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

[JayJuanGee]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/

want to blow some serious money on bitcoin mining? ... join a BU pool 

That is fucking ridiculous.

I hope that innocent folks did not lose any money because of that kind of bullshit coming out of the BU camp.

You can just listen to some of the nonsense that Roger Ver spouts out to recognize that he is way too emotional about things and he just wants to get his way and to cause disruption (even though he may honestly believe what he is attempting to do is for the good of bitcoin).

I'm sure they have ... and it's a lot more money than just this 13.2 BTC because all the hashpower spent working on blocks >1Mbyte would have been totally wasted for any pool running this BU code.

They were buying tickets for a fantasy lottery that never existed ... tens of thousands of dollars worth of tickets probably .... power company and Antminer says thank you   

If it is just get rich quick schemes and emotional reactions, then probably, we don't need to feel sorry for those kinds of folks who may have lost money because they are engaging in a risky business, but if actual innocent people lost money because of orphaned blocks or something like that, then what can be done?

I might not be technically aware enough, but isn't it possible that some innocent folks could have gotten screwed on some bitcoin transaction that got orphaned.. or am I misunderstanding the situation?

If the BU blocks where orphaned, then the transactions they contained were either included in the competing fork that one out, or they got put back into the mempool and made it into later blocks.  No transactions would have been lost. 

Thanks for the explanation.. that makes sense.

Of course, why learn how transaction processing works before you go spout off about the irresponsibility of one of the groups actually working to increase transaction throughput.

Well, because I can say whatever the fuck I want.  I made a statement, and then I speculated about possible damages, and I said that I was not clear about it.  You seem to have provided a decent explanation that negates much of my speculation about some possible negative consequences.

Actually, Marcus of Augustus provides some examples of other possible losses that folks may have experienced, but it is possible that those folks would not have been innocent, exactly because they would have likely been more inclined towards risk taking and/or gambling.  On the other hand, since we do not have actual testimony from anyone who actually suffered losses, we are largely speculating about possible damages that may have occurred, some scenarios more plausible than others.

[1714193632]

1714193632

[1714193632]

1714193632

[1714193632]

1714193632

[notme]

It is just another orphaned block.  There is an average of one every other day: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?daysAverageString=7

Someone took a risk and set their blocksize larger than 1mb.  It was a foolish thing to do with the current state of the blocksize debate, but it only hurt the miner who chose that setting.  If that someone was running a pool, their users also lost out.  Said users will likely find a different pool if this pool doesn't fix their settings.

How you go from this situation to railing about "bullshit coming out of the BU camp" just unveils your ignorance of how things work.  It is foolish to fight something you don't understand.

Hey look, I can say whatever the fuck I want too.... of course both of our posts will probably be deleted for being off topic before the day is up.

[JayJuanGee]

It is just another orphaned block.  There is an average of one every other day: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?daysAverageString=7

Someone took a risk and set their blocksize larger than 1mb.  It was a foolish thing to do with the current state of the blocksize debate, but it only hurt the miner who chose that setting.  If that someone was running a pool, their users also lost out.  Said users will likely find a different pool if this pool doesn't fix their settings.

That is fair enough.  You are giving a decent an plausible explanation of the gravity of orphaned blocks (which does not seem to be as big of a deal as I was making out the potentiality of such).  You are also pointing out some ways in which innocent bystanders could have been harmed, so it is not like these kinds of situations are not without various harms.

How you go from this situation to railing about "bullshit coming out of the BU camp" just unveils your ignorance of how things work.  

This is just one example of bullshit coming out of the BU camp.  There are other examples as well, but there is also no real need to go into detail about other examples.

It is foolish to fight something you don't understand.

I don't think so.  You are assuming too much about my lack of understanding, merely because you happened to have a better understanding about some point that I made.. and you also seemed to have blown your response out of proportion and into an unnecessary personal attack (or you were taking the matter personal, for some reason)

Hey look, I can say whatever the fuck I want too....

My statement about being able to say whatever I want was merely in response to your spouting off suggesting that I could not talk about a topic merely because I was not 100% informed about it, but the nature of these kinds of threads are to help us to clear up information, so long as we do not get too far derailed into telling posters what they can or cannot do.

of course both of our posts will probably be deleted for being off topic before the day is up.

Could be that our posts will be deleted, but that is up to the admins.  I personally don't think that it is off topic for this thread, but admins sometimes may think that we have gone too far astray... hopefully not, but.. we will see.

It is just another orphaned block.  There is an average of one every other day: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?daysAverageString=7

Someone took a risk and set their blocksize larger than 1mb.  It was a foolish thing to do with the current state of the blocksize debate, but it only hurt the miner who chose that setting.  If that someone was running a pool, their users also lost out.  Said users will likely find a different pool if this pool doesn't fix their settings.

