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

[Killerpotleaf]

And 80,9% of the Bitcoin Network will reject this Bu Block over 1Mb size limit.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833771.msg18256233#msg18256233

its a civil attack!

[alexeft]

And 80,9% of the Bitcoin Network will reject this Bu Block over 1Mb size limit.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833771.msg18256233#msg18256233

its a civil attack!

I know I wouldn't be too civil if I wanted my own central bank! 

[marcus_of_augustus]

Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM

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.

So how does BU propose to 'phase in" their new blocksize? Is it in "versions way ahead"?

No, instead it is a really, really bad (and dangerous) fork at ANY time from then on and forever more policy. Still cannot quite fathom how it is being taken seriously, maybe people really are stupider than you can think.

[alexeft]

And 80,9% of the Bitcoin Network will reject this Bu Block over 1Mb size limit.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833771.msg18256233#msg18256233

Bitcoin Nodes don't relay a more than 1Mb Block size, it's all.
Simple.
The majority win.

Miners are not the majority, they follow the path (of all nodes).

Where can I get those stats? Thanks!

[Meuh6879]

use with complacency : http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html

[alexeft]

use with complacency : http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html

 

Thanks!

[r0ach]

Miners are not the majority, they follow the path (of all nodes).

Miners are supposed to represent the Nash equilibrium, so if you say you can't "trust" the miners, all you're really saying is that no nash equilibrium exists and bitcoin was a failed experiment that should not have value in the first place.

Hence my post:

Bitcoin was clearly designed with miners controlling the protocol and forks in mind.  Instead of speaking the truth, that there's supposed to be such a large amount of individually acting miners that it's not possible for them all to collude forming a nash equilibrium, and that only win-win policies would be adopted in a non-zero game game, you instead have a failure of bitcoin decentralization where everyone who controls the entire coin can fit into one car.

ASICs and pools destroyed how bitcoin is supposed to function.  It essentially died at that point and people just pretended it didn't ever since and now it's the Chinese Paypal.  This doesn't mean "full nodes" now control bitcoin just because you don't want one car full of Chinamen to control it.  That's not how it works.  Miners will always control it or it's not actually bitcoin.  The fact is, there was a breakdown in the decentralization and Nash equilibrium of bitcoin that has to be addressed.

Decentralization may even be an insoluble problem itself, making this thing a giant fugazi no matter what you do.  I tend to believe that is the case until someone can prove me wrong.  I imagine it would take something extreme like some cutting edge cryptography to let you create decentralized captchas for mining so that it takes active user input to solve blocks - human based mining.  Using energy expenditure to find convergence was never that great of an idea in the first place when energy costs are not even close to uniform across the globe.  It was designed to centralize even without ASICs.

Why do you think I like metals?  Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme created by *some guy.  Gold and silver are a Ponzi scheme created by *God.

[Killerpotleaf]

do not listen to r0ach he forked off to the silver chain weeks ago

[Meuh6879]

if miners use an incorrect version (generate 8Mb block for example) of the main base of the Bitcoin Network, they loose blocks.

simple.

they can start a new blockchain, if they want ... that's why Exchange have emit a strong signal ...
The miners are not the medium of the network, they run nodes ... but they are not the majority (for now).
They "find" block and ask to the majority if it's a valid block.
For a valid Block, they must wait 100 confirmations of the majority.

That's why full nodes are always a good choice to partipate to the debate.

If 80% of the miners (of the miners group !) emit a block that 80% of the (full) nodes reject -over 1Mb limit- ... and if the 80% of the miners group represent only a 15% of the nodes (the Bitcoin Network), so it's not a fork.

It's a test.

[Killerpotleaf]

download the lastest BU client and sync DAT node

[Ted E. Bare]

Why is the BTC-e price higher? It used to be the other way around. Less manipulation over there? Even China is above Stamp and Finex.

[r0ach]

That's why full nodes are always a good choice to partipate to the debate.

