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

[JayJuanGee]

Fourth:  Are you suggesting a drop in hashing power too, or not?   I don't see that, so far.

Yes the HR is down, how can you not see this?  

Hash Rate:   1,363,094,377 GH/s right now

It was ~ 1,550,000 GH/s at halving, had been inching up until halving, held steady for a short while after halving and has recently declined.

That is ~ 12%

yeah, let's get caught up on meaningless information and follow microchanges in the hashrate.

We are not really quibbling about the actual hashrate and its changes, but instead about the significance of such changes that we recognize to exist.

For ease of reference, here's the actual hashrate in the past year.


https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate


As we can see, the hashrate has been going up significantly, and we can zoom out, as well to see how exponential such growth has been.

Wake me up if the hashrate goes below 1,000,000 GHs, and even that level may not really be that significant, but at least there is some kind of potential meaningful change if the hashrate starts to go below that point.


You expect to continue to have ongoing exponential growth in the hashrate at all times, or otherwise bitcoin is broken?, which seems a bit ridiculous..

Even with a hashrate of 1,000,000 GHs is a very high and well able to secure a BTC market cap of 10x or 100x higher BTC prices.

[Elwar]

Of course, the long year trend showed that the price would be $660 the day of the halving (as predicted over 2 years ago).

https://foundersgrid.com/bitcoin-price/

Looks like your tomfoolery is coming to an end, Elwar...

http://bitlegal.io/2016/07/24/eu-commission-to-propose-central-database-of-virtual-currency-users/
EU Commission to propose Central Database of Virtual Currency Users
July 24, 2016
520

The EU Commission in its latest proposal to regulate virtual currency exchanges and custodian wallets (Proposal) suggests a further amendment to the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (4AMLD) which may result in the creation of a central database of virtual currency users (Central VC User Database).

Tomfoolery? I am very open about my use of bitcoins and whom I am. As part of my clearance I never do anything illegal outside of a few traffic violations. The EU is free to watch how I spend my bitcoins, maybe they will learn something and adopt it themselves.

lol right, and so the only names that will ever appear there will be legit users using bitcoin for legal things.

what do they hope to accomplish?

Ever since the Paris shootings there was talk about the guns coming from the "dark web" using bitcoins. Soon after the EU called for a response. A few weeks later they raided people all over the EU looking for "dark web" activity. They made this huge announcement about how they hit all of these "bad guys" listing such prizes as some drugs, some money and one guy had instructions on how to produce meth on his computer. They hailed this as a great victory. No weapons or anything related to "terrorism" but boy did they show those "dark web" users in Europe to stop using that evil "dark web".

[adamstgBit]

Fourth:  Are you suggesting a drop in hashing power too, or not?   I don't see that, so far.

Yes the HR is down, how can you not see this?  

Hash Rate:   1,363,094,377 GH/s right now

It was ~ 1,550,000 GH/s at halving, had been inching up until halving, held steady for a short while after halving and has recently declined.

That is ~ 12%

yeah, let's get caught up on meaningless information and follow microchanges in the hashrate.

We are not really quibbling about the actual hashrate and its changes, but instead about the significance of such changes that we recognize to exist.

For ease of reference, here's the actual hashrate in the past year.


https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate


As we can see, the hashrate has been going up significantly, and we can zoom out, as well to see how exponential such growth has been.

Wake me up if the hashrate goes below 1,000,000 GHs, and even that level may not really be that significant, but at least there is some kind of potential meaningful change if the hashrate starts to go below that point.


You expect to continue to have ongoing exponential growth in the hashrate at all times, or otherwise bitcoin is broken?, which seems a bit ridiculous..

Even with a hashrate of 1,000,000 GHs is a very high and well able to secure a BTC market cap of 10x or 100x higher BTC prices.

what if we have 9billion GH's all coming from 3 mining pools...

i agree with you 1,000,000 GHs is more then enough to secure the network from outside attacks

but the concern ( altho unjustified )  is that minning is becoming more centralized which will make it easyer to push new changes onto the network.


i think that the strong incentive miners have to keep users happy makes this concern of a mining cartel "taking over" a "Todd"

def.
Todd : (1) irrational fear base on the premise that miners might work together in an effort to undermine the very network that sustains them.

