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

[adamstgBit]

The bar for financial software is very high, they aren't building a some silly MMO packaged in a neat little box for 50$ a piece...
plus i get the feeling these open source devs simply dont give a crap about deadlines, they are just having fun, working on their masterpiece. I wouldn't be surprised if they spend a life time working on it.

... the true artists that have their heart in it leave stubs behind for side shoots that can be finished when Moore's law takes care of some problem or another so that when they come back from cryo-preservation they can finish the job off

yeah ... you might have to wait a while for your precious little fucking hard fork chaps ...

i dont mind waiting, the damage is done, it hard to say if it was minimal or not, but at this point full blocks and fees have become acceptable  and poeple have learnt to deal with it.

i wish it could have been prevented. but meh.

now i just hope i dont have to wait TOO much longer for effective block size incress.

[1715590995]

1715590995

[1715590995]

1715590995

[1715590995]

1715590995

[1715590995]

1715590995

[1715590995]

1715590995

[tomothy]

I heard there is some sort of a secret meeting concerning mining. I don't think anything has been decided yet. I think whatever news we get will be used to push price down until it slingshots up.

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


All hail our new overlords. 1mb4life :/

[adamstgBit]

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

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

[tomothy]

" 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.

[Dafar]

I didn't say it was approved.... we have been hearing about it waiting to be approved since 2014. So what exactly is new about this:

[...]

Sounds meaningless to me because we have been hearing this since 2014.

[...]

Still waiting..... and 2 years later we have another article that claims it's "still waiting" ...sorry if I'm not excited until we see a confirmation. Anticipation isn't confirmation

The SolidX ETF isn't the Winklevii's COIN ETF. The latter is awaiting comment on a rule change for listing on BATS. NASDAQ never filed for that rule change. There is now a timetable for acceptance, starting with a 45-day period for comment with several possible extensions. I guess it still could all fall apart and be rejected, but it's undeniably further ahead than previously.

Thank you. Now I'm a little more excited.

there is a workable Alpha version of LN
its called Thunder i think
https://www.blockchain.com/thunder/
yup.

This seems like a big deal but I haven't heard about this before. I thought LN was something like pipe-dream that isn't possible yet, at least from what I heard. This thunder network is basically a working prototype showing it's possible.

Scale: According to our tests so far, we can achieve better-than-Visa scale (100,000 TPS) with only a few thousand nodes on the network

Extremely cheap payments: fees will develop naturally, due to the free market in an open and permissionless network and will fundamentally be lower than on-chain payments

Even if limited to transactions in a trusted network right now this is still pretty incredible. If I'm understanding this right, is this going to be applicable and help scaling once CSV and SegWit are implemented?

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

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

It's unfortunate that there's a divide happening in this community between "small blockers" and the other folks. But I don't understand why, didn't Core agree to a segwit softfork + the 2Mb hardfork for a total of 4Mb increase in their roadmap? Is that not happening or are you saying it's taking too long?

SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016.
The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017.

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.i1yfnaja4


I'm not sure if I'm a "small blocker" if I'm okay with this roadmap... but to me it seems like the scaling issue is going to be temporary. Once block size is increased, SegWit + LN is out and then the ETF gets approved then what, moon? At least these are the rumors, once they're news it'll be too late

I got my bitcoinz ready.... sick and tired of being in the upper-middle class

[JayJuanGee]

The bar for financial software is very high, they aren't building a some silly MMO packaged in a neat little box for 50$ a piece...
plus i get the feeling these open source devs simply dont give a crap about deadlines, they are just having fun, working on their masterpiece. I wouldn't be surprised if they spend a life time working on it.

... the true artists that have their heart in it leave stubs behind for side shoots that can be finished when Moore's law takes care of some problem or another so that when they come back from cryo-preservation they can finish the job off

yeah ... you might have to wait a while for your precious little fucking hard fork chaps ...

I'm glad that they don't rush out some quick supposed solution without considering the various ramifications - and in December, we would be looking like Ethereum. 

The testing and the vetting and the getting input and insight are all important in the grown up world when dealing with actual value and looking towards the longer term (rather than pump and dump).

[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