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

[julian071]

Does anyone know when this fork thing is going down? I need my cheap coinz.

[yefi]

Did you notice the huge spike down to the 2550s CNY on btcchina earlier today?

Let me grab my magnifying glass...

[iCEBREAKER]

Fired up a new node with Bitcoin Classic.

[blah blah blah]

Altcoin discussion is off-topic here.

Do you want me to bore you with the details of how my dCred test node is doing?

Or how great the latest Monero release is at minimizing RAM use to ~100MB?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Fired up a new node with Bitcoin Classic.

Only 7 years and 4 weeks behind.

Do you really want this fork to find 75% of the hash, Fatty? I'm still torn.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

Starting to look very double toppy.

[Fatman3001]

Fired up a new node with Bitcoin Classic.

Only 7 years and 4 weeks behind.

Do you really want this fork to find 75% of the hash, Fatty? I'm still torn.

It's just a node, it's not hashing.

I definitely am having trouble agreeing with the way Core is letting a small group of nutters set the tone and direction of their development. I've seen this before. Nobody thinks the rest will let the more shouty ones ruin the project, but none of the others have the nuts/labias to draw the line. They will keep compromizing and rationalizing until we have 0.5MB JeebusCoin. Maybe with HSBC or JPMorgan or similar running LN. It's an interesting model, but in order to maintain a fairly secure mining network the fees would have to be insane on the main blochchain. The problem then is: what will happen to the social capital? If the regular users are pushed off the main chain why would they run nodes to support what in essence is a distributed banking network? So financial actors would have to run the nodes. Is it decentralized then? What was the point of the block size limit then? Suddenly we are to imagine that the large financial actors want gimp-coin? It all kind of falls apart.

I don't think Gmaxwell or Luke-Jr are necessarily aiming for this. They seem to have an estethical idea of how the network technically should work. That can be a good thing in many cases, but it can also lead them astray.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Satoshi never used IRC, and he rarely explained his motivations for anything. In this case, he kept the change secret and told people who discovered it to keep it quiet until it was over with so that controversy or attackers wouldn’t cause havok with the ongoing rule change…

….I think that he was just trying to solve an obvious denial-of-service attack vector. He wasn’t thinking about the future of the network very much except to acknowledge that the limit could be raised if necessary. The network clearly couldn’t support larger blocks at that time, and nowadays we know that the software wasn’t even capable of handling 1 MB blocks properly. Satoshi once told me, “I think most P2P networks, and websites for that matter, are vulnerable to an endless number of DoS attacks. The best we can realistically do is limit the worst cases.” I think he viewed the 1 MB limit as just blocking yet another serious DoS attack….

…Satoshi is gone now, so it’ll be “the developers” who set the larger limit. But it has been determined by the majority of the Bitcoin Core developers (and the majority of Bitcoin experts in general) that the network cannot actually safely handle significantly larger blocks, so it won’t be done right now. And the economy has the final say, of course, not the developers.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Satoshi never used IRC, and he rarely explained his motivations for anything. In this case, he kept the change secret and told people who discovered it to keep it quiet until it was over with so that controversy or attackers wouldn’t cause havok with the ongoing rule change…

….I think that he was just trying to solve an obvious denial-of-service attack vector. He wasn’t thinking about the future of the network very much except to acknowledge that the limit could be raised if necessary. The network clearly couldn’t support larger blocks at that time, and nowadays we know that the software wasn’t even capable of handling 1 MB blocks properly. Satoshi once told me, “I think most P2P networks, and websites for that matter, are vulnerable to an endless number of DoS attacks. The best we can realistically do is limit the worst cases.” I think he viewed the 1 MB limit as just blocking yet another serious DoS attack….

…Satoshi is gone now, so it’ll be “the developers” who set the larger limit. But it has been determined by the majority of the Bitcoin Core developers (and the majority of Bitcoin experts in general) that the network cannot actually safely handle significantly larger blocks, so it won’t be done right now. And the economy has the final say, of course, not the developers.

Its a moot point really. We dont need bitcoins anyway...

