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

[Ibian]

It has been a lot time that i not monitor this thing. we don't have a voting process on that? who makes the final decision ? hard fork could f@ck bitcoin price and trust of course...  

No. There is no "voting process" in a decentralized cryptocurrency. The whole ecosystem either comes to a decision by consensus or not. You technically give your "vote" by running or adopting a specific soft fork, hard fork, or implementation.

I'd say the only vote that matters, in Bitcoin or anywhere really, is the voting that you do with your wallet.

I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.
Buying and selling can only be done after a decision has been made, only brings 1d information (up or down, a little or much) and more importantly is only the net result of many different forces (macroeconomics etc.) so it will generally be hard to say the price is going up because of reason X or Y.

Nope. We don't want a new 1% to control things.

Then tell me how things are controlled, because it is always controlled somehow.

It's not. That's the whole point.

You mean decisions just get made randomly?

No. Humans don't act randomly.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

It has been a lot time that i not monitor this thing. we don't have a voting process on that? who makes the final decision ? hard fork could f@ck bitcoin price and trust of course...  

No. There is no "voting process" in a decentralized cryptocurrency. The whole ecosystem either comes to a decision by consensus or not. You technically give your "vote" by running or adopting a specific soft fork, hard fork, or implementation.

I'd say the only vote that matters, in Bitcoin or anywhere really, is the voting that you do with your wallet.

I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.
Buying and selling can only be done after a decision has been made, only brings 1d information (up or down, a little or much) and more importantly is only the net result of many different forces (macroeconomics etc.) so it will generally be hard to say the price is going up because of reason X or Y.

Nope. We don't want a new 1% to control things.

Then tell me how things are controlled, because it is always controlled somehow.

It's not. That's the whole point.

You mean decisions just get made randomly?

No. Humans don't act randomly.

Then there is a way things work, thus certain groups exert control. 

[Ibian]

It has been a lot time that i not monitor this thing. we don't have a voting process on that? who makes the final decision ? hard fork could f@ck bitcoin price and trust of course...  

No. There is no "voting process" in a decentralized cryptocurrency. The whole ecosystem either comes to a decision by consensus or not. You technically give your "vote" by running or adopting a specific soft fork, hard fork, or implementation.

I'd say the only vote that matters, in Bitcoin or anywhere really, is the voting that you do with your wallet.

I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.
Buying and selling can only be done after a decision has been made, only brings 1d information (up or down, a little or much) and more importantly is only the net result of many different forces (macroeconomics etc.) so it will generally be hard to say the price is going up because of reason X or Y.

Nope. We don't want a new 1% to control things.

Then tell me how things are controlled, because it is always controlled somehow.

It's not. That's the whole point.

You mean decisions just get made randomly?

No. Humans don't act randomly.

Then there is a way things work, thus certain groups exert control. 

No. Just individuals working together for their own personal purposes. That's why we are still above 1200 even after the etf mess. If bitcoin had some kind of central authority it would not be worth nearly as much. Individual self-interest is and has always been the key.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.
Buying and selling can only be done after a decision has been made, only brings 1d information (up or down, a little or much) and more importantly is only the net result of many different forces (macroeconomics etc.) so it will generally be hard to say the price is going up because of reason X or Y.

Nope. We don't want a new 1% to control things.

Then tell me how things are controlled, because it is always controlled somehow.

It's not. That's the whole point.

You mean decisions just get made randomly?

No. Humans don't act randomly.

Then there is a way things work, thus certain groups exert control.  

No. Just individuals working together for their own personal purposes. That's why we are still above 1200 even after the etf mess. If bitcoin had some kind of central authority it would not be worth nearly as much. Individual self-interest is and has always been the key.

Yes, it is voluntary and selfserving.  Indeed there is no central authority.  That does not mean that there aren't any groups that exert some control over the workings of bitcoin though.  The good thing is that the power is divided over many actors, but that doesn't mean that there is no power.  Or would you say that what mining pool operators do doesn't affect you.

I am getting away from my initial point though.  The question at hand was not to let a group control bitcoin, it was to find a way to measure the opinion of users/holders  (as a source of information for developers, miners, exchanges,merchants and other users/hodlers).

[Ibian]

I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.
Buying and selling can only be done after a decision has been made, only brings 1d information (up or down, a little or much) and more importantly is only the net result of many different forces (macroeconomics etc.) so it will generally be hard to say the price is going up because of reason X or Y.

Nope. We don't want a new 1% to control things.

Then tell me how things are controlled, because it is always controlled somehow.

It's not. That's the whole point.

You mean decisions just get made randomly?

No. Humans don't act randomly.

Then there is a way things work, thus certain groups exert control.  

