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

[elebit]

When the small block chain eventually takes over the BU fork, are the BU nodes going to switch to that chain and basically erase the forked chain from memory?

It's supposed to work that way. Not just "Core 1MB", but any miner can set any blocksize at any time, and if that miner has guessed right and enough of the network accepts it then that will be everyone's new setting. Otherwise that whole chain will be orphaned. It doesn't matter if the blocksize goes up or down. That's what "emergent consensus" means.

Depending on what you signal, you could trick your fellow miners to mine chains that will have a low chance of survival. The more hash power and nodes you control the more you can potentially gain, but it's all subject to the usual variance to there is an element of chance to it.

Nobody really knows how that would play out, since nobody has taken it seriously enough to study it in detail and run any realistic simulations or testnets. How many confirmations will it take to protect against double spends? Nobody knows. The chain you're on can potentially be invalidated at any time. How large blocks will we end up with? Nobody knows. They'll probably get both larger and smaller.

[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.

no

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

First of all.  You edited out my answer.  

Second of all, you are planting assumptions about my position based on information that I did not provide.

In other words, you are not really attempting to engage in any kind of meaningful interaction but instead wanting to disseminate your own talking points and to falsely attribute positions to others (isn't that called, creation of a strawman?)

[JayJuanGee]

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...

Could be worse.         

[york780]

Yes it could. I sold my 230 Ethereum for 11 dollar each, just before the huge pump where it is now. I could have made 10000USD out of it. But hey bitcoin will go up and we will have a nice ROI at the end

[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.

First of all.  You edited out my answer.

I made your answer concise as I requested and you ignored. Your victim card is revoked. And look, here I am editing you again!

If you don't show respect you do not get respect. Just how things are.

[bitserve]

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.

20 years is too much of a long term... It's pointless we even speculate on that. But 3-5 years from now, L2 will be everywhere because it's the only way to make Bitcoin a real payment system. Not only because of number of transactions, but because we can have inmediate transactions via L2 instead of 10 min delay of L1.

Either we will have L2 in place soon (max 1 or 2 years from now) or Bitcoin adoption as payment system is not going to happen.

What Jihan BU should do is stop whining and work towards the future of Bitcoin. He (and other BIG miners) are in a privileged position to also get a good piece of the L2 cake. That way he can profit of both L1 and L2.

I don't have any problem in him also profiting from that. But he should move his lazy ass and start a new venture towards setting up an L2 hub (which might even be a big joint venture of chinese miners).

[vortex1878]

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.

First of all.  You edited out my answer.

I made your answer concise as I requested and you ignored. Your victim card is revoked. And look, here I am editing you again!

If you don't show respect you do not get respect. Just how things are.

I am just a random user / poster here.
I have logged in a few days back (please see my posting history) after years.
But I did have JayJuanGee on ignore since I had been very active a few years back. For a reason apparently.
Please do not reply to this moron.
Thank you.

[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.

no

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

First of all.  You edited out my answer.

I made your answer concise as I requested and you ignored. Your victim card is revoked. And look, here I am editing you again!

If you don't show respect you do not get respect. Just how things are.

In other words, you are a fucking idiot, and don't have enough balls to deal with actual substance, so you remove substance in order to attempt to frame the argument and the issues to your own fantastical preferences.

Another way of describing your behavior is trolling - which is putting out talking points and failure/refusal to engage with the substance of other posters (mio included).   

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

I am just a random user / poster here.
I have logged in a few days back (please see my posting history) after years.
But I did have JayJuanGee on ignore since I had been very active a few years back. For a reason apparently.
Please do not reply to this moron.
Thank you.

Do you have any kind of substantive contribution that you would like to make to this line of discussion, Vortex1878, or do you just want to chime in with non-substantiated, admittedly non-informed and conclusory remarks about character?

[Ibian]

[edited out]

I am just a random user / poster here.
I have logged in a few days back (please see my posting history) after years.
But I did have JayJuanGee on ignore since I had been very active a few years back. For a reason apparently.
Please do not reply to this moron.
Thank you.

Do you have any kind of substantive contribution that you would like to make to this line of discussion, Vortex1878, or do you just want to chime in with non-substantiated, admittedly non-informed and conclusory remarks about character?

Nobody likes you.

[Ted E. Bare]

Be nice to each other dear bitcoiners.

