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

[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.

[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.

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.

It's a stalling roadmap and it was created by people who's skill set is programming and cryptography, not business and economics. 

[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.

It's a stalling roadmap and it was created by people who's skill set is programming and cryptography, not business and economics.  

Stalling roadmap? Stalling of what? block size increase? Ofcourse it is and thats good. Block size should only be increased when needed. We should try and 'stall' for as long as possible. It trades off decentralisation.

Block size should only be increased when needed.

There has been some incompetent economics coming out of Peter R and the classic camp. G Maxwell seems to have a much better understanding of economics.

Actually when it comes to economic understanding and crypto, I consider Nick Szabo as a thought leader. He is ofcourse very much against classic coup.

[DieJohnny]

The facts:

1. Bitcoin would NOT have failed if Satoshi had chosen a 2MB limit rather than 1MB, to say otherwise exposes you for the complete idiot you would be. Therefore, any FUD about 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda.
2. Adding 2MB now means nothing as far as the technology, network and platform is concerned.., refusing to do so is simply because you do not want to establish a precedent that you can increase the block size to address scalability issues. Why? because the necessity of a sidechain solution for scaling moves further down the road.

There is nothing else to talk about.

[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.

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.

It's a stalling roadmap and it was created by people who's skill set is programming and cryptography, not business and economics.  

Stalling roadmap? Stalling of what? block size increase? Ofcourse it is and thats good. Block size should only be increased when needed. We should try and 'stall' for as long as possible. It trades off decentralisation.

Block size should only be increased when needed.

There has been some incompetent economics coming out of Peter R and the classic camp. G Maxwell seems to have a much better understanding of economics.

Actually when it comes to economic understanding and crypto, I consider Nick Szabo as a thought leader. He is ofcourse very much against classic coup.

The maxblocksize limit of 1MB was designed as an anti-spam tool, not an anti-decentralization tool.  Larger capacity is needed and it's needed now if we want to have transactions processed in a reliably timely manner for a predictable price, which any sane network administrator should want.  No, you smallblockers want to change the economics of Bitcoin. It's you who want to change the "cythpherpunk" ethos by routing small transactions off the main chain and taking the fees with them, which will take money out of the hands of miners and make Bitcoin less secure. You want to break bitcoin so Blockstream can collect service fees for getting around the limit.  Lightning network doesn't even have a proposed method for decentralizing the routing of LN transactions, which means it may even make them MORE centralized.

Who are you to claim the right to decide when more capacity is needed?  No minority should have that power.  What the fuck kind of elitist ethos is that?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[danielW]

The facts:

1. Bitcoin would NOT have failed if Satoshi had chosen a 2MB limit rather than 1MB, to say otherwise exposes you for the complete idiot you would be. Therefore, any FUD about 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda.
2. Adding 2MB now means nothing as far as the technology, network and platform is concerned.., refusing to do so is simply because you do not want to establish a precedent that you can increase the block size to address scalability issues. Why? because the necessity of a sidechain solution for scaling moves further down the road.

There is nothing else to talk about.

Facts:

1. Bitcoin functions perfectly with current limit. There is no urgent issue that is not FUD. It is a wholly manufactured non-existant FUD crisis. To say network is clogging,  is FUD propaganda.  I can send bitcoins all the time with no problems.

2. The crash landing FUD propaganda predicted by Mike Hearn has not happened, despite FUD being spread months back that by December (or latest Jan) the network would break down.

3. There is No reason to increase the block size limit now. To say otherwise exposes you for the complete ... Therefore, any FUD about need to increase to 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda