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

[Richy_T]

Can miners fork to 2MB and still stay with Core?

Or they're back on Classic??

Miners as individuals can do what they want. The issue becomes when they mine that first 1.01MB block and it gets rejected by the network (or not).

actually, they will just be on their own fork, it will get rejected from other nodes that runs Core but it will be valid on their chain and they will keep mining higher blocks, it will be the longest chain with most work, as Satoshi implied before: Bitcoin will be what the longest chain with the most work decides it to be.

True. But the relevance of the fork is important. A good chunk of the network and many of the auxiliary services would need to be on-board for it to be successful.

[1715112163]

1715112163

[1715112163]

1715112163

[1715112163]

1715112163

[1715112163]

1715112163

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BldSwtTrs]

Why are you calling experts the people who don't see the need to move the blocksize limit, which you agree is needful?

I call bitcoin core experts because they are experts that is not disputable much their competition are experts too. Scaling is a complex topic. There are strong disagreements about what is optimal. No one has made a definitive case but everyone agrees bitcoin needs to scale.

A politically driven contentious hard fork that seems to be much more about who gets to control the future of bitcoin rather then actually about increasing the block size is a known evil. Bitcoin is intrinsically just a computer ledger. It's value comes from the talent of those involved in its ecosystem. The goal is to grow that ecosystem not rip it apart.

OK I was worried that you thought that Core folks are the only experts out there.

Increasing the blocksize is fairly straightforward choice but there is a civil war about that. What will happen with possibly more contentious issues?

We need a governance mechanism for future debates because we can be sure there will be several others. And I prefer a governance mechaism who is bottum up  -hard fork and let the ecosystem choose - than one who is top down and doesn't support competion (extremely fragile position).

We don't rip apart the ecosystem by hard forking, not more than the creation of an altcoin rips apart the ecosystem. Remember when the first alcoin was created there were debates about whether that should be avoided for the good of Bitcoin. The endgame of a hard fork is the same : there will be yet another altcoin. And the network effect of the winning chain will keep sucking every human and capital resources which want to be part of this revolution.

[bitebits]

Right now it is not the block size that needs to be increased. It is the tx fees that need to be increased!

If you increase transaction fees you decrease the number of transactions, so you don't increase the total level of transaction fees.

By increasing the blocksize there is more transaction with constant transactions fees => total level of transaction fees increases.

But with your logic reasoning, the plebs can use Bitcoin as well. No, one must limit the block size so in the end only banks can afford to use it. If you like to make cheap transactions, please use one of the many centralized options available.

[BldSwtTrs]

Right now it is not the block size that needs to be increased. It is the tx fees that need to be increased!

If you increase transaction fees you decrease the number of transactions, so you don't increase the total level of transaction fees.

By increasing the blocksize there is more transaction with constant transactions fees => total level of transaction fees increases.

But with your logic reasoning, the plebs can use Bitcoin as well. No, one must limit the block size so in the end only banks can afford to use it. If you like to make cheap transactions, please use one of the many centralized options available.

Not sure if serious.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[bitebits]

Right now it is not the block size that needs to be increased. It is the tx fees that need to be increased!

If you increase transaction fees you decrease the number of transactions, so you don't increase the total level of transaction fees.

By increasing the blocksize there is more transaction with constant transactions fees => total level of transaction fees increases.

But with your logic reasoning, the plebs can use Bitcoin as well. No, one must limit the block size so in the end only banks can afford to use it. If you like to make cheap transactions, please use one of the many centralized options available.

Not sure if serious.

Forgot the /s again, sorry about that. Or did I?

[hdbuck]

Right now it is not the block size that needs to be increased. It is the tx fees that need to be increased!

If you increase transaction fees you decrease the number of transactions, so you don't increase the total level of transaction fees.

By increasing the blocksize there is more transaction with constant transactions fees => total level of transaction fees increases.

But with your logic reasoning, the plebs can use Bitcoin as well. No, one must limit the block size so in the end only banks can afford to use it. If you like to make cheap transactions, please use one of the many centralized options available.

Not sure if serious.

Forgot the /s again, sorry about that. Or did I?

give that champ a nickel!

I am not paid for my forum activity but I welcome anyone who wants to finance me.

[CoinCube]

Why are you calling experts the people who don't see the need to move the blocksize limit, which you agree is needful?

I call bitcoin core experts because they are experts that is not disputable much their competition are experts too. Scaling is a complex topic. There are strong disagreements about what is optimal. No one has made a definitive case but everyone agrees bitcoin needs to scale.

A politically driven contentious hard fork that seems to be much more about who gets to control the future of bitcoin rather then actually about increasing the block size is a known evil. Bitcoin is intrinsically just a computer ledger. It's value comes from the talent of those involved in its ecosystem. The goal is to grow that ecosystem not rip it apart.

OK I was worried that you thought that Core folks are the only experts out there.

Increasing the blocksize is fairly straightforward choice but there is a civil war about that. What will happen with possibly more contentious issues?

