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

[BitUsher]

 But I don't think I get it right, does it cost anything to run a node? i mean you do that on an average normal computer no?

Yes, building a decent node costs at least 90 dollars , and has a maintenance fee for hosting the bandwidth and electricity. Thus ideally a LN channel node should exceed 15 dollars a month to overcome this in tx fees revenue.

Ok correct me if I'm wrong but centralization of nodes could get some power to the one running them no? Hence decentralization seems a good thing, but if anyone wants to centralize the nodes of the LN, he will only need to put his nodes for free! Then nobody else will use the paying nodes no?

There will be many different competing models of nodes and their features. Some can act as escrow agents with higher level services and insurance programs, some will offer better anonymity through coinjoin/CT/mixing, some will merely have an advantage as they represent a unique hop for better connectivity between other nodes.

I wouldn't worry about free nodes as their are few miners who process free tx right now ... Free LN channels would quickly get filled with spam and people would use other channels.

[BitUsher]

Bitcoin is neither a democracy nor a meritocracy.

Every "-cracy" has its strength and weakness. It's human. It's bipolar.

Bitcoin is (stupid) software enforcing rules (1 ASIC - 1 VOTE) you are free to (dis-)agree with.

What makes Bitcoin so powerful is its independence from any form of government or "..."-cracy. Like freedom of speech it is freedom of choice!

The bitcoin (price) just reflects the acceptance of a certain group of people who freely agreed to transact value with each other.

I mostly agree with this, but there are some standards and norms which have come forth from both the code and the roots of the cipherpunk movement. This is why I was referring to development being decided upon mostly by meritocracy and consensus and not bitcoin as a whole. As Bitcoin as a whole the "governance" and control is far more complex and nuanced.

The history of bitcoin and the nature of the code has direct philosophical and political implications regardless of Bitcoin being apolitical.

I.E... Rather than one person, one vote... the economic majority has greater influence on bitcoin balanced by the ability of developers and limitations of the technology. This is opposed to many democratic republics where the economic majority indirectly influences the majorities vote to remain dominant.

It's comforting to see that you don't understand the meaning of what you write, that probably means you won't promote their consequent actions. Maybe.

Please elaborate, specifically.

[bargainbin]

Indeed. Time for some reconciliation, and maybe a truth commission too.

I think part of the problem is people involved in bitcoin have gotten addicted to the non-stop drama surrounding it, that has existed since early on (late 2010 at least). So when everything is ticking over peacefully, price is flat, they get bored and start looking around for the next drama fix ... "hey what's this, we can bash the devs? cool" ... "look at this, a simple programming constant we can get upset about and create some drama, awesome" ... "let's jerk the Fed's chain about blockchain, should be neat" ... "hey, did you hear the latest Satoshi rumour?!"

Unfortunately, I believe this drama will only temporarily go away. There were indeed many genuine XT/UL/Classic supporters but there were also many shills/trolls/  agent provocateurs supporting a contentious HF. Bitcoin is competing/undermining against some of the most powerful states and corporations and we should prepare for a vicious and difficult fight ahead.

Part of this is educating people towards the true principles of bitcoin, as many are still advocating code be written under the governance of democracy which would be tragic and goes against our current meritocracy consensus based development framework. As we grow our ecosystem this will remain a constant challenge we must overcome as most humans have been programmed to believe democracy is the best form of governance available.

Bitcoin is neither a democracy nor a meritocracy.

Every "-cracy" has its strength and weakness. It's human. It's bipolar.

Bitcoin is (stupid) software enforcing rules (1 ASIC - 1 VOTE) you are free to (dis-)agree with.

What makes Bitcoin so powerful is its independence from any form of government or "..."-cracy. Like freedom of speech it is freedom of choice!

The bitcoin (price) just reflects the acceptance of a certain group of people who freely agreed to transact value with each other.

Of course.
"They vote with their CPU power [...] Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism." --satoshi

Opposing meritocracy to democracy is a sleazy, false dichotomy: both are meritocracies.

>Yes, building a decent node costs at least 90 dollars.
Nah, it's leasing a VM instance.
But by your calculations, total nodes < $500k, pocket lint for any mining cartel.
No use pretending that non-mining nodes secure wallets benefit more than their operator

[yugo23]

 But I don't think I get it right, does it cost anything to run a node? i mean you do that on an average normal computer no?

