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

[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. 

[marcus_of_augustus]

what a shame.

bit worse than a shame ... it's a fucking shitshow travesty.

Now BUg pumpers are gonna be forever wondering if there is another zero-day BUg out there waiting to wipe out all there bitcoins shortly after they hardfork??! WTF?

If Peter Todd was malicious and greedy he could have made mega-bank on this by keeping it to himself until they forked and then shorted majorly the BU fork and killed it dead anonymously without telling them what was happening, they wouldn't have had a clue what hit them ... and made a killing too.

What's the bet that the DAO attacker is sitting on a BUg zero-day ... just waiting for the fork.

Stuff is toxic, it's finished. Woo is finished too.

[marcus_of_augustus]

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.

no just stop it with the bullshit please. I really resent the insinuation that all Core are employed by Blockstream (or the banks by some crazy extension) ... some asshole was on reddit saying all Core devs are paid by AXA (the banks) ... I mean what a complete asshole lying thing to be saying in public. If he was saying that to my face he would be out cold on the ground in under a minute, guaranteed.

1 company does not "have so much leverage", that's just wrong and lies.

If BU guys had any confidence in their ideas they would have submitted a patch to core for review, like everyone else and argued their merits in an open court..... they are free to try and propagate their own code but they better be prepared for an even more rigourous test (the real world) ... but they are better off putting it up on the Core repo and getting real feedback and testing first, not in some BS echo chamber full of emotional, butthurt, raving idiots.

[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.

no just stop it with the bullshit please. I really resent the insinuation that all Core are employed by Blockstream (or the banks by some crazy extension) ... some asshole was on reddit saying all Core devs are paid by AXA (the banks) ... I mean what a complete asshole lying thing to be saying in public. If he was saying that to my face he would be out cold on the ground in under a minute, guaranteed.

1 company does not "have so much leverage", that's just wrong and lies.

If BU guys had any confidence in their ideas they would have submitted a patch to core for review, like everyone else and argued their merits in an open court..... they are free to try and propagate their own code but they better be prepared for an even more rigourous test (the real world) ... but they are better off putting it up on the Core repo and getting real feedback and testing first, not in some BS echo chamber full of emotional, butthurt, raving idiots.

i guess i should apologize for the conspiracy theory.

and also apologize for my past speculations that BU was safe to use, i'm sure I've somehow stipulated that somewhere.

**BU is an experimentally beta  with known security hole, use at your own risk**  

[Ted E. Bare]

Good they find this error now and not at a critical time. Isn't the scaling debate being used to FUD the price since traders sold at the bottom? I'm getting sick of this kind of manipulation. The idea behind bitcoin is beautiful but unfortunately some greedy people are willing to hurt our project. They will not get any coin from me.

[r0ach]

Normally, raising interest rates makes a currency stronger.

The only problem with that assumption is that holding fiat cash is still basically the same thing as holding sovereign debt when they can monetize or devalue the debt at any time.  There is no point in holding cash of a nation with a parabolic debt chart because it's obviously not a safety net.  Nobody wants Venezuelan money just because they raise interest rates.

Another thing is that as the USD index increases, most of the world's debt is denominated in USD, so countries who were already insolvent and unable to pay default even faster, causing cascading deflationary collapse to bring down the whole system.  Rising USD index is a systemic risk and there is no scenario in which the USD just magically becomes twice as strong, thus doubling everyone's debts and doubling the amount of goods they have to send to America, without everyone completely boycotting the dollar.  USD index is already up huge since 2014.  The only question is how high can it go before it blows up the system.

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

The voting mechanism of bitcoin is supposed to be where a Nash equilibrium exists so nobody can collude on any change, so the only changes that can go through are non-zero sum game win/win changes for all.  I would say neither segwit or a block size increase actually fits that description in whole, so if bitcoin was actually functioning as designed, it would likely not morph into either one.  Bitcoin is supposed to be highly resistant to change and both of them have their drawbacks, so how would either go through?  

On the other hand, I don't believe bitcoin has value as a settlement layer because metals act as a far superior store of value and you'd need to get TPS up to something like 5000 where it's not a settlemenet layer to justfiy it's existence.

[huanglui]

A slightly late good morning Bitcoinland.

Still creeping upward I see... currently $1252USD (Bitcoinaverage).

Gotta love the slow steady growth. The last day on which we had a red candle was also a day on which we had an ATH.

Is it safe to say that 3 digits are a thing of the past, barring some unforeseen, serious calamity?

If last week's ETF rejection couldn't take it below $1000 for more than a few seconds, I don't see any minor market movements doing it.