[jbreher]

...
Oh yeah, and this arrived today - https://www.gsx.gi/article/8292/gibraltar-stock-exchange-welcomes-bitcoineti

http://www.theedgemarkets.com/en/article/europes-first-regulated-bitcoin-product-launches-gibraltar

The new BitcoinETI begins trading this week on the Gibraltar Stock Exchange and Germany's Deutsche Boerse and will be available through regulated brokerages across Europe.

I'd say this is pretty big news. Or isn't it?

I don't know. If they are required to fully back all investment euros with actual Bitcoin at 1:1 ratio, then it's bullish. If regs allow them to do partial reserve, not so much.

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

what if we have 9billion GH's all coming from 3 mining pools...

i agree with you 1,000,000 GHs is more then enough to secure the network from outside attacks

but the concern ( altho unjustified )  is that minning is becoming more centralized which will make it easyer to push new changes onto the network.


i think that the strong incentive miners have to keep users happy makes this concern of a mining cartel "taking over" a "Todd"

def.
Todd : (1) irrational fear base on the premise that miners might work together in an effort to undermine the very network that sustains them.

You are not really going to get any argument from me that there is a need for a large number of miners and mining operations, and so there does likely need to be various kinds of protections regarding centralization.

My post was mostly responding to the assertion that the halvening had potentially caused some kind of meaningful drop in the hashpower, bitcoin's price and the implications that bitcoin was in a perilous state because of such supposed drop in mining power...

I will concede that due to risks of centralization there is a need for balancing and continuing an incentive for a relatively broad spread of miners..... yet I don't think that the halvening has had any meaningful impact yet on such centralization dynamics (if any exist).. and ultimately it seems pretty likely to me that BTC prices are going to go up because of the halvening - even though it could take a year or longer for such BTC supply cuts to become more painful in terms of availability of coins and causing BTC prices to increase more.

In the shorter term, it is much harder to really make meaningful assessments regarding which small changes here and there (including the halvening) are causing what, because there are a lot of changes going on all of the time in bitcoinlandia and BTC prices are continued to be pushed in both directions (with relatively low volume in recent weeks  - even around the time of the halvening).

[Fakhoury]

http://forklog.net/exante-winklevoss-brothers-etf-to-skyrocket-bitcoin-price/

"if the Winklevoss’ application is approved, the bitcoin price can easily rise to 2 and even to 10 thousand dollars."

Good point, Elwar, as I was asking myself, will the COIN ETF ever get approved ?

I think yes, but it's not around the corner.

What you think ? If no, why ? If yes, will take some time, right ?

Thanks buddy

ETF is bullshit (not bullish). winklewees are ever failing wannabes burning through daddy money.

trading paper coins will certainly not lead btc price higher.

just look at how gold ETFs are used to lower its price, flooding the market with their monkey gold.

Elwar, what do you think about what hdbuck said ?

And yes, I'm aware of that second ETF filled by SoildX.

You said that the winkies are impatient now, how will this help in accelarating the decision taking ?

Plus, don't you think it's too soon to see that the COIN ETF will launch before the end of the year ?

Lastly, do you think we could have two Bitcoin ETF's in two diffierent stock exchanges ? Probable ?

The part about the Winklevoss twins being impatient implies that they are still actively trying to get this to work and by changing exchanges they are showing that they're willing to do what it takes to get it done.
 
As far as lowering the price? No. We already see that people are willing to spend double the bitcoin price for bitcoins on the exchange market if they have a broker handling it. The more people who are able to check a box at work to have some of their retirement go toward a bitcoin investment the higher the price will go. That is a market not yet tapped. And it is huge.

It's all speculation as to when it will happen though. They said that it usually takes 2 years from the initial filing. It's been over 3 years.

Thanks for the reply, Elwar.

1.

That is a market not yet tapped. And it is huge

Any numbers about that numbers, even an estimate ?

