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

[molecular]

What's going on here? I wake up to *THIS*?!

actually made me lol

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Dotto]

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AlexGR]

Core hasn't accepted that yet. When and if they do, it's off to the races, but not before then.  You need to understand their objection. What if we upgrade to 2MB forks and nothing bad happens? It means that we could upgrade to 4 or 8 or 20.

How can I put it mildly? This is way too ...ignorant... just stop this madness. Just because you bought some coins at 10$, doesn't mean you know what's best for bitcoin, technically speaking. Let those who understand these things make the right choices.

Your rationale is so simplistic that it's not even funny. If you go from 1 to 2, it doesn't automatically mean you can go to 4-8-20 without consequences. This is truly idiotic to even contemplate.

The propagation data is vastly different for blocks of 2 / 4 / 8 / 20MB. In simple terms, it takes a few seconds for a 1MB block while it takes several MINUTES for a 20MB block - and if that block is crafted to fuck up CPU resources of others validating it, it could take half an hour or more to get both propagated + validated. By that time, an average of 3 new blocks will have been issued.

I am not sure why you are complaining about validation times for 20mb blocks when what is proposed is a rise to 2mb which is safe.

Please re-read what I'm criticizing =>

What if we upgrade to 2MB forks and nothing bad happens? It means that we could upgrade to 4 or 8 or 20.

Epic fail.

You seem to be under the gross misapprehension that those of us (the economic majority) who want bitcoin to scale on chain as far as is technically feasible also want to see it damaged in some way.

Some do, most don't. They are just plain ignorant and they want to run things based on their ignorance - which is a recipe for disaster. Saying that if we can upgrade to 2MB and nothing bad happens, is proof that we could go to 4, 8 or 20 => is ignorant.

If people actually made BTC code with this rationale, BTC would already be dead.

The absolute reverse is true. We want bitcoin to succeed and are in the main heavily invested financially in that successful outcome.

And what is stopping this "success"? The 300kb difference between segwit (1.7mb) and the 2mb hf, when the avg block size is running at 0.6mb?

Btw, success IS NOT the artificial bloating of the blockchain with CRAP and then saying "oh we have so many transactions".

And those people with more than a tiny grasp of economics can see clearly that artificially capping the number of transactions which the bitcoin network can process whilst the userbase and transaction volume is relentlessly rising is a terrible, terrible idea.

Allow me to disagree on who has any grasp on economics whatsoever.

Visa, Paypal and the Banks, charge ridiculously high amount of money for fees, in what actually cost them peanuts due to the efficiency of centralized databases.

For example Paypal charges 0.35 fixed plus 2-3% of the amount. Their cost for making the tx happen is ridiculously low because they have a centralized database, not an inefficient P2P / Decentralized implementation.

Those people who, you say, have "more than a tiny grasp of economics", find it "reasonable" for something that is *actually* scarce (max transactions per second for Bitcoin are <50, even if you lift the 1MB), and *actually* very costly method (6$ per tx in susbidy), to cost something ridiculous like 1-3 cents in fees. They say the fees should remain at near-zero levels and that the 'fee market', that would crowd out the spammers, is a bad idea - and instead, we should be giving this very expensive block size / tx capacity, to free riders who spam away.

You can't be selling something (tx capacity in a decentralized system) that costs A LOT of money for near-zero, and find it OK to pay A LOT for things that actually cost next to nothing (centralized systems).

More specifically in what you are saying about being "a bad idea": It would be a bad idea if we had fees exceeding, say, 1$ per tx. At 0.01$ or 0.02$, it is a veeeeery good idea, because the spammers will have to get crowded out eventually.

[bargainbin]

Bitcoin Killer App is here!

Bitcoin could help cut power bills

The technology behind the Bitcoin virtual currency could help cut electricity bills, suggests research.

A blockchain-based smart plug that can adjust power consumption minute-by-minute has been created by technologists at Accenture.

Smart contract

The smart plug modifies the basic Bitcoin blockchain technology to make it more active, said Emmanuel Viale, head of the Accenture team at the firm's French research lab that worked on the plug.

Instead of just resolving and confirming transaction records, the Accenture work has changed the blockchain to let it negotiate deals on behalf of its owner.

