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

[gentlemand]

I was hoping for something that didn't involve drugs or gambling.

How's about Ethering the cash to pre fund the removal of some Indian sap's kidney and then they get the rest when it's safely installed in grandma back in the good old US?

[1714027329]

1714027329

[1714027329]

1714027329

[1714027329]

1714027329

[1714027329]

1714027329

[TReano]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlv672jqbtE

Up & Down

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Fatman3001]

I was hoping for something that didn't involve drugs or gambling.

How's about Ethering the cash to pre fund the removal of some Indian sap's kidney and then they get the rest when it's safely installed in grandma back in the good old US?

There are no independent triggers in that arrangement.

[blunderer]

I was hoping for something that didn't involve drugs or gambling.

How's about Ethering the cash to pre fund the removal of some Indian sap's kidney and then they get the rest when it's safely installed in grandma back in the good old US?

>Order decent white kidney
>Pay for decent white kidney
>Get Indian kidney

Lord, why hath thou forsaken me?

[Cconvert2G36]

devs should all agree to 2MB blocks And segwit

that way classic and core can both coexist  and we can 4x capacity

What about the internal governance issues in Classic?

Classic wouldn't exist if there weren't already serious internal governance issues in Core.

Isn't there some resistance to classic by core because there are changes to internal governance?

See above.

So in other words, Core could adopt the 2mb aspect of Classic without changes to internal governance (if it wants to continue to shun classic), no?

That would seem to be a perfectly reasonable course of action and easily secure a future in which Core remains the "reference" implementation. If Core had announced plans after Scaling HK for a 2MB HF followed by a fully tested segwit (with plenty of time for 3rd parties to accommodate it)... we wouldn't be having this debate.

Given all this, one has to wonder if gmax and his clique of wizards are dogmatically putting ego (and stock options?) before Bitcoin.  

[marcus_of_augustus]

devs should all agree to 2MB blocks And segwit

that way classic and core can both coexist  and we can 4x capacity

What about the internal governance issues in Classic?


Isn't there some resistance to classic by core because there are changes to internal governance?


So in other words, Core could adopt the 2mb aspect of Classic without changes to internal governance (if it wants to continue to shun classic), no?

yes, but meanwhile this thing has become a matter of pride and kiddiefight.

the kiddiefight has all been in here and on reddit ... if you followed the actual dev forums it's all quite sanguine, which makes Gavin Hearns and now Jeff's blog outbursts all the more surprising, like intentional "playing to the mob" ... who are they trying to convince, certainly not other devs.

[marcus_of_augustus]

devs should all agree to 2MB blocks And segwit

that way classic and core can both coexist  and we can 4x capacity

What about the internal governance issues in Classic?

Classic wouldn't exist if there weren't already serious internal governance issues in Core.

Isn't there some resistance to classic by core because there are changes to internal governance?

See above.

So in other words, Core could adopt the 2mb aspect of Classic without changes to internal governance (if it wants to continue to shun classic), no?

That would seem to be a perfectly reasonable course of action and easily secure a future in which Core remains the "reference" implementation. If Core had announced plans after Scaling HK for a 2MB HF followed by a fully tested segwit (with plenty of time for 3rd parties to accommodate it)... we wouldn't be having this debate.

Given all this, one has to wonder if gmax and his clique of wizards are dogmatically putting ego (and stock options?) before Bitcoin.  

yeah it's all just a big "governance" issue   ... you're certainly right on with the party spiel of MIT/govt Forde and Gavin ... except it's not, its actually real technical problems that are being solved (not by the likes of you)

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/epicenter-bitcoin-117-eric-lombrozo-upgrading-bitcoin-with-segregated-witness

[JayJuanGee]

devs should all agree to 2MB blocks And segwit

that way classic and core can both coexist  and we can 4x capacity

What about the internal governance issues in Classic?


Isn't there some resistance to classic by core because there are changes to internal governance?