We need a governance mechanism for future debates because we can be sure there will be several others. And I prefer a governance mechaism who is bottum up  -hard fork and let the ecosystem choose - than one who is top down and doesn't support competion (extremely fragile position).

We don't rip apart the ecosystem by hard forking, not more than the creation of an altcoin rips apart the ecosystem. Remember when the first alcoin was created there were debates about whether that should be avoided for the good of Bitcoin. The endgame of a hard fork is the same : there will be yet another altcoin. And the network effect of the winning chain will keep sucking every human and capital resources which want to be part of this revolution.

Again this comes back to what makes bitcoin valuable. Bitcoin is valuable because it is a transparent trustless distributed consensus system that allows exchange to occur free from centralized choke points and government debasement of the unit of exchange. A bitcoin is only as valuable as the network of people participating and accepting it as a medium of exchange.

A contentious hard fork is incredibly destructive because it tells the minority that their opinions and interest do not manner. It is a use of force over persuasion. The proper way to fork bitcoin is to build an overwhelmingly large supermajority demonstrate a clear need for the change and then fork as slowly and as possible with a significant lead time to bring as many as possible with you. Every individual who leaves bitcoin or forks off into an alternative is lost value for the ecosystem.

This scaling debate appears to be more about who gets to control future forks and changes then it is about increasing the block size. The answer to that should be simple. Whomever can build true voluntary consensus should prevail and attempts to browbeat the opposition into submission should be opposed.

The Chinese miners with their 90% hash rate support requirement for a hard fork have the right idea. Even with 90% such a fork should be rolled out a slowly as possible with maximum possible outreach to the remaining 10%.

[BldSwtTrs]

Right now it is not the block size that needs to be increased. It is the tx fees that need to be increased!

If you increase transaction fees you decrease the number of transactions, so you don't increase the total level of transaction fees.

By increasing the blocksize there is more transaction with constant transactions fees => total level of transaction fees increases.

But with your logic reasoning, the plebs can use Bitcoin as well. No, one must limit the block size so in the end only banks can afford to use it. If you like to make cheap transactions, please use one of the many centralized options available.

Not sure if serious.

Forgot the /s again, sorry about that. Or did I?

give that champ a nickel!

I am not paid for my forum activity but I welcome anyone who wants to finance me.

Hdbuck you have three choices:
- Give me money
- Answer rationally to my arguments
- shup the fuck up

[BldSwtTrs]

Why are you calling experts the people who don't see the need to move the blocksize limit, which you agree is needful?

I call bitcoin core experts because they are experts that is not disputable much their competition are experts too. Scaling is a complex topic. There are strong disagreements about what is optimal. No one has made a definitive case but everyone agrees bitcoin needs to scale.

A politically driven contentious hard fork that seems to be much more about who gets to control the future of bitcoin rather then actually about increasing the block size is a known evil. Bitcoin is intrinsically just a computer ledger. It's value comes from the talent of those involved in its ecosystem. The goal is to grow that ecosystem not rip it apart.

OK I was worried that you thought that Core folks are the only experts out there.

Increasing the blocksize is fairly straightforward choice but there is a civil war about that. What will happen with possibly more contentious issues?

We need a governance mechanism for future debates because we can be sure there will be several others. And I prefer a governance mechaism who is bottum up  -hard fork and let the ecosystem choose - than one who is top down and doesn't support competion (extremely fragile position).

We don't rip apart the ecosystem by hard forking, not more than the creation of an altcoin rips apart the ecosystem. Remember when the first alcoin was created there were debates about whether that should be avoided for the good of Bitcoin. The endgame of a hard fork is the same : there will be yet another altcoin. And the network effect of the winning chain will keep sucking every human and capital resources which want to be part of this revolution.

Again this comes back to what makes bitcoin valuable. Bitcoin is valuable because it is a transparent trustless distributed consensus system that allows exchange to occur free from centralized choke points and government debasement of the unit of exchange. A bitcoin is only as valuable as the network of people participating and accepting it as a medium of exchange.

A contentious hard fork is incredibly destructive because it tells the minority that their opinions and interest do not manner. It is a use of force over persuasion. The proper way to fork bitcoin is to build an overwhelmingly large supermajority demonstrate a clear need for the change and then fork as slowly and as possible with a significant lead time to bring as many as possible with you. Every individual who leaves bitcoin or forks off into an alternative is lost value for the ecosystem.

This scaling debate appears to be more about who gets to control future forks and changes then it is about increasing the block size. The answer to that should be simple. Whomever can build true voluntary consensus should prevail and attempts to browbeat the opposition into submission should be opposed.

The Chinese miners with their 90% hash rate support requirement for a hard fork have the right idea. Even with 90% such a fork should be rolled out a slowly as possible with maximum possible outreach to the remaining 10%.

So if there is 90% hashrate in favor of Classic and a fork ensues would you be ok with that outcome?

I pretty much agree with what you say*, initially I think the treshold was 75% for Classic but if making it 90% can bring more peace within the community I don't see any problem with that.

*I would add though that future users are as valuable as present users and should be taken into account (miners, by their profit calculations, incorporate so it's good they have the final say).