2. Do you think we could have two Bitcoin ETF's in two different stock exchanges ? Probable ?

3. What do you think about this

https://www.gsx.gi/article/8292/gibraltar-stock-exchange-welcomes-bitcoineti

4. And this as well

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4uiny2/vontobel_issues_first_bitcoin_certificate_on/

Thanks

[adamstgBit]

[edited out]

what if we have 9billion GH's all coming from 3 mining pools...

i agree with you 1,000,000 GHs is more then enough to secure the network from outside attacks

but the concern ( altho unjustified )  is that minning is becoming more centralized which will make it easyer to push new changes onto the network.


i think that the strong incentive miners have to keep users happy makes this concern of a mining cartel "taking over" a "Todd"

def.
Todd : (1) irrational fear base on the premise that miners might work together in an effort to undermine the very network that sustains them.

You are not really going to get any argument from me that there is a need for a large number of miners and mining operations, and so there does likely need to be various kinds of protections regarding centralization.

My post was mostly responding to the assertion that the halvening had potentially caused some kind of meaningful drop in the hashpower, bitcoin's price and the implications that bitcoin was in a perilous state because of such supposed drop in mining power...

I will concede that due to risks of centralization there is a need for balancing and continuing an incentive for a relatively broad spread of miners..... yet I don't think that the halvening has had any meaningful impact yet on such centralization dynamics (if any exist).. and ultimately it seems pretty likely to me that BTC prices are going to go up because of the halvening - even though it could take a year or longer for such BTC supply cuts to become more painful in terms of availability of coins and causing BTC prices to increase more.

In the shorter term, it is much harder to really make meaningful assessments regarding which small changes here and there (including the halvening) are causing what, because there are a lot of changes going on all of the time in bitcoinlandia and BTC prices are continued to be pushed in both directions (with relatively low volume in recent weeks  - even around the time of the halvening).

part of me feels all this, node count,  minning in china, bitcoin "centraliztion", is all completely over stated. sure its important to maintain a certain level of decentralization, but I dont think we are anywhere close to a dangerous situation.

but ya building in some incentives that promote decentralization can't hurt.

I would like to see full-nodes have more weight when it comes to choosing which new features get adopted

they did this thing which allows minning to express there willingness / readiness for any particular BIP.
they should allow full-nodes to do the same thing.

i guess its already like that, i could choose to run BitcoinUnlimited, and there by express my willingness to accept bigger blocks. but idk I just dont FEEL it would make any difference.

[Elwar]

http://forklog.net/exante-winklevoss-brothers-etf-to-skyrocket-bitcoin-price/

"if the Winklevoss’ application is approved, the bitcoin price can easily rise to 2 and even to 10 thousand dollars."

Good point, Elwar, as I was asking myself, will the COIN ETF ever get approved ?

I think yes, but it's not around the corner.

What you think ? If no, why ? If yes, will take some time, right ?

Thanks buddy

ETF is bullshit (not bullish). winklewees are ever failing wannabes burning through daddy money.

trading paper coins will certainly not lead btc price higher.

just look at how gold ETFs are used to lower its price, flooding the market with their monkey gold.

Elwar, what do you think about what hdbuck said ?

And yes, I'm aware of that second ETF filled by SoildX.

You said that the winkies are impatient now, how will this help in accelarating the decision taking ?

Plus, don't you think it's too soon to see that the COIN ETF will launch before the end of the year ?

Lastly, do you think we could have two Bitcoin ETF's in two diffierent stock exchanges ? Probable ?

The part about the Winklevoss twins being impatient implies that they are still actively trying to get this to work and by changing exchanges they are showing that they're willing to do what it takes to get it done.
 
As far as lowering the price? No. We already see that people are willing to spend double the bitcoin price for bitcoins on the exchange market if they have a broker handling it. The more people who are able to check a box at work to have some of their retirement go toward a bitcoin investment the higher the price will go. That is a market not yet tapped. And it is huge.

It's all speculation as to when it will happen though. They said that it usually takes 2 years from the initial filing. It's been over 3 years.

Thanks for the reply, Elwar.

1.

That is a market not yet tapped. And it is huge

Any numbers about that numbers, even an estimate ?