[bargainbin]

[...] Visa, Paypal and the Banks, charge ridiculously high amount of money for fees, in what actually cost them peanuts due to the efficiency of centralized databases.

For example Paypal charges 0.35 fixed plus 2-3% of the amount. Their cost for making the tx happen is ridiculously low because they have a centralized database, not an inefficient P2P / Decentralized implementation. [...]

This is where confusion comes in. Visa & PP aren't charging you for sending a verifiable, difficult-to-counterfeit digital packet. They're charging you for their services -- mediating disputes, chargebacks when enlightened counterparty misrepresents/fails to send you the stuff you've paid for, etc. Shit BTC simply can not, and thus doesn't, offer.

The timespan -- after you've parted with your munyz, but are yet to receive the goods and/or services you were promised by the seller -- that's when the majikk happens

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Epic copy-pasta!

A Call for Consensus

Over the past few months there has been significant attention within the bitcoin ecosystem and beyond on what is commonly referred to as the “block size issue” — the size and scale of bitcoin blocks. There is a pressing need for an inclusive roadmap that takes into account the needs of businesses and all stakeholders.

As a community of bitcoin businesses, exchanges, wallets, miners, and mining pools, we have come together to chart an effective path to resolve this challenge and agreed on five positions we hope will guide the larger community as we move forward together.

The following are five key points that we have all agreed on.
1.We see the need for a modest block size increase in order to move the Bitcoin project forward, but we would like to do it with minimal risk, taking the safest and most balanced route possible. SegWit is almost ready and we support its deployment as a step in scaling.
2.We think any contentious hard-fork contains additional risks and potentially may result in two incompatible blockchain versions, if improperly implemented. To avoid potential losses for all bitcoin users, we need to minimize the risks. It is our firm belief that a contentious hard-fork right now would be extremely detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem.
3.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. Currently we are in discussions to determine the next best steps. We are as a matter of principle against unduly rushed or controversial hard-forks irrespective of the team proposing and we will not run such code on production systems nor mine any block from that hard-fork. We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).
4.We must ensure that future changes to code relating to consensus rules are done in a safe and balanced way. We also believe that hard-forks should only be activated if they have widespread consensus and long enough deployment timelines. The deployment of hard-forks without widespread consensus is dangerous and has the potential to cause trust and monetary losses.
5.We strongly encourage all bitcoin contributors to come together and resolve their differences to collaborate on the scaling roadmap. Divisions in the bitcoin community can only be mended if the developers and contributors can take the first step and cooperate with each other.

Our shared goal is the success of bitcoin. Bitcoin is strong and transformational. By working together, we will ensure that its future is bright.

Together, we are:

Phil Potter
Chief Strategy Officer
Bitfinex

Valery Vavilov
CEO
BitFury

Alex Petrov
CIO
BitFury

James Hilliard
Pool/Farm Admin
BitmainWarranty

Yoshi Goto
CEO
BitmainWarranty

Alex Shultz
CEO
BIT-X Exchange

Bobby Lee
CEO
BTCC

Samson Mow
COO
BTCC

Robin Yao
CTO
BTCT & BW

Ronny Boesing
CEO
CCEDK ApS

Obi Nwosu
Managing Director
Coinfloor

Mark Lamb
Founder
Coinfloor

Wang Chun
Admin
F2Pool

Marco Streng
CEO
Genesis Mining

Marco Krohn
CFO
Genesis Mining

Oleksandr Lutskevych
CEO
GHash.IO & CEX.IO

Lawrence Nahum
CEO
GreenAddress

Eric Larchevêque
CEO
Ledger

Jack Liao
CEO
LIGHTNINGASIC & BitExchange

Charlie Lee
Creator
Litecoin

Guy Corem
CEO
Spondoolies-Tech

Davide Barbieri
CTO
TheRockTrading

Michael Cao
CEO
Zoomhash

如果你想要读中文版，请点击这里。

[adamstgBit]

Epic copy-pasta!

A Call for Consensus

Over the past few months there has been significant attention within the bitcoin ecosystem and beyond on what is commonly referred to as the “block size issue” — the size and scale of bitcoin blocks. There is a pressing need for an inclusive roadmap that takes into account the needs of businesses and all stakeholders.