Yes, building a decent node costs at least 90 dollars , and has a maintenance fee for hosting the bandwidth and electricity. Thus ideally a LN channel node should exceed 15 dollars a month to overcome this in tx fees revenue.

Ok correct me if I'm wrong but centralization of nodes could get some power to the one running them no? Hence decentralization seems a good thing, but if anyone wants to centralize the nodes of the LN, he will only need to put his nodes for free! Then nobody else will use the paying nodes no?

There will be many different competing models of nodes and their features. Some can act as escrow agents with higher level services and insurance programs, some will offer better anonymity through coinjoin/CT/mixing, some will merely have an advantage as they represent a unique hop for better connectivity between other nodes.

I wouldn't worry about free nodes as their are few miners who process free tx right now ... Free LN channels would quickly get filled with spam and people would use other channels.

Ok thanks for your explanations buddy

Everything is clearer now ^^

[Dotto]

Big triangle (visible in 6h and 12h) closing around 14-15 feb. Expecting a huge move before that. Not sure if up or down, thought. I would say lightly probable over the upside.

Popcorns

[bargainbin]

...

The history of bitcoin and the nature of the code has direct philosophical and political implications regardless of Bitcoin being apolitical.

I.E... Rather than one person, one vote... the economic majority has greater influence on bitcoin balanced by the ability of developers and limitations of the technology. This is opposed to many democratic republics where the economic majority indirectly influences the majorities vote to remain dominant.
...

All this talk of "economic majority" without a definition.
WTF is "economic majority"?

-Those holding fiat, who can buy BTC mined by the miners?
-The miners, who are heavily invested in gear & will turn their power to the most-profitable SHA256 coin?
-The hodlers, who can rage on the interwebs and threaten to dump their coin if things don't go their way (but otherwise have no mechanism for voting)?

plz explain.

[8up]

Bitcoin is neither a democracy nor a meritocracy.

Every "-cracy" has its strength and weakness. It's human. It's bipolar.

Bitcoin is (stupid) software enforcing rules (1 ASIC - 1 VOTE) you are free to (dis-)agree with.

What makes Bitcoin so powerful is its independence from any form of government or "..."-cracy. Like freedom of speech it is freedom of choice!

The bitcoin (price) just reflects the acceptance of a certain group of people who freely agreed to transact value with each other.

I mostly agree with this, but there are some standards and norms which have come forth from both the code and the roots of the cipherpunk movement. This is why I was referring to development being decided upon mostly by meritocracy and consensus and not bitcoin as a whole. As Bitcoin as a whole the "governance" and control is far more complex and nuanced.

The history of bitcoin and the nature of the code has direct philosophical and political implications regardless of Bitcoin being apolitical.

I.E... Rather than one person, one vote... the economic majority has greater influence on bitcoin balanced by the ability of developers and limitations of the technology. This is opposed to many democratic republics where the economic majority indirectly influences the majorities vote to remain dominant.

It's comforting to see that you don't understand the meaning of what you write, that probably means you won't promote their consequent actions. Maybe.

Please elaborate, specifically.

Nice to see.

Maybe we should start to talk about a regime of certain dominant "-cracies" that form and govern society (as well as each and every community/family). These "cracy-regimes" tend to change over time. I would even imagine to see cycles.



dominant form of government (and motive):
democracy (egalitarian) > oligarchy (money) > autocracy (power) > anarchy (freedom) > meritocracy (performance) > aristocracy (stated mastery) > monarchy (stated maystery by god/birth) > democrarcy

see also noocracy, netocracy/technocracy, geniocracy, plutarchy, kleptocracy which give each dominant government form its special flavor.

Take the above with a grain of salt... It's just a crazy (in no way scientifical) observation.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[8up]

ETH is seeing the bubble meant to be for bitcoin. Everybody is "waiting for the consolidation" to get in...

Sounds familiar!? > ETH is 2011 all over again.

any doubts?

[ahpku]

Ahh... Teh Bitcoin Consensurizing Mechanism,
working like it should.

Good... good...

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

ETH is seeing the bubble meant to be for bitcoin. Everybody is "waiting for the consolidation" to get in...

Sounds familiar!? > ETH is 2011 all over again.

any doubts?

We talk Lightning while they steal our thunder. Didn't see that coming.

