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

[oda.krell]

^2

I think I can see Mircea Pompouscu's shadow in the background there, right?

[BitUsher]

Can we get an inkling on who these benevolent non-feeling educators are?

LoL..... tell me about the dangers of people who want to empower each other to have both sovereignty and solidarity in a voluntary manner.
Your insinuations are humorous and will not deter our goals. 70% of mining power is not enough ... we are looking to create consensus and solidarity with many more miners and in discussions with Bitmain.

I still love you and hope you find happiness sir!

^2

I think I can see Mircea Pompouscu's shadow in the background there, right?

Probably ... that guy creeps me out and not someone that I would associate with.

[billyjoeallen]

WTF does that mean? This isn't one of your anarcap hugging sessions. Are you going to suicide bomb MIT or are you going to drink an extra can of Red Bull and code a bit more?

Why would violence even be an option if you know I follow the non-aggression principle ? You have a very odd perception of our values. We are very motivated to keep the true nature and purpose of bitcoin alive... This means we not principally motivated by short term profits but have long term goals and are willing to make sacrifices and work hard to achieve them. If the community forces a contentious hard fork , so be it, we will happily allow the community to go separate ways, but be aware we will not acquiescence on our values and join a majority hash rate. There may be a short term struggle and than potentially some changes which will allow both chains to exist securely.  This doesn't mean we cannot find a solution through consensus and make certain reasonable consolations that don't directly compromise our values. Adding 1.7-2Mb capacity to segwit was that compromise and we want to dramatically scale up capacity in the future the right way. It would be great if you would join us building something great , If not , I understand and won't interfere with your choices.

You don't speak for all AnCap's. I absolutely support forking to bigger blocks and I have been consistently anarcho-capiltalist from my first post on this forum.

Anarchists want no rulers, so why would you support Core's technocratic hegemony? Regardless of the technical arguments against bigger blocks, why would you allow anyone to have veto power over any upgrade?  As anarcho-capitalists, we know that concentrated power can be abused and inevitably will be abused eventually.

[Fatman3001]

Can we get an inkling on who these benevolent non-feeling educators are?

LoL..... tell me about the dangers of people who want to empower each other to have both sovereignty and solidarity in a voluntary manner.
Your insinuations are humorous and will not deter our goals.

I still love you and hope you find happiness sir!

I'm not going to humor you. You don't understand the words you are using! GET OUT!!! Wherever you are!!! GET OUT!!!

[gentlemand]

Probably ... that guy creeps me out and not someone that I would associate with.

What the hell? That guy is a full on dreamboat. Who wouldn't want a roll in the hay with him? His warm proclamations for all humanity get me wetter than a winter Tuesday on the North Sea.

[julian071]

This is funny indeed. I love how the libertarian in this discussion keeps using the words "we will" and variants on that. Sounds really weird!

[bargainbin]

... If the byproduct is happiness that that is a consequence I can accept. Bllep bloop blop

My words are being written without brrrzg bleep bloop aggression and lack any emotional fervor. They are written with a calm and confident resolution attached to some well dumping core in reasoned principles.

They aren't even intended for many of the human individuals I am responding to but to educate other readers lurking to our perspective meat space brrp bzz bleep bloop blop.

BTW, who are "we"? Who are these people who are so willing to throw everyone under the bus to get it their way?

No one is willing to throw anyone under the 16bit bus. I empathize with your position and will not interfere with your brrrapzap choices or vision of bitcoin, human. That is the beauty of bitcoin, its voluntary nature bleep bloop kernel panic!
"We" principally refers to the scenting life form that is Us bloop blop.

[BitUsher]

You don't speak for all AnCap's. I absolutely support forking to bigger blocks and I have been consistently anarcho-capiltalist from my first post on this forum.

Agreed. Anarchists are like atheists, they have millions of unique voices and perspectives. I understand your perspective and respect it.

Anarchists want no rulers, so why would you support Core's technocratic hegemony? Regardless of the technical arguments against bigger blocks, why would you allow anyone to have veto power over any upgrade?  As anarcho-capitalists, we know that concentrated power can be abused and inevitably will be abused eventually.

Who says I support Core or Blockstream technocratic hegemony? I have repeatedly supported a diverse set of implementations with separate developers, and separate repositories. This is why further work in libbitcoinconsenssus is so important. I will not make the sloppy and misleading assumption that implementations that break consensus rules are akin to choosing between different browsers on the internet. This is a flawed analogy and a dangerous one as well. Choosing between implementations that diverge on consensus rules is akin to choosing between protocols in a distributed consensus system which is dependent upon agreement.  I encourage experimentation in different coins and protocols and will never interfere with your right to HF at any moment, but lets not pretend that this is merely about creating a diverse set of developer communities when multiple implementations have existed peacefully for a long time now.

This is funny indeed. I love how the libertarian in this discussion keeps using the words "we will" and variants on that. Sounds really weird!

I wouldn't consider myself a libertarian , but you do realize that anarchists can and do have solidarity with other anarchists. I invite you to meet some in person.

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

I see we're still hovering around $420. At least $400 seems to be holding (for now).

After a week and a half of pretty steady price rise, you'd think we'd see a slight correction but maybe this rise isn't done quite yet.

Come on Bitcoin, let's keep this moving up.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I will not make the sloppy and misleading assumption that implementations that break consensus rules are akin to choosing between different browsers on the internet. This is a flawed analogy and a dangerous one as well. Choosing between implementations that diverge on consensus rules is akin to choosing between protocols in a distributed consensus system which is dependent upon agreement.  I encourage experimentation in different coins and protocols and will never interfere with your right to HF at any moment, but lets not pretend that this is merely about creating a diverse set of developer communities when multiple implementations have existed peacefully for a long time now.