2. Do you think we could have two Bitcoin ETF's in two different stock exchanges ? Probable ?

3. What do you think about this

https://www.gsx.gi/article/8292/gibraltar-stock-exchange-welcomes-bitcoineti

4. And this as well

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4uiny2/vontobel_issues_first_bitcoin_certificate_on/

Thanks

Your guess is as good as mine. I like Cameron's guess of $40,000

As far as the Gibraltar ETI...I thought there was already something similar in Switzerland. I'm really not a big stock market guy, I just think it opens up to a lot of big investors. Plus I could invest my tax deducted retirement into bitcoins (if I paid taxes).

[Fakhoury]

http://forklog.net/exante-winklevoss-brothers-etf-to-skyrocket-bitcoin-price/

"if the Winklevoss’ application is approved, the bitcoin price can easily rise to 2 and even to 10 thousand dollars."

Good point, Elwar, as I was asking myself, will the COIN ETF ever get approved ?

I think yes, but it's not around the corner.

What you think ? If no, why ? If yes, will take some time, right ?

Thanks buddy

ETF is bullshit (not bullish). winklewees are ever failing wannabes burning through daddy money.

trading paper coins will certainly not lead btc price higher.

just look at how gold ETFs are used to lower its price, flooding the market with their monkey gold.

Elwar, what do you think about what hdbuck said ?

And yes, I'm aware of that second ETF filled by SoildX.

You said that the winkies are impatient now, how will this help in accelarating the decision taking ?

Plus, don't you think it's too soon to see that the COIN ETF will launch before the end of the year ?

Lastly, do you think we could have two Bitcoin ETF's in two diffierent stock exchanges ? Probable ?

The part about the Winklevoss twins being impatient implies that they are still actively trying to get this to work and by changing exchanges they are showing that they're willing to do what it takes to get it done.
 
As far as lowering the price? No. We already see that people are willing to spend double the bitcoin price for bitcoins on the exchange market if they have a broker handling it. The more people who are able to check a box at work to have some of their retirement go toward a bitcoin investment the higher the price will go. That is a market not yet tapped. And it is huge.

It's all speculation as to when it will happen though. They said that it usually takes 2 years from the initial filing. It's been over 3 years.

Thanks for the reply, Elwar.

1.

That is a market not yet tapped. And it is huge

Any numbers about that numbers, even an estimate ?

2. Do you think we could have two Bitcoin ETF's in two different stock exchanges ? Probable ?

3. What do you think about this

https://www.gsx.gi/article/8292/gibraltar-stock-exchange-welcomes-bitcoineti

4. And this as well

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4uiny2/vontobel_issues_first_bitcoin_certificate_on/

Thanks

Your guess is as good as mine. I like Cameron's guess of $40,000

As far as the Gibraltar ETI...I thought there was already something similar in Switzerland. I'm really not a big stock market guy, I just think it opens up to a lot of big investors. Plus I could invest my tax deducted retirement into bitcoins (if I paid taxes).

Pardon me, but what guess and what that $40 grand ?

I was asking about this market and any numbers you are aware of or even an estimate

The more people who are able to check a box at work to have some of their retirement go toward a bitcoin investment the higher the price will go. That is a market not yet tapped. And it is huge.

And still you didn't answer my question, could we have 2 ETF's ?!

Thanks

[Torque]

what if we have 9billion GH's all coming from 3 mining pools...

i agree with you 1,000,000 GHs is more then enough to secure the network from outside attacks

but the concern ( altho unjustified )  is that minning is becoming more centralized which will make it easyer to push new changes onto the network.


i think that the strong incentive miners have to keep users happy makes this concern of a mining cartel "taking over" a "Todd"

def.
Todd : (1) irrational fear base on the premise that miners might work together in an effort to undermine the very network that sustains them.

I think a bigger or at least equivalent concern is that a centralized mining cartel can simply veto or slow the progress of any new changes, no matter how beneficial or competitive they might be to other FinTech.  Or that Todd and company are only willing to push changes that the mining cartel signals that they agree with ahead of time.

I think that this could already be the case. I don't think that Satoshi ever envisioned core developers colluding with miners per se, correct me if I am wrong here.

We will only know if this arrangement truly exists or not, only if/when the core developers ever push a change that miners are not in complete agreement with.

Only time will tell I guess...

