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

[ImI]

Just few months ago core got more then 95% consensus for their soft fork. So you are factually wrong to say Bitcoin never moves ahead if 95% is required.
It is moving and improving rapidly all the time.

it doesnt matter if you had an uncontroversial soft fork that was accepted by 95%. when it comes to crucial and controversial decisions and not just minor changes you will see that 95% means factual gridlock as 5% can be easily mobilized. bitcoin will face even harder decisions than this blocksize issue at the moment, with maybe even harder controversies.

and in THAT situations of controversial but neccessary decisions 95% are deadly, as you may eventually wait forever for the community to unite behind one proposal and the project falls behind because its not able to adapt to new challenges.

you see, the blocksize isnt such a crucial issue at the moment imo, but if bitcoin wont be able to handle it in a timely matter its a bad sign for future hurdles to come which may be way more important.

sounds like you want a bitcoin "Progressive" edition ... and like the political party of the same name inevitably fall into the inflation trap ... "for the children".

lol what are you talking about

its pretty easy, if you let 5% of the community block whatever decision the 95% majority has choosen your project (whatever it is) will end up fucked up. no matter if its a company, a football-club or a cryptocurrency. its called tyranny of the few.

you can obv discuss if 75% is enough or not, but its ridiculous to expect a community to always go ahead with a 100% consensus.

[ImI]

I wonder what the price would collapse to in the event of an actual controversial hard fork. I mean like 75% controversial.

Not that this is an argument either way. Censorship-resistant money ain't cheap. And I'm prepared to make sacrifices. But the exodus would be epic.

interesting times indeed. if core is smart they will immediately declare to also support 2MB and classic is dead in a matter of weeks. but unfortunately several core devs act immature like 16o scriptkiddies and will most likely switch the hashalgo and leave the table.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I wonder what the price would collapse to in the event of an actual controversial hard fork. I mean like 75% controversial.

Not that this is an argument either way. Censorship-resistant money ain't cheap. And I'm prepared to make sacrifices. But the exodus would be epic.

interesting times indeed. if core is smart they will immediately declare to also support 2MB and classic is dead in a matter of weeks. but unfortunately several core devs act immature like 16o scriptkiddies and will most likely switch the hashalgo and leave the table.

[danielW]

Just few months ago core got more then 95% consensus for their soft fork. So you are factually wrong to say Bitcoin never moves ahead if 95% is required.
It is moving and improving rapidly all the time.

it doesnt matter if you had an uncontroversial soft fork that was accepted by 95%. when it comes to crucial and controversial decisions and not just minor changes you will see that 95% means factual gridlock as 5% can be easily mobilized. bitcoin will face even harder decisions than this blocksize issue at the moment, with maybe even harder controversies.

and in THAT situations of controversial but neccessary decisions 95% are deadly, as you may eventually wait forever for the community to unite behind one proposal and the project falls behind because its not able to adapt to new challenges.

you see, the blocksize isnt such a crucial issue at the moment imo, but if bitcoin wont be able to handle it in a timely matter its a bad sign for future hurdles to come which may be way more important.

sounds like you want a bitcoin "Progressive" edition ... and like the political party of the same name inevitably fall into the inflation trap ... "for the children".

lol what are you talking about

its pretty easy, if you let 5% of the community block whatever decision the 95% majority has choosen your project (whatever it is) will end up fucked up. no matter if its a company, a football-club or a cryptocurrency. its called tyranny of the few.

you can obv discuss if 75% is enough or not, but its ridiculous to expect a community to always go ahead with a 100% consensus.

If somebody is not happy with bitcoin they are free to create altcoin and make great profit. Bitcoin only changes through consensus, thats one of its fundamental features and protections that give it value.

One day some people will be trying to push a change you dont like and you will be happy that your bitcoins are safe.

You get what you  invest in and that does not change without consensus, nothing more is promised,.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Just few months ago core got more then 95% consensus for their soft fork. So you are factually wrong to say Bitcoin never moves ahead if 95% is required.
It is moving and improving rapidly all the time.

it doesnt matter if you had an uncontroversial soft fork that was accepted by 95%. when it comes to crucial and controversial decisions and not just minor changes you will see that 95% means factual gridlock as 5% can be easily mobilized. bitcoin will face even harder decisions than this blocksize issue at the moment, with maybe even harder controversies.

and in THAT situations of controversial but neccessary decisions 95% are deadly, as you may eventually wait forever for the community to unite behind one proposal and the project falls behind because its not able to adapt to new challenges.

you see, the blocksize isnt such a crucial issue at the moment imo, but if bitcoin wont be able to handle it in a timely matter its a bad sign for future hurdles to come which may be way more important.

sounds like you want a bitcoin "Progressive" edition ... and like the political party of the same name inevitably fall into the inflation trap ... "for the children".

lol what are you talking about

its pretty easy, if you let 5% of the community block whatever decision the 95% majority has choosen your project (whatever it is) will end up fucked up. no matter if its a company, a football-club or a cryptocurrency. its called tyranny of the few.

you can obv discuss if 75% is enough or not, but its ridiculous to expect a community to always go ahead with a 100% consensus.

yeah because the majority are always right ... it is exactly why democracies are so fucked up, after the useful idiots become no longer useful, they are just idiots then. You invite endless politics into bitcoin like it is no big deal, what planet are you on? Technical issues are very rarely political, you are either right or wrong. Once bitcoin rules have been set in stone they will need very few controversial changes, if any. The remaining one is an algorithmic expansion of blocksize that will maintain security for the life of the project, and then we are done.