So in other words, Core could adopt the 2mb aspect of Classic without changes to internal governance (if it wants to continue to shun classic), no?

yes, but meanwhile this thing has become a matter of pride and kiddiefight. especially gmax and luke seem very hesitant in doing any compromise. jonas schnelli on the other side already signaled being able to update to 2MB.

At this point, I don't see any need for core supporters to compromise regarding some blanket and/or immediate increase of the blocksize from 1mb to 2MB when it is not needed (that is it is not needed at this point and immediately).
 
Segwit is in the works and is very imminent to being implemented, and even if Segwit does not completely resolve the scaling issue, there seems to be some justification that there will be some need to see and experience how Segwit plays out before implementing any immediate 2mb increase.  Further, such 2mb increase could be implemented on top of seg wit or even possibly implemented on an emergency basis, if such an immediate increase were to be needed, which it is not.

From what I have been reading in some of these various blocksize discussions, a very large majority of persons whether "small blockers" or not, agree that at some time in the fairly near future there will be a need for some kind of increase in the blocksize, which 2mb seems to be fairly reasonable and agreeable amount, even though it does not seem to be necessary at this particular moment and may possibly not be needed for another year or more.

In this regard, even though classic is frequently presented as only addressing the blocksize issue (doubling), it is also conceded to change governance as well.... which seems to have a lot of baggage that it going to cause resistance and stubbornness when attempting to implement that kind of stuff.

[JayJuanGee]

devs should all agree to 2MB blocks And segwit

that way classic and core can both coexist  and we can 4x capacity

What about the internal governance issues in Classic?


Isn't there some resistance to classic by core because there are changes to internal governance?


So in other words, Core could adopt the 2mb aspect of Classic without changes to internal governance (if it wants to continue to shun classic), no?

yes, but meanwhile this thing has become a matter of pride and kiddiefight. especially gmax and luke seem very hesitant in doing any compromise. jonas schnelli on the other side already signaled being able to update to 2MB.

I constantly hear people say anything other than Core is bad news for Blockstream and their investors. 

Yeah, but if you believe that kind of narrowly summarizing of a situation, resistance is not just about "Blockstream and their investors."

Segwit adds all kind of functionality to bitcoin that is nearly unanimously agreed upon to be a good thing.

Some suggest that Segwit is too complicated.. .blah blah blah.. but in the end, the whole of bitcoin is complicated, and the large amount of agreement from technical people in bitcoin really seem to have consensus around the fact that segwit brings way more advantages than it does disadvantages, and overall it is a good thing for the whole ecosphere of bitcoin, whether that ecosphere be supported by blockstream or some other centralized entities.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

the kiddiefight has all been in here and on reddit ... if you followed the actual dev forums it's all quite sanguine, which makes Gavin Hearns and now Jeff's blog outbursts all the more surprising, like intentional "playing to the mob" ... who are they trying to convince, certainly not other devs.

who knew bitcoin was so centralised and authoritarian?  Pesky upstarts like Gav and JGarzik. The cheek.

No wonder you are a.n.g.r.y.

[marcus_of_augustus]

the kiddiefight has all been in here and on reddit ... if you followed the actual dev forums it's all quite sanguine, which makes Gavin Hearns and now Jeff's blog outbursts all the more surprising, like intentional "playing to the mob" ... who are they trying to convince, certainly not other devs.

who knew bitcoin was so centralised and authoritarian?  Pesky upstarts like Gav and JGarzik. The cheek.

not upstarts, just has-beens trying to free-ride on past glories using politics instead of producing da code .... meritocracies are hard for shirkers and has-beens

[cbeast]

Bitcoin is too inflexible for what Ethereum is trying to do and vice versa. With Bitcoin Ethereum has a safe and reliable store of value which it can integrate into its systems. With Ethereum Bitcoin has a platform uniquely suited to expand its potential. It's a win-win situation.

When and how did Ethereum solve the two-way-peg-problem that is required for it to "use Bitcoin as a reliable store of value which it can integrate" ?