You don't need to hold Bitcoins to use Bitcoin's blockchain; you only must spend enough to use the blockchain as an immutable ledger (ie, it's tech for hire).

[tomothy]

Fired up a new node with Bitcoin Classic.

Only 7 years and 4 weeks behind.

Do you really want this fork to find 75% of the hash, Fatty? I'm still torn.

It's just a node, it's not hashing.

I don't think Gmaxwell or Luke-Jr are necessarily aiming for this. They seem to have an estethical idea of how the network technically should work. That can be a good thing in many cases, but it can also lead them astray.

Also launching a node, it takes so long to sync... I think they are purposefully limiting bitcoin with smaller blocks to show their control. I dont believe Maxwell, LukeJr, or Ptodd's lies anymore. I'd rather a known three letter agency operating bitcoin then let those three continue to destroy it. At least with gavnista and tor blacklisting, these were known entities, scaling is supported, and the network would still work. After reading gmaxwells explanation (if you can even call it that) of decentralization in relation to LN I can't see how SegWit & LN are not unlike a 1920's cheap parlor trick or magician sleight of hand trick. I for one welcome the 75% fork... Let's see them change POW to prevent asics from ruining their coin.

(Sorry, but that argument is crazy. Prevent decentralization by breaking asics so you have to gpu mine. He who has the most cash still rules with that regard, it changes nothing.)

Mining becomes centralized regardless based on equipment & utility costs when hashpower is used to secure the network


*See edits for clarity of thoughts.

[craked5]

Fired up a new node with Bitcoin Classic.

Only 7 years and 4 weeks behind.

Do you really want this fork to find 75% of the hash, Fatty? I'm still torn.

It's just a node, it's not hashing.

I don't think Gmaxwell or Luke-Jr are necessarily aiming for this. They seem to have an estethical idea of how the network technically should work. That can be a good thing in many cases, but it can also lead them astray.

Also launching a node, it takes so long to sync... I think they are purposefully limiting bitcoin with smaller blocks to show their control. I dont believe Maxwell, LukeJr, or Ptodd's lies anymore. I'd rather a known three letter agency operating bitcoin then let those three continue to destroy it. At least with gavnista and tor blacklisting, these were known entities, scaling is supported, and the network would still work. After reading gmaxwells explanation (if you can even call it that) of decentralization in relation to LN I can't see how SegWit & LN are like a 1920's cheap parlor trick. I for one welcome the 75% fork... Let's see them change POW to prevent asics from ruining their coin.

(Sorry, but that argument is crazy. Prevent decentralization by breaking asics so you have to gpu mine. He who has the most cash still rules with that regard, it changes nothing.)

Wow, this argument is both really crazy and really scary...

But I don't think btc draws enough attention so some people/industries put so much efforts in the battle.
And in a way, even if you crash the mining process, it's not so important. If you crash the mining, you limit the adoption but you also make it easier for everyone to mine no? So instead of crazy industrial instalation mining, we would have just normal instalation ran by some people. And everyone would mine a bit at home.

Am I wrong?

[dropt]

Also launching a node, it takes so long to sync... I think they are purposefully limiting bitcoin with smaller blocks to show their control. I dont believe Maxwell, LukeJr, or Ptodd's lies anymore. I'd rather a known three letter agency operating bitcoin then let those three continue to destroy it. At least with gavnista and tor blacklisting, these were known entities, scaling is supported, and the network would still work. After reading gmaxwells explanation (if you can even call it that) of decentralization in relation to LN I can't see how SegWit & LN are like a 1920's cheap parlor trick. I for one welcome the 75% fork... Let's see them change POW to prevent asics from ruining their coin.

(Sorry, but that argument is crazy. Prevent decentralization by breaking asics so you have to gpu mine. He who has the most cash still rules with that regard, it changes nothing.)

My Classic node took ~48 hours to fully sync on a 100MB connecion.

Also, if Core switches PoW and goes back to GPU mining, maybe we should take a page out of Luke-Jr's book.  We can create a mining pool called ELIGFUCKCOREIUS^TM and then use all the hashpower to destroy their chain?

[tomothy]

Fired up a new node with Bitcoin Classic.

