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

[r0ach]

Why are people arguing about governance while pretending Bitcoin is anarchy when Bitcoin is identical to the government we already have?  Each mining rig is a vote.  You're required to use your vote at a pool, which is the same thing as electing a representative like congress/senate.  It's a reputation based system and your vote essentially does not matter if all representatives are compromised or not operating with any game plan you want.

It's supposedly "permissionless", but unless you have millions to break through the high barrier of entry to solo mine, then it's not really.  Just like in real life, big money can simply buy their way in as representatives.  I'm not sure where everyone keeps getting these anarchy ideas from when there's almost no difference between Bitcoin and representative type republics.  Looks like convergent evolution strikes again.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

The retard journalist (https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/690120783281156097) has published his article: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/f-pool-chinese-pools-will-stick-with-bitcoin-core-1453395328


Long story short: F2Pool and HaoBTC.

No real news then.

Speaking to Bitcoin Magazine, F2Pool operator Wang Chun confirmed this is indeed the case.
“The rumors are true,” Chun said. “Miners in China were scared by Luke Dashjr’s proof-of-work changing pull request.”

I mean, WTF???  I mean to say... WTF??

And Wang Chun is not aware of Gregs similar posturing? Of course he is.

Is everyone here a complete effing retard? This is a joke. Of course its a joke.
Normal responsible business people dont speak like that  OK, that was a stupid point.

You are all being done up like a kipper.

[DonQuijote]

Well some of us suspected Bitcoin Classic was a trojan horse meant to change governance and than switch to BIP101 and the numbers are indeed reflecting that --

Up at the highest rated approval we have BIP101

https://bitcoin.consider.it/BIP101

Democracy in action folks! Letting the mobs of idiots and people who want to destroy bitcoin vote for its future.... wonderful.

Is there a official poll?

yes , you can see it's the most requested change to Bitcoin Classic at the top.

https://bitcoin.consider.it/

Thank you! I did not know this website

[tomothy]

The retard journalist (https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/690120783281156097) has published his article: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/f-pool-chinese-pools-will-stick-with-bitcoin-core-1453395328


Long story short: F2Pool and HaoBTC.

No real news then.

Speaking to Bitcoin Magazine, F2Pool operator Wang Chun confirmed this is indeed the case.
“The rumors are true,” Chun said. “Miners in China were scared by Luke Dashjr’s proof-of-work changing pull request.”

I mean, WTF???  I mean to say... WTF??

And Wang Chun is not aware of Gregs similar posturing? Of course he is.

Is everyone here a complete effing retard? This is a joke. Of course its a joke.
Normal responsible business people dont speak like that  OK, that was a stupid point.

You are all being done up like a kipper.

I understand your position but respectfully disagree. Wangchun commented regarding RBF and his English was very good but not perfect. I wouldn't be surprised if his speaking ability is similar.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7388#issuecomment-173563835

wangchun commented 8 hours ago - "ACK   RBF is steal. This PR should be merged asap to prevent potential financial loss."


Edit. Bolded for emphasis. Bolding was my decision, not found in pull request. Can I just say that Peter Todd is a poopyhead ever since viacoin. I hate him. I lost so much due to that crappy coin. I swear, him and his free-crypto crap is just stupid and fails the economic rationality test. Sorry, getting rid of lukejr and peter todd, imho, would result in a more balanced dev atmosphere. Just my $.02. I get angry when I see his responses, the crap he has done, and it doesn't surprise me that he left RC3 or whatever the proper acronym is.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

sipa  commented 9 hours ago 

I'm willing to consider this due to the unexpected controversy this is causing. I do however think this due to a misunderstanding:
•It's perfectly possible to keep accepting 0-conf transactions, if you believe they are safe for your use case. Opt-in RBF sets a non-maximum nSequence value, which causes many providers to already consider the transaction non-standard for the purpose of accepting 0-conf.
•As a customer, you can choose to set opt-in RBF, and thus lose the ability to get your payment accepted before confirmation, but with the ability to easily change the fee afterwards or combine the transaction with others.
•As a miner, the rational behaviour is to take the transaction with the highest fee (even for non opt-in cases). If you don't, another miner can.

And, no, opt-in RBF is not theft. It's indicating that you're not sure whether what you're submitting is the final form of the transaction. This is the exact semantics that nSequence had since the earliest version of Bitcoin.

