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

[smooth]

You know, I cant remember the actual point I switched to google from AltaVista, despite having convinced myself that I never would. Funny, no matter how entrenched we think we are, we are liableto change in a heartbeat. Bitcoin core could learn that lesson.

Altavista started going down that whole "portal" route (as were others). An object lesson in having to watch your step when it comes to monetizing things. I probably would have stuck with Altavista if they hadn't gone that way (though they would have had to have stepped up their search algorithm efforts too)

That is, I suspect, the main reason that google won. Their search algorithm was better, but not that much better. The "portal" concept was shoving a lot of revenue-focused crap in your face that you didn't want or need every time you just wanted to do a search. There were also large differences in load time even on what passed for "high speed" connections at the time. Google was faster and easier.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

57MB in the pool. What did we hit during the epic stress-test of a while ago? Is there a record all time high we should be shooting for?

[Cconvert2G36]

-snip-  
Maybe, those issues are behind Ethereum, but several aspects of ethereum seem to have its own issues in regards to pump and dump sense and various small community centralization like dynamics.

You mean like a single company stonewalling a simple upgrade to tx capacity... directly and negatively affecting its competitiveness against growing alternatives?

Perhaps you should stop insulting your betters like you did to mmitech earlier and start thinking about these issues.

Stop lying and spreading lies. People like you have totally poisoned the debate to take it out of the realm of technical into the personal attacks, smears and political, which of course was your disgusting intention all along.

There is no "single company stonewalling a simple upgrade to tx capacity" that is a blatant lie.

We disagree on this. I connected some dots and have come to the conclusion that Blockstream is highly motivated to limit native throughput and is rightly concerned about a hard fork precedent. You may say they have nothing to do with it... and I would call that a lie.

In terms of "poisonous debate"... I learned that from your friends iCE n' brg. Crucible of internet nerd drama, and all that.

I've watched my favorite thread on this board, the old gold thread, be relegated to the memory hole. I've posted in threads with poisonous titles and motives, simply because a more reasonably titled submission would be zapped to the altcoin section by our dear leader... so please... spare me your concern trolling. I made an attempt at giving the benefit of the doubt all the way through the HK "scaling" conference. When I saw the roadmap™ email become Core doctrine, I saw the reality of the situation.

If lies are all you have left to try and scare some plebes into supporting a coup to a centralised development model then you are delusional and lying to yourself also. Bitcoin Core development has many different parties contributing code, review, analysis, testing and research (NB: decentralised already)... AND they all agree to the way forward. Bigger blocks will come when they are needed, when we have widespread functioning fee selection and replacement s/ware in wallets (in case it is needed and for future-proofing), and the low-risk beneficial algorithmic capacity increases have been implemented .... just not tonight dear (as someone said).

Again the irony of being accused of supporting a coup to a centralized dev model. Multiple development teams competing for miners to run them is my goal, according to satoshi's original consensus mechanism:



You may not like it, but Bitcoin was not designed to have a monolithic set of rules imposed by a centralized dev team, especially one with a concentrated and glaring conflict of interest.

Core's contributors (I'm aware that only a fraction of them[important ones] are tied to BS) are a talented and competent group, and I hope their talents won't be lost if network consensus moves to 2MB max blocks. A petty ragequit is the only thing I can see making that happen. No way a hardfork to 2MB max inherently means Core dies or goes away.

Telling miners, businesses, and users: "Not tonight dear.", when they understand the situation and their options is not a good strategy for Core. Almost as bad a strategy as threatening miner's entire investment with PoW changes.

[CuntChocula]

https://i.imgur.com/WiyXIGa.png

57MB in the pool. What did we hit during the epic stress-test of a while ago? Is there a record all time high we should be shooting for?

Chillax, you'll get your Romanian bath salts soon enough. Haven't you got anything under your sink to tide you over?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

57MB in the pool. What did we hit during the epic stress-test of a while ago? Is there a record all time high we should be shooting for?

Chillax, you'll get your Romanian bath salts soon enough. Haven't you got anything under your sink to tide you over?

Just got that shipment of Witch Weasel in...We should talk.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Analyzing the 2013 Bitcoin fork: centralized decision-making saved the day

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/?utm_content=buffer4f46c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The incident shows the necessity of an effective consensus process for the human actors in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

[AlexGR]

Telling miners, businesses, and users: "Not tonight dear.", when they understand the situation and their options is not a good strategy for Core.

What exactly is the situation?

Cointape.com :

Which fee should I use?

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 30 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 369 bytes, this results in a fee of 11,070 satoshis.


That's 4 cents / 0.04 USD for urgent first block inclusion, despite "full blocks" and 55+ mb of queued transactions. I asked "why" before but I didn't get an answer. Why don't we have "5$ fees" or "100$ fees"? Why is it just 4 cents?

The answer is that the blocks are full with bogus transactions of extremely low fees. The blockchain is being artificially bloated by actors who aren't really intending to pay much or at all, for making payments that they don't really need. Let's send this back and forth 500 times for the lolz, yeah... who cares... as long as it bloats the hell out of this fucker and have the idiots (or moles / propagandists) shout "ohhh fullblockalypse".