Slow and steady, go Bitcoin go.

I will hold all my BTCs. I will not dump.

[AlexGR]

The voting mechanism of bitcoin is supposed to be where a Nash equilibrium exists so nobody can collude on any change, so the only changes that can go through are non-zero sum game win/win changes for all.

I think the problem lies in the external vs internal game theory aspect.

The internal game theory (incentives and disincentives of players within the ecosystem of bitcoin) are theoretically ok. The problem begins with the external game theory. Meaning that actors outside bitcoin (say banks, governments / agencies) can pay bad miners more than their block reward losses for misbehaving.

So there can be a paradox where the internal game theory of disincentivizing a miner to misbehave might be adequate (the miner will behave ok for fear of not losing funds), but this will not be adequate if parties from outside the ecosystem (banks, governments / agencies) are willing to fund bad actors with multiple times the money that they would earn through honest mining.

And then you have people saying, oh if you find a block, I'll give you 2x/5x/10x this block reward, as long as you run this very "innocent" software for your mining node

The miner would easily go that route, especially if he had little to lose in terms of invested hardware in the long run. In another paradoxical way, mining centralization and heavy mining investments (which act as a disincentive to disrupt bitcoin), have delayed the corruption of short-sighted / bribed PoW mining. If mining was done by ordinary people with ordinary hardware, who wouldn't sign up for a pool that promised +XXX% payout - thus handing out majority voting to corrupt pools?

I think the invested vote (PoW + PoS hybrid), where the stakeholders in Bitcoin act as a last line of defense to corrupt mining, might be a better way to go about it - but this too can be bought out as third parties can afford to lose their stake value because from an external-game theory perspective, if it costs you, say, 10 billion USD to buy a stake in BTC and then burn it to the ground (by choosing to harm BTC with this vote), it's still more profitable than having the multi-trillion fiat or banking systems go bust due to BTC succeeding (assuming scaling is solved technologically - which is a certainty over the long run, as processors, storage, networks become better).

[podyx]

Waiting for you lames to realize that the only way is up

[r0ach]

(assuming scaling is solved technologically - which is a certainty over the long run, as processors, storage, networks become better).

I don't think so if you had to do everything on-chain.  You need to get bitcoin to something like 5000 TPS for it to be used as a currency and valued for it's utility instead of a settlement layer, which it's not very good at because bitcoin is a poor store of value compared to metals.  Going the settlement layer route is a recipe for failure in the long run and that's what all on-chain scaling is.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

If Peter Todd was malicious and greedy he could have made mega-bank on this by keeping it to himself until they forked and then shorted majorly the BU fork and killed it dead anonymously without telling them what was happening, they wouldn't have had a clue what hit them ... and made a killing too.

He is malicious.  He didnt 'discover' it - he simply saw the hotfix and went for damage. Welcome to Bitcoin.

Anonymity never entered the equation.

[AlexGR]

(assuming scaling is solved technologically - which is a certainty over the long run, as processors, storage, networks become better).

I don't think so if you had to do everything on-chain. You need to get bitcoin to something like 5000 TPS for it to be used as a currency and valued for it's utility instead of a settlement layer, which it's not very good at because bitcoin is a poor store of value compared to metals.  Going the settlement layer route is a recipe for failure in the long run and that's what all on-chain scaling is.

20 years ago (q1 1997), I had a 486/133 (oc @160 roughly around a P90), 16MB RAM, a 4 GB HDD and a 28.8 or 33kbps modem.

In 20 years, processing power/storage/networks have seen gains of 1000x or more.

In 20 years, if we get another 1000x, we'll easily cover 5000TPS and more. I think we'll now see more than 1000x, as AI is introduced in technological research and development - and there is a lot of things that we currently perform in an unoptimized manner.

Going back to 97, if we run Bitcoin back then, it would be considered DOA - a joke that can't even do a tx/sec, and that would demand enormous CPU power, network resources for the home user, filling their HDD fast, etc etc. But now, in 2017, it's "ok" for use.

In 20 years from now it will be able to do way more than visa level txs. On-chain. And that's assuming zero progress in software solutions (which of course won't be the case).

In a way, Bitcoin cannot be judged statically, with the tech of a certain era, as Bitcoin's capabilities can multiply with technological progression. Technological progression is what ensures that Bitcoin will scale. It's not a matter of if, but when. When will people be able to run nodes that handle thousands of tx/sec, from their home connection, with their home pc or other device? Is it 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040? That's the only question...

[Killerpotleaf]

my BU NODE IS BACK UP BITCHES