How you go from this situation to railing about "bullshit coming out of the BU camp" just unveils your ignorance of how things work.  It is foolish to fight something you don't understand.

Hey look, I can say whatever the fuck I want too.... of course both of our posts will probably be deleted for being off topic before the day is up.

JJG ignorance == Jorge ignorance

You are showing your own ignorance PoolMinor, unless you are better able to explain what you mean.

I would suggest that I am not here spouting myself off to be some kind of academic expert that purposefully choses not to buy a bitcoin out of some kind of principle... that was Jorge... therefore, I am not a skeptic of the long term success of bitcoin.. that was Jorge.

I am also not here trying to post in order to build credibility in order to act as some kind of bitcoin expert in other political venues, like the professor seemed to have been doing with his various attempts to employ his academic tools to purposefully mislead, spin and divert folks in ways to denigrate bitcoin and distract from meaningful bitcoin discussions.

Also, if you may recall, the professor had a tendency to avoid answering questions that were directly put to him and easily within his knowledge because he was purposefully engaging in distraction and misleading rather than really trying to understand various aspects of bitcoin or various bitcoin problems or potential bitcoin problems.

[notme]

How you go from this situation to railing about "bullshit coming out of the BU camp" just unveils your ignorance of how things work.  

This is just one example of bullshit coming out of the BU camp.  There are other examples as well, but there is also no real need to go into detail about other examples.

How about we do, since this is the root of my measure of proportion?  From my standpoint, you smeared BU based on a misunderstanding of the situation.  Obviously, you have some additional beef with the project that led you to make negative assumptions.  Maybe if you aired it, I could better understand your position.

Miners already have the power to change blocksize by recompiling the code.  All BU does is remove that artificial barrier and make it clear that blocksize is a parameter that the market will decide on, not some cabal of self-anointed developers.

[Killerpotleaf]

 ::)an extra 21 bytes unfortunately found by a BU minning pool. hmmm, no comment.

it appears, OP is alive! and he has written up a nice little post about what a kind of fee market we could expect from a BU network.
https://medium.com/@adamstgbit_25789/bitcoin-unlimited-to-bring-stability-to-bitcoins-fee-market-6b5a4f882fc0#.wod2tts48
apparently BU is going to yield some kind of "optimal block size" phhh OP's a nut case, might be worth the 4 min read tho.  

Even though I think that you are an adorable penquin turned martian, it is too bad that you are spreading around nonsense.... and also attempting to distract from seg wit as a robust solution that brings lots of great and innovative tweaks to bitcoin.  

 Many of us should recognize that bitcoin unlimited is largely nonsense, lacking in testing, and does not resolve any current issues, at least in terms of providing additional robustness to bitcoin - in the sense that bitcoin is likely to be a target for many years to come of governments and/or financial institutions that would aim to undermine bitcoin..  and seg wit would be a good solution to seal up various potential vulnerabilities while BU would create additional vulnerabilities, while not really resolving anything that is currently necessary of resolution.

can you stick to valid arguments, and try to disprove my theory that its in the miners best interests to maintain fee pressure, in order to maximize fee revenue, and this will keep blocksize growth proportional to real TX demand.

[JayJuanGee]

How you go from this situation to railing about "bullshit coming out of the BU camp" just unveils your ignorance of how things work.  

This is just one example of bullshit coming out of the BU camp.  There are other examples as well, but there is also no real need to go into detail about other examples.

How about we do, since this is the root of my measure of proportion?  From my standpoint, you smeared BU based on a misunderstanding of the situation.  Obviously, you have some additional beef with the project that led you to make negative assumptions.  Maybe if you aired it, I could better understand your position.

You really do seem to want to go so far down the BU rabbit hole that admins will have no choice but to delete posts leading into this?

I think that I said as much as I need to or want to say about BU, for the time being.. unless maybe if we go to some other thread or to PM.  But, yeah I will admit that you might end up changing my mind about some things or that there may be some parts of BU that I do not adequately understand.. Yet, at this point, I stand by my earlier statements as being sufficiently adequate and substantiated to the extent that I feel like substantiating them or researching further into the matter.

Miners already have the power to change blocksize by recompiling the code.  All BU does is remove that artificial barrier and make it clear that blocksize is a parameter that the market will decide on, not some cabal of self-anointed developers.

You may be correct.. no harm, no foul.. but my understanding is that there is a reason for blocksize limits, and some of it has to do with bloat and bandwith, etc etc..