[Cconvert2G36]

Analyzing the 2013 Bitcoin fork: centralized decision-making saved the day

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/?utm_content=buffer4f46c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The incident shows the necessity of an effective consensus process for the human actors in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Collaboration between mining pools solved that one. I watched it in real time. Something tells me we will see miners collaborating towards achieving their mutual self interests again...

Quiet Stolfi

[Cconvert2G36]

Telling miners, businesses, and users: "Not tonight dear.", when they understand the situation and their options is not a good strategy for Core.

What exactly is the situation?

Cointape.com :

Which fee should I use?

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 30 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 369 bytes, this results in a fee of 11,070 satoshis.


That's 4 cents / 0.04 USD for urgent first block inclusion, despite "full blocks" and 55+ mb of queued transactions. I asked "why" before but I didn't get an answer. Why don't we have 5$ fees? Why is it just 4 cents?

The answer is that the blocks are full with bogus transactions of extremely low fees. The blockchain is being artificially bloated by actors who aren't really intending to pay much or at all, for making payments that they don't really need. Let's send this back and forth 500 times for the lolz, yeah... who cares... as long as it bloats the hell out of this fucker and have the idiots shout "ohhh fullblockalypse".

Do you wait until a tire explodes on your car before you get some fresher rubber on there? "It got me home just fine today."

Miners can generate a fee market by setting their own spam and dust limits... why do you hate the free market?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Analyzing the 2013 Bitcoin fork: centralized decision-making saved the day

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/?utm_content=buffer4f46c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The incident shows the necessity of an effective consensus process for the human actors in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Collaboration between mining pools solved that one. I watched it in real time. Something tells me we will see miners collaborating towards achieving their mutual self interests again...

Quiet Stolfi

Of course I wasn't here then. But the article suggests it was central planning by developers that saved the day. Isn't it?

[Cconvert2G36]

Analyzing the 2013 Bitcoin fork: centralized decision-making saved the day

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/?utm_content=buffer4f46c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The incident shows the necessity of an effective consensus process for the human actors in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Collaboration between mining pools solved that one. I watched it in real time. Something tells me we will see miners collaborating towards achieving their mutual self interests again...

Quiet Stolfi

Of course I wasn't here then. But the article suggests it was central planning by developers that saved the day. Isn't it?

Simplified: It was gavin saying roll back to the old version... miners agreed and did it. He gave them some of the faucet coins for their orphaned blocks (probably unnecessary, but generous).

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Analyzing the 2013 Bitcoin fork: centralized decision-making saved the day

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/?utm_content=buffer4f46c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The incident shows the necessity of an effective consensus process for the human actors in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Collaboration between mining pools solved that one. I watched it in real time. Something tells me we will see miners collaborating towards achieving their mutual self interests again...

Quiet Stolfi

Of course I wasn't here then. But the article suggests it was central planning by developers that saved the day. Isn't it?

Simplified: It was gavin saying roll back to the old version... miners agreed and did it. He gave them some of the faucet coins for their orphaned blocks (probably unnecessary, but generous).

Like how the miners just agreed and are doing it again?

In this meeting we have produced a plan: Once blocks are full, and at that time, * if Core has not yet upgraded to 2MB, * and if Classic is not enough widely supported, * we will do what Satoshi has pointed out https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366 We will modify the code patch to alter cap from 1MB to 2MB to solve the pressing problem. This means, as we think, has a big potential to reach consensus, and urge Core to accommodate.

[AlexGR]

Telling miners, businesses, and users: "Not tonight dear.", when they understand the situation and their options is not a good strategy for Core.

What exactly is the situation?

Cointape.com :

Which fee should I use?

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 30 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 369 bytes, this results in a fee of 11,070 satoshis.


That's 4 cents / 0.04 USD for urgent first block inclusion, despite "full blocks" and 55+ mb of queued transactions. I asked "why" before but I didn't get an answer. Why don't we have 5$ fees? Why is it just 4 cents?

The answer is that the blocks are full with bogus transactions of extremely low fees. The blockchain is being artificially bloated by actors who aren't really intending to pay much or at all, for making payments that they don't really need. Let's send this back and forth 500 times for the lolz, yeah... who cares... as long as it bloats the hell out of this fucker and have the idiots shout "ohhh fullblockalypse".

Do you wait until a tire explodes on your car before you get some fresher rubber on there? "It got me home just fine today."

The analogy is wrong in the sense that you position the tire explosion in the future.

If we say that the blocks are full, the tx queue is growing etc, etc, then the tire exploded. It's not an "if", right? We hit the limit. What worse can we have?

Yet, the "disaster" we are facing are 3-4cents txs. Why? Because most of the txs in the queue are spam and dust.

Miners should not even process anything under 10 cents fees. Fuck the spammers.

[Cconvert2G36]

Like how the miners just agreed and are doing it again?

