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

[savetherainforest]

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!

Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.

Well until it gets to 10.000$ or more US dollars at the current value (20 March 2017: almost 9 ounces of gold)... until then there is no reason even to go to 1,280MB or maybe it will go to 1,536MB. Those would be acceptable sustainable values for the little guys to not lose market value and in the same time to encourage more nodes.  

I am sorry to say that what you are suggesting as some kind of means forward STRF, makes little sense.

If there is no real justification nor reason (based on fact and/or logic) to increase the blockchain size at all, then it does not make any sense that the blockchain limit should be increased either 28% or 50% as you are suggesting to be some kind of compromise to something that remains NOT at all justified in the first place.

I was suggesting it to be used as an inflation/deflation tool. But... there is a good thing about 1MB limit of today! And that actually being: if it will be kept, the little guys will have more to win from it. But I suspect if it will blow up and all the paper fiat will be useless and silver/gold too hard to access, then more people will invest in running a node just to keep "voting system" în place for them to profit and maintain their wealth. Anyway... we are talking about "pixie dust", we will live and we will see what will happen in time... with patience!


*edit:  And its not 28% ... its 1024KB + 256KB = 1,280MB .... = 25% ...

[1713965592]

1713965592

[1713965592]

1713965592

[1713965592]

1713965592

[1713965592]

1713965592

[Killerpotleaf]

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!

Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.

Well until it gets to 10.000$ or more US dollars at the current value (20 March 2017: almost 9 ounces of gold)... until then there is no reason even to go to 1,280MB or maybe it will go to 1,536MB. Those would be acceptable sustainable values for the little guys to not lose market value and in the same time to encourage more nodes.  

I am sorry to say that what you are suggesting as some kind of means forward STRF, makes little sense.

If there is no real justification nor reason (based on fact and/or logic) to increase the blockchain size at all, then it does not make any sense that the blockchain limit should be increased either 28% or 50% as you are suggesting to be some kind of compromise to something that remains NOT at all justified in the first place.

I was suggesting it to be used as an inflation/deflation tool. But... there is a good thing about 1MB limit of today! And that actually being: if it will be kept, the little guys will have more to win from it. But I suspect if it will blow up and all the paper fiat will be useless and silver/gold too hard to access, then more people will invest in running a node just to keep "voting system" în place for them to profit and maintain their wealth. Anyway... we are talking about "pixie dust", we will live and we will see what will happen in time... with patience!


*edit:  And its not 28% ... its 1024KB + 256KB = 1280MB .... = 25% ...

they measure MB as exactly 1million bytes

[JayJuanGee]

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!

Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.

Well until it gets to 10.000$ or more US dollars at the current value (20 March 2017: almost 9 ounces of gold)... until then there is no reason even to go to 1,280MB or maybe it will go to 1,536MB. Those would be acceptable sustainable values for the little guys to not lose market value and in the same time to encourage more nodes.  

I am sorry to say that what you are suggesting as some kind of means forward STRF, makes little sense.

If there is no real justification nor reason (based on fact and/or logic) to increase the blockchain size at all, then it does not make any sense that the blockchain limit should be increased either 28% or 50% as you are suggesting to be some kind of compromise to something that remains NOT at all justified in the first place.

I was suggesting it to be used as an inflation/deflation tool. But... there is a good thing about 1MB limit of today! And that actually being: if it will be kept, the little guys will have more to win from it. But I suspect if it will blow up and all the paper fiat will be useless and silver/gold too hard to access, then more people will invest in running a node just to keep "voting system" în place for them to profit and maintain their wealth. Anyway... we are talking about "pixie dust", we will live and we will see what will happen in time... with patience!


*edit:  And its not 28% ... its 1024KB + 256KB = 1280MB .... = 25% ...

Regarding revisions and improvements to bitcoin, from my understanding there continues to be code proposals and updates that reasonably consider various kinds of code updates, some updates and proposals are more substantial than others... but bitcoin certainly is not dead in the continued dynamics space, even if there are some parts of the code that incumbent decision makers are reluctant to change absent justification that the potential benefits are going to exceed the potential costs.

Regarding your second point on the proposed percentage correction.  Fair enough.  Seems like your math skills are of a superb caliber, relatively speaking.    

[Paashaas]

Even if he manages to block segwit, those 2nd layer solutions are still going to happen.  LN and other 2nd layer solutions do not actually require segwit.

They're beeing build around Segwit, they work so much better combined.

Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.

I expect a 2-3MB increase with Segwit with another 30-40% on the horizon with integrated Schnorr signatures.

Flexcap is a clever algorithm instead of fixed blocklimit constant.

Core's roadmap is the way to go imo.

[york780]

Bitcoin will reach 5k in 2020. Its confirmed. You dont need to know more. Dont worry about the price guys. The future is ours.

[xyzzy099]

Even if he manages to block segwit, those 2nd layer solutions are still going to happen.  LN and other 2nd layer solutions do not actually require segwit.

They're beeing build around Segwit, they work so much better combined.

Your quoting is messed up, but I will reply since I am the one you actually quoted here:

I agree entirely that with segwit 2nd layer solutions would be better.  The gist of my post was simply to point out that Mr. Wu does not really give a damn about BU or blocksize...  If you read his comments, his objective is simply to block segwit, period - and his reasoning is that segwit will enable second-layer transactions that he feels will potentially hurt his ability to maximize the transaction fees he collects.  His fight is in vain, though , because 2nd layer solutions will happen, segwit or no segwit.

[Ibian]

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!

Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense. 

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.

