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

[adamstgBit]

" Hard forks are evil, and only core dev knows what best for bitcoin. "

I think core is attempting to, and successfully, using the resultant recent smart contract coin change and split, to argue that there should never be any bitcoin forks because, 'see what happens'. I think they are succeeding in this argument. And sorry, I'm being facetious with regards to 1mb4eva since even Nullc conceded that LN needs bigger blocks (4mb). However, all of this will be done under the benevolent leadership of our overlords. Hail hydra.. err core. I think this proposal allows them to continue to consolidate power. I think you are right that we need to show that hard forks are pretty easy. And the most recent hard fork was pretty easy, then polo started screwing everyone and made a bundle of money and stabbed the ecosystem in the back. I have hope for a miner revolt but this just means it needs to happen sooner or the opportunity will be lost forever.

I do not understand how anyone can see this as an argument against HF's. ETH's value didnt crash,( my short is underwater ~ -4%) nothing bad happened. if anything this proves that HFs, even ones that result in a split, isn't going to cause much problems at all, the weaker fork simply gets viewed as an altcoin and the majority just sorta ignore it.

thats the thing, 1MB cannot stand, a HF to bump up block limit is REQUIRED. there is no way around it, so why would we not bump it NOW, LN will require this later, and we could make use of >1MB block now, so wtf is the hold up for?

they will now need to back track on all there silly arguments later when LN requires bigger blocks.

[adamstgBit]

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/researchers-bitcoin-blockchain-secured-inspite-of-51-attack/

numerous bitcoin developers, including Gregory Maxwell, Peter Todd, Luke-Jr and others, have stated that bitcoin mining is centralized in two or three individuals.

LOL!

so, is it 2 or is it 3??

i mean it cant be THAT hard to determine...

[Holliday]

i think the goal is and always will be to get bitcoin to be able to process all of the worlds TX.

LOL. Achieving censorship resistance requires additional resources. It's ridiculous to burden the entire economy with that when every transaction does not require it. It just needs to remain a viable option.

It's also ridiculous to try and burden a system, where full nodes must keep a copy of every transaction in existence, with every transaction under the sun.

Besides, I'd prefer a multitude of robust systems over everyone in the world putting all their eggs in one basket. You are complaining about the power of the core devs today, well imagine their power when the entire world is using Bitcoin for everything.

right now poeple have gotten use to the idea that bitcoin will never be able to do that.
when LN comes and changes the game, we will be able to say that "yes bitcoin CAN potentially take over the world."

i agree only LN can achieve this, but i disagree that blocksize can stay at 1MB or that 2MB would have any meaningful centralizing effect. it should have been bumped up already and its sad you small blockers cant see that.

For the love of bitcoin, and all it stands for, we MUST ALL AGREE the fallowing statement is completely INSANE

How's running that full node going? I had to restart mine three days ago and I've already transferred 80 GB worth of data.

" Hard forks are evil, and only core dev knows what best for bitcoin. "

Things that no Bitcoiner said, ever. Only trolls pretending to be Bitcoiners say such things.

[adamstgBit]

i think the goal is and always will be to get bitcoin to be able to process all of the worlds TX.

LOL. Achieving censorship resistance requires additional resources. It's ridiculous to burden the entire economy with that when every transaction does not require it. It just needs to remain a viable option.

It's also ridiculous to try and burden a system, where full nodes must keep a copy of every transaction in existence, with every transaction under the sun.

Besides, I'd prefer a multitude of robust systems over everyone in the world putting all their eggs in one basket. You are complaining about the power of the core devs today, well imagine their power when the entire world is using Bitcoin for everything.

read a little more of my post, i agree LN is the only way to do that.
good point, the sooner we lose the "only core devs opinion has any weight" attitude,  the better...

right now poeple have gotten use to the idea that bitcoin will never be able to do that.
when LN comes and changes the game, we will be able to say that "yes bitcoin CAN potentially take over the world."

i agree only LN can achieve this, but i disagree that blocksize can stay at 1MB or that 2MB would have any meaningful centralizing effect. it should have been bumped up already and its sad you small blockers cant see that.

For the love of bitcoin, and all it stands for, we MUST ALL AGREE the fallowing statement is completely INSANE

How's running that full node going? I had to restart mine three days ago and I've already transferred 80 GB worth of data.

the CPU usage from syncing was making my computer very loud, i had planed to turn it on a few hours each day, but then i lost interest.

" Hard forks are evil, and only core dev knows what best for bitcoin. "

Things that no Bitcoiner said, ever. Only trolls pretending to be Bitcoiners say such things.

i'm glad we agree its a insane statement.
" HF are not to be feared, other dev's opinion like the BU devs should also be considered "
is more reasonable, agreed?

[Holliday]

" HF are not to be feared, other dev's opinion like the BU devs should also be considered "

is more reasonable, agreed?

It's more reasonable, and it's also reality. Do you assume Bitcoiners are stupid? Don't you think we've all thought long and hard about how we'd like to see Bitcoin scale? Don't you think we run the implementation that reflects our opinion?

I see a lot of posters acting like Core is our only option, but we all know that hasn't been the case for quite some time now. I run Core for a reason. I choose it for a reason. I choose NOT to run other implementations for a reason. I choose!

[Ibian]

In astonishing news, people have egos. And now back to the Dunning and Kruger show.

[AlexGR]

I do not understand how anyone can see this as an argument against HF's.

That's the problem right there...

[Holliday]

IDK, i think most poeple believe HF are evil and that other devs are amateurs.
things like classic being declared an altcoin and an attempt at a "hostile take over", and poeple like Trace Mayer saying other devs are amateurs, lead me to this conclusion.

BU might be less taxing on your bandwidth, maybe you made the wrong choice?

When I want advice about code, I would probably turn towards people who actually write code?

So you are telling me the client that allows blocks of any size will use less bandwidth than one that caps them at 1 MB. OK... I'm not sure if you've really thought this through.

[adamstgBit]

IDK, i think most poeple believe HF are evil and that other devs are amateurs.
things like classic being declared an altcoin and an attempt at a "hostile take over", and poeple like Trace Mayer saying other devs are amateurs, lead me to this conclusion.

BU might be less taxing on your bandwidth, maybe you made the wrong choice?

When I want advice about code, I would probably turn towards people who actually write code?

So you are telling me the client that allows blocks of any size will use less bandwidth than one that caps them at 1 MB. OK... I'm not sure if you've really thought this through.

lol, sounds nuts eh. but until block size changes BU will be less taxing, ( or so i'm told. )
BU devs code, some programmers implement custom wallet  software for exchanges and such.
lots of programmers are more than familiar with the bitcoin protocol.

[adamstgBit]

pushing 2MB block into the protocol now, failed.
and now segwit is close to completion ( *completed* but needs to be fully tested / adopted? idk )
i think most will agree we need to stick to the plan, segwit now and we revisit 2MB later.
so we are arguing about this for no reason, we're more or less all on the same page now.

[marcus1986]

Bitcoin volatility index: 2.5%

Huh, nice picture! Made my day!

[JayJuanGee]

" Hard forks are evil, and only core dev knows what best for bitcoin. "

I think core is attempting to, and successfully, using the resultant recent smart contract coin change and split, to argue that there should never be any bitcoin forks because, 'see what happens'. I think they are succeeding in this argument. And sorry, I'm being facetious with regards to 1mb4eva since even Nullc conceded that LN needs bigger blocks (4mb). However, all of this will be done under the benevolent leadership of our overlords. Hail hydra.. err core. I think this proposal allows them to continue to consolidate power. I think you are right that we need to show that hard forks are pretty easy. And the most recent hard fork was pretty easy, then polo started screwing everyone and made a bundle of money and stabbed the ecosystem in the back. I have hope for a miner revolt but this just means it needs to happen sooner or the opportunity will be lost forever.

I do not understand how anyone can see this as an argument against HF's. ETH's value didnt crash,( my short is underwater ~ -4%) nothing bad happened. if anything this proves that HFs, even ones that result in a split, isn't going to cause much problems at all, the weaker fork simply gets viewed as an altcoin and the majority just sorta ignore it.

thats the thing, 1MB cannot stand, a HF to bump up block limit is REQUIRED. there is no way around it, so why would we not bump it NOW, LN will require this later, and we could make use of >1MB block now, so wtf is the hold up for?

they will now need to back track on all there silly arguments later when LN requires bigger blocks.

Look at you still on the same talking points, over and over and over.  

One day you say, "o.k. I can accept where we are, o.k. increase the blocksize limit later."  Then the next day you are back to those already worn out arguments, "we need a blocksize limit increase, now, now now!!! There is no reason why not, now now now!!!"  