As a community of bitcoin businesses, exchanges, wallets, miners, and mining pools, we have come together to chart an effective path to resolve this challenge and agreed on five positions we hope will guide the larger community as we move forward together.

The following are five key points that we have all agreed on.
1.We see the need for a modest block size increase in order to move the Bitcoin project forward, but we would like to do it with minimal risk, taking the safest and most balanced route possible. SegWit is almost ready and we support its deployment as a step in scaling.
2.We think any contentious hard-fork contains additional risks and potentially may result in two incompatible blockchain versions, if improperly implemented. To avoid potential losses for all bitcoin users, we need to minimize the risks. It is our firm belief that a contentious hard-fork right now would be extremely detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem.
3.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. Currently we are in discussions to determine the next best steps. We are as a matter of principle against unduly rushed or controversial hard-forks irrespective of the team proposing and we will not run such code on production systems nor mine any block from that hard-fork. We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).
4.We must ensure that future changes to code relating to consensus rules are done in a safe and balanced way. We also believe that hard-forks should only be activated if they have widespread consensus and long enough deployment timelines. The deployment of hard-forks without widespread consensus is dangerous and has the potential to cause trust and monetary losses.
5.We strongly encourage all bitcoin contributors to come together and resolve their differences to collaborate on the scaling roadmap. Divisions in the bitcoin community can only be mended if the developers and contributors can take the first step and cooperate with each other.

Our shared goal is the success of bitcoin. Bitcoin is strong and transformational. By working together, we will ensure that its future is bright.

Together, we are:

Phil Potter
Chief Strategy Officer
Bitfinex

Valery Vavilov
CEO
BitFury

Alex Petrov
CIO
BitFury

James Hilliard
Pool/Farm Admin
BitmainWarranty

Yoshi Goto
CEO
BitmainWarranty

Alex Shultz
CEO
BIT-X Exchange

Bobby Lee
CEO
BTCC

Samson Mow
COO
BTCC

Robin Yao
CTO
BTCT & BW

Ronny Boesing
CEO
CCEDK ApS

Obi Nwosu
Managing Director
Coinfloor

Mark Lamb
Founder
Coinfloor

Wang Chun
Admin
F2Pool

Marco Streng
CEO
Genesis Mining

Marco Krohn
CFO
Genesis Mining

Oleksandr Lutskevych
CEO
GHash.IO & CEX.IO

Lawrence Nahum
CEO
GreenAddress

Eric Larchevêque
CEO
Ledger

Jack Liao
CEO
LIGHTNINGASIC & BitExchange

Charlie Lee
Creator
Litecoin

Guy Corem
CEO
Spondoolies-Tech

Davide Barbieri
CTO
TheRockTrading

Michael Cao
CEO
Zoomhash

如果你想要读中文版，请点击这里。

source ?

[becoin]

This is where confusion comes in. Visa & PP aren't charging you for sending a verifiable, difficult-to-counterfeit digital packet. They're charging you for their services -- mediating disputes, chargebacks when enlightened counterparty fails to send you the stuff you've paid for, etc. Shit BTC simply can not, and thus doesn't, offer.

There is one epic difference, buddy. You CAN build Visa and PP like services on top of bitcoin, but you CAN NOT build bitcoin like services on top of Visa or PP! Moreover, Visa and PP services on top of bitcoin will be much more transparent and cheaper than current Visa and PP!

[DaRude]

[...] Visa, Paypal and the Banks, charge ridiculously high amount of money for fees, in what actually cost them peanuts due to the efficiency of centralized databases.

For example Paypal charges 0.35 fixed plus 2-3% of the amount. Their cost for making the tx happen is ridiculously low because they have a centralized database, not an inefficient P2P / Decentralized implementation. [...]

This is where confusion comes in. Visa & PP aren't charging you for sending a verifiable, difficult-to-counterfeit digital packet. They're charging you for their services -- mediating disputes, chargebacks when enlightened counterparty fails to send you the stuff you've paid for, etc. Shit BTC simply can not, and thus doesn't, offer.

True but what if you're just sending a gift or don't need/want their added services? If i buy a coffee i don't really care to pay 3% for a possibility to chargeback, if i'm buying a house i'll be relying on contracts to make sure i get what i want. if i'm buying something off the ebay maybe i can find a cheaper escrow service than 3%

[adamstgBit]

Epic copy-pasta!

