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

[xxxxxzzzzz]

To say "there is no immediate technical problem so we should wait" is a fallacy because the technical choice of doing nothing regarding the blocksize limit have ideological and economic implications.

But devs aren't waiting, they are coding solutions or half-measures / band-aids.

What is at stake today is the value of your bitcoins in 20 years, and if you don't want to allow that fucking blocksize limit to increase because of an ideological fallacy I have some bad news for you.

What we need is a tx/s capacity increase plus entering a more grown-up phase where the network stops processing spam and junk and stops acting as a third-party storage database for near zero or zero cost.

Practically all developers agree to it, whether it is in 3 months, 5 months, 1 year, it'll happen and we'll be ok.

Hard forking a currency into 2 currencies with the "orthodox" and the "catholics" each supporting their own part of the schism? No, that's the stuff with which nightmares are made of. Gavin, Hearn and all who sided with them are extremely dangerous to bitcoin, either because they lack the awareness of what they are trying to do, or because they are intentionally doing what they are trying to do and camouflaging it with the pretext of "saving" bitcoin in a situation where it doesn't need saving. At most a few fees will be bumped and some dust/spam will be crowded out if core devs are slow in their own rollout. That's all that will happen when blocks get full. It will not harm the "network effect" of normal users. But a fork will definitely destroy confidence in bitcoin forever because it sets the precedent where for each consequent "disagreement" we can have a new schism. Do you think that's good news for a 20-year horizon investment?

Just think it through. Is the precedent of a violent hard fork (and the knowledge that at any time the currency can split into two currencies / diluting the money supply / having people rage dumping on the "opponent" fork which they don't believe into etc etc) more beneficial than a few months delay in a more proper transaction capacity increase - when the issue isn't even pressing? Can the answer ever be yes to that?

very much agree with what you're saying - it's like they're trying to fix something that's not broken , insisting it is when it isn't , and going about it in the most dangerous way possible - these people are intentionally endangering bitcoin by proposing violent fork after violent fork and then screaming and howling when people don't want it - it's dangerous and shortsighted at best , purposefully destructive at worst - i for one don't care how long it takes , or if blocks do get full with some increased regularity , or what exact technical changes wind up being made to increase scaling capacity AS LONG AS those changes are made to core by the core devs. you want to change bitcoin ? join the core devs. you want to make something new ? launch a fuckin altcoin. but don't call it bitcoin , because it isn't and can't be by definition.

[Richy_T]

Actually, only storing, say, 5 years worth of data would certainly simplify things... Now there's a flamewar to start.

I could certainly see not storing blocks locally but retrieving them from the network as-needed.

[adamstgBit]

To say "there is no immediate technical problem so we should wait" is a fallacy because the technical choice of doing nothing regarding the blocksize limit have ideological and economic implications.

But devs aren't waiting, they are coding solutions or half-measures / band-aids.

The devs are moving forward with blocksize slowly to avoid half-measures / band-aids.
They want a solution they can all agree is THE SOLUTION.
There is much debate as to what exactly " THE SOLUTION " is, but it's getting more clear, and i'm sure a lot of source code has been played with In order to facilitate higher traffic on the network.
inevitably blocksize will be much > than 1MB, that's not the point, the point is how do we get there. BitcoinClassic? i dont think so.... 

[CuntChocula]

<>
The devs are moving forward with blocksize slowly to avoid half-measures / band-aids.
They want a solution they can all agree is THE SOLUTION.

The Final Solution?

[adamstgBit]

<>
The devs are moving forward with blocksize slowly to avoid half-measures / band-aids.
They want a solution they can all agree is THE SOLUTION.

The Final Solution?

"The Final Solution" is coming one way or another.

economic forces result in things like bitcoinclassic. at one point somthing like bitconclassic will be adopted as "the solution" by the market, but i don't think the devs will let it come to that...

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[r0ach]

"The Final Solution" is coming one way or another.

[Fatman3001]

<>
The devs are moving forward with blocksize slowly to avoid half-measures / band-aids.
They want a solution they can all agree is THE SOLUTION.

The Final Solution?

"The Final Solution" is coming one way or another.

economic forces result in things like bitcoinclassic. at one point somthing like bitconclassic will be adopted as "the solution" by the market, but i don't think the devs will let it come to that...

Hi Adam!!

You've been away for awhile. Long story short: they did and it has.

[adamstgBit]

<>
The devs are moving forward with blocksize slowly to avoid half-measures / band-aids.
They want a solution they can all agree is THE SOLUTION.

The Final Solution?

"The Final Solution" is coming one way or another.

economic forces result in things like bitcoinclassic. at one point somthing like bitconclassic will be adopted as "the solution" by the market, but i don't think the devs will let it come to that...

Hi Adam!!