[BitUsher]

Momentum building behind Core Roadmap -

Greenaddress added -
https://twitter.com/btcroundtable/status/697767225155940352

Coinfloor added -
https://twitter.com/btcroundtable/status/697771059861331968

Rocktrading added-
https://twitter.com/btcroundtable/status/697773063274803200



A supermajority of the economy , developers, and mining power is now finding consensus.

This should put an end to Ethereum's pump and spam campaign and bolster Bitcoin.
It will be interesting to see a reversal in price, not just for the profits but because it will be a clear signal that the general investing ecosystem is now at ease that a contentious HF is no longer on the table.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

ETH is seeing the bubble meant to be for bitcoin. Everybody is "waiting for the consolidation" to get in...

Sounds familiar!? > ETH is 2011 all over again.

any doubts?

We talk Lightning while they steal our thunder. Didn't see that coming.

In the next 3 weeks, we need the Bitcoin Core developers to work with us and clarify the roadmap with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size.

They Think Its All Over^tm

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

the general investing ecosystem is now at ease that a contentious HF is no longer on the table.

In the next 3 weeks, we need the Bitcoin Core developers to work with us and clarify the roadmap with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size.

It depends on how you strong arm the miners I suppose.

[BldSwtTrs]

Momentum building behind Core Roadmap -

Greenaddress added -
https://twitter.com/btcroundtable/status/697767225155940352

Coinfloor added -
https://twitter.com/btcroundtable/status/697771059861331968

Rocktrading added-
https://twitter.com/btcroundtable/status/697773063274803200



A supermajority of the economy , developers, and mining power is now finding consensus.

This should put an end to Ethereum's pump and spam campaign and bolster Bitcoin.
It will be interesting to see a reversal in price, not just for the profits but because it will be a clear signal that the general investing ecosystem is now at ease that a contentious HF is no longer on the table.

" There is a pressing need for an inclusive roadmap" LOL

Yes we need more roadmaps. In 2017 people will still do roadmaps.

[BitUsher]

In the next 3 weeks, we need the Bitcoin Core developers to work with us and clarify the roadmap with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size.

They Think Its All Over^tm

How many times do we have to repeat? We want , need (for payment channels), and require bigger blocks. Core has been discussing and planning for a HF block size increase for months. Our disagreements with Classic have to deal with the timing , and way it was being deployed... as of which the statement indicates both a support of segwit as the temporary capacity bump and--

We also believe that hard-forks should only be activated if they have widespread consensus and long enough deployment timelines.

If you have been following the conversations between the miners and developers "long enough deployment timelines" means 1 year. This statement indicates that the signers want to plan for and get ready for a goal for a future HF a year from now. They want come up with a rough plan immediately(3 weeks) so  the HF does happen 1 year from now and doesn't get pushed off indefinitely.

[bargainbin]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch


https://coin.dance/nodes

[aztecminer]

the price is getting to grow right now a little bit i wonder how will the classic release affect the price

Don't worry it won't ^^

There is no reason for the release of btc classic to affect the price!
Only the size issue will affect the price right now.

lol... u must have missed the Marshal's Auction Pump 2015 when the price surged to $500 under the guise of some russian pyramid scheming the chinese . #bitcoinbizarroworld

[BldSwtTrs]

In the next 3 weeks, we need the Bitcoin Core developers to work with us and clarify the roadmap with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size.

They Think Its All Over^tm

How many times do we have to repeat? We want , need (for payment channels), and require bigger blocks. Core has been discussing and planning for a HF block size increase for months. Our disagreements with Classic have to deal with the timing , and way it was being deployed... as of which the statement indicates both a support of segwit as the temporary capacity bump and--

We also believe that hard-forks should only be activated if they have widespread consensus and long enough deployment timelines.

If you have been following the conversations between the miners and developers "long enough deployment timelines" means 1 year. This statement indicates that the signers want to plan for and get ready for a goal for a future HF a year from now. They want come up with a rough plan immediately(3 weeks) so  the HF does happen 1 year from now and doesn't get pushed off indefinitely.

So what we need is a roadmap to agree on having a very small increase in at least one year from now? LOL what a bunch of clowns.

The only businesses that matters which have signed this "consensus letter" are Bitfinex and Bitfury.

[8up]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch


https://coin.dance/nodes

ETH has already 2600 nodes (growth is 60%/last month)