 You know I repeat my same response too, and that is that so many of you big block fucktards continue to repeat over and over, and suggest that the burden is on Core to explain why it is not taking some kind of action to increase the blocksize limit, and the fact of the matter is that the burden of production of evidence and the burden of persuasion regarding any such evidence, if it were to exist, is not on Core to explain why it is not taking the actions that you would like.  Both the burden of production and persuasion is on folks who want the change, and those folks are no fucking where even close to meeting either of those burdens, even though they continue to whine about it and continue to erroneously (and maybe even purposefully in a trolling manner) suggest that Core has some kind of burdens in this regard.

Tried and worn out arguments and gone over many times, no?  Oh no, let's just keep raising the arguments over and over and over, even though we have no further evidence and no better logic to support such a position.



Edit:    In other words, based on reading some of Adams subsequent posts from just a little bit ago, today, it appears that he is reverting back into nearly full retard mode.  Meltdown or what?

[jbreher]

I heard there is some sort of a secret meeting concerning mining....

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/researchers-bitcoin-blockchain-secured-inspite-of-51-attack/

I don't know what your talk of a secret meeting has to do with the quoted article, but the latter is intriguing. The idea that each transaction include an indication of the transferrer's 'best chain' -- as a 'user voting' mechanism -- might conceivably give some measure of power to non-mining nodes. (As they have none today, but that's a different convo.)

[DaRude]

pushing 2MB block into the protocol now, failed.
and now segwit is close to completion ( *completed* but needs to be fully tested / adopted? idk )
i think most will agree we need to stick to the plan, segwit now and we revisit 2MB later.
so we are arguing about this for no reason, we're more or less all on the same page now.

Why do people think that blocks won't be full even after segwit + 2MB 
Think the same people miss the whole argument

[Meuh6879]

HF can not work on "not free" network.
Bitcoin is not free ... at all.







Exchange can ... do the job.








Bitcoin not affected.











HF are fucked by Bitcoin rules. Good.

[jbreher]

i think the goal is and always will be to get bitcoin to be able to process all of the worlds TX.

i agree only LN can achieve this

I don't. While I do not know how many years would transpire for the world to adopt some mythical 'limitless bitcoin' as the default transaction mechanism, let us posit that it would be at least several years.

A three order of magnitude improvement is all it would take for us to hit Visa levels.

HDD capacity has increased more than three orders of magnitude in the last two decades.
It only took one decade (1997 to 2007) for internet aggregate throughput to do 1000x.
Single-chip MIPS did 10^3 from 1986 to 2006.

We can quibble over recent figures and such, but the trend is clear. Bitcoin can indeed scale to encompass the role of a worldwide default transaction medium. Are trends decelerating? Maybe, maybe not. Is the world wanting to adopt fully in two decades? Maybe, maybe not. But technology will at some time enable such.

[jbreher]

And the most recent hard fork was pretty easy, then polo started screwing everyone and made a bundle of money and stabbed the ecosystem in the back. I have hope for a miner revolt but this just means it needs to happen sooner or the opportunity will be lost forever.

I still am waiting for anyone to explain to me how any aspect of the hard fork of the-coin-that-shall-not-be-named was in any way negative.

Forkers got what they wanted, stayers got what they wanted, aggregate market cap greater than ever. And there is now another leveraged trading vehicle for Bitcoin price arbitration. What's not to love?

[marcus_of_augustus]

[adamstgBit]

pushing 2MB block into the protocol now, failed.
and now segwit is close to completion ( *completed* but needs to be fully tested / adopted? idk )
i think most will agree we need to stick to the plan, segwit now and we revisit 2MB later.
so we are arguing about this for no reason, we're more or less all on the same page now.

Why do people think that blocks won't be full even after segwit + 2MB  
Think the same people miss the whole argument

why would you think that if we suddnly double or quadruple block space, it would fill up right away ?

the fullblockcalypse creeped up on us, i mean it took years to get to the point where 1MB block were full why would the next MB get filled up over night?

[podyx]

pushing 2MB block into the protocol now, failed.
and now segwit is close to completion ( *completed* but needs to be fully tested / adopted? idk )
i think most will agree we need to stick to the plan, segwit now and we revisit 2MB later.
so we are arguing about this for no reason, we're more or less all on the same page now.

Why do people think that blocks won't be full even after segwit + 2MB  
Think the same people miss the whole argument

why would you think that if we suddnly double or quadruple (segwit+2mB) block space they would fill right up?

the fullblockcalypse creeped up on us, i mean it took years to get to the point where 1MB block were full why would the next MB get filled up over night?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function

Obviously it won't happen over night but it's gonna happen faster then you'd imagine I reckon

It's a good thing though.