You've been away for awhile. Long story short: they did and it has.

i have been away for a while
but as far as I can tell nothing changed.
everyone is still threatening to run to some other implementation should the core devs do nothing.

i've always had this position as well... if they do nothing i'll go with XT or Classic or wtv, I still don't think i will have to follow through on my threat, not that it wouldn't give me gr8 pleasure to watch the community tell the core devs to fork off.  

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Classy new sig, too.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Core devs will act when they absolutely have to. Surely they won't risk losing out purely through ignorance & refusal to change.

[adamstgBit]

Core devs will act when they absolutely have to. Surely they won't risk losing out purely through ignorance & refusal to change.

its starting to feel like if they don't do somthing fast, their opinion will be irrelevant.
they really need to commit to some kind of plan with a time frame at this point.

[olli]

Core devs will act when they absolutely have to. Surely they won't risk losing out purely through ignorance & refusal to change.

Hahahahahahahahaha, you're a funny guy!

[adamstgBit]

ideally we'd see a dev team backed by VC money step up, promising all kinds of good things for Bitcoin, starting with an easy to agree to block limit increases.

when it comes to bitcoins dev team i am completely indifferent, i don't really care who writes the code as long as they are competent.

the way i see it they don't really have any power, the world gets what the world wants.

best of luck to classic, and shame on core for being so fucking slow in the head.

[biggus dickus]

ideally we'd see a dev team backed by VC money step up, promising all kinds of good things for Bitcoin, starting with an easy to agree to block limit increases.

when it comes to bitcoins dev team i am completely indifferent, i don't really care who writes the code as long as they are competent.

the way i see it they don't really have any power, the world gets what the world wants.

best of luck to classic, and shame on core for being so fucking slow in the head.

The only dev with any real power is Satoshi. His opinion would mean everything to half the community, and whatever changes he proposed/backed would go through like lightening. Any of the other devs are just one of a crowd, and their individual opinions don't matter unless they have reached consensus. Ultimately it's only the pool's opinions that will decide what wallet to run unless Satoshi returns.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[hdbuck]

ideally we'd see a dev team backed by VC money step up, promising all kinds of good things for Bitcoin, starting with an easy to agree to block limit increases.

when it comes to bitcoins dev team i am completely indifferent, i don't really care who writes the code as long as they are competent.

the way i see it they don't really have any power, the world gets what the world wants.

best of luck to classic, and shame on core for being so fucking slow in the head.

Wtf giving away bitcoin to some VC...  

Kids really need to stop reading the social media bullshit.

[Cconvert2G36]

Core devs will act when they absolutely have to. Surely they won't risk losing out purely through ignorance & refusal to change.

its starting to feel like if they don't do somthing fast, their opinion will be irrelevant.
they really need to commit to some kind of plan with a time frame at this point.

Hello [Bitcoin User]:

It sounds like you might not be very technical, and may have been misled by soundbites.

That's OK, the Core Team of Bitcoin is technical, and have discovered that a 2MB block limit would be an extreme blow to decentralization and censorship resistance. Verification time scales quadratically to size and there is no known or conceived way to stop someone from making a 2MB block that will take 10 minutes to verify, thus destroying Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is immune from government and corporate influence today, and very technical people are working around the clock to keep it that way. Conspiracy theories about nefarious profit and control motives of the Core Technicians have been promulgated by non-technical people [Big Banks], don't listen to them.

Core Technicians have come up with a time frame and a plan. It's unfortunate that someone [Big Banks], has kept that from you. All your concerns and questions are answered here: in roadmap.

Kind Regards.

Your patience is appreciated while coders write code.

[adamstgBit]

ideally we'd see a dev team backed by VC money step up, promising all kinds of good things for Bitcoin, starting with an easy to agree to block limit increases.

when it comes to bitcoins dev team i am completely indifferent, i don't really care who writes the code as long as they are competent.

the way i see it they don't really have any power, the world gets what the world wants.

best of luck to classic, and shame on core for being so fucking slow in the head.

Wtf giving away bitcoin to some VC... 

Kids really need to stop reading the social media bullshit.

VC Devs or Core Devs, they really have no choice but to write wtv the fuck we want them to write.

the current situation shows how it's impossible for devs to go against our will

 

[hdbuck]

ideally we'd see a dev team backed by VC money step up, promising all kinds of good things for Bitcoin, starting with an easy to agree to block limit increases.

when it comes to bitcoins dev team i am completely indifferent, i don't really care who writes the code as long as they are competent.

the way i see it they don't really have any power, the world gets what the world wants.

best of luck to classic, and shame on core for being so fucking slow in the head.

Wtf giving away bitcoin to some VC...  

Kids really need to stop reading the social media bullshit.

VC Devs or Core Devs, they really have no choice but to write wtv the fuck we want them to write.

the current situation shows how it's impossible for devs to go against our will

 

"Against our will"..

Maybe it is not too late to give it to R3 bankster consortium?!

It is not that core is slow, it is just that core cannot. As it will go with any other unaligned client/dev/fork.

Anywa, what's the hurry? You really have to ph0rk bitcoin before the halving do you?