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

[JayJuanGee]

Why would a governance change be appropriate?

Loss of market share? check.  (to whom?  helrow?)

Loss of six year logarithmic uptrend in price? Check   (whatever.. we are still likely on the way up, except your fud hoping to go down, for whatever whinny reason)

Gridlock in decision-making? check. (self imposed by attempting to create a problem that doesn't exist)

Loss of essential properties such as decentralization, anonymity, sufficient capacity and censorship resistance? check (hm?  how could this be?  bitcoin has not changed too much, since it's inception, so how could you conclude that each of these things have been lost?  sure, the user base has grown.. and that is not a bad problem to have)

What more do we fucking need?  How is it not obvious that this is a full-on, five alarm clusterfuck?   (we need something more than what you are describing... that's for sure)

Responded above in bold to your made up shit.

[billyjoeallen]

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

It's probable that problems with management have been exacerbated and amplified by forces that either want to harm Bitcoin or co-opt it, but those were always things that were going to happen anyway.  Core's insistence on unquestioning loyalty like some fourth century Pope is not the way to minimize their effects.

[JayJuanGee]

i'm fighting fire with fire now.

I think this is how we lost the Gold is Collapsing thread.

yep, adam has gone nazi sensor ship on us all now ... read this quick before it disappears!!

I think I can see the wall observer thread getting closed soon ... oh well.

It was nice while it lasted.

Nice to have gotten to know some of you guys.


 

[smooth]

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

[JayJuanGee]

if this thread must die then so be it

Losing faith ?

LOL, I think we should kill it. It is impossible to keep up with the conversation. Perhaps moderater can save us by locking it.  

It's so popular that no one goes there anymore..... 

[JayJuanGee]

...


I may or may not be working on, or, rather, composing, another post that may or, in all likelihood shall,  address some, if not all, of these areas of your purported and/or potential concern(s), which is to say the concerns you may or may not hold now are likely to be addressed in the post which is the topic of the post I'm currently composing, to the extent that you are really concerned (and will remain concerned upon the completion of the post of which I'm currently informing you), (even though it appears that you seem to appear to seem to be reverting back, i.e. regressing, to some (and/or all) of your earlier white knighting behaviors, or, perhaps, this is merely your feeble attempt at manifesting in the corporeal present the precognition of your future white-knighting behavior, the possibility which has not escaped me, albeit it's really shit. You fool.).

Regarding telling everything or a lot of things or stream of consciousness or whatever you want to call it, there is likely some repetition taking place I may or may not be working on, or, rather, composing, another post that may or, in all likelihood, shall address some, if not all, of these areas of your purported and/or potential concern(s), which is to say the concerns you may or may not hold now are likely to be addressed in the post which is the topic of the post I'm currently composing, to the extent that you are really concerned (and will remain concerned upon the completion of the post of which I'm currently informing you), (even though it appears that you seem to appear to seem to be reverting back, i.e. regressing, to some (and/or all) of your earlier white knighting behaviors, or, perhaps, this is merely your feeble attempt at manifesting in some of my recent content, but I may or may not be working on, or, rather, composing, another post that may or, in all likelihood, shall,  address some, if not all, of these areas of your purported and/or potential concern(s), which is to say the concerns you may or may not hold now are likely to be addressed in the post which is the topic of the post I'm currently composing, to the extent that you are really concerned (and will remain concerned upon the completion of the post of which I'm currently informing you), (even though it appears that is no different from anyone else who has posted a lot in various parts of this forum.. with various repeated themes in the different threads.

Brevity, i.e. the shortness or rather concise terseness of the author's final product, e.g. a book or a letter, or even a diary entry where you start out with "Dear diary," which really doesn't need to be said at all if you think of it, but people just do it because everybody does it, anyway... the thing that the author should think about long and hard, before he puts pen to paper, is that brevity is the heart of, or, more precicely, the soul of, wit. To wit, wittiness, or even smartness.
That's how important brevity is when you write.
...a book, or even a forum post.

You are a goofball...

Is that brief enough for you?

[billyjoeallen]

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

Call for a vote of no confidence in Wladimir? I'm down.

[JayJuanGee]

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

No quibbling from this cat about that.   

[bargainbin]

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

TL;DR: Let's organize a series of well-spaced Satoshi Round Tables, where we can propose governance changes, and chat about it for a ya=ear or two. In the mean time, you can start an altcoin of your own.
That pretty much what you're saying?

[JayJuanGee]

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

TL;DR: Let's organize a series of well-spaced Satoshi Round Tables, where we can propose governance changes, and chat about it for a ya=ear or two. In the mean time, you can start an altcoin of your own.
That pretty much what you're saying?

hahahahahahaha   

Finally you said something really smart, LambieChop (NOT) - I mean Bargainbin   

[orpington]

Make the block size limit dynamic

Can someone unpack this for me?

dynamic=unlimited

rubber-dollar.gif

Bitcoin Dynamic!