[billyjoeallen]

While democracy does not directly account for intensity of desire, it has some indirect ways. For example, if the majority chooses laws that are too unfair to some minority, the latter may resort to crime to make ends meet, or to terrorism and other anti-social behavior, in spite of the penal deterrents against such acts.  Then the majority, if it is not too stupid, will usually ease the plight of that minority, enough to keep those reactions down to a tolerable level.

What planet are you living on? In practice, the opposite more often occurs.  The majority who thinks they are morally right will not focus on the injustice suffered by the minority. They will focus on the crimes committed in reaction to that injustice.  Look at how every militant group in the U.S. from the Black Panthers to the KKK are treated.

A voter pays no immediate direct penalty for an uninformed vote. There is not sufficient incentive to become informed. To know this, all you have to do is look at election results throughout history. Why spend hours researching the relevant policy options and politicians when the chance of the election being decided by your one vote is infinitesimal? Voting is more useful for signaling your allegiance to a group.

Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either.

AngloSaxon law is based on two main concepts:
1. Common law that predates government that did not create it but recognizes it and enforces it.
2. The principle that "Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." This concept dates all the way back to 1215 when King John signed the Magna Carta.

Anarcho-capitalists do not want rulers, but that does not at all mean we don't want rules. In fact, we are the only group that consistently can apply Rule of Law because the alternative is a violence monopoly (central government) that creates, selectively interprets and enforces the very Rules that limit its power. That is Rule of Man, not Rule of Law.

Democracy is BY DEFINITION the domination of the minority by the majority. Politics is merely the art of convincing enough people to agree with you so that you can FORCIBLY impose your will on those who don't.

[BitUsher]

And Wang Chun is not aware of Gregs similar posturing? Of course he is.

The ideas have been around long before the blocksize debate as a wish list -- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359323.0

We really do not want democratic mob rule voting on the protocol design and centralized miners becoming compromised by states which is the direction we are heading. It is not a threat but a long held concern of ours and the  raison d'être of bitcoin. Part of me welcomes the split so I can dust off the gpu miners and another part of me sees hope in bitfury doing the right thing and selling their ASIC's to the wide public for reasonable fees to reverse the problem of mining centralization and node count drop off.

What scares us is this https://bitcoin.consider.it/

Bitcoin classic is looking like a trojan horse for BIP 101

Thank you! I did not know this website

Yes , it is controlled by the brothers Maintainer of the Bitcoin Classic so do not assume that the votes are impartial as its essentially a voting mechanism and disturbing governance model of Classic.

[tomothy]

sipa  commented 9 hours ago 

I'm willing to consider this due to the unexpected controversy this is causing. I do however think this due to a misunderstanding:
•It's perfectly possible to keep accepting 0-conf transactions, if you believe they are safe for your use case. Opt-in RBF sets a non-maximum nSequence value, which causes many providers to already consider the transaction non-standard for the purpose of accepting 0-conf.
•As a customer, you can choose to set opt-in RBF, and thus lose the ability to get your payment accepted before confirmation, but with the ability to easily change the fee afterwards or combine the transaction with others.
•As a miner, the rational behaviour is to take the transaction with the highest fee (even for non opt-in cases). If you don't, another miner can.

And, no, opt-in RBF is not theft. It's indicating that you're not sure whether what you're submitting is the final form of the transaction. This is the exact semantics that nSequence had since the earliest version of Bitcoin.

Yeah, cause you can surely tell that this satisfied his objection lol. It gets better... (He knows his $$ comes from the users, not the devs...)


wangchun commented 8 hours ago: "@jonasschnelli Could you please tell me which wallet has been ready to warn users for potential RBF transactions? What the average user without much Bitcoin knowledge can do when he/she see this warning?"


wangchun commented 8 hours ago:  "So you admit nobody has yet been ready for opt-in RBF but deploy it in the next release IMHO this is no better than force a hard fork without consensus" (Bolded by my decision)

[CuntChocula]

...
Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either. ...

  Rats eat cheese.
  Billy Jo eats cheese.
∴Billy Jo is a rat and a criminal, Q.E.D.

[tomothy]

And Wang Chun is not aware of Gregs similar posturing? Of course he is.