[Elwar]

http://forklog.net/exante-winklevoss-brothers-etf-to-skyrocket-bitcoin-price/

"if the Winklevoss’ application is approved, the bitcoin price can easily rise to 2 and even to 10 thousand dollars."

Good point, Elwar, as I was asking myself, will the COIN ETF ever get approved ?

I think yes, but it's not around the corner.

What you think ? If no, why ? If yes, will take some time, right ?

Thanks buddy

ETF is bullshit (not bullish). winklewees are ever failing wannabes burning through daddy money.

trading paper coins will certainly not lead btc price higher.

just look at how gold ETFs are used to lower its price, flooding the market with their monkey gold.

Elwar, what do you think about what hdbuck said ?

And yes, I'm aware of that second ETF filled by SoildX.

You said that the winkies are impatient now, how will this help in accelarating the decision taking ?

Plus, don't you think it's too soon to see that the COIN ETF will launch before the end of the year ?

Lastly, do you think we could have two Bitcoin ETF's in two diffierent stock exchanges ? Probable ?

The part about the Winklevoss twins being impatient implies that they are still actively trying to get this to work and by changing exchanges they are showing that they're willing to do what it takes to get it done.
 
As far as lowering the price? No. We already see that people are willing to spend double the bitcoin price for bitcoins on the exchange market if they have a broker handling it. The more people who are able to check a box at work to have some of their retirement go toward a bitcoin investment the higher the price will go. That is a market not yet tapped. And it is huge.

It's all speculation as to when it will happen though. They said that it usually takes 2 years from the initial filing. It's been over 3 years.

Thanks for the reply, Elwar.

1.

That is a market not yet tapped. And it is huge

Any numbers about that numbers, even an estimate ?

2. Do you think we could have two Bitcoin ETF's in two different stock exchanges ? Probable ?

3. What do you think about this

https://www.gsx.gi/article/8292/gibraltar-stock-exchange-welcomes-bitcoineti

4. And this as well

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4uiny2/vontobel_issues_first_bitcoin_certificate_on/

Thanks

Your guess is as good as mine. I like Cameron's guess of $40,000

As far as the Gibraltar ETI...I thought there was already something similar in Switzerland. I'm really not a big stock market guy, I just think it opens up to a lot of big investors. Plus I could invest my tax deducted retirement into bitcoins (if I paid taxes).

Pardon me, but what guess and what that $40 grand ?

I was asking about this market and any numbers you are aware of or even an estimate

The more people who are able to check a box at work to have some of their retirement go toward a bitcoin investment the higher the price will go. That is a market not yet tapped. And it is huge.

And still you didn't answer my question, could we have 2 ETF's ?!

Thanks

I don't see why not. An ETF on different exchanges. That's why I think it'll go quicker. Each exchange won't want to be known as the losers that couldn't put together an ETF.

[hdbuck]

http://forklog.net/exante-winklevoss-brothers-etf-to-skyrocket-bitcoin-price/

"if the Winklevoss’ application is approved, the bitcoin price can easily rise to 2 and even to 10 thousand dollars."

Good point, Elwar, as I was asking myself, will the COIN ETF ever get approved ?

I think yes, but it's not around the corner.

What you think ? If no, why ? If yes, will take some time, right ?

Thanks buddy

ETF is bullshit (not bullish). winklewees are ever failing wannabes burning through daddy money.

trading paper coins will certainly not lead btc price higher.

just look at how gold ETFs are used to lower its price, flooding the market with their monkey gold.

Elwar, what do you think about what hdbuck said ?

And yes, I'm aware of that second ETF filled by SoildX.

You said that the winkies are impatient now, how will this help in accelarating the decision taking ?

Plus, don't you think it's too soon to see that the COIN ETF will launch before the end of the year ?

Lastly, do you think we could have two Bitcoin ETF's in two diffierent stock exchanges ? Probable ?

The part about the Winklevoss twins being impatient implies that they are still actively trying to get this to work and by changing exchanges they are showing that they're willing to do what it takes to get it done.
 
As far as lowering the price? No. We already see that people are willing to spend double the bitcoin price for bitcoins on the exchange market if they have a broker handling it. The more people who are able to check a box at work to have some of their retirement go toward a bitcoin investment the higher the price will go. That is a market not yet tapped. And it is huge.