Agreed.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

You don't speak for all AnCap's. I absolutely support forking to bigger blocks and I have been consistently anarcho-capiltalist from my first post on this forum.

Agreed. Anarchists are like atheists, they have millions of unique voices and perspectives. I understand your perspective and respect it.

Anarchists want no rulers, so why would you support Core's technocratic hegemony? Regardless of the technical arguments against bigger blocks, why would you allow anyone to have veto power over any upgrade?  As anarcho-capitalists, we know that concentrated power can be abused and inevitably will be abused eventually.

Who says I support Core or Blockstream technocratic hegemony? I have repeatedly supported a diverse set of implementations with separate developers, and separate repositories. This is why further work in libbitcoinconsenssus is so important. I will not make the sloppy and misleading assumption that implementations that break consensus rules are akin to choosing between different browsers on the internet. This is a flawed analogy and a dangerous one as well. Choosing between implementations that diverge on consensus rules is akin to choosing between protocols in a distributed consensus system which is dependent upon agreement.  I encourage experimentation in different coins and protocols and will never interfere with your right to HF at any moment, but lets not pretend that this is merely about creating a diverse set of developer communities when multiple implementations have existed peacefully for a long time now.

This is funny indeed. I love how the libertarian in this discussion keeps using the words "we will" and variants on that. Sounds really weird!

I wouldn't consider myself a libertarian , but you do realize that anarchists can and do have solidarity with other anarchists. I invite you to meet some in person.

All analogies are imperfect or they wouldn't be analogies, just arguments.  You are correct that a losing fork is not like a browser with lower market share. It will almost certainly die quickly, but on a different time frame it is similar. Nobody is using Mozilla anymore.  Yeah, it's different, but it's hard to dumb down this conflict for the idiot masses without losing some of the essential elements. It doesn't mean it's an intentionally misleading analogy.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

I see we're still hovering around $420. At least $400 seems to be holding (for now).

After a week and a half of pretty steady price rise, you'd think we'd see a slight correction but maybe this rise isn't done quite yet.

Come on Bitcoin, let's keep this moving up.

Jimbo never gets involved in politics.

[billyjoeallen]

in a way, this is really funny. Core wants to keep blocks small to encourage nodes and they are. They have spawned over a thousand Classic nodes.

Eventually, they may be forced to upgrade to 2 MB just to prevent 8 MB blocks. I kinda hope they screw that up because I have no problem at all with 8 MB blocks.  The only way to improve the efficiency of the network without sacrificing significant security is by scaling up.  We want an armored truck, not a safe on castor wheels pulled by a horse.

[BitUsher]

Yeah, it's different, but it's hard to dumb down this conflict for the idiot masses without losing some of the essential elements. It doesn't mean it's an intentionally misleading analogy.

If not intentionally misleading its is downright stupid when a perfectly good analogy is available . Gavin and Brian spouting that nonsense should know better and its disturbing to hear it from them.

To be clear ... this is a far better analogy--

Different browsers = Bitcoin Core, Bitcore, libbitcoin , ect....
Different protocols = TCP/IP and those that suggest we make some changes to make a new internet where existing browsers suddenly become incompatible with it.

Notice how standards that break the functionality of old browsers are rarely , if ever introduced on the internet. I can still run "mosaic-ck" and lynx browser on my linux computer with no problem and while I am unable to use all that fancy javascript/css/flash/ect I can use TCP/IP just fine as originally intended and surf the web, send emails, and read text. The internet was built with stacks and layers of technology to insure backward compatibility and a HF is the exact opposite of this. So no, it isn't just an imperfect analogy but one that is extremely misleading.

We want an armored truck, not a safe on castor wheels pulled by a horse.

We are building a tank with hardened steal, exploding anti- tank missile panels, advanced engine and suspension components for maneuverability, and a more efficient engine to carry a larger capacity and more ammo...

You simply want to double the weight of the tank and throw a bigger cc diesel engine in her that guzzles more fuel.  

[valta4065]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

I see we're still hovering around $420. At least $400 seems to be holding (for now).

After a week and a half of pretty steady price rise, you'd think we'd see a slight correction but maybe this rise isn't done quite yet.

Come on Bitcoin, let's keep this moving up.

Well we should maybe stop moving up and get some stability on the 415 ^^

When the 415 floor will be strong enough, yeah let's move up again!

[Fatman3001]

We want an armored truck, not a safe on castor wheels pulled by a horse.

We are building a tank with hardened steal, exploding anti- tank missile panels, advanced engine and suspension components for maneuverability, and a more efficient engine to carry a larger capacity and more ammo...

You simply want to double the weight of the tank and throw a bigger cc diesel engine in her that guzzles more fuel.  

[BitUsher]

0.12.0 final source code tagged and released -

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.12.0

Binaries will come soon.

Impressive list up upgrades -

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.12.0/doc/release-notes.md


I will keep running a non pruned full node(to allow others to bootstrap from) but for the first time ever people will be able to fully validate with only ~2GB of Blockchain disk usage.

[Fatman3001]

0.12.0 final source code tagged and released -

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.12.0

Binaries will come soon.

Impressive list up upgrades -

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.12.0/doc/release-notes.md


I will keep running a non pruned full node(to allow others to bootstrap from) but for the first time ever people will be able to fully validate with only ~2GB of Blockchain disk usage.

Lets give it a lick of paint and see what happens.

[BitUsher]

Lets give it a lick of paint and see what happens.

This is how I can tell you are insincere and just trolling. Even Classic Developers support 95% the improvements in 0.12.0 and have been testing a Classic variation for the Earlier Release candidates.(with a small possibility of not including opt in RBF)