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

[AZwarel]

So this is all because of Mike?

Mike only stated facts. Small blockians are those to blame.

Nope, Mike went to New York Times, told "Bitcoin is dead!" and informed the public about the ongoing inner-Bitcoin fight. THAT did fucking damage to BTC and was completely unnecessary!

Its not about big or small blocks its about being a fucking dramaqueen!

Drama queen or not, he had some valid points - not necessary technically, but about the whole deadlock situation and censorship. Ofc, he should not go to the stupid mainstream media, who want the blood of bitcoin.
Still, he raised good points in his blog post (not in the NYT article!!!) about that there should NOT be a fee market, which is arising artificially, based on an old DoS prevention mechanism (which was always thought to
be temporary!). There is no fee market (or shouldn't be), this is system with a >6bil$ market cap, with less than 0,1% world population using it, and they ALREADY want to develop a blockage with transaction throughput?? Just count: doesn't matter, how high fees go - it is still impossible to do more than 4-7 ts/s!!! Fees do not solve this hardcap!! People will just not transact.

That's why the Harn "whistleblow" in MSM caused panic sell, many realized we MUST act NOW. Check out, 70% of big miners/ processing companies /exchanges already signed Bitcoin Classic https://bitcoinclassic.com/ after 2 days...

Or will they be just censored again? You mean 70-80% of the industry can be censored? :-)


EDIT: I was pretty much agnostic in this debate about blocksize so far, both sides has pros/cons. But the idea, that free market be abolished by a technical policy limit and give rise to "fee market" (means: "no, no, you are too Philippine to send cash home, we now have 10$ fee for the next 114 blocks, k thxbye), and "dissidents" must be censored, and "burned"- it is OS ffs, how the ***k they dared to censor?!? - so these two alone pushed me into "raise that blocksize" camp. And yes, i run a node, and no i don't care, will just buy a bigger HDD.

[solitude]

Why are there so many cucked "the sky is falling!" panic-selling faggots out there?

Don't you get tired of panic selling and panic buying?

Can't you see this is a deliberate effort by the bank kikes and the kike media (New York Times, etc, just about all journalists are lying kikes) to undermine Bitcoin?

Grow some balls and hold your coins, man.

[brg444]

"Raise the block size!" they said.

"We have consensus!" they said.

"Market is going to rally around big blocks" they said.

welp  

[ImI]

So this is all because of Mike?

Mike only stated facts. Small blockians are those to blame.

Nope, Mike went to New York Times, told "Bitcoin is dead!" and informed the public about the ongoing inner-Bitcoin fight. THAT did fucking damage to BTC and was completely unnecessary!

Its not about big or small blocks its about being a fucking dramaqueen!

Drama queen or not, he had some valid points - not necessary technically, but about the whole deadlock situation and censorship. Ofc, he should not go to the stupid mainstream media, who want the blood of bitcoin.
Still, he raised good points in his blog post (not in the NYT article!!!) about that there should NOT be a fee market, which is arising artificially, based on an old DoS prevention mechanism (which was always thought to
be temporary!). There is no fee market (or shouldn't be), this is system with a >6bil$ market cap, with less than 0,1% world population using it, and they ALREADY want to develop a blockage with transaction throughput?? Just count: doesn't matter, how high fees go - it is still impossible to do more than 4-7 ts/s!!! Fees do not solve this hardcap!! People will just not transact.

That's why the Harn "whistleblow" in MSM caused panic sell, many realized we MUST act NOW. Check out, 70% of big miners/ processing companies /exchanges already signed Bitcoin Classic https://bitcoinclassic.com/ after 2 days...

Or will they be just censored again? You mean 70-80% of the industry can be censored? :-)

Its not a "whistleblow" cause the public and MSM dont care about such details, all they understand is that Bitcoin has inner fights going on. You see a whistleblow is usually something that wakes up important players that take action then, but in this case who did he wake up? Nobody, cause all important players are already aware of the issue. To cause a crash and to demolish the image of Bitcoin in public further is just what it is an asshole action.

He may have had some valid point, nevertheless his NYT article overshadows this completely as we did know those things before. Also his medium article is full of bullshit also, i would say 75% is just crap and 25% is valid concern.

[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.

[...]

Now 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.

[...]

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!!!

Your logic and use of large fonts in attempt to further your point makes me think you're 16?

No - ironically, it's to counter the prevalent teenager crowds' '16 yo' lack of attention span and general apathy, that I try to use varied font sizes, wanna make sure I get them page views y'know, my time not wasted, and what not ;3

Thankfully the badger doesn't care.