Ethereum will not work like a sidechain. Distributed apps running on ethereum will run Bitcoin wallets and operate them through smart contracts.... I think.

So you're saying that it's possible to move bitcoins back and forth from the Bitcoin blockchain using an outside D App without Bitcoin being aware of it and without a trusted third party ? Interesting.

(I am pretty sure that it's not possible)

No, that's not what I'm saying. The bitcoins stay on the Bitcoin blockchain. It's no different from me or you or Circle's system using Bitcoins. Except it's an Dapp doing it.

Ok but who holds the private keys ?

Me ?
You ?
The Dapp maintener ?

The Dapp. Who controls the Dapp depends on the program. If you run the program, control the program and fill its wallet, then you control the wallet. You can also set it to be completely autonomous, which would be handy if you want to run a smart contract with triggers involving other people.

I still don't understand.
I think I will have to wait for a real dapp to implement it to see if it works.

I've seen some examples, but I think most of its use cases haven't been thought of yet.

Here's an interesting presentation from IBM and Samsung where they use Ethereum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1XOPIqyP7A

Here's a decent example from the new Princeton textbook.

Suppose Alice wants to challenge Bob to game of chess with money on-line. Alice will write an Ethereum program that implemements the rules of chess and upload it to Ethereum. She'll send the contract a quantity of Ether equal to the amount she wants to bet. Bob can see this, and if he decides to accept, he can start the game by sending his own stake of betting Ethers to the contract. The contract will then pay the winner.

There's not always a winner. Let's see independent "contracts" play each other.

[JayJuanGee]

devs should all agree to 2MB blocks And segwit

that way classic and core can both coexist  and we can 4x capacity

What about the internal governance issues in Classic?

Classic wouldn't exist if there weren't already serious internal governance issues in Core.

Isn't there some resistance to classic by core because there are changes to internal governance?

See above.

So in other words, Core could adopt the 2mb aspect of Classic without changes to internal governance (if it wants to continue to shun classic), no?

That would seem to be a perfectly reasonable course of action and easily secure a future in which Core remains the "reference" implementation. If Core had announced plans after Scaling HK for a 2MB HF followed by a fully tested segwit (with plenty of time for 3rd parties to accommodate it)... we wouldn't be having this debate.

Given all this, one has to wonder if gmax and his clique of wizards are dogmatically putting ego (and stock options?) before Bitcoin.  

In reference to the part that I bolded above, I understand that some people feel more comfortable with some foundational and non-human deterministic plan; however, you are really not going to take the human out of bitcoin completely because there are humans involved and none of us should really want to remove all human from this process.


Regarding hard fork, why?      From my understanding Seg wit seems to be contemplated as a softfork, and why also wouldn't it be desireable to softfork a 2mb increase in the blocksize?

When there are threats of hard forks from either side, it really seems to be leveraging proposition that no side (that truly cares about bitcoin) really wants to attempt to carry out, unless they are really convinced that it is not going to break bitcoin and that it has a very large supermajority of support. 

In that regard, if there are any statements from various core leaders that the plan is to implement seg wit first, and then at that point be willing to consider whether and/or when an actual physical increase would be another good next step.  I don't really see why they would need to commit beyond saying that they will consider the physical size increase after the first priority of implementing seg wit.

Let's say for example seg wit does not accomplish enough or on the other hand, seg wit accomplishes much more than originally theorized, then the scope and content of the conversation would be different in each of those scenarios - and why tie your hands by pre-deciding when such pre-deciding does not seem to be necessary.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

the kiddiefight has all been in here and on reddit ... if you followed the actual dev forums it's all quite sanguine, which makes Gavin Hearns and now Jeff's blog outbursts all the more surprising, like intentional "playing to the mob" ... who are they trying to convince, certainly not other devs.

who knew bitcoin was so centralised and authoritarian?  Pesky upstarts like Gav and JGarzik. The cheek.

not upstarts, just has-beens trying to free-ride on past glories using politics instead of producing da code .... meritocracies are hard for shirkers and has-beens

meritocracy my arse.  Corporate sell outs running core now. Wait for LN - with USG-TOR coin adaptor from former USG devs (roasbeef) and...