Only 7 years and 4 weeks behind.

Do you really want this fork to find 75% of the hash, Fatty? I'm still torn.

It's just a node, it's not hashing.

I don't think Gmaxwell or Luke-Jr are necessarily aiming for this. They seem to have an estethical idea of how the network technically should work. That can be a good thing in many cases, but it can also lead them astray.

Also launching a node, it takes so long to sync... I think they are purposefully limiting bitcoin with smaller blocks to show their control. I dont believe Maxwell, LukeJr, or Ptodd's lies anymore. I'd rather a known three letter agency operating bitcoin then let those three continue to destroy it. At least with gavnista and tor blacklisting, these were known entities, scaling is supported, and the network would still work. After reading gmaxwells explanation (if you can even call it that) of decentralization in relation to LN I can't see how SegWit & LN are like a 1920's cheap parlor trick. I for one welcome the 75% fork... Let's see them change POW to prevent asics from ruining their coin.

(Sorry, but that argument is crazy. Prevent decentralization by breaking asics so you have to gpu mine. He who has the most cash still rules with that regard, it changes nothing.)

Wow, this argument is both really crazy and really scary...

But I don't think btc draws enough attention so some people/industries put so much efforts in the battle.
And in a way, even if you crash the mining process, it's not so important. If you crash the mining, you limit the adoption but you also make it easier for everyone to mine no? So instead of crazy industrial instalation mining, we would have just normal instalation ran by some people. And everyone would mine a bit at home.

Am I wrong?

So, switching to a different algorithm supportive of GPUs and not asics, I would assume, would result in a decreased amount of hashpower. Like any new coin starting out, you would begin with decentralized hashing but then as those with money and power buy more equipment it would again become more centralized and mining would migrate to locations with cheap power. Resulting again in a highly centralized mining cartel. Except this time, you would have people maybe a little upset that they had previously invested in mining equipment that was made obsolete. So the question would be if whether the new non-asic coin is more secure than the asic coin.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

https://www.pwc.com/us/en/financial-services/publications/qa-whats-next-for-blockchain.html

We see three trends related to blockchain that we believe will be important in 2016: incumbents focus on protecting their intellectual property as they explore new collaborative opportunities with customers, suppliers, and competitors; large financial institutions will need strategic plans to set parameters for technology risk taking; and market participants will start to develop the processes that surround the transactional layer.

Wat??

[8up]

https://www.pwc.com/us/en/financial-services/publications/qa-whats-next-for-blockchain.html

We see three trends related to blockchain that we believe will be important in 2016: incumbents focus on protecting their intellectual property as they explore new collaborative opportunities with customers, suppliers, and competitors; large financial institutions will need strategic plans to set parameters for technology risk taking; and market participants will start to develop the processes that surround the transactional layer.

Wat??

they are writing about bitcoin and call it 'blockchain' LMAO

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[tomothy]

https://www.pwc.com/us/en/financial-services/publications/qa-whats-next-for-blockchain.html

We see three trends related to blockchain that we believe will be important in 2016: incumbents focus on protecting their intellectual property as they explore new collaborative opportunities with customers, suppliers, and competitors; large financial institutions will need strategic plans to set parameters for technology risk taking; and market participants will start to develop the processes that surround the transactional layer.

Wat??

they are writing about bitcoin and call it 'blockchain' LMAO

I read it and I think they are calling blockchain technology blockchain technology.
They did not mention bitcoin or even allude to bitcoin. IMHO.

[nioc]

Do you really want this fork to find 75% of the hash, Fatty? I'm still torn.

 but none of the others have the nuts/labias to draw the line.

Fatman, I'm glad to see you use the correct anatomical/developmental equivalence.

BMB, because I'm ignorant or an idiot or both, I feel like a donkey between 2 equally spaced piles of hay.

We ain't passing 400 anytime soon.  All I be doing is hodling.  Ain't selling and no money till spring.

[yefi]

Btw, if you already have core, then you can use the same blockchain, no need to download again.

Yeah, I assume you could just replace the core exe/libs with the classic exe/libs, and you'd be good.