My other understanding is that there are some governance issues with BU, as well that attempts to hardfork with pretty low levels of consensus... which would be damaging to bitcoin, if bitcoin could be easily changed in the future. 

I am also of the understanding that seg wit is a much better solution for a lot of matters and should be the next step, rather than rushing into BU when there does not really appear to be a need for it, not at the moment.. and seg wit is a better next step (at this time).

[JayJuanGee]

::)an extra 21 bytes unfortunately found by a BU minning pool. hmmm, no comment.

it appears, OP is alive! and he has written up a nice little post about what a kind of fee market we could expect from a BU network.
https://medium.com/@adamstgbit_25789/bitcoin-unlimited-to-bring-stability-to-bitcoins-fee-market-6b5a4f882fc0#.wod2tts48
apparently BU is going to yield some kind of "optimal block size" phhh OP's a nut case, might be worth the 4 min read tho.  

Even though I think that you are an adorable penquin turned martian, it is too bad that you are spreading around nonsense.... and also attempting to distract from seg wit as a robust solution that brings lots of great and innovative tweaks to bitcoin.  

 Many of us should recognize that bitcoin unlimited is largely nonsense, lacking in testing, and does not resolve any current issues, at least in terms of providing additional robustness to bitcoin - in the sense that bitcoin is likely to be a target for many years to come of governments and/or financial institutions that would aim to undermine bitcoin..  and seg wit would be a good solution to seal up various potential vulnerabilities while BU would create additional vulnerabilities, while not really resolving anything that is currently necessary of resolution.

can you stick to valid arguments, and try to disprove my theory that its in the miners best interests to maintain fee pressure, in order to maximize fee revenue, and this will keep blocksize growth proportional to real TX demand.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt about whatever you are proposing to be in the best interests of the miners.  ... so therefore, you are suggesting whatever is in the best interest of the miners is in the best interest of bitcoin?

Bitcoin is endowed with a never before created system of decentralized immutable value storage and transfer, and the current hashrate is at record levels, so it appears already that there are plenty of incentives to mine bitcoins... we are supposed to create more mining incentives?  I do understand that we are in a good place with computing power already directed at mining bitcoin.. is something broken in respect to mining?

[notme]

I am also of the understanding that seg wit is a much better solution for a lot of matters and should be the next step, rather than rushing into BU when there does not really appear to be a need for it, not at the moment.. and seg wit is a better next step (at this time).

What problems does segwit solve?

Today, you can already drop the signatures from your storage layer after validating them if you want to.

Even if there are some advantages to segwit, implementing it as a soft fork is dangerous.  It lets old clients think they are fully validating when they aren't.  If you are going to require 95%, you might as well hard fork and force outdated clients off the network.  Of course, the first time an old client mines a block that spends a segwit transaction under the old definition of the anyone can spend opcode you'll have a hard fork anyway (which will again just be an orphaned block since the segwit network will easily outpace the non-segwit network).

[notme]

You may be correct.. no harm, no foul.. but my understanding is that there is a reason for blocksize limits, and some of it has to do with bloat and bandwith, etc etc..

The reason for the blocksize limit is that at the time it was implemented, bitcoins were worthless and blocks were easy to generate with a CPU.  Anyone could build huge blocks for no cost.  The blocksize limit was added as an antispam measure since it was basically free to spam.

Today, if you want to build a big block, you risk that the rest of the network will reject it.  If that happens, your block is orphaned and you lose the block reward (subsidy + fees).  In order to spam a large block, you have to take the risk that your block will be orphaned, costing you about $11,250 (12.5 btc/block * $900 / btc).  Not to mention, that larger blocks take longer to propagate than smaller blocks, so in a race condition, the smaller block will always win and the larger block will be orphaned.

Even at the time the blocksize was introduced, Satoshi himself intended for it to be increased at a later date (via a hard fork):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

[marcus_of_augustus]

It is just another orphaned block.

You are wrong here, either intentionally or ignorant of the situation.

[r0ach]

try to disprove my theory

I can tell you why Roger Ver is wrong below, because bitcoin does not have any real value as a settlement layer and all on-chain scaling will be a settlement layer.  When I talked to the Gavinator before, he also seemed to give the impression he didn't think bitcoin was a store of value either, but he either could not articulate precisely why, or chose not to.  Either way, just like Ver, he seemed to erroneously think on-chain, bigger block scaling could provide some type of fix to this problem when it really doesn't.