Your honey badger doing good af atm : Was propped up & overbought for too long, at last it's shown itself in the price action, much to the teary dismay of degenerate bulltards galore <3

-----------------------------------

[...]

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)?

^Perfect question - One of the main issues facing this proposal which would have to be debated and solved on technical & philosophical/ideological merits. Not gonna pretend I have all the answers, in a heartbeat ;p

-----------------------------------

..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.

You are right. Of course..I should have known that ;/

So, what if millions of users/miners do this vote? I know this wouldn't be practical in our current world - just theorizing about the concept itself.

They wouldn't get blacklisted - it's more the protocol would dynamically detect any given pool is amassing too much hashpower, wallet users &/or miners that are reasonably detected to not be likely to be affiliated w/ this pool, get to do a 'consensus check trigger' that, if successful, starts limiting this pool to a lower % so it's held in check? The minute users stop being in general majority agreement about it - it stops limiting the pool in question, so it's both non-draconian and consensus-based + decentralized-control-mechanism?

-----------------------------------

[...]
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.

Such an activist, loving it xD  *Picturing him w/ cowboy hat & silver-star-heeled leather boots <3*

[Trolfi]

You mean you're not all in?!

I want MOAR. And to lower my DCA.

[rolling]

This block thing needs to be solved once and for all now and never addressed again. "The Last Hardfork".

Anything less than that and Bitcoin will fail.

[CuntChocula]

I don't think its going to be a hard crash. I think are many seeing it as a good time to buy a little BTC. Not sure how much of this dip in price is really about Mike Hearn ( if any) anyways. I see more of it as a reaction with Cryptsy (and the bad press it always brings) and the stock market crashing today. Come  Monday make that Tuesday lol, Monday is a U.S holiday.....things will be back swinging upwards probably on all fronts...  

So. Markets fell about 2%, and BTC fell 15%? Sounds legit :-

Its a ratio thing  

Somebody here told me once that Bitcoin should do well when legacy economy begins to crumble, but you're telling me it ain't so?

[lemmyK]

Just watch on coinbase NOW.. get all from them to fiat.. now is safe fiat .......    

[DaRude]

This block thing needs to be solved once and for all now and never addressed again. "The Last Hardfork".

Anything less than that and Bitcoin will fail.

It's this kind of thinking of getting a silver bullet rather than an ongoing  process that gets us in trouble

[becoin]

Drama queen or not, he had some valid points - not necessary technically, but about the whole deadlock situation and censorship.

People that are censored don't get featured in NYT articles and mentioned in R3 testimony broadcasted by every tv channel, bud!

[fisheater22]

People that are censored don't get featured in NYT articles and mentioned in R3 testimony broadcasted from every tv channel, bud!

Why can't the mainstream press just leave our Bitcoin alone?

[rolling]

This block thing needs to be solved once and for all now and never addressed again. "The Last Hardfork".

Anything less than that and Bitcoin will fail.

It's this kind of thinking of getting a silver bullet rather than an ongoing  process that gets us in trouble

Bitcoin can't fundamentally change and shouldn't change. There is no real governance, nor should there be. It needs set rules and that's it. The idea that it can change is what's getting us in trouble. Sure, added features that conform to the set rules are fine but things that cause hard forks can't happen anymore. The bigger it gets, the harder its going to be for these changes. It has to be a silver bullet or nothing.

[Lauda]

Drama queen or not, he had some valid points - not necessary technically, but about the whole deadlock situation and censorship.

People that are censored don't get featured in NYT articles and mentioned in R3 testimony broadcasted by every tv channel, bud!

He was wrong on most of his 'technical' points anyways or they were misinterpretations of the reality. Do not trust that guy, especially not after this. He could have been the inside man all along.

He sold himself to the media as one important (if not the most important) developer. Which is a fucking joke! Yes he did some work but i wouldnt name him in the Top10. Hilarious that he could make such an public impression...

I'm leaning towards making a public list of shame where names such as Hearn and Karpeles would come up with explanations to what they did (possibly even a rating mechanism). They sure deserve it.

[becoin]

People that are censored don't get featured in NYT articles and mentioned in R3 testimony broadcasted from every tv channel, bud!

Why can't the mainstream press just leave our Bitcoin alone?

Mainstream presstitutes are just property of the financial oligopoly. Do I need to tell why banks can't leave bitcoin alone?!

