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

[gijoes]

but all this forking talk is premature, none of this crap really means anything untill someone gets at least 51%.. even then... IMO if its "meant to be" we will only tell 5-15% of nodes to "Fork-off" as we upgrade the system(whether it's BU or Segwit), so no biggie really.

I would not be so sure about that. The hashpower distribution seems to be dangerously skewing to bigblockers side:



Actually, all it now takes is to persuade a couple of big Chinese pools to change their signaling from "8mb" to BU, and BU activation threshold is almost reached.

[Killerpotleaf]

It's a bloodbath.

What did you expect with huge fees and congestion of the network?

Fiverr.com just dropped Bitcoin as a payment method since fees are amounting to 20-40% of all bitcoin transactions.

Good Game, it was fun while it lasted.

The idiots over at Kore ruined this rally.

It's ugly, $1188.

IMO, much of this can indeed be blamed squarely on those (core developers and miners) who just cannot seem to get their acts together and actually solve problems.

And they keep saying Bitcoin is strong.  Mmm-hmm...

there is plenty of blame to go around.
maybe we should blame BU for offering an alternative and confusing the issue.
maybe we should blame the minners for refusing to vote. ( most of them seem to not care either way  )
maybe we should blame ourselves for being Convinced that we are DOOOOOOOOOOOMED if one implementation is picked over another.
but its hard not to fault kore's epicly hardhead.

[Killerpotleaf]

but all this forking talk is premature, none of this crap really means anything untill someone gets at least 51%.. even then... IMO if its "meant to be" we will only tell 5-15% of nodes to "Fork-off" as we upgrade the system(whether it's BU or Segwit), so no biggie really.

I would not be so sure about that. The hashpower distribution seems to be dangerously skewing to bigblockers side:



Actually, all it now takes is to persuade a couple of big Chinese pools to change their signaling from "8mb" to BU, and BU activation threshold is almost reached.

BU has no activation threshold. that too is market driven.
IMO market won't feel comfortable leaving more 15% behind, we will wait for them to recuse themselves, for as long as we can.

[Killerpotleaf]

according to the graphic above EC has ~40%  and EC+8MB has ~60%

wow, i didnt realize we are so DOOOOOOMED!

last chance to sell V1 coins.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

according to the graphic above EC has ~40%  and EC+8MB has ~60%

wow, i didnt realize we are so DOOOOOOMED!

last chance to sell V1 coins.

I don't understand your constant whining guys. What's the problems with the fees and the limiting number of txs per day? If you want to get in the block pay more. it's so easy.

yes bitcoin isn't your free coins that you can get anything for free with it. It's not like what you are used to. if you want to get in a block pay the fees, as such you support the miners and the networks. if you find it too expensive why aren't you mining?

that's right because it's not free. you want a free miner, with free electricity...

I hope that some of you will reconsider their positions.

with bitcoin you can store and move value very efficiently and cheaply and safely against all regulations or actors.

[notme]

according to the graphic above EC has ~40%  and EC+8MB has ~60%

wow, i didnt realize we are so DOOOOOOMED!

last chance to sell V1 coins.

I don't understand your constant whining guys. What's the problems with the fees and the limiting number of txs per day? If you want to get in the block pay more. it's so easy.

yes bitcoin isn't your free coins that you can get anything for free with it. It's not like what you are used to. if you want to get in a block pay the fees, as such you support the miners and the networks. if you find it too expensive why aren't you mining?

that's right because it's not free. you want a free miner, with free electricity...

I hope that some of you will reconsider their positions.

with bitcoin you can store and move value very efficiently and cheaply and safely against all regulations or actors.

The limit should be determined by miners.  Bitcoin core developers controlling block size is just another form of price fixing/rationing.  We all should know how well that works out by now.

[PoolMinor]

according to the graphic above EC has ~40%  and EC+8MB has ~60%

wow, i didnt realize we are so DOOOOOOMED!

last chance to sell V1 coins.