No. Just individuals working together for their own personal purposes. That's why we are still above 1200 even after the etf mess. If bitcoin had some kind of central authority it would not be worth nearly as much. Individual self-interest is and has always been the key.

Yes, it is voluntary and selfserving.  Indeed there is no central authority.  That does not mean that there aren't any groups that exert some control over the workings of bitcoin though.  The good thing is that the power is divided over many actors, but that doesn't mean that there is no power.  Or would you say that what mining pool operators do doesn't affect you

I am getting away from my initial point though.  The question at hand was not to let a group control bitcoin, it was to find a way to measure the opinion of users/holders  (as a source of information for developers, miners, exchanges,merchants and other users/hodlers).

Thousands of individuals working independently is not "a group".

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.
Buying and selling can only be done after a decision has been made, only brings 1d information (up or down, a little or much) and more importantly is only the net result of many different forces (macroeconomics etc.) so it will generally be hard to say the price is going up because of reason X or Y.

Nope. We don't want a new 1% to control things.

Then tell me how things are controlled, because it is always controlled somehow.

It's not. That's the whole point.

You mean decisions just get made randomly?

No. Humans don't act randomly.

Then there is a way things work, thus certain groups exert control.  

No. Just individuals working together for their own personal purposes. That's why we are still above 1200 even after the etf mess. If bitcoin had some kind of central authority it would not be worth nearly as much. Individual self-interest is and has always been the key.

Yes, it is voluntary and selfserving.  Indeed there is no central authority.  That does not mean that there aren't any groups that exert some control over the workings of bitcoin though.  The good thing is that the power is divided over many actors, but that doesn't mean that there is no power.  Or would you say that what mining pool operators do doesn't affect you

I am getting away from my initial point though.  The question at hand was not to let a group control bitcoin, it was to find a way to measure the opinion of users/holders  (as a source of information for developers, miners, exchanges,merchants and other users/hodlers).

Thousands of individuals working independently is not "a group".

Ok, semantics then.  You were talking about a small number of people?

[bitserve]

Buggy BU with a remote crash vunerability. Even after a year those ''skilled'' BU dev didn't noticed it, while pushing it asap  

I haven't had time to review this vulnerability but that might be way worse than it sounds. Most "crash from remote" vulnerablities are due to buffer overflows which can lead to exploit from remote when more finely crafted.

Maybe this is enough to create some awareness of the importance of following the right process instead this children fights.

[harrymmmm]

Buggy BU with a remote crash vunerability. Even after a year those ''skilled'' BU dev didn't noticed it, while pushing it asap 

Advocacy for BU is political, not technical. Centralization, invalid blocks and crashes are not so important.

[Paashaas]

Buggy BU with a remote crash vunerability. Even after a year those ''skilled'' BU dev didn't noticed it, while pushing it asap 

Advocacy for BU is political, not technical. Centralization, invalid blocks and crashes are not so important.

Sure..



Ends up with

[European Central Bank]

I haven't had time to review this vulnerability but that might be way worse than it sounds. Most "crash from remote" vulnerablities are due to buffer overflows which can lead to exploit from remote when more finely crafted.

Maybe this is enough to create some awareness of the importance of following the right process instead this children fights.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/

some extra info here. anti BU people should be keeping future bugs to themselves. then they can roll them all out at once for a real party.

incredible that they'd be this slack. if they want everyone to take on their ideas then at least make sure the foundations are bulletproof. then you can carry on with your mud slinging.

[Paashaas]

Buggy BU with a remote crash vunerability. Even after a year those ''skilled'' BU dev didn't noticed it, while pushing it asap  

I haven't had time to review this vulnerability but that might be way worse than it sounds. Most "crash from remote" vulnerablities are due to buffer overflows which can lead to exploit from remote when more finely crafted.

Maybe this is enough to create some awareness of the importance of following the right process instead this children fights.

This is not a children fight, BU is a very bad update for Bitcoin.

[swogerino]

Buggy BU with a remote crash vunerability. Even after a year those ''skilled'' BU dev didn't noticed it, while pushing it asap  

I haven't had time to review this vulnerability but that might be way worse than it sounds. Most "crash from remote" vulnerablities are due to buffer overflows which can lead to exploit from remote when more finely crafted.

Maybe this is enough to create some awareness of the importance of following the right process instead this children fights.

This is not a children fight, BU is a very bad update for Bitcoin.

Kind of glad that I didn't go with it before this happened.
It has to be pretty patched to get any one to put any faith into what we have now with the current blockchain.
Unless people are viewing this as a layer or alternative to it and of it instead.

[BTCtrader71]

If lack of near unanimous consensus on a major decision is enough to kill bitcoin, then bitcoin was never a good idea to begin with.

Bitcoin was designed with the assumption that there will be major decisions that must be made even in the absence of near-unanimous consensus.