It's all speculation as to when it will happen though. They said that it usually takes 2 years from the initial filing. It's been over 3 years.

Thanks for the reply, Elwar.

1.

That is a market not yet tapped. And it is huge

Any numbers about that numbers, even an estimate ?

2. Do you think we could have two Bitcoin ETF's in two different stock exchanges ? Probable ?

3. What do you think about this

https://www.gsx.gi/article/8292/gibraltar-stock-exchange-welcomes-bitcoineti

4. And this as well

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4uiny2/vontobel_issues_first_bitcoin_certificate_on/

Thanks

Your guess is as good as mine. I like Cameron's guess of $40,000

As far as the Gibraltar ETI...I thought there was already something similar in Switzerland. I'm really not a big stock market guy, I just think it opens up to a lot of big investors. Plus I could invest my tax deducted retirement into bitcoins (if I paid taxes).

Pardon me, but what guess and what that $40 grand ?

I was asking about this market and any numbers you are aware of or even an estimate

The more people who are able to check a box at work to have some of their retirement go toward a bitcoin investment the higher the price will go. That is a market not yet tapped. And it is huge.

And still you didn't answer my question, could we have 2 ETF's ?!

Thanks

I don't see why not. An ETF on different exchanges. That's why I think it'll go quicker. Each exchange won't want to be known as the losers that couldn't put together an ETF.

the point of bitcoin is not trusting anyone.. ETFs are oxymoronic.

sheeple will be shaved from its stupid fiat in due time, but it'll be too late for them to gather even coupla satoshis.

then yea maybe their only resort accessing bitcoin will be ponzi ETF shenanigans.

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

part of me feels all this, node count,  minning in china, bitcoin "centraliztion", is all completely over stated. sure its important to maintain a certain level of decentralization, but I dont think we are anywhere close to a dangerous situation.

but ya building in some incentives that promote decentralization can't hurt.

Yep, there seems to be some empirical difficulties in the bitcoin space in term of being able to measure exactly the mining and who are the miners, etc, etc.

It seems to be kind of like a catch 22 in that it is difficult to measure exactly who are all the miners and to ensure that some of them are  not collaborating in order to destroy bitcoin.

I would like to see full-nodes have more weight when it comes to choosing which new features get adopted

they did this thing which allows minning to express there willingness / readiness for any particular BIP.
they should allow full-nodes to do the same thing.

I thought that attempting to accomplish something like this increased the likelihood for sybil attacks, and if so, how can you weight the votes properly if some rich folks are out their trying to imitate nodes as if they are real people?

i guess its already like that, i could choose to run BitcoinUnlimited, and there by express my willingness to accept bigger blocks. but idk I just dont FEEL it would make any difference.

Probably in the current state it may not make a lot of difference to run BU.  Probably, more effectively would be figuring out ways that maybe some other cryptos are able to better allow for governance and or input to be more balanced and to figure out ways in which to incorporate some of those mechanisms into bitcoin in order that, for example, too much centralization ends up taking over bitcoin.


Some of this will likely evolve with time and monitoring, and surely we continue to hope for decent developments, including issues in which prices are controlled by quasi-centralized exchanges, and maybe there are continuing solutions being proposed to make more decentralized abilities/mechanisms to establish BTC prices.

[European Central Bank]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/25/natwest-paves-way-for-introduction-of-negative-interest-rates

negative interest rates might be on their way for uk business customers. I wonder what the next banking disgrace will be after this.

oh, and there was some free bitcoin in the comments section up for grabs. it's gone now.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I see nothing. Hey is Core supposed to take hours and hours to sync with the network? My datacenter's in my other pants.

You're downloading and verifying every transaction that has happened in Bitcoin, ever. About the size of two blu-ray movies now.

If you have a decent amount of ram on the system... try increasing your dbcache to speed up verification.

-dbcache=<n>    say n = 2500, would allow the process to use 2.5GB of ram vs the default of 100MB.

I did this thing you said. 