[Killerpotleaf]

no more mr nice guy

active BU OR ELSE!

[Ibian]

Be nice to each other dear bitcoiners.

Any time you start a thought with "it would be nice if..." that thought is wrong. Not always fun, but that is how the world works.

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

I am just a random user / poster here.
I have logged in a few days back (please see my posting history) after years.
But I did have JayJuanGee on ignore since I had been very active a few years back. For a reason apparently.
Please do not reply to this moron.
Thank you.

Do you have any kind of substantive contribution that you would like to make to this line of discussion, Vortex1878, or do you just want to chime in with non-substantiated, admittedly non-informed and conclusory remarks about character?

Nobody likes you.

Just like a troll to figure out any possible way to stray from any kind of somewhat relevant topic.....   


But let me attempt to respond to the admittedly non-relevant subject that you raise:

1) I'm going to affirmatively assert that my mom likes me, and she has even told me so in a convincing way. 

2) Over the past three years, there have been one, two and possibly more posters who actually posted that they liked me.  At the moment, I cannot remember the exact context and I cannot find the post in which each made such representation(s), but I will state, without reservation, that what I say is true and I could prove it, if I had a week to sort through posts.   

[MinermanNC]

At the end of the day, the Chinese Mining farms will put BU into action should they so decide to. Regardless of how we all feel in here either way about it. If they did create the longer chain.... hence, to keep or have just one BTC coin only, do we really have a choice at that point other than to get onboard with it? ... just thinking lol

unless of course some want 2 coins   lol

I also don't think should the worst happen, it will be the end of Bitcoin either  

[deepcolderwallet]

You are literally complaining that bitcoin is so successful than people other than internet nerds are becoming interested. This is Good News™.

Are you the new worst commenter on the forum?  The entire point of bitcoin is "decentralization".  To mine things like gold you have to go through the government itself and get permits and also deal with entities like the EPA, yet even with all that bureaucracy, gold and silver mining is still more decentralized than bitcoin mining is.  This is not a good thing when "decentralization" is it's entire selling point.

Welcome to the real world. Other people have Agendas. This was never not going to happen.

Please make a comment that makes some type of sense.  You first said I'm "complaining that others besides internet nerds are interested in bitcoin".  LOL, they are not interested in "bitcoin", they're interested in inserting themselves as middlemen and extracting usury and seigniorage fees from you.  The exact thing that bitcoin is supposed to prevent.  If bitcoin developers themselves can't even mine the coin they develop for and have to pay tribute to some cartel, I'm not sure there is much point in this because this thing has clearly gone off the rails.

THIS!!!
I could not put in words the actual state of Bitcoin better than you did.

[deepcolderwallet]

At the end of the day, the Chinese Mining farms will put BU into action should they so decide to. Regardless of how we all feel in here either way about it. If they did create the longer chain.... hence, to keep or have just one BTC coin only, do we really have a choice at that point other than to get onboard with it? ... just thinking lol

unless of course some want 2 coins   lol

I also don't think should the worst happen, it will be the end of Bitcoin either  

And here we can contemplate the voice of chinese miners!

NO, MY FRIEND!

I know you miners already started threatening and making a lot of noise, and I know you will do even more noise, but the truth is that WE ARE NOT TRADING OUR DIGNITY FOR PROFIT!
Bitcoin is far more an investment, a currency or whatever. Bitcoin is FREEDOM.

WE ARE NOT TAKING IT FROM CHINA! You can fork, you can have all your Buttcoin ruled by the greedy miners, this just WILL NOT BE OUR CURRENCY!

I prefer seeing Bitcoins Market Cap falling to less than 1 billion (that will never happen anymore, just saying) than having it in hands of people worse than my government.

[deepcolderwallet]

All these advocating for a hard fork are clueless, they have no idea how mercenary the miners are due to the amounts of money they are outlaying continuously on electricity and other costs. The profitability calculations includes chain difficulty and price.

Cut that bullshit, chinese miner! We all know how cheap it is to assemble an ASIC in china and how cheap is electricity there. Many steal power instead of paying. Go away with your disinformation!

[gembitz]

no more mr nice guy

active BU OR ELSE!

[MinermanNC]

no more mr nice guy

active BU OR ELSE!

I need cappuccino! for my BU