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

[TReano]

The upcoming week is going to be really important... Rather the World Market bounce or totally break into Hell.


Prepare your Anus.

[peonminer]

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[dropt]

i think, China in economic crisis. bitcoin prince will go 500$ in this month.

Not with Cryptsy going the Gox way. I will be happy if the price don't fall too much until the Cryptsy issue is solved

No one in BTC cares about Cryptsy.  Hearne leaving was published all over the place.  How many MSM articles were written about a garbage alt coin exchange that got hacked a year and a half ago?

[marcus_of_augustus]

ooooh, shorts. trolls and haters whipping up fork FUD ... looks like a boring old movie on repeat from early 2015.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[cbeast]

Funny how for someone not "believing" in bitcoin you still cling on religiously to what Satoshi intended/said/meant or not and based on a 8 years old WP.

As I wrote, it is not that Satoshi's words and ideas are "sacred", but they help understand why bitcoin is the way it is -- and see more clearly the features that may render it unsuitable for specific uses. 

And, as I may have written many times, I could have loved bitcoin as it was in 2009: an experiment on a new kind of payment system, run by an open set of uncoordinated anonymous volunteers, stabilized by its incentives, etc..  But I cannot like the monster into which it has mutated. 

I could like it again if it somehow returned to the original plan -- with 10 times as many users perhaps than it had in mid-2010, and with the price 10 times higher, at about 0.50 USD/BTC;  bit without speculative trading, and without for-profit mining...

You made a declarative statement. Do you care to explain why you say "I could like it again if it somehow returned to the original plan -- with 10 times as many users perhaps than it had in mid-2010" and "I cannot like the monster into which it has mutated." What has changed that you don't like?

[LFC_Bitcoin]

what a day. Just heard a rumour that Blockstream may be having their next tranche of funding cancelled, and then I almost die laughing at brg444 on his knees begging chinese miners to stay with core...

And I mean BEGGING...

SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees.  how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.

macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.

Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.

There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.  

(of course he starts off begging, but then just straight up threatens them!!  lolz   )

p.s. whats a 'misfabrication'? Is that like a double negative - so its the truth    

He's back again gentlemen.

Is it a bird, is it a plane......no.....it's Bitcoin Classic Boy

[CuntChocula]

ooooh, shorts. trolls and haters whipping up fork FUD ... looks like a boring old movie on repeat from early 2015.

Yeah, this fandom's pretty much dead

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

ooooh, shorts. trolls and haters whipping up fork FUD ... looks like a boring old movie on repeat from early 2015.

Yeah, this fandom's pretty much dead

Please don't quote marcus. His anger scares me.

[JayJuanGee]

Funny how for someone not "believing" in bitcoin you still cling on religiously to what Satoshi intended/said/meant or not and based on a 8 years old WP.

As I wrote, it is not that Satoshi's words and ideas are "sacred", but they help understand why bitcoin is the way it is -- and see more clearly the features that may render it unsuitable for specific uses. 

And, as I may have written many times, I could have loved bitcoin as it was in 2009: an experiment on a new kind of payment system, run by an open set of uncoordinated anonymous volunteers, stabilized by its incentives, etc..  But I cannot like the monster into which it has mutated. 

I could like it again if it somehow returned to the original plan -- with 10 times as many users perhaps than it had in mid-2010, and with the price 10 times higher, at about 0.50 USD/BTC;  bit without speculative trading, and without for-profit mining...

That's a ridiculous assertion. Nothing is going to stay in some fixed microcosm when it is projected to grow. Satoshi himself said that Bitcoin was going to be big or nothing, so there was no vision that Bitcoin would remain some niche experiment as it, of course, had to start out small before it could become bigger.

[JayJuanGee]

i think, China in economic crisis. bitcoin prince will go 500$ in this month.

Not with Cryptsy going the Gox way. I will be happy if the price don't fall too much until the Cryptsy issue is solved

Crypsy is fairly small potatoes, and there's nothing really to resolve. Crypsy is no way near the magnitude or importance of Gox, so the analogy is quite inept.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

ooooh, shorts. trolls and haters whipping up fork FUD ... looks like a boring old movie on repeat from early 2015.