[marcus_of_augustus]

I think a bigger or at least equivalent concern is that a centralized mining cartel can simply veto or slow the progress of any new changes, no matter how beneficial or competitive they might be to other FinTech.  Or that Todd and company are only willing to push changes that the mining cartel signals that they agree with ahead of time.

I think that this could already be the case. I don't think that Satoshi ever envisioned core developers colluding with miners per se, correct me if I am wrong here.

We will only know if this arrangement truly exists or not, only if/when the core developers ever push a change that miners are not in complete agreement with.

Only time will tell I guess...

all excellent points.

[marcus_of_augustus]

satoshi goes nutz
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3707721/Stabbing-horror-Japan-leaves-19-dead-45-injured-knifeman-attacks-centre-disabled-people.html

Satoshi Uematsu, 26, is in custody and is reported to have said: 'I want to get rid of the disabled from this world'

[adamstgBit]

satoshi goes nutz
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3707721/Stabbing-horror-Japan-leaves-19-dead-45-injured-knifeman-attacks-centre-disabled-people.html

Satoshi Uematsu, 26, is in custody and is reported to have said: 'I want to get rid of the disabled from this world'

he probably flipped out when he realized he forever lost ALL his minted bitcoins from 2009 .

[adamstgBit]

[edited out]

part of me feels all this, node count,  minning in china, bitcoin "centraliztion", is all completely over stated. sure its important to maintain a certain level of decentralization, but I dont think we are anywhere close to a dangerous situation.

but ya building in some incentives that promote decentralization can't hurt.

Yep, there seems to be some empirical difficulties in the bitcoin space in term of being able to measure exactly the mining and who are the miners, etc, etc.

It seems to be kind of like a catch 22 in that it is difficult to measure exactly who are all the miners and to ensure that some of them are  not collaborating in order to destroy bitcoin.

we do have this :https://blockchain.info/pools
we know that the bigger minning pools are each owned/governed by a dozen investors
the other pools get hashes from ~100 large minning operation and thousands of hobbyist.
to me this is just fine, better then fine.
anycase too me its a Todd to think that minners would ever do anything other than what they perceive the majority to want, so who cares.

I would like to see full-nodes have more weight when it comes to choosing which new features get adopted
they did this thing which allows minning to express there willingness / readiness for any particular BIP.
they should allow full-nodes to do the same thing.

I thought that attempting to accomplish something like this increased the likelihood for sybil attacks, and if so, how can you weight the votes properly if some rich folks are out their trying to imitate nodes as if they are real people?

I guess so, we did see Classic node count reach almost 50% when clearly it never actually had that much support. it was pretty easy to see that they were mostly ran by amazon severs.
maybe they could require nodes to sign a msg with a private key, that way its more clear that we are measuring econmic majority.

i guess its already like that, i could choose to run BitcoinUnlimited, and there by express my willingness to accept bigger blocks. but idk I just dont FEEL it would make any difference.

Probably in the current state it may not make a lot of difference to run BU.  Probably, more effectively would be figuring out ways that maybe some other cryptos are able to better allow for governance and or input to be more balanced and to figure out ways in which to incorporate some of those mechanisms into bitcoin in order that, for example, too much centralization ends up taking over bitcoin.

Some of this will likely evolve with time and monitoring, and surely we continue to hope for decent developments, including issues in which prices are controlled by quasi-centralized exchanges, and maybe there are continuing solutions being proposed to make more decentralized abilities/mechanisms to establish BTC prices.

i think what needs to change is people's perception.

despite SOME people's attempts at spreading the idea that having multiple competing implementations was a good thing. Most still have this idea that if the node isn't a core node its not valid, the idea that the other implementations like BU are written by amateurs and aren't a serious option. things like Mods declaring Classic or BU as an "altcoin" and going on a censorship rampage has fucked with poeple's perception.... shame on them.


I remember a time when all development decisions where carried out by 1 guy rageless of any objections, minners didnt ask questions, users were blissfully unaware of what was included in new versions, while Mr Manipulator (Pirate40 was his name) painted whatever candles sticks he felt was appropriate.
can't say things aren't improving with time, to me bitcoin has never been more decentralized as it is today.

[savetherainforest]

The next 24 hours will be amazing!!! ... 

Stuff is about to happen!