3.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. Currently we are in discussions to determine the next best steps. We are as a matter of principle against unduly rushed or controversial hard-forks irrespective of the team proposing and we will not run such code on production systems nor mine any block from that hard-fork. We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).

everyone wants a blocksize increase

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Source: https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.a53kl32tj

[bargainbin]

[...] Visa, Paypal and the Banks, charge ridiculously high amount of money for fees, in what actually cost them peanuts due to the efficiency of centralized databases.

For example Paypal charges 0.35 fixed plus 2-3% of the amount. Their cost for making the tx happen is ridiculously low because they have a centralized database, not an inefficient P2P / Decentralized implementation. [...]

This is where confusion comes in. Visa & PP aren't charging you for sending a verifiable, difficult-to-counterfeit digital packet. They're charging you for their services -- mediating disputes, chargebacks when enlightened counterparty fails to send you the stuff you've paid for, etc. Shit BTC simply can not, and thus doesn't, offer.

True but what if you're just sending a gift or don't need/want their added services? If i buy a coffee i don't really care to pay 3% for a possibility to chargeback, if i'm buying a house i'll be relying on contracts to make sure i get what i want. if i'm buying something off the ebay maybe i can find a cheaper escrow service than 3%

Then their services aren't for you. I'm not telling you to love/use accordions, simply saying that comparing apples to accordions is silly. They're different things.

If you are happy with finding sellers who accept BTC for coffee, that's totally cool. I'm usually willing to pay ~x2 to get my coffee within a block of where I want to have it, so saving 3% is not gonna make me buy it crosstown.

P.S. I can also make my coffee at home, and carry it around all day in a Theymos flask. I don't do that, even tho I could save even more. Because I'm lazy like that. Because convenience.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Epic copy-pasta!

3.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. Currently we are in discussions to determine the next best steps. We are as a matter of principle against unduly rushed or controversial hard-forks irrespective of the team proposing and we will not run such code on production systems nor mine any block from that hard-fork. We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).

everyone wants a blocksize increase

2.We think any contentious hard-fork contains additional risks and potentially may result in two incompatible blockchain versions, if improperly implemented. To avoid potential losses for all bitcoin users, we need to minimize the risks. It is our firm belief that a contentious hard-fork right now would be extremely detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem.

nobody wants war

[bargainbin]

^What is it good for?

[bargainbin]

This is where confusion comes in. Visa & PP aren't charging you for sending a verifiable, difficult-to-counterfeit digital packet. They're charging you for their services -- mediating disputes, chargebacks when enlightened counterparty fails to send you the stuff you've paid for, etc. Shit BTC simply can not, and thus doesn't, offer.

There is one epic difference, buddy. You CAN build Visa and PP like services on top of bitcoin, but you CAN NOT build bitcoin like services on top of Visa or PP! Moreover, Visa and PP services on top of bitcoin will be much more transparent and cheaper than current Visa and PP!

Lol, someone could "build Visa and PP like services on top of" tooth fillings, little pebbles, or dirty socks. What's your point?
As for the second part, about not being able to "build bitcoin like services on top of Visa or PP," what does that even mean?
The closest structurally analogous statement I can offer is "you can build houses over coal deposits, but you CAN NOT build coal deposits over houses."
Shocker.

[JayJuanGee]

This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Hmm...



http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

That silly fake email. That was the beginning of the desperation phase for Core.

That time frame was the beginning of the pump to $502, but I doubt that is very explanatory regarding so many factors for the price increase. In other words correlation rather than causation.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

This is where confusion comes in. Visa & PP aren't charging you for sending a verifiable, difficult-to-counterfeit digital packet. They're charging you for their services -- mediating disputes, chargebacks when enlightened counterparty fails to send you the stuff you've paid for, etc. Shit BTC simply can not, and thus doesn't, offer.

There is one epic difference, buddy. You CAN build Visa and PP like services on top of bitcoin, but you CAN NOT build bitcoin like services on top of Visa or PP! Moreover, Visa and PP services on top of bitcoin will be much more transparent and cheaper than current Visa and PP!

Lol, someone could "build Visa and PP like services on top of" tooth fillings, little pebbles, or dirty socks. What's your point?

Once you go undecentralized you can never go back.