Why bitcoin does not function as a store of value:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-vol-7-bitcoin-is-not-an-actual-store-of-value-because-there-is-no-real-price-floor-or-inelastic-demand

and

Why bitcoin does not have value as a settlement layer:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-roach-report-vol-10-why-bitcoin-is-currently-a-roach-motel

The TLDR version is:  

A settlement layer has to compete with or beat gold as a store of value.  Bitcoin cannot accomplish that task so it has to do something else besides being a settlement layer or there is no point.  The only way possible for bitcoin to have any real use is with a lightning network-type solution that vastly increases load capability.  But even then since it doesn't function as a store of value, and the economy of scale forces centralization, I'm not sure what the value proposition will be in holding the coins - if there will be a value proposition or if it will just be like holding Paypal units.

This is all forward looking, long term, endgame analysis here.  Even though it doesn't appear to have a viable endgame without a LN, and questionable value even with one due to not functioning as a store of value and inevitable centralization - who knows, it could go up 10x before people figure that out.

[notme]

It is just another orphaned block.

You are wrong here, either intentionally or ignorant of the situation.

It is orphaned because it violates the rules of the majority of the network instead of because of a race condition, but the consequences are the same.  Namely, the miner loses out on the subsidy + fees and any transactions not already included in a block are put back in the mempool. Nobody gets hurt except the miner who found the block.

[Killerpotleaf]

I am also of the understanding that seg wit is a much better solution for a lot of matters and should be the next step, rather than rushing into BU when there does not really appear to be a need for it, not at the moment.. and seg wit is a better next step (at this time).

you have it backward.

they are rushing segwit and all its glory, when it is the thing that is not needed. Clearly a system to govern all futher block size increases is nessary, in fact we could use such a system to stabilize the fee market right now.

you can go with a silly static block size with some kind of predetermined growth rate.

but that being adopted doesn't really mean anything, the responsibility to agree to and enforce (or not) is up to nodes. Nodes ultimately have the power, BU only recognizes that power, thats all.

[Killerpotleaf]

try to disprove my theory

I can tell you why Roger Ver...

sooo you're telling me you can't discredit my stupid post. but Ver...

[JayJuanGee]

I am also of the understanding that seg wit is a much better solution for a lot of matters and should be the next step, rather than rushing into BU when there does not really appear to be a need for it, not at the moment.. and seg wit is a better next step (at this time).

What problems does segwit solve?

Today, you can already drop the signatures from your storage layer after validating them if you want to.

Even if there are some advantages to segwit, implementing it as a soft fork is dangerous.  It lets old clients think they are fully validating when they aren't.  If you are going to require 95%, you might as well hard fork and force outdated clients off the network.  Of course, the first time an old client mines a block that spends a segwit transaction under the old definition of the anyone can spend opcode you'll have a hard fork anyway (which will again just be an orphaned block since the segwit network will easily outpace the non-segwit network).

Since we seem to be getting in the weeds.. and therefore more and more apparently off topic, I made my response to this post in this other seg wit versus bitcoin unlimited thread


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1759891.msg17669491#msg17669491

[marcus_of_augustus]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

[sidhujag]

There is no gold settlement... bitcoin is the only one. You try to goto fort knox to prove you own a rightful piece of that pie after paying for its claim. Good luck!

Segwit? Personally i really need schnorr signatures for sig aggregation of multisig so i can finally do tree sigs for aliases in my system... segwit will allow that to happen. With schnorr you get a huge data savings and speed bonus.. oh and reusable addresses become possible yay for convenience and user interfaces!

Also mimblewimble + schnorr maybe means single sig blocks.. crazy huh?

[marcus_of_augustus]

It is just another orphaned block.

You are wrong here, either intentionally or ignorant of the situation.

Namely, the miner loses out on the subsidy + fees and any transactions not already included in a block are put back in the mempool. Nobody gets hurt except the miner who found the block.

No wrong and wrong again ... any miner who runs BU >1MByte is wasting electricity and resources on every hash they do ... they are buying tickets for a lottery that doesn't exist.

BU is a radioactive mess, anyone who touches it is getting burned and sick. In a way they deserve it, but assholes like you who shill for BU deserve a special place in BU's hell of its own making. You should set up a BU mining farm, to show us all how dedicated to the cause you are ... pit all your money, time and resources into the biggest losing proposition in bitcoin, do it!

[Killerpotleaf]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

maybe you're right.

maybe its best that consensus rules are enforced by limiting the options nodes have, when it comes to the software they choose to run.

all hail core, they are the bitcoin gods, they determine what is bitcoin and what's good for it.

what could go wrong?

[notme]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

If you want a cleaner implementation, bitcoin classic also supports a flag for specifying block size.  As for the "shit show" comment, can you explain why letting miners determine blocksize is a problem?  If it is a problem, we'd better hope they aren't able to get their hands on gcc or we are all screwed.