I don't understand your constant whining guys. What's the problems with the fees and the limiting number of txs per day? If you want to get in the block pay more. it's so easy.

yes bitcoin isn't your free coins that you can get anything for free with it. It's not like what you are used to. if you want to get in a block pay the fees, as such you support the miners and the networks. if you find it too expensive why aren't you mining?

that's right because it's not free. you want a free miner, with free electricity...

I hope that some of you will reconsider their positions.

with bitcoin you can store and move value very efficiently and cheaply and safely against all regulations or actors.

The limit should be determined by miners.  Bitcoin core developers controlling block size is just another form of price fixing/rationing.  We all should know how well that works out by now.

Actually, pools control the blocksize.

[Killerpotleaf]

Actually, pools control the blocksize.

minners are free to pick the pool they mine at.

[PoolMinor]

Actually, pools control the blocksize.

minners are free to pick the pool they mine at.

Exactly, but who has the control over block size other than the pool operator. P2Pool?

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

according to the graphic above EC has ~40%  and EC+8MB has ~60%

wow, i didnt realize we are so DOOOOOOMED!

last chance to sell V1 coins.

I don't understand your constant whining guys. What's the problems with the fees and the limiting number of txs per day? If you want to get in the block pay more. it's so easy.

yes bitcoin isn't your free coins that you can get anything for free with it. It's not like what you are used to. if you want to get in a block pay the fees, as such you support the miners and the networks. if you find it too expensive why aren't you mining?

that's right because it's not free. you want a free miner, with free electricity...

I hope that some of you will reconsider their positions.

with bitcoin you can store and move value very efficiently and cheaply and safely against all regulations or actors.

The limit should be determined by miners.  Bitcoin core developers controlling block size is just another form of price fixing/rationing.  We all should know how well that works out by now.

the last block happened ~30 mins ago and  ~5mbs (3100) of new txs are waiting (on top of the queue from before the last block).

there is 1 big question: should bitcoin be the one coin to bind them all, meaning forks and others side chains are seen as uncomplimentary.

in the one coin optic 8mb, 80mb or 80 Gbs will never be enough... but in my opinion it's unsafe and not very resilient. I prefer to keep the original network at 1mb (and why 8mbs? to please the "chineses", why not directly 10mb?).

[Killerpotleaf]

Actually, pools control the blocksize.

minners are free to pick the pool they mine at.

Exactly, but who has the control over block size other than the pool operator. P2Pool?

the network as a whole?

nothing really changes, bitcoin is not free of its limits only more able to coordinate its limits without being less hindered by politics.

I would hope that if EC is to be successful, it's with >90%. and I Really hope all the small blocks stay, and provide adequate pressure to make sure blocks grow at a respectable comfortable rate.
 

[notme]

according to the graphic above EC has ~40%  and EC+8MB has ~60%

wow, i didnt realize we are so DOOOOOOMED!

last chance to sell V1 coins.

I don't understand your constant whining guys. What's the problems with the fees and the limiting number of txs per day? If you want to get in the block pay more. it's so easy.

yes bitcoin isn't your free coins that you can get anything for free with it. It's not like what you are used to. if you want to get in a block pay the fees, as such you support the miners and the networks. if you find it too expensive why aren't you mining?

that's right because it's not free. you want a free miner, with free electricity...

I hope that some of you will reconsider their positions.

with bitcoin you can store and move value very efficiently and cheaply and safely against all regulations or actors.

The limit should be determined by miners.  Bitcoin core developers controlling block size is just another form of price fixing/rationing.  We all should know how well that works out by now.

the last block happened ~30 mins ago and  ~5mbs (3100) of new txs are waiting (on top of the queue from before the last block).

there is 1 big question: should bitcoin be the one coin to bind them all, meaning forks and others side chains are seen as uncomplimentary.

in the one coin optic 8mb, 80mb or 80 Gbs will never be enough... but in my opinion it's unsafe and not very resilient. I prefer to keep the original network at 1mb (and why 8mbs? to please the "chineses", why not directly 10mb?).