The ideas have been around long before the blocksize debate as a wish list -- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359323.0

We really do not want democratic mob rule voting on the protocol design and centralized miners becoming compromised by states which is the direction we are heading. It is not a threat but a long held concern of ours and the  raison d'être of bitcoin. Part of me welcomes the split so I can dust off the miners and another part of me sees hope in bitfury doing the right thing and selling their ASIC's to the wide public for reasonable fees to reverse the problem of mining centralization and node count drop off.

What scares us is this https://bitcoin.consider.it/

Bitcoin classic is looking like a trojan horse for BIP 101

Assume for the record that Bitcoin Classic is a coup d'etat, Assume that it is a Trojan Horse for BIP 101...
Isn't that better than having to deal and negotiate with the likes of Peter Todd and LukeJR?

Hey guys, let's just change the POW for Lulz! They might be technologically intelligent, but they have no common sense, no ability to compromise, and no ability to consider economical rampifications of their decisions. The interview With Guy Corem is particularly illuminating. Bitcoin is for cryptopunks/cypherpunks and not for anyone else. Main street users need not apply, asics not allowed, this is a gpu club only, which is absurd because assuming for a moment that you can prevent asics, you would still be left with server farms of gpus whose break even is still based on the geographical cost of electricity, you will not have massive price increases without addressing aml/kyc regulations. If you want anonymity go use anoncoin or this new fangled zerocash which is what their vision of bitcoin is.

Ultimately this all comes down to another battle over the vision of bitcoin. Is it to buy drugs on the dark net or something bigger? Can it be both? Not anymore...

/Rabble rabble. Grabs pitch fork and a torch!

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

And Wang Chun is not aware of Gregs similar posturing? Of course he is.

The ideas have been around long before the blocksize debate as a wish list -- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359323.0

We really do not want democratic mob rule voting on the protocol design and centralized miners becoming compromised by states which is the direction we are heading. It is not a threat but a long held concern of ours and the  raison d'être of bitcoin. Part of me welcomes the split so I can dust off the gpu miners and another part of me sees hope in bitfury doing the right thing and selling their ASIC's to the wide public for reasonable fees to reverse the problem of mining centralization and node count drop off.

What scares us is this https://bitcoin.consider.it/

Bitcoin classic is looking like a trojan horse for BIP 101

Thank you! I did not know this website

Yes , it is controlled by the brothers Maintainer of the Bitcoin Classic so do not assume that the votes are impartial as its essentially a voting mechanism and disturbing governance model of Classic.

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?   

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

sipa  commented 9 hours ago  

I'm willing to consider this due to the unexpected controversy this is causing. I do however think this due to a misunderstanding:
•It's perfectly possible to keep accepting 0-conf transactions, if you believe they are safe for your use case. Opt-in RBF sets a non-maximum nSequence value, which causes many providers to already consider the transaction non-standard for the purpose of accepting 0-conf.
•As a customer, you can choose to set opt-in RBF, and thus lose the ability to get your payment accepted before confirmation, but with the ability to easily change the fee afterwards or combine the transaction with others.
•As a miner, the rational behaviour is to take the transaction with the highest fee (even for non opt-in cases). If you don't, another miner can.

And, no, opt-in RBF is not theft. It's indicating that you're not sure whether what you're submitting is the final form of the transaction. This is the exact semantics that nSequence had since the earliest version of Bitcoin.

Yeah, cause you can surely tell that this satisfied his objection lol. It gets better... (He knows his $$ comes from the users, not the devs...)


wangchun commented 8 hours ago: "@jonasschnelli Could you please tell me which wallet has been ready to warn users for potential RBF transactions? What the average user without much Bitcoin knowledge can do when he/she see this warning?"


wangchun commented 8 hours ago:  "So you admit nobody has yet been ready for opt-in RBF but deploy it in the next release IMHO this is no better than force a hard fork without consensus" (Bolded by my decision)

Wang Chun has gone up in my estimation. He is playing the Coretards for the chumps that they are. Unbelievable. There isn't a single principle among the lot of them.

where's inca's giraffe eating popcorn gif? 
 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin


Explanation

[BitUsher]

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?  

We pay people with heavy machinery to do that all without coercion and taxes. People like you pay a lot of money to vacation here as well so don't paint my community as some backwards anarchy-primitivist community where we have to build the roads with manual labor.