Full nodes are meaningless to the debate and easily Sybil manufactured.  What is not easily Sybil manipulated?  The longest chain of course.  You can't just change the rules of the game on the fly and pretend miners don't matter when the entire system is based around whatever the longest chain is.  The rules of the game are if you don't like what some miners are doing, you're required to mine harder than them.  If your stance is that a cartel in China has taken control of bitcoin colluding together to control it and no Nash equilibrium exists whatsoever, then you're in the bitcoin has failed camp already in the first place.

[Killerpotleaf]

Why is the BTC-e price higher? It used to be the other way around. Less manipulation over there? Even China is above Stamp and Finex.

ya i noticed that too, its why i'm so confident that price will keep rising.

[mymenace]

Always compare the timing of theses reports to the price of bitcoin.

These reports and discussions on mining, forks, segwit etc etc etc seem to always occur when volume and price increase.

Yet seem to disappear when the price is low

coincidence.....

[Meuh6879]

when the entire system is based around whatever the longest chain is.

longest chain ... in a max size of 1Mb.
Bitcoin Core nodes don't relay the "more than 1Mb" block.

1Mb block size is coded in every nodes of the Bitcoin Network ... except BU nodes (the 16% of the network, now).

Majority win.
1Mb block size win.

[Meuh6879]

Always compare the timing of theses reports to the price of bitcoin.
These reports and discussions on mining, forks, segwit etc etc etc seem to always occur when volume and price increase.
Yet seem to disappear when the price is low
coincidence.....

Yep, that's why i compare Bitcoin to a catapult system.

[Torque]

If your stance is that a cartel in China has taken control of bitcoin colluding together to control it and no Nash equilibrium exists whatsoever, then you're in the bitcoin has failed camp already in the first place.

I agree with this. But I'm not sure what can be done about it.

Another problem is, what if the colluding miners become corrupt, and block size has been increased so much that no one can take control back, or at least compete?  What if the corrupt miners then start deciding what functionality is and isn't acceptable in a release, to the dismay of the user base, exchanges and merchants? What if peer review and testing gets cast aside, and the software gets backdoored and full of holes/bugs with each release?

Is it still Bitcoin at that point? Do the miners really think users won't care if it becomes another bug-ridden, unadopted, centralized and controlled Chinese PayPal 2.0?

I've seen successfully-launched software projects absolutely crater after the initial brilliant team of developers was eventually pushed aside by a misguided & clueless management team, and replaced by a bunch of imbeciles.

[RayX12]

Interesting to watch!

"Do miners control consensus? The 5 Consensus Communities | Bitcoin Q&A with Andreas Antonopoulos"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx3nsHGMUE8

[r0ach]

when the entire system is based around whatever the longest chain is.

longest chain ... in a max size of 1Mb.

That excuse doesn't work when bitcoin launched with higher than 1MB blocks in the first place so a "bitcoin can never fork" purist doesn't even have a valid reference point to stand on.  The fact is, just about everything regarding bitcoin (and every other cryptocurrency) is completely arbitrary in nature and wide open to rough consensus attack.  There are TWO ethereums.  There could be 100 ethereums tomorrow.  It's pretty much inevitable there will be more than one bitcoin.

This is why it's called a cryptocurrency and not money.  Currencies are arbitrary games that people create, while money does not fork or change.  I don't have to worry about Adam sneaking into my house and trying to fork my gold or silver.  Nobody should even own currency in the first place unless you actively use it or are a forex trader.  90% of this forum are basically acting as forex traders without the skills to do so.  It's also far more common for people holding currencies pretending they're stores of value to get horrifically burned than to profit.

[marcus_of_augustus]

when the entire system is based around whatever the longest chain is.

longest chain ... in a max size of 1Mb.

That excuse doesn't work when bitcoin launched ... blah FUD blah .... is pretending they're stores of value to get horrifically burned than to profit.

... still haven't bought back in yet roach? Those sold-out-bull sour grapes rants are starting to sound really, really droney and whiney, HTF could you miss that dump to $950 you moron?