Forks and side chains will play a role, but if bitcoin doesn't allow the people with the most information about what the network can handle (the miners) to optimize block size, some other coin will.  Then bitcoin won't have a role at all except as a historical curiosity.

Emergent consensus is not elimination of block size restriction.  Miners will always restrict size because there is a cost to increasing it.

[HanvanBitcoin]

Just bought the dip 

[notme]

Just bought the dip 

This guy gets it.

[PoolMinor]

Actually, pools control the blocksize.

minners are free to pick the pool they mine at.

Exactly, but who has the control over block size other than the pool operator. P2Pool?

the network as a whole?

nothing really changes, bitcoin is not free of its limits only more able to coordinate its limits without being less hindered by politics.

I would hope that if EC is to be successful, it's with >90%. and I Really hope all the small blocks stay, and provide adequate pressure to make sure blocks grow at a respectable comfortable rate.
 

Democracy is about compromise, SegWit was Core's compromise. It was up to the pool operators to accept the compromise. Please broaden your outlook, it is easier to point fingers than do critical thinking.

[JayJuanGee]

I came here because I was interested to read the stories of many of you fellas in respect to bitcoin price analysis and predictions.

Instead, I see lot's of BU nonsense.   


We see a dip yesterday from nearly upper $1200s to mid $1100s and then a return to mid $1200s.. and now a drop to upper $1100s.  This all seems to be related to uncertainty either way regarding the direction of any possible ETF announcement, and folks seem to be kinda raring to go, no?

Of course, some have pre-emptively struck in one direction or another with their belief about what the outcome is going to be.

[r0ach]

we are so DOOOOOOMED!

[notme]

Actually, pools control the blocksize.

minners are free to pick the pool they mine at.

Exactly, but who has the control over block size other than the pool operator. P2Pool?

the network as a whole?

nothing really changes, bitcoin is not free of its limits only more able to coordinate its limits without being less hindered by politics.

I would hope that if EC is to be successful, it's with >90%. and I Really hope all the small blocks stay, and provide adequate pressure to make sure blocks grow at a respectable comfortable rate.
 

Democracy is about compromise, SegWit was Core's compromise. It was up to the pool operators to accept the compromise. Please broaden your outlook, it is easier to point fingers than do critical thinking.

If SegWit was the compromise, what was the original position?  Besides, according the the hong kong agreement, the compromise was segwit + a can kick blocksize increase.  The latter part never materialized.  You can't "compromise", and then abandon the concessions you've made to achieve that agreement.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Emergent consensus is not elimination of block size restriction.  Miners will always restrict size because there is a cost to increasing it.

This is just pure wishful thinking totally unsupported by any analysis, experimental or calculable proof.

When BU forms a chain, it will take one, and only one, 'valid' malicious block to ruin that chain forever.  Any BUcoin will exist forever with that Sword of Damocles hanging over it. On that one fatal security flaw alone it is not a serious contender for solving capacity expansion for bitcoin.

Most Core developers understand this, it is not obstinacy that they will not 'compromise'. Any requests to 'compromise' is asking Core devs to acquiesce to the possible ruination of bitcoin, why would they sign off on opening bitcoin up to that? All they can do is put forward their solution and see if it is accepted. You cannot coerce or guilt-shame developers into writing code they know is risking the complete ruination of the project by opening it up to an obvious existential security flaw. If Core dev's proposed solution is maligned enough to be found unaccepted then all they can do is shrug and say, "we tried".

No security coder is going to write known compromised software voluntarily.

[notme]

Emergent consensus is not elimination of block size restriction.  Miners will always restrict size because there is a cost to increasing it.

When BU forms a chain, it will take one, and only one, 'valid' malicious block to ruin that chain forever.  Any BUcoin will exist forever with that Sword of Damocles hanging over it. On that one fatal security flaw alone it is not a serious contender for solving capacity expansion for bitcoin.

WTF are you talking about?  Can you please go into detail about how a single malicious block can cause any harm to anyone other than the miner who produced it?