outage.

Encouraging DDOS attacks will break these bonds of solidarity that lead to greater security.

There are other incentives that naturally promote decentralization that we can focus on -

1) The costs to secure a large mining farm are much more than 10k routers with mining chips in many homes. One requires no extra security, and the other is a target

2) Centralized mining farms have to deal with excessive heat which requires cooling and elaborate ventilation costs while thousands of individuals with small miners can recycle the heat and not worry about excessive heat

3) The liability of fire and damage from failed cooling systems is large with a mining farm , vs almost no liability for millions of small utility miners

ect...

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

according to the figures I see bitcoin is down 9.67%in USD but only 6.76% in CNY. Is such a gap usual?

depends on how usd/cny diverge during the day.

[var53]

So, I'm not really all that worried about the hard fork. Seems quite a few people are looking to instill as much panic as possible, and we've just barely dropped to high $300s. It's kind of funny, really.

yes it is not so long ago that "volatility" was a much talked about topic on this thread but the $200-$300 "long" period killed it off. I happen to think manipulators stopped it going down below $200 and so it 'appeared' as though volatility was less. Now that they seem to be happy with a price over $300  they have left bitcoin to ride a lot more and hence when we have a bit of a minor panic like now we will get to a period of 10% or more changes in price in a short time (ie days).. the old normal is back.

It was this time last year there was that giant crash down to $150. People have bills to pay after Christmas and New Year, and they must wait weeks for their monthly pay. The nights are long, and it's the most depressing time of the year. It only seems to need a trigger event to spark a crash in mid-January, and we had two today.