[AZwarel]

So this is all because of Mike?

Mike only stated facts. Small blockians are those to blame.

Nope, Mike went to New York Times, told "Bitcoin is dead!" and informed the public about the ongoing inner-Bitcoin fight. THAT did fucking damage to BTC and was completely unnecessary!

Its not about big or small blocks its about being a fucking dramaqueen!

Drama queen or not, he had some valid points - not necessary technically, but about the whole deadlock situation and censorship. Ofc, he should not go to the stupid mainstream media, who want the blood of bitcoin.
Still, he raised good points in his blog post (not in the NYT article!!!) about that there should NOT be a fee market, which is arising artificially, based on an old DoS prevention mechanism (which was always thought to
be temporary!). There is no fee market (or shouldn't be), this is system with a >6bil$ market cap, with less than 0,1% world population using it, and they ALREADY want to develop a blockage with transaction throughput?? Just count: doesn't matter, how high fees go - it is still impossible to do more than 4-7 ts/s!!! Fees do not solve this hardcap!! People will just not transact.

That's why the Harn "whistleblow" in MSM caused panic sell, many realized we MUST act NOW. Check out, 70% of big miners/ processing companies /exchanges already signed Bitcoin Classic https://bitcoinclassic.com/ after 2 days...

Or will they be just censored again? You mean 70-80% of the industry can be censored? :-)

Its not a "whistleblow" cause the public and MSM dont care about such details, all they understand is that Bitcoin has inner fights going on. You see a whistleblow is usually something that wakes up important players that take action then, but in this case who did he wake up? Nobody, cause all important players are already aware of the issue. To cause a crash and to demolish the image of Bitcoin in public further is just what it is an asshole action.

He may have had some valid point, nevertheless his NYT article overshadows this completely as we did know those things before. Also his medium article is full of bullshit also, i would say 75% is just crap and 25% is valid concern.

Agree with the MSM part, they don't care or know, which is funny btw . I do not mind "inner fights", or that it turned out to the public that we have those. In my POW, the whole point of a decentralized system, is that there can BE differing views! Am not here to judge, it may seems he hurted BTC for now, but we do not know the future, this might forced something which will be beneficial in the long run - if nothing else, cheap coins for me :-D. I focus on the 25% valid concern; those are still problems to be sold!

[ImI]

People that are censored don't get featured in NYT articles and mentioned in R3 testimony broadcasted from every tv channel, bud!

Why can't the mainstream press just leave our Bitcoin alone?

LOL, are you asking the same questions when Bitcoin surges after some TV/press brought another special about Bitcoin?

Bitcoin/blockchain is an interesting evolving technology its obv that they cover it.

[AZwarel]

Drama queen or not, he had some valid points - not necessary technically, but about the whole deadlock situation and censorship.

People that are censored don't get featured in NYT articles and mentioned in R3 testimony broadcasted by every tv channel, bud!

He was wrong on most of his 'technical' points anyways or they were misinterpretations of the reality. Do not trust that guy, especially not after this. He could have been the inside man all along.

He sold himself to the media as one important (if not the most important) developer. Which is a fucking joke! Yes he did some work but i wouldnt name him in the Top10. Hilarious that he could make such an public impression...

I'm leaning towards making a public list of shame where names such as Hearn and Karpeles would come up with explanations to what they did (possibly even a rating mechanism). They sure deserve it.

I do not want to be rude, or anything, but this is not a religion. There can be no heretics. And if a single person, with a single article can hurt "this much", maybe the system ain't that strong enough after all- yet?

Never understood why would anyone follow a "leader" here, and strangle the kitten of the "other tribe's warchief". This is so stone age, and explains why still no consensus, hint hint.

[Cconvert2G36]

"Raise the block size!" they said.

"We have consensus!" they said.

"Market is going to rally around big blocks" they said.

welp  

Your tears are delicious.

I saw you rage tweeting BitFury earlier...     No matter, "socioeconomic consensus" doesn't need miners... amirite?

The tide is turning against the Blockstream takeover. Can't say I didn't try to warn you. 

You've been bootlicking the wrong powers. Bitcoin routes around attempts to steer and control it, about time you learned that. The control you believed they possessed is slipping like sand out of a clenched and mailed fist.

I'm salivating about buying up a piece of Mircea's suicide short this spring. I would try to buy some of your rage dumping too... but your join date probably makes that goal moot.

 



Blockstream Core... #REKT

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Holy fuck, I was expecting it to go down after 430, but not so fucking fast.