Protocols, not just bitcoin, don't work in the absence of consensus. One peer expects certain behavior from another peer, and if that isn't the case, the protocol doesn't work as intended. You can't have one peer saying that the block size is X, the other saying no it is Y and the block is invalid, or that the number of coins is A and another saying no it is B trying to invalidate A.

In order for protocols to work properly, practically everyone using them has to agree on what is valid and what isn't valid behavior. If a modified http or smtp server uses messages that a client doesn't understand, a page won't work or an email won't get sent. That's what's at stake here, hence the incompatibility of the various "implementations", hence the possibility of forking in at least 3 incompatible coins (the stalled chain, a BU chain, a BTC-different algo chain). If this proceeds, then any disagreement can be used by bad actors in the future to create more and more forks, until BTC becomes a joke.

The primary issue that needs to get fixed in bitcoin is not scaling. It's removing the possibility of contentious forks through "disagreements", which represent an open attack vector against bitcoin itself.

As for the price action, it reminds me of the 400 range when the prior fork FUD was ongoing and people were like "who bought at 380, price should be at 200 or lower".

You and I are using the word "consensus" to mean different things. You are saying (and I agree) that every peer in the network must agree on what is valid. In that sense, bitcoin requires, and in fact bitcoin currently runs on, 100% consensus. What I am saying is that right now the community has not reached "consensus" on how to scale. My point is that Satoshi's original vision did NOT assume that hard forks were impossible. Satoshi did NOT assume that everybody will always agree on the future direction of bitcoin. Satoshi did NOT assume that everything will be roses and that we will all get along.

In theory, the possibility of a contentious hard fork has always been part of the plan. If a contentious hard fork is enough to kill bitcoin, then Satoshi's vision was doomed from the start. I believe Satoshi's vision was not doomed from the start, and that a contentious hard fork will not kill bitcoin. But if it does, then we may as well learn it sooner rather than later and so we can focus our efforts on a modified governance mechanism (dash being an example of a modified governance mechanism).

If the first time that a contentious hard fork actually happens is 15 years down the road when everybody is using it, it would be very reassuring to look back and say "remember that scaling-debate contentious hard fork? We all thought it would kill bitcoin and it didn't. Therefore, no need for a worldwide economic panic this time."

[bitserve]

I haven't had time to review this vulnerability but that might be way worse than it sounds. Most "crash from remote" vulnerablities are due to buffer overflows which can lead to exploit from remote when more finely crafted.

Maybe this is enough to create some awareness of the importance of following the right process instead this children fights.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/

some extra info here. anti BU people should be keeping future bugs to themselves. then they can roll them all out at once for a real party.

incredible that they'd be this slack. if they want everyone to take on their ideas then at least make sure the foundations are bulletproof. then you can carry on with your mud slinging.

From what I have seen it probably isn't an RCE (Remote Code Execution) but it shows how sloppy they are in secure coding and versioning control. That BU code should be removed asap from the Bitcoin network. Who knows how many more critical vulnerabilities are hidden in that poorly reviewed code.

[yefi]

The BU comedy gold just keeps on flowing. Thing is more holey than the DAO.

[Killerpotleaf]

what a shame.

[European Central Bank]

what a shame.

for who? even the most fervent unlimited supporter might not be very impressed if the entire system seized up. i'll bet there are many more surprises hiding too.

they shouldn't have put their heads above the parapet until their game was 100% immaculate. if you want to influence a 20 billion dollar deal expect to have your every move gone over with thousands of microscopes.

this ain't play time any more and this is more than an internet spat for the lulz.

[Killerpotleaf]

what a shame.

for who? even the most fervent unlimited supporter might not be very impressed if the entire system seized up. i'll bet there are many more surprises hiding too.

they shouldn't have put their heads above the parapet until their game was 100% immaculate. if you want to influence a 20 billion dollar deal expect to have your every move gone over with thousands of microscopes.

this ain't play time any more and this is more than an internet spat for the lulz.

its a shame that BU does not have as much peer review and scrutiny.

I dislike the idea of having one team ( mostly all employed by 1 company ) having so much leverage.

[European Central Bank]

its a shame that BU does not have as much peer review and scrutiny.

I dislike the idea of having one team ( mostly all employed by 1 company ) having so much leverage.

i get where you're coming from but they shouldn't have brought a knife to a gun fight. they needed to have brought a howitzer.

if their ideas and execution were plain better then i believe there are enough rational people to turn the tide. but they ain't, so there ain't.

[Killerpotleaf]

its a shame that BU does not have as much peer review and scrutiny.

I dislike the idea of having one team ( mostly all employed by 1 company ) having so much leverage.

i get where you're coming from but they shouldn't have brought a knife to a gun fight. they needed to have brought a howitzer.

right, "howitzer" wasn't available i guess.