What's your angle?

My angle meaning what?

I already stated what I thought, no?

In essence, I agree with any point that the current bitcoin system is established as a secure decentralized immutable way to store and transfer value.  If what bitcoin "is" is undermined by some kind of centralized system or manipulation or FUD that allows for such undermining of bitcoin "as it is", then that would be problematic.   

My angle remains that XT, Classic and now BU are either aimed or have effects that are attempting to undermine bitcoin "as is"... ... so we will see how all of that plays out, and whether bitcoin is going to be able to preserve its value in one form or another regarding a secure decentralized and immutable system that allows for the storage and transferring of value

Okay let's remove any possibility of ambiguity then.

Are you against increasing the transfer capacity of the bitcoin network, yes or no? Just yes or no.

[savetherainforest]

Regarding your second point on the proposed percentage correction.  Fair enough.  Seems like your math skills are of a superb caliber, relatively speaking.    

I might have forgot a "comma" or "dot" on that "1280MB" ... I edited it, (1,280MB) to be fair to the political correctness.

[Killerpotleaf]

inb4 sensible compromise reached?

[Ted E. Bare]

Not much happening in terms of wall observing.

[JayJuanGee]

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!

Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.

What's your angle?

My angle meaning what?

I already stated what I thought, no?

In essence, I agree with any point that the current bitcoin system is established as a secure decentralized immutable way to store and transfer value.  If what bitcoin "is" is undermined by some kind of centralized system or manipulation or FUD that allows for such undermining of bitcoin "as it is", then that would be problematic.  

My angle remains that XT, Classic and now BU are either aimed or have effects that are attempting to undermine bitcoin "as is"... ... so we will see how all of that plays out, and whether bitcoin is going to be able to preserve its value in one form or another regarding a secure decentralized and immutable system that allows for the storage and transferring of value

Okay let's remove any possibility of ambiguity then.

Are you against increasing the transfer capacity of the bitcoin network, yes or no? Just yes or no.

Look at you.

Seeming to be inclined to enter into an interrogation power trip.

O.k.  For the sake of attempted cooperation, I will play along with you until you likely begin to deviate into bullshit.

My answer to the above question to the extent that it even matters what I am for or against is:  no  

Next question?    hahahahahaha

[gentlemand]

Not much happening in terms of wall observing.

Get with the plan.

Once scaling is in place we can all argue about scaling each other. I envisage you being able to handle at least 290 TPS and I have the funds for the medical procedures to ensure it. Not to mention the cloning.

[Ibian]

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!

Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.

What's your angle?

My angle meaning what?

I already stated what I thought, no?

In essence, I agree with any point that the current bitcoin system is established as a secure decentralized immutable way to store and transfer value.  If what bitcoin "is" is undermined by some kind of centralized system or manipulation or FUD that allows for such undermining of bitcoin "as it is", then that would be problematic.  

My angle remains that XT, Classic and now BU are either aimed or have effects that are attempting to undermine bitcoin "as is"... ... so we will see how all of that plays out, and whether bitcoin is going to be able to preserve its value in one form or another regarding a secure decentralized and immutable system that allows for the storage and transferring of value

Okay let's remove any possibility of ambiguity then.

Are you against increasing the transfer capacity of the bitcoin network, yes or no? Just yes or no.

no

So why do you want to stay at the current 1 MB? You can't have it both ways.

[AlexGR]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60gem4/jihan_wus_latest_weibo_post_looks_like_an_offer/

Jihan willing to talk is a GREAT sign! I really believe once he folds the scaling debate will start coming to a conclusion. The fact that he admits that he finds 2nd layer solutions a threat is telling, but he will realize that he cannot force the rest of the community to hold back on achievements to benefit the miners. A prosperous $2K+ bitcoin is much better for him than half a bitcoin with less users

Paradoxically, in the long-long run (20yr horizon), nobody will care about l2 solutions as l1 capabilities will be more than adequate to satisfy the volume of direct txs (except if we have unforseen spikes in kbytes per tx, like quantumproof signatures). L2 solutions are only* needed in the short and mid term, as block sizes can't grow too big right now without centralizing bitcoin, yet txs/sec must increase.

* L2 solutions might also be needed for adding more functionality, beyond txs.

[Miz4r]

Okay let's remove any possibility of ambiguity then.

Are you against increasing the transfer capacity of the bitcoin network, yes or no? Just yes or no.

no

So why do you want to stay at the current 1 MB? You can't have it both ways.

Nobody wants to stay at the current 1 MB forever. Nobody. Well a few nutcases maybe, but you won't find them among the Core team or here. SegWit already increases the limit to ~2 MB and this is advocated by Core. And pretty much everyone recognizes that we need to increase the limit further with a hard fork later. Have you read the Core's roadmap? It's mentioned in there or you can simply ask a random Core dev and they'll say yes we do need and want a higher limit. They want to do it safely though with wide consensus among the community, after SegWit is activated and other improvements to the network are implemented that will make this safer to do. BU is like a bull in a china shop, while Core is more like a brain surgeon. I prefer the more careful approach.

[aztecminer]

this morning i was wondering how many more times this process of "FUD, dump, more FUD, buy back cheap coins, rise" can be repeated and how smaller the swings are going to get!

just some food for thought.

we should be able to do that at least five or six more times.

[Dafar]

A compromise looks very likely 



But I feel bad for selling... if I buy back now I will pretty much be down 5 btc..... ugh...

[Meuh6879]

Floor ?

[Killerpotleaf]

Floor ?

Launch pad.

[york780]

Catapult.