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

[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.

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.

TL;DR:

I propose we work immediately towards the segwit 4MB block
soft-fork which increases capacity and scalability, and recent speedups
and incoming relay improvements make segwit a reasonable risk. BIP9
and segwit will also make further improvements easier and faster to
deploy. We’ll continue to set the stage for non-bandwidth-increase-based
scaling, while building additional tools that would make bandwidth
increases safer long term. Further work will prepare Bitcoin for further
increases, which will become possible when justified, while also providing
the groundwork to make them justifiable.

this is what i thought, core dev really is making headway on scalability.
pretty sure we won't have to go with bitcoinclassic.

[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

 

"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?

there is a deadline. it not set in stone or anything, but at one point, the system will become slower and/or more expensive and getting everyone to agree to continue to use this increasingly broken system when alternative exists is going to be impossible.

but as i keep saying, there is still time and it won't come to that...

[hmmkay]

There probably won't be a hard fork to classic.
By April, core will have implemented 2MB+ blocks, by then the incentive to switch to classic will be low.

This whole development is worrisome though.
Core: RBF push, censoring on /r/bitcoin
Classic: no hardcore coders, what will really happen if they take over?....

For higher resilience, it would need several clients. One group of coders would be too easy to compromise.

[adamstgBit]

There probably won't be a hard fork to classic.
By April, core will have implemented 2MB+ blocks, by then the incentive to switch to classic will be low.

this is a rumor worth buying.

[Elwar]

So, did Bitcoin need to fork when they added the 1Mb limit? Just curious.

[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?

there is a deadline. it not set in stone or anything, but at one point, the system will become slower and/or more expensive and getting everyone to agree to continue to use this increasingly broken system when alternative exists is going to be impossible.

but as i keep saying, there is still time and it won't come to that...

Oh fork you adam.

Such bullshit you are buying, it is amazing you've been around here for more than 3 years and have not learn anything besides clueless cheerful thinking.

Trusted bitcoiner my ass.

[hmmkay]

There probably won't be a hard fork to classic.
By April, core will have implemented 2MB+ blocks, by then the incentive to switch to classic will be low.

this is a rumor worth buying.

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#roadmap

If they don't hold to this roadmap, they'll lose all credibility I'm afraid.

[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

 

"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?

there is a deadline. it not set in stone or anything, but at one point, the system will become slower and/or more expensive and getting everyone to agree to continue to use this increasingly broken system when alternative exists is going to be impossible.

but as i keep saying, there is still time and it won't come to that...

Oh fork you adam.

Such bullshit you are buying, it is amazing you've been around here for more than 3 years and have not learn anything besides clueless cheerful thinking.

Trusted bitcoiner my ass.

HAHAHAHAHA
oh you.

[adamstgBit]

There probably won't be a hard fork to classic.
By April, core will have implemented 2MB+ blocks, by then the incentive to switch to classic will be low.

this is a rumor worth buying.

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#roadmap

If they don't hold to this roadmap, they'll lose all credibility I'm afraid.

they'll be fine, it would be surprising to see them fuck up so bad that people choose to adopt a new dev team.

[hdbuck]

There probably won't be a hard fork to classic.
By April, core will have implemented 2MB+ blocks, by then the incentive to switch to classic will be low.

this is a rumor worth buying.

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#roadmap

If they don't hold to this roadmap, they'll lose all credibility I'm afraid.

they'll be fine, it would be surprising to see them fuck up so bad that people choose to adopt a new dev team.

ever thought of joining some dev dating website/app?

[ImI]

Bitcoin core is considering changing the hash-algo from SHA2 -> SHA3.....

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

just wow.

[adamstgBit]

There probably won't be a hard fork to classic.
By April, core will have implemented 2MB+ blocks, by then the incentive to switch to classic will be low.

this is a rumor worth buying.

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#roadmap

If they don't hold to this roadmap, they'll lose all credibility I'm afraid.

they'll be fine, it would be surprising to see them fuck up so bad that people choose to adopt a new dev team.

ever thought of joining some dev dating website/app?

yes, I have a bittrex account.

[hdbuck]

Bitcoin core is considering changing the hash-algo from SHA2 -> SHA3.....

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

just wow.

FORK IT bitchez!

ACK it all the way!

me GPU ready to rumble!

[Fatman3001]

Bitcoin core is considering changing the hash-algo from SHA2 -> SHA3.....

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

just wow.

Yeah, try getting miners to run that shit.

[adamstgBit]

Bitcoin core is considering changing the hash-algo from SHA2 -> SHA3.....

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

just wow.

FORK IT bitchez!

they should support both for a while, and then discontinue SHA2 once most miners are running SHA3 machines

[hdbuck]

Bitcoin core is considering changing the hash-algo from SHA2 -> SHA3.....

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

just wow.

Yeah, try getting miners to run that shit.

nah the nodes will. after coulpe week of diff adjustement, it will be fine.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Fatman3001]

There probably won't be a hard fork to classic.
By April, core will have implemented 2MB+ blocks, by then the incentive to switch to classic will be low.

this is a rumor worth buying.

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#roadmap

If they don't hold to this roadmap, they'll lose all credibility I'm afraid.

they'll be fine, it would be surprising to see them fuck up so bad that people choose to adopt a new dev team.

[ImI]

Bitcoin core is considering changing the hash-algo from SHA2 -> SHA3.....

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

just wow.

Yeah, try getting miners to run that shit.

nah the nodes will. after coulpe week of diff adjustement, it will be fine.

its obv a hardfork, so there wont be weeks needed to any diff-adjustment. you start right away with a very low diff.

[Richy_T]

but as i keep saying, there is still time and it won't come to that...

Bags of time