Assume for the record that Bitcoin Classic is a coup d'etat, Assume that it is a Trojan Horse for BIP 101...
Isn't that better than having to deal and negotiate with the likes of Peter Todd and LukeJR?

Hey guys, let's just change the POW for Lulz! They might be technologically intelligent, but they have no common sense, no ability to compromise, and no ability to consider economical rampifications of their decisions. The interview With Guy Corem is particularly illuminating. Bitcoin is for cryptopunks/cypherpunks and not for anyone else.

I like Peter Todd and LukeJR, as well as many of the developers and supporters of bitcoin classic. Yes, if Bitcoin loses its  cryptopunks/cypherpunks principles than it loses my support. This doesn't mean it cannot go mainstream , merely that we don't need a very inefficient paypal 2.0 that has democratic mob rule deciding on the features. May as well use fiat or Goldman sacks coin if bitcoin becomes to centralized and compromised. 

[CuntChocula]

http://thedailybanter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/tinfoil-hat-2.jpeg

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?  

Already shoveled the front walk, Ma! What the hell else do you want?

>People like you pay a lot of money to vacation here
People pay to vocation in ur mom's basement? Don't test the limits of my credulity

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?   

We pay people with heavy machinery to do that all without coercion and taxes. People like you pay a lot of money to vacation here as well so don't paint my community as some backwards anarchy-primitivist community where we have to build the roads with manual labor.

Bah, I'm only fuckin wit ya.

The way things are going I might need to head over to your utopia. Do you have any vacancies for Palm Frond wavers? Keeps ya cool a treat...

[billyjoeallen]

...
Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either. ...

  Rats eat cheese.
  Billy Jo eats cheese.
∴Billy Jo is a rat and a criminal, Q.E.D.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing Natural Rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it  ~U.S. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

[BitUsher]

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?   

We pay people with heavy machinery to do that all without coercion and taxes. People like you pay a lot of money to vacation here as well so don't paint my community as some backwards anarchy-primitivist community where we have to build the roads with manual labor.

Bah, I'm only fuckin wit ya.

The way things are going I might need to head over to your utopia. Do you have any vacancies for Palm Frond wavers? Keeps ya cool a treat...

No hard feelings , You are always welcome comrade.

[billyjoeallen]

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?  

We pay people with heavy machinery to do that all without coercion and taxes. People like you pay a lot of money to vacation here as well so don't paint my community as some backwards anarchy-primitivist community where we have to build the roads with manual labor.

Assume for the record that Bitcoin Classic is a coup d'etat, Assume that it is a Trojan Horse for BIP 101...
Isn't that better than having to deal and negotiate with the likes of Peter Todd and LukeJR?

Hey guys, let's just change the POW for Lulz! They might be technologically intelligent, but they have no common sense, no ability to compromise, and no ability to consider economical rampifications of their decisions. The interview With Guy Corem is particularly illuminating. Bitcoin is for cryptopunks/cypherpunks and not for anyone else.

I like Peter Todd and LukeJR, as well as many of the developers and supporters of bitcoin classic. Yes, if Bitcoin loses its  cryptopunks/cypherpunks principles than it loses my support. This doesn't mean it cannot go mainstream , merely that we don't need a very inefficient paypal 2.0 that has democratic mob rule deciding on the features. May as well use fiat or Goldman sacks coin if bitcoin becomes to centralized and compromised. 

How does "democratic mob rule" make Bitcoin MORE centralized? That's not really an accurate term, anyway. Bitcoin is market ruled and if it doesn't fulfill the needs and desires of the market, the market will replace it. You can still use it if you want to. MySpace is still online too.

[BitUsher]

How does "democratic mob rule" make Bitcoin MORE centralized? That's not really an accurate term, anyway. Bitcoin is market ruled and if it doesn't fulfill the needs and desires of the market, the market will replace it. You can still use it if you want to. MySpace is still online too.

Democratic mob rule doesn't necessarily make bitcoin more centralized, but does fundamentally break the original governance and design of bitcoin. Will democratic rule make bitcoin more centralized? ... looks that way from the votes -- https://bitcoin.consider.it/ of course that could simply be an inaccurate representation of the mob with a consensus system not able to protect against sybil attacks.

*there is always a possibility that an exponential increase in the blocksize could lead to initial centralization than rapid decentralization with a black swan like event in technology. Possible, but unlikely, knowing what we know about propagation times, hardware and network limitations.