Now that sounds like an awesome name for an altcoin!

[smooth]

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

TL;DR: Let's organize a series of well-spaced Satoshi Round Tables, where we can propose governance changes, and chat about it for a ya=ear or two. In the mean time, you can start an altcoin of your own.
That pretty much what you're saying?

No

[adamstgBit]

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

the chain rules will change, there is no question about that.
now do you want classic or blockstream to make the choices

[bargainbin]

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

TL;DR: Let's organize a series of well-spaced Satoshi Round Tables, where we can propose governance changes, and chat about it for a ya=ear or two. In the mean time, you can start an altcoin of your own.
That pretty much what you're saying?

No

Oh?
You're asking to separate the governance issue (as in "finally ousting the crew which stalled us into this shitmire") from "doing something about the shit that would have been done years ago if not for the douches ignoring the problem and ousting those who wanted to solve it."
What have I missed?

[smooth]

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

Call for a vote of no confidence in Wladimir? I'm down.

There is no way to hold such a vote because the existing project organization has no governance rules that would allow it. To change the governance procedure, you have to fork the project and propose a new organization with different governance rules (and get support otherwise you are forking nothing but your own mind), but that doesn't mean you have to fork the chain.

[JayJuanGee]

A lot of this discussion about scaling and bitcoin governance and even political alliances that are ongoing and bouncing around and contradictory seems all over the place to encourage FUDding and quasi-off topic posts within this broadly embraced bitcoin speculation topic's thread.


I believe that I posted earlier that I am a bit mixed regarding BTC's price direction... within the past 18 hours I guessed 52.75% inclined towards down and 47.25% inclined towards up .. but I remain a bit contented to have my buy / sells stacked and lined up....... Based on my own price speculations, I am not really feeling overbought or oversold at the moment....  even though I become nervous when BTC prices go down, yet from here on out, I am just going to continue to prepare for short-term 10% movements in BTC price in either direction...

At this time, I really think that there is going to be some difficulties to break BTC's downward below the upper $360s in any time in the near future, but certainly I've been amazed by price movements on a number of occasions.

Here's a modified version of my current stacking of potential buy/sells within approximately 10% price change.


Buys:
$383.00      0.130548303   $50.00
$393.00      0.127226463   $50.00
$403.00      0.099255583   $40.00
$408.00      0.098039216   $40.00
$411.00      0.097323601   $40.00
$418.00      0.095693780   $40.00


Sells:
$426.00      0.0704225352   $30.00
$430.00      0.0697674419   $30.00
$434.00      0.069124424   $30.00
$438.00      0.0684931507   $30.00
$441.00      0.0907029478   $40.00
$446.00      0.0896860987   $40.00
$451.00      0.088691796   $40.00
$456.00      0.0877192982   $40.00
$462.00      0.1731601732   $80.00

I understand that my price increments for my sells is quite a lot closer together and really adding up to higher total amounts (but really only by about 7%), but I guess that is just how the amounts have currently stacked up....and sometimes I am just doing a bit of flying off the cuff, when prices move quickly or if there is a bit of uncertainty if prices are going to reverse directions.

[adamstgBit]

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

Call for a vote of no confidence in Wladimir? I'm down.

There is no way to hold such a vote because the existing project organization has no governance rules that would allow it. To change the governance procedure, you have to fork the project and propose a new organization with different governance rules (and get support otherwise you are forking nothing but your own mind), but that doesn't mean you have to fork the chain.

how can blockstream fail? the game is rigged. lol

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The fight is fixed. The poor stay poor and the rich get rich. That's how it goes. And everybody knows.

[bargainbin]

^A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong

You load sixteen tons, what do you get?

[marcus_of_augustus]

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

Call for a vote of no confidence in Wladimir? I'm down.

There is no way to hold such a vote because the existing project organization has no governance rules that would allow it. To change the governance procedure, you have to fork the project and propose a new organization with different governance rules (and get support otherwise you are forking nothing but your own mind), but that doesn't mean you have to fork the chain.

how can blockstream fail? the game is rigged. lol

such a whiner when it comes down to it ... you can't handle the truth ... "the game is rigged, please make them stop wah, wah" ... wait i need to delete some more truthiness before I look too stoopid.

it is really offensive to all the Core devs who have built this thing for free mostly (what did you do exactly?!) that you think blockstream can dictate.

you crassic lusers are such whiner lusers ... maybe time to just piss off and join Hearn if you don't like the rules or haven't got anything better to add??