[CoinCube]

Why are you calling experts the people who don't see the need to move the blocksize limit, which you agree is needful?

I call bitcoin core experts because they are experts that is not disputable much their competition are experts too. Scaling is a complex topic. There are strong disagreements about what is optimal. No one has made a definitive case but everyone agrees bitcoin needs to scale.

A politically driven contentious hard fork that seems to be much more about who gets to control the future of bitcoin rather then actually about increasing the block size is a known evil. Bitcoin is intrinsically just a computer ledger. It's value comes from the talent of those involved in its ecosystem. The goal is to grow that ecosystem not rip it apart.

OK I was worried that you thought that Core folks are the only experts out there.

Increasing the blocksize is fairly straightforward choice but there is a civil war about that. What will happen with possibly more contentious issues?

We need a governance mechanism for future debates because we can be sure there will be several others. And I prefer a governance mechaism who is bottum up  -hard fork and let the ecosystem choose - than one who is top down and doesn't support competion (extremely fragile position).

We don't rip apart the ecosystem by hard forking, not more than the creation of an altcoin rips apart the ecosystem. Remember when the first alcoin was created there were debates about whether that should be avoided for the good of Bitcoin. The endgame of a hard fork is the same : there will be yet another altcoin. And the network effect of the winning chain will keep sucking every human and capital resources which want to be part of this revolution.

Again this comes back to what makes bitcoin valuable. Bitcoin is valuable because it is a transparent trustless distributed consensus system that allows exchange to occur free from centralized choke points and government debasement of the unit of exchange. A bitcoin is only as valuable as the network of people participating and accepting it as a medium of exchange.

A contentious hard fork is incredibly destructive because it tells the minority that their opinions and interest do not manner. It is a use of force over persuasion. The proper way to fork bitcoin is to build an overwhelmingly large supermajority demonstrate a clear need for the change and then fork as slowly and as possible with a significant lead time to bring as many as possible with you. Every individual who leaves bitcoin or forks off into an alternative is lost value for the ecosystem.

This scaling debate appears to be more about who gets to control future forks and changes then it is about increasing the block size. The answer to that should be simple. Whomever can build true voluntary consensus should prevail and attempts to browbeat the opposition into submission should be opposed.

The Chinese miners with their 90% hash rate support requirement for a hard fork have the right idea. Even with 90% such a fork should be rolled out a slowly as possible with maximum possible outreach to the remaining 10%.

So if there is 90% hashrate in favor of Classic and a fork ensues would be be ok with that outcome?

I pretty much agree with what you say*, initially I think the treshold was 75% Classic but if making it 90% can bring more peace I don't see any problem with that.

*I would add that future users are as valuable as present users and should be take into account (miners, by their profit calculations, incorporate so it's good they have the final say).

Yes provided such a change was set to occur with a significant lead time at least 3-6 months to allow the minority ample opportunity to make their case against the fork and if in the meantime support drops below 90% then no dice. 

In my opinion any lower threshold does more harm then good.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

With 1MB blocks Danny Hamilton estimates fees could reach as high as $100 a transaction.

Schweeet. The rest of Planet Earth will be beating down the blockchain's doors for the honour of one transaction. I can see them being given as wedding presents or instead of a dowry.

Proclaim your love for her on the Blockchain. If you really love her?

New grounds for divorce? "Transaction Malleability, your honour!"

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

With 1MB blocks Danny Hamilton estimates fees could reach as high as $100 a transaction.

Schweeet. The rest of Planet Earth will be beating down the blockchain's doors for the honour of one transaction. I can see them being given as wedding presents or instead of a dowry.

Proclaim your love for her on the Blockchain. If you really love her?

New grounds for divorce? "Transaction Malleability, your honour!"

Not in Japan it isn't.

[Fatman3001]

...
Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever.
...

Depends on what you mean by "for free" :- There's Google...

you pay google by advertisement

maybe we can put some advertisements on every TXs 

"sponsored by Coca-Cola"

Google didn't start out by charging for searches, email, etc. Had zero ad revenues because zero ads.
I guess Google should have started out by charging for its services, would have been a multi-gazillion-dollar co. by now.

Part of why Google is so popular is because it did absolutely zero ads during their first startup, and this lead to everyone using it to recommend Google over other search engines, as there were barely any ads. And it's pretty much the same way now. The ads are very non-intrusive, and this is what is making them so much money.

I think Google migght only be the size of Bing or Yahoo if they started with ads, and there would most likely also be a more distributed market share.

The main part tho was that Googles searches were much better than AskJeeves and Altavista. Their search algo was far superior. People found what they were looking for.

[peonminer]

BTCitcoin Core, you ask?

[mOgliE]

BTCitcoin Core, you ask?

Lol, I just hope it won't be so rough, that's nearly rape here xD

[Omikifuse]

BTCitcoin Core, you ask?

I see no big fall, sir

[mymenace]

With a large amount of financial institutions running blockchains or now implementing them, does this not prove the bitcoin blockchain is a success.

the only reason to implement a technology your competitor invented is because it works