Possibly, we won't know until they start mining trigger blocks. It's also possible that this is all posturing and we will just hang out until 2017 and we'll see some segwit tx's trickle in later this year.

[Cconvert2G36]

Telling miners, businesses, and users: "Not tonight dear.", when they understand the situation and their options is not a good strategy for Core.

What exactly is the situation?

Cointape.com :

Which fee should I use?

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 30 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 369 bytes, this results in a fee of 11,070 satoshis.


That's 4 cents / 0.04 USD for urgent first block inclusion, despite "full blocks" and 55+ mb of queued transactions. I asked "why" before but I didn't get an answer. Why don't we have 5$ fees? Why is it just 4 cents?

The answer is that the blocks are full with bogus transactions of extremely low fees. The blockchain is being artificially bloated by actors who aren't really intending to pay much or at all, for making payments that they don't really need. Let's send this back and forth 500 times for the lolz, yeah... who cares... as long as it bloats the hell out of this fucker and have the idiots shout "ohhh fullblockalypse".

Do you wait until a tire explodes on your car before you get some fresher rubber on there? "It got me home just fine today."

The analogy is wrong in the sense that you position the tire explosion in the future.

If we say that the blocks are full, the tx queue is growing etc, etc, then the tire exploded. It's not an "if", right? We hit the limit. What worse can we have?

Yet, the "disaster" we are facing are 3-4cents txs. Why? Because most of the txs in the queue are spam and dust.

Miners should not even process anything under 10 cents fees. Fuck the spammers.

That's never been my position, and I admit it's a bad analogy. It is a slow bleed away of the utility of the network, allowing competing networks to gain a foothold, while miners get 25 btc per block. An artificial competitive disadvantage. There will be no fireworks, just a slow erosion of dominance, at a crucial time period in the network's fight to gain share.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Analyzing the 2013 Bitcoin fork: centralized decision-making saved the day

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/?utm_content=buffer4f46c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The incident shows the necessity of an effective consensus process for the human actors in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Collaboration between mining pools solved that one. I watched it in real time. Something tells me we will see miners collaborating towards achieving their mutual self interests again...

Quiet Stolfi

Of course I wasn't here then. But the article suggests it was central planning by developers that saved the day. Isn't it?

Simplified: It was gavin saying roll back to the old version... miners agreed and did it. He gave them some of the faucet coins for their orphaned blocks (probably unnecessary, but generous).

Wrong or you intentionally lie again to rewrite history. Gavin fucked up big time then (and has done at other times).

Gavin said "the longest chain wins" which at the time was the new version 0.8 leveldb with Mike Hearn's 'bug' that would have allowed for >1MByte blocks. ( I was in IRC at the time).

Luke-Jr realised how messed up that would become and coordinated quickly with mining pools (slush in particular had to be woken up) to get the pools on the 0.8 code to roll-back onto a 0.7 version or a 0.8 version that had db fixes in it.

Interestingly that incident whereby a highly suspicious block exploited an obscure unknown behaviour in Berkeley DB to sneak in a 'bad' block (it had many transactions that triggered the database lock limit but not the blocksize limit) which Mike Hearn wrote the code for, Gavin committed to the repo would have set a precedent for developers forking off the miners over a blocksize technicality. Sound familiar? ... these guys have been at this for years.

[Cconvert2G36]

Analyzing the 2013 Bitcoin fork: centralized decision-making saved the day

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/?utm_content=buffer4f46c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The incident shows the necessity of an effective consensus process for the human actors in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Collaboration between mining pools solved that one. I watched it in real time. Something tells me we will see miners collaborating towards achieving their mutual self interests again...

Quiet Stolfi

Of course I wasn't here then. But the article suggests it was central planning by developers that saved the day. Isn't it?

Simplified: It was gavin saying roll back to the old version... miners agreed and did it. He gave them some of the faucet coins for their orphaned blocks (probably unnecessary, but generous).

Wrong or you intentionally lie again to rewrite history. Gavin fucked up big time then (and has done at other times).

Gavin said "the longest chain wins" which at the time was the new version 0.8 leveldb with Mike Hearn's 'bug' that would have allowed for >1MByte blocks. ( I was in IRC at the time).

Luke-Jr realised how messed up that would become and coordinated quickly with mining pools (slush in particular had to be woken up) to get the pools on the 0.8 code to roll-back onto a 0.7 version or a 0.8 version that had db fixes in it.

Interestingly that incident whereby a highly suspicious block exploited an obscure unknown behaviour in Berkeley DB to sneak in a 'bad' block (it had many transactions that triggered the database lock limit but not the blocksize limit) which Mike Hearn wrote the code for, Gavin committed to the repo would have set a precedent for developers forking off the miners over a blocksize technicality. Sound familiar? ... these guys have been at this for years.

Fair enough, I wasn't in IRC for that, and I must have gotten the wrong impression from reading forum posts.

But you are saying that it was an intentional sabotage by Gavin and Hearn? Why weren't they thrown out and ostracized after it happened?

Edit: I noticed you danced over everything else I replied to you, feel free to include that response in your response to this.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation