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

[DaRude]

.... segwit will incress node cost and have the EXACT same "centralizing" effect as a 2MB HF.

segwit's "2MB effective block size".... idk why they didnt just call it  segwit's "Magical capacity incress."

lol wake up poeple you've been lied to and manipulated.

True, but segwit enables LN and other off chain solutions that bump all micro payments one layer up.

Where 2MB HF just buys short period of time until people start bitching about 4MB HF, then 8MB... how big should the blocks be to match PayPal? Visa?

[hv_]

.... segwit will incress node cost and have the EXACT same "centralizing" effect as a 2MB HF.

segwit's "2MB effective block size".... idk why they didnt just call it  segwit's "Magical capacity incress."

lol wake up poeple you've been lied to and manipulated.

True, but segwit enables LN and other off chain solutions that bump all micro payments one layer up.

Where 2MB HF just buys short period of time until people start bitching about 4MB HF, then 8MB... how big should the blocks be to match PayPal? Visa?

The potential of on-chain scaling is not restricted to the block size, but keeping limited in discussion politically.

Again, the only relevant limit is the 21Mio!

[DaRude]

.... segwit will incress node cost and have the EXACT same "centralizing" effect as a 2MB HF.

segwit's "2MB effective block size".... idk why they didnt just call it  segwit's "Magical capacity incress."

lol wake up poeple you've been lied to and manipulated.

True, but segwit enables LN and other off chain solutions that bump all micro payments one layer up.

Where 2MB HF just buys short period of time until people start bitching about 4MB HF, then 8MB... how big should the blocks be to match PayPal? Visa?

The potential of on-chain scaling is not restricted to the block size, but keeping limited in discussion politically.

Again, the only relevant limit is the 21Mio!

Not sure what you mean 

But assuming O(n) or leaner scaling, if with 1MB we can handle 7tps, then we'll need 16MB blocks to handle 115tps (PayPal 2014), and 285MB blocks to handle 2000tps (Visa) thats where i loose majority of big blockers   

[adamstgBit]

.... segwit will incress node cost and have the EXACT same "centralizing" effect as a 2MB HF.

segwit's "2MB effective block size".... idk why they didnt just call it  segwit's "Magical capacity incress."

lol wake up poeple you've been lied to and manipulated.

True, but segwit enables LN and other off chain solutions that bump all micro payments one layer up.

Where 2MB HF just buys short period of time until people start bitching about 4MB HF, then 8MB... how big should the blocks be to match PayPal? Visa?

poeple can bitch for GB blocks all day long, miners have orphen risk to worry about they can't won't make blocks that the network can't quickly digest.
the TX malleability fix required to allow LN to work properly is another magical piece of code only segwit can deliver....

[DaRude]

.... segwit will incress node cost and have the EXACT same "centralizing" effect as a 2MB HF.

segwit's "2MB effective block size".... idk why they didnt just call it  segwit's "Magical capacity incress."

lol wake up poeple you've been lied to and manipulated.

True, but segwit enables LN and other off chain solutions that bump all micro payments one layer up.

Where 2MB HF just buys short period of time until people start bitching about 4MB HF, then 8MB... how big should the blocks be to match PayPal? Visa?

poeple can bitch for GB blocks all day long, miners have orphen risk to worry about they can't won't make blocks that the network can't quickly digest.
the TX malleability fix required to allow LN to work properly is another magical piece of code only segwit can deliver....

Meh, let's give them a big red button and hope they don't press it, cause it would negatively effect them as well, just doesn't give that warm fuzzy feeling for a multi billion dollar currency.

So you're suggesting just a fork for TX malleability fix? Why does the rest of segwit code bother you so much? Because of HF? Seems like a separate argument from the big blocks

[adamstgBit]

.... segwit will incress node cost and have the EXACT same "centralizing" effect as a 2MB HF.

segwit's "2MB effective block size".... idk why they didnt just call it  segwit's "Magical capacity incress."

lol wake up poeple you've been lied to and manipulated.

True, but segwit enables LN and other off chain solutions that bump all micro payments one layer up.

Where 2MB HF just buys short period of time until people start bitching about 4MB HF, then 8MB... how big should the blocks be to match PayPal? Visa?

poeple can bitch for GB blocks all day long, miners have orphen risk to worry about they can't won't make blocks that the network can't quickly digest.
the TX malleability fix required to allow LN to work properly is another magical piece of code only segwit can deliver....

Meh let's give them a red button and hope they don't press it cause it would negatively effect them just doesn't give that warm fuzzy feeling for a multi billion currency.

So you're suggesting just a fork for TX malleability fix? Why does the rest of segwit code bother you so much? Because of HF? Seems like a separate argument from the big blocks

meh i dont really care about segwit all that much or the 2MB HF.
i care about keeping bitcoin decentralized.
core = central authority imposing its blockstream on us.
thats what bothers me....

i'm probably just being paranoid and exaggerating the reality of the situation
everything will work out just fine.
we aren't going in the directions that i had hoped to see, but its fairly close.
i like LN
i like more space in blocks
SOON we'll have both.
I can't complain Too much...

[JayJuanGee]

I agree the network adopting segwit and later LN is will be a historical moment in bitcoin.
segwit+LN is a fundamental shift ( way more then a 2MB HF would have been ) it WILL change the game, for the better or worst?? no way to know...

It would be worse, think about it...

Simply increase the block size as that satoshi said,
or change everything about Bitcoin because some beardy said.

Segwit fucks the miners, (oh and the decentralised nodes) LN fucks the miners.
The fees market fucks the users.
RBF fucks the retailers.

Segwit will never happen.
The miners hold the hash power.
It is cores last few weeks of presuming to control Bitcoin, I suspect.

Your doom and gloom speculation is greatly overstated (in other words seems to be pure speculative fantastical exaggerated nonsense)

[JayJuanGee]

Generally when I refer to the status quo in my various posts on this blocksize limit raising topic, I am frequently asserting that both XT and Classic have failed to meet their evidentiary burden of production and persuasion in order to convince the status quo to adopt them or to work on their adoption.  Saying that XT/Classic have failed in this regard is not the same as saying that seg wit has succeed in this regard, even though likely I have said both, and even though of course, all of us should continue to recognize that seg wit remains a work in progress that is advancing little by little and continues to enjoy overwhelming levels of support demonstrating that its chances of becoming part of the status quo is quite likely (even though that outcome remains part of the future).

Times are changing. It is a dynamic world out there.

Core inherited their "coding" position by default.
The miners got into bed with core, believing they could deliver.
Core cannot deliver.

Divorce proceedings have started.
Miners will keep the blockchain, Core can keep their code.

You are living in some kind of nonsense fantasy if you believe that miners are either going to begin to attempt to rebel against core or attempt to push for hard increases in the blocksize limit - like were proposed in XT/Classic.  Like I asserted many times, those XT/Classic pushing theories are largely dead, including in the minds of the large majority of miners who are going to act in their economic interest to go with seg wit and the various protocol changes that are outlined by core because those upcoming developments are in the best interest of bitcoin and going to be good for long term bitcoin prosperity.

[Searing]

Generally when I refer to the status quo in my various posts on this blocksize limit raising topic, I am frequently asserting that both XT and Classic have failed to meet their evidentiary burden of production and persuasion in order to convince the status quo to adopt them or to work on their adoption.  Saying that XT/Classic have failed in this regard is not the same as saying that seg wit has succeed in this regard, even though likely I have said both, and even though of course, all of us should continue to recognize that seg wit remains a work in progress that is advancing little by little and continues to enjoy overwhelming levels of support demonstrating that its chances of becoming part of the status quo is quite likely (even though that outcome remains part of the future).

Times are changing. It is a dynamic world out there.

Core inherited their "coding" position by default.
The miners got into bed with core, believing they could deliver.
Core cannot deliver.

Divorce proceedings have started.
Miners will keep the blockchain, Core can keep their code.

You are living in some kind of nonsense fantasy if you believe that miners are either going to begin to attempt to rebel against core or attempt to push for hard increases in the blocksize limit - like were proposed in XT/Classic.  Like I asserted many times, those XT/Classic pushing theories are largely dead, including in the minds of the large majority of miners who are going to act in their economic interest to go with seg wit and the various protocol changes that are outlined by core because those upcoming developments are in the best interest of bitcoin and going to be good for long term bitcoin prosperity.

I'll further add to your point...IF and I mean IF it becomes apparant after seg witness and/or delay on lightning network....there will (imho) be enough 'pressure' by all that bitcoin core
will then go ..eh...we don't like it but here is our proposal on a timeline for hard fork to 2mb ..just go quiet the masses.....they will avoid it at all costs or as long as possible even if they
think someday it MAY come to pass....BUT....give bitcoin core some delays in code getting out for lightning network and you'd see the attractiveness of a block size increase by bitcoin core increase as well...as I see it anyway......(they are just slow and prissy on releases imho rather then evil and tricky.....ie typical geeks)

but then again I pre-ordered from BFL back in the day and drank the kool aid so what do I know (too true alas too true)

So don't take anything I say with too much faith either. Just kinda the 'flavor' as I see this all unfold.

[JayJuanGee]

Generally when I refer to the status quo in my various posts on this blocksize limit raising topic, I am frequently asserting that both XT and Classic have failed to meet their evidentiary burden of production and persuasion in order to convince the status quo to adopt them or to work on their adoption.  Saying that XT/Classic have failed in this regard is not the same as saying that seg wit has succeed in this regard, even though likely I have said both, and even though of course, all of us should continue to recognize that seg wit remains a work in progress that is advancing little by little and continues to enjoy overwhelming levels of support demonstrating that its chances of becoming part of the status quo is quite likely (even though that outcome remains part of the future).

Times are changing. It is a dynamic world out there.

Core inherited their "coding" position by default.
The miners got into bed with core, believing they could deliver.
Core cannot deliver.

Divorce proceedings have started.
Miners will keep the blockchain, Core can keep their code.

You are living in some kind of nonsense fantasy if you believe that miners are either going to begin to attempt to rebel against core or attempt to push for hard increases in the blocksize limit - like were proposed in XT/Classic.  Like I asserted many times, those XT/Classic pushing theories are largely dead, including in the minds of the large majority of miners who are going to act in their economic interest to go with seg wit and the various protocol changes that are outlined by core because those upcoming developments are in the best interest of bitcoin and going to be good for long term bitcoin prosperity.

I'll further add to your point...IF and I mean IF it becomes apparant after seg witness and/or delay on lightning network....there will (imho) be enough 'pressure' by all that bitcoin core
will then go ..eh...we don't like it but here is our proposal on a timeline for hard fork to 2mb ..just go quiet the masses.....they will avoid it at all costs or as long as possible even if they
think someday it MAY come to pass....BUT....give bitcoin core some delays in code getting out for lightning network and you'd see the attractiveness of a block size increase by bitcoin core increase as well...as I see it anyway......(they are just slow and prissy on releases imho rather then evil and tricky.....ie typical geeks)

but then again I pre-ordered from BFL back in the day and drank the kool aid so what do I know (too true alas too true)

So don't take anything I say with too much faith either. Just kinda the 'flavor' as I see this all unfold.

I think that you are correct that if segwit and lightning network come out, and then there appears to be some kind of change that is needed (including an immediate increase in the blockchain size limit), then Core would go along with such so long as it seems to have some justification. 


Your other point about software geeks needing time is valid also, because not only does code need to be written and tested, there needs to be some discussion and vetting that allows for objections to be considered, if there are any objections. 

I don't really see bad faith with Core, and I understand if some of them can be a bit paranoid about potential government or banker shills attempting to infiltrate their ranks.. and I suppose that is an additional reason that they like to vet code and to go through processes to attempt to assure that there is not some kind of bitcoin sabatoge attempt which could really detriment bitcoin and its value if they were to allow for the entrance of some security bug that caused the stealing of coins or some other dilution of coin value through software or hacker.

[Mervyn_Pumpkinhead]

Block size is not a concern for BTC because BTC is not a transaction type of currency, it is a store of value currency. Nobody cares if it takes 10 minutes to transact in bitcoin because that has been how long it has taken for confirmation since inception. And nobody that is waiting 10 minutes is buying a cup of coffee.

A store of value currency, that's value is based on artificial scarcity is a foolish concept. Best store of value is in goods, that actually are scarce, and therefor hold solid value. If store of value is mostly based on speculation and faith, then it's too fragile to be a proper place to store value, because those 2 things are anything but predictable and static.
Currency itself hasn't been created for storing value, but to transact value and by that help the dynamics of economy. It's the dream of fat lards, that currency would hold or even enlarge their wealth, while they sit on their ass. Economy, nor even evolution doesn't work like that. Fat lards won't get rewarded for their laziness and the basic principle of currency will remain - your wealth will shrink if you won't keep it moving and your wealth will only enlarge if you work with it by developing new economic paths.

[AlexGR]

Currency itself hasn't been created for storing value, but to transact value and by that help the dynamics of economy.

If the currency loses value it's acceptance is reduced for the purpose of transacting. That's why most national currencies can't be used for international trade and global commerce is conducted in hard currencies.

You can't compete with the paypal/$ combo if you are not superior in that regard.

[Mervyn_Pumpkinhead]

Currency itself hasn't been created for storing value, but to transact value and by that help the dynamics of economy.

If the currency loses value it's acceptance is reduced for the purpose of transacting. That's why most national currencies can't be used for international trade and global commerce is conducted in hard currencies.

You can't compete with the paypal/$ combo if you are not superior in that regard.

Hard currency - predictable future value
Soft currency - unpredictable future value

Inflation is totally OK with trade, if it is predictable. Inflation/Losing value doesn't make a soft currency, but it's unpredictability is what makes a currency soft and low quality. Just like with bitcoin is a soft currency with a highly unpredictable future value.

[AlexGR]

Currency itself hasn't been created for storing value, but to transact value and by that help the dynamics of economy.

If the currency loses value it's acceptance is reduced for the purpose of transacting. That's why most national currencies can't be used for international trade and global commerce is conducted in hard currencies.

You can't compete with the paypal/$ combo if you are not superior in that regard.

Hard currency - predictable future value
Soft currency - unpredictable future value

Inflation is totally OK with trade, if it is predictable. Inflation/Losing value doesn't make a soft currency, but it's unpredictability is what makes a currency soft and low quality. Just like with bitcoin is a soft currency with a highly unpredictable future value.

Bitcoin is fairly "predictable". It's long term trend is upwards and its buying power increases in terms of tangible assets. I can't say the same for fiat currencies

[Dotto]

We're down 19.5% from the $789 top, half a percent from a bear market, and still $500 down from the ATH two and a half years ago. I blame the delayed recovery on Core and the lack of on chain scaling.

ATH was phony GOX price point. Probably would never have made it half that far with a real market. As for current 789 top. You are in a healthy correction in a perpetually growing valuation.

Right now with the halving Bitcoin is in new price discovery mode. I wouldn't be surprised that this current triangle resolves down instead of up. Probably needs to go sub $600 to kick off next big leg up.

Block size is not a concern for BTC because BTC is not a transaction type of currency, it is a store of value currency. Nobody cares if it takes 10 minutes to transact in bitcoin because that has been how long it has taken for confirmation since inception. And nobody that is waiting 10 minutes is buying a cup of coffee.

What is a concern is competition. I think there is a 50% chance that Bitcoin is replaced within a year with a higher valuation currency. Bitcoin is currently one alt-bubble away from being lapped... once that happens chaos will ensue because there will be just too many choices competing for crytpo dollars.

Post of the week.

[Mervyn_Pumpkinhead]

Bitcoin is fairly "predictable". It's long term trend is upwards and its buying power increases in terms of tangible assets. I can't say the same for fiat currencies

Even KZT or RUB are more predictable, with less volatility. Try running a business, that is solely dependent on bitcoin. The prices, the wages, utility costs all planned based on value of bitcoin and see how far you can go. There is a reason why almost all the merchants need bitpay - because they offer the buffer of USD value stability that will make doing business possible. In my mind, bitcoin isn't actually a real currency because it lacks a mechanism for any value stability. It's just a technological gimmick that brought forward an idea how things could be in the future, when cryptocurrencies will actually become practical tools of finance.

You hope that bitcoin will trend upwards in the future. And sorry, but the hopes of bitcoiners aren't exactly solid enough to make a good store of value asset.

[gentlemand]

What is a concern is competition. I think there is a 50% chance that Bitcoin is replaced within a year with a higher valuation currency. Bitcoin is currently one alt-bubble away from being lapped... once that happens chaos will ensue because there will be just too many choices competing for crytpo dollars.

I think that's very possible but it would also highlight the absurdity of the alt market and market cap.

Say the Poloniex maniacs sunk their teeth into Wankcoin. Let's also assume someone held 95% of it and wasn't letting go. Wankcoin gets a market cap of $15 billion within a few weeks.

The Bitcoin killer has arrived. Except there's no GUI wallet. No lightweight wallet. No mobile wallet. No paper wallet. No ETN. No GBTC. No localbitcoins. No more than a handful of exchanges. No payment processor. No way to buy it with a debit card or bank transfer.

No one's battle tested it as all transactions are purely to the exchange wallet and once it's in there it never leaves. No one's bothered to look into how it's going to scale. Why bother? We're getting RICH. Someone holds 95%? STOP FUDDING.

In theory infrastructure could be easily swapped over. So industry hops on the bandwagon, says they never liked that Bitcoin shit anyway so ner and starts the migration. In the meantime the 95% holder does what any good alt market does and rapes it or a glaring technical fault emerges.

Suddenly Bitcoin has lost its sheen and Wankcoin has made everyone look like an utter prick off the back of one giant pump. To the outside world it's just proven exactly what those who were paying attention initially thought. It's amateur hour based on infinitely replicable code  

[AlexGR]

Bitcoin is fairly "predictable". It's long term trend is upwards and its buying power increases in terms of tangible assets. I can't say the same for fiat currencies

Even KZT or RUB are more predictable, with less volatility.

We live in a world where GBP and CHF can do +/- 15% swings in a day.... so...

[Elwar]

I'm liking the amount of FUD. Hoping for some panic. Just a few days is all I need.

[Miz4r]

Bitcoin is fairly "predictable". It's long term trend is upwards and its buying power increases in terms of tangible assets. I can't say the same for fiat currencies

Even KZT or RUB are more predictable, with less volatility. Try running a business, that is solely dependent on bitcoin. The prices, the wages, utility costs all planned based on value of bitcoin and see how far you can go. There is a reason why almost all the merchants need bitpay - because they offer the buffer of USD value stability that will make doing business possible. In my mind, bitcoin isn't actually a real currency because it lacks a mechanism for any value stability. It's just a technological gimmick that brought forward an idea how things could be in the future, when cryptocurrencies will actually become practical tools of finance.

You hope that bitcoin will trend upwards in the future. And sorry, but the hopes of bitcoiners aren't exactly solid enough to make a good store of value asset.

Oh look here we have the BTC doomer who thinks he's so well educated and brilliant and everyone else is just dumb to believe BTC could ever succeed. Well sorry bud but you were completely wrong about BTC earlier and even more wrong about LTC or PPC when you thought it would pump when BTC would pump before halving. Sorry, but your opinion doesn't hold much value considering your past failed predictions. As a global currency Bitcoin right now is not mature or good enough, but to boldly state that some other cryptocurrency will get there before Bitcoin does is quite a statement. A real currency doesn't need some outside mechanism for value stability, it needs liquidity and enough people trusting and using it as such. Gold and silver have done fine as a store of value for ages without such a mechanism as well. Paper currencies however have failed again and again to hold their value over time. So you're seeing this all upside down. Your hopes of some mystical superior cryptocurrency coming up are more delusional and cultish than the hopes of bitcoiners you like to criticize so much. We'll see who the future will proof right, hope you will still be here in a few years from now to admit you were wrong or right. I know I will.