Gavin was useful, now he is just behaving like a butt-hurt idiot.

[Fatman3001]

Why is it that core supporters end up having a complete tard-out?

Am I being manipulated to support alternative implementations through the fake unpleasantness of supposed Core supporters?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Why is it that core supporters end up having a complete tard-out?

Am I being manipulated to support alternative implementations through the fake unpleasantness of supposed Core supporters?

What if they're not wrong, they're just assholes. I've been worried about it for weeks.

[jbreher]

Meant to not change without how much consensus?

Edit: Some of it? All of it?

More then 75% of hash power and a few big name exchanges, thats for sure.

Well, no. If any more than 50% of the hash power decides to change Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will change. It is a certainty.

It may be painful as the longest chain waffles back and forth between the changed and the unchanged, but eventually, the chain built as per rules agreed to by the majority hash power will dominate. This potential to waffle is why the threshold for activating the new rules is put at a supermajority level - say... 75%.

[jbreher]

Just few months ago core got more then 95% consensus for their soft fork.

ha. hahah. HahaHa. HAHAHAHAHa!

As measured how?

[billyjoeallen]

Starting to look very double toppy.

Called it. Again.

maybe I should start charging for my insightful analysis.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Why is it that core supporters end up having a complete tard-out?

Am I being manipulated to support alternative implementations through the fake unpleasantness of supposed Core supporters?

What if they're not wrong, they're just assholes. I've been worried about it for weeks.

Worried that you've become an asshole core supporter or just that you're simply an asshole?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Meant to not change without how much consensus?

Edit: Some of it? All of it?

More then 75% of hash power and a few big name exchanges, thats for sure.

Well, no. If any more than 50% of the hash power decides to change Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will change. It is a certainty.

It may be painful as the longest chain waffles back and forth between the changed and the unchanged, but eventually, the chain built as per rules agreed to by the majority hash power will dominate. This potential to waffle is why the threshold for activating the new rules is put at a supermajority level - say... 75%.

Is this what's referred to as the Nakamoto consensus? It seems like the sort of thing that could hurt a lot of digital wallets.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Why is it that core supporters end up having a complete tard-out?

Am I being manipulated to support alternative implementations through the fake unpleasantness of supposed Core supporters?

What if they're not wrong, they're just assholes. I've been worried about it for weeks.

Worried that you've become an asshole core supporter or just that you're simply an asshole?

 

[European Central Bank]

Why is it that core supporters end up having a complete tard-out?

Am I being manipulated to support alternative implementations through the fake unpleasantness of supposed Core supporters?

Do you have any idea how frustrating it must be to deal with inferior beings all the time? Don't question. Hash.

[ImI]

yeah because the majority are always right ...

no, but what better way of deciding things you have? let a small group of people rule over the others? and who decides then which persons are allowed in this group?

it is exactly why democracies are so fucked up

fucked up? hmm, which better way of government you propose? all hail the leader? chinese corruption of the big and only allowed political party? you see, democracy is not perfect, but to wait for your little dictator to rule over you is not something to look out for.

Technical issues are very rarely political, you are either right or wrong.

lol! are you fucking kidding?! technical decisions are very rarely purely "right or wrong" often it IS indeed political, because longterm views, goals and risk assessment come into play. 

Once bitcoin rules have been set in stone they will need very few controversial changes, if any.

thats a nice view but its illusionary imo. as bitcoin grows other issues will occur and they will also need to be solved. other competitiors will come and eventuelly force bitcoin to change in one or another way.
you see one of its strengths is its ability to adapt if Bitcoin fails to adapt it will most likely fail as a project. not near or midterm but longterm.

[jbreher]

Well, no. If any more than 50% of the hash power decides to change Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will change. It is a certainty.

It may be painful as the longest chain waffles back and forth between the changed and the unchanged, but eventually, the chain built as per rules agreed to by the majority hash power will dominate. This potential to waffle is why the threshold for activating the new rules is put at a supermajority level - say... 75%.

Is this what's referred to as the Nakamoto consensus?

Maybe. Dunno. I refer to it as 'simple arithmetic'.

It seems like the sort of thing that could hurt a lot of digital wallets.

I suppose anyone who resists the change is at risk of losing value, yes.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

Using the 1MB limit to prevent centralization is like mangling your daughter's face to prevent her from being raped. It's an extremely high price to pay and it doesn't even work that well.

[danielW]

Meant to not change without how much consensus?

Edit: Some of it? All of it?

More then 75% of hash power and a few big name exchanges, thats for sure.

Well, no. If any more than 50% of the hash power decides to change Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will change. It is a certainty.

It may be painful as the longest chain waffles back and forth between the changed and the unchanged, but eventually, the chain built as per rules agreed to by the majority hash power will dominate. This potential to waffle is why the threshold for activating the new rules is put at a supermajority level - say... 75%.

No because the chain they mine will be not considered valid by nodes. Nodes and users ultimately decide what bitcoin is.

Mining trigger is used simply because its something that can be measured. Node count can be sybiled.

[danielW]

Using the 1MB limit to prevent centralization is like mangling your daughter's face to prevent her from being raped. It's an extremely high price to pay and it doesn't even work that well.

Its a tradeoff thats not necessary right now. Scaling roadmap is far better plan.

When blocksize increase is needed it will be done.

Gavin backed by coinbase and blockchain alliance are pushing inferior plan to remove the cyptherpunk element of bitcoin development.