Ha! No, sorry, I just cant do your shit. Its too hilarious.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Bitcoin is too inflexible for what Ethereum is trying to do and vice versa. With Bitcoin Ethereum has a safe and reliable store of value which it can integrate into its systems. With Ethereum Bitcoin has a platform uniquely suited to expand its potential. It's a win-win situation.

When and how did Ethereum solve the two-way-peg-problem that is required for it to "use Bitcoin as a reliable store of value which it can integrate" ?

Ethereum will not work like a sidechain. Distributed apps running on ethereum will run Bitcoin wallets and operate them through smart contracts.... I think.

So you're saying that it's possible to move bitcoins back and forth from the Bitcoin blockchain using an outside D App without Bitcoin being aware of it and without a trusted third party ? Interesting.

(I am pretty sure that it's not possible)

No, that's not what I'm saying. The bitcoins stay on the Bitcoin blockchain. It's no different from me or you or Circle's system using Bitcoins. Except it's an Dapp doing it.

Ok but who holds the private keys ?

Me ?
You ?
The Dapp maintener ?

The Dapp. Who controls the Dapp depends on the program. If you run the program, control the program and fill its wallet, then you control the wallet. You can also set it to be completely autonomous, which would be handy if you want to run a smart contract with triggers involving other people.

I still don't understand.
I think I will have to wait for a real dapp to implement it to see if it works.

I've seen some examples, but I think most of its use cases haven't been thought of yet.

Here's an interesting presentation from IBM and Samsung where they use Ethereum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1XOPIqyP7A

Here's a decent example from the new Princeton textbook.

Suppose Alice wants to challenge Bob to game of chess with money on-line. Alice will write an Ethereum program that implemements the rules of chess and upload it to Ethereum. She'll send the contract a quantity of Ether equal to the amount she wants to bet. Bob can see this, and if he decides to accept, he can start the game by sending his own stake of betting Ethers to the contract. The contract will then pay the winner.

There's not always a winner. Let's see independent "contracts" play each other.

Make it stop.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Mrpumperitis]

lol eth being mentioned on last 6-7 pages here, am i at the right forum!  

If you guys knew what was really going on you would all be holding some ether.

The btc tech is old. If you look at all digital technolgies they always have huge evolution progress every 5-10 years. BTC cant go much further, the journey is coming to an end.
Think, kazaa,limewire were awesome now we all use torrents.
Nokia was top of the mobile game now its apple
msn messenger,myspace were years ahead of the compettion now we all use facebook.
i could give examples all day long.

By 2023 we will be living in a very different world. Cryptographic money may be common, but the layman will not know that he's using it. This money, however, is not Bitcoin . After years of failing to adapt,to its rapidly advancing technological environment, BTC slowly fizzles out into obsolescence.
But the vision of Satoshi is not forgotten. The very meaning of the word "cryptocracy" is being flipped on it's head. The shadow government is loosing its grip on the people, cryptography and blockchain technologies are not only empowering people to take control of their wealth, but also to make their voices heard. True democracy is enabled through the means of provably fair voting systems and smart contracts. Now there is no need for trust, and thus no need for representatives. The people take back the power and are able to govern the world by majority consensus for the first time in history.
Bitcoin will go down in the history books as one of the first stepping stones to the new society. It is a pioneer and we learned a valuable lesson along the way: to once again never trust a single group with the control of the money supply.

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BNC1/BLX/YFDnalUh-The-Road-to-Obsolescence-A-Seven-Year-Cycle-in-Bitcoin/          

[rokkyroad]

Why can't the Eth shills stick to their own thread? I don't go into their thread spamming a shitcoin.

[cbeast]

No other coin has been through the fire yet. I doubt any of them will survive "governance".