Yeah. But the BTC market is quite different from early 2015. Accordingly will probably not be very effective to attempt some of the same FUDings, but not gonna stop them from trying, I suppose.

[JorgeStolfi]

You made a declarative statement. Do you care to explain why you say "I could like it again if it somehow returned to the original plan -- with 10 times as many users perhaps than it had in mid-2010" and "I cannot like the monster into which it has mutated." What has changed that you don't like?

I wrote that too before: it became a pyramid investment scheme and a tool for crime. 

Both developments were bad for mankind, and it is hard to tell which one will be more harmful in the end.  But the first one also ruined the technical experiment: it attracted a horde of scammers and unsavory characters, encouraged hoarding, created volatility that all but destroyed its usefulness as currency, made mining into a fabulously lucrative industrial activity that was inevitably centralized, gave birth to Blockstream and their plan to sacrifice bitcoin's original goal to the spurious goal of inflating the price, and more...

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

gave birth to Blockstream and their plan to sacrifice bitcoin's original goal to the spurious goal of inflating the price, and more...

Isn't this right?

it’s possible to construct a transaction that takes up almost 1MB of space and which takes 30 seconds or more to validate on a modern computer (blocks containing such transactions have been mined). In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems.

sauce

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^I was sure it'd be NLC to mine that nugget.

[JorgeStolfi]

Nothing is going to stay in some fixed microcosm when it is projected to grow. Satoshi himself said that Bitcoin was going to be big or nothing, so there was no vision that Bitcoin would remain some niche experiment as it, of course, had to start out small before it could become bigger.

Again: once, while discussing future user base growth, Satoshi considered 20% per year (doubling every 4 years) a "crazy" rate of growth.  That would be consistent with his chosen block reward schedule (halving every four years).  With a "non-crazy" growth rate of less than 20%/year, the USD value of the block reward would have deceased with time, forcing the system to transition gradually to fees.

Surely he was too smart to risk actual predictions, but on the other hand he cannot have expected the price to rise by a factor of 10 every year for 5 years.  So the USD value of the block reward too increased by almost he same factor, instead of decreasing as he may have expected.

The price rose so fast because of speculative investment and trading, fueled by predictions that it would one day replace VISA.  That surely is a use for bitcoin that he did not expect.  If there is something that the world did not need in 2009, and will never need, is another penny stock.  He would not have bothered creating bitcoin, if he knew that it would turn into that.

[JorgeStolfi]

it’s possible to construct a transaction that takes up almost 1MB of space and which takes 30 seconds or more to validate on a modern computer (blocks containing such transactions have been mined). In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems.

sauce

This is a known protocol design bug: signatures were defined in such a way that the cost of validating a transaction with N signatures is proportional to N² rather than N. 

It has a known simple solution: limit the number of inputs of a transaction to some reasonable value, say 20 or 100, independent of the block size limit.  That will keep the cost of verifying one transaction bounded, and will inconvenience only a few users, by forcing them to break any big transaction into a chain of smaller ones.

IIRC, BiotcoinXT included this simple solution.  Hopefully it will be included in Classic too. 

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

it’s possible to construct a transaction that takes up almost 1MB of space and which takes 30 seconds or more to validate on a modern computer (blocks containing such transactions have been mined). In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems.

sauce

This is a known protocol design bug: signatures were defined in such a way that the cost of validating a transaction with N signatures is proportional to N² rather than N. 

It has a known simple solution: limit the number of inputs of a transaction to some reasonable value, say 20 or 100, independent of the block size limit.  That will keep the cost of verifying one transaction bounded, and will inconvenience only a few users, by forcing them to break any big transaction into a chain of smaller ones.

IIRC, BiotcoinXT included this simple solution.  Hopefully it will be included in Classic too. 

Most of that is Greek to me. How would a sharp Core supporter respond?