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

[JayJuanGee]

It's not about being biased or financially dependent on lightning network  - that's all bullshit.  The main point is that there is no facts or logic to back up making an increase in the blocksize limit at this time.

Because adding a 2mb blocksize in excange for SEGWIT would keep the chains & communities from splitting in two and destroying both sides.  Even if it's not necessary by luke-jr's opinion - if it is 2MB blocks or 2 chains which one is really worse for bitcoin?

This is the third time around.  BitcoinXT, Classic & now Unlimited.  I fully expect this one to die out due to Unlimited's lack of professionalism & experience.  Then continued gridlock on SEGWIT.  At some point the industry will decide it's tired of waiting for > 7tps

What you are saying is that core should agree to increase the blocksize limit to 2mb merely because if they do not, then the BU miner group is going to fork. That is hardly a justification.

The burden to show why it is needed is on anyone proposing, and then it gets discussed and if core agrees then code gets written and tested and then signaling and implemented.

Core is not any monolith or any small group. You gotta convince a mostly decentralized... if you cannot get the stuff through official channels, then bitcoin just stays the same.  Bitcoin is not broken, so staying the same is not the end of the world - even if some group ends up forking into some alt  that might initially have more hash power.  Once they fork, then it is much more likely that 95% segwit consensus would be achieved.  thereafter, bitcoin begins running with seg wit (whether it has smaller hashpower or not, bitcoin will be fine).

In other words, merely the threat of a fork seems way too insufficient in order to cave in to some proposed change that is not technically justifiable.

[1715458214]

1715458214

[andyatcrux]

It's not about being biased or financially dependent on lightning network  - that's all bullshit.  The main point is that there is no facts or logic to back up making an increase in the blocksize limit at this time.

Because adding a 2mb blocksize in excange for SEGWIT would keep the chains & communities from splitting in two and destroying both sides.  Even if it's not necessary by luke-jr's opinion - if it is 2MB blocks or 2 chains which one is really worse for bitcoin?

This is the third time around.  BitcoinXT, Classic & now Unlimited.  I fully expect this one to die out due to Unlimited's lack of professionalism & experience.  Then continued gridlock on SEGWIT.  At some point the industry will decide it's tired of waiting for > 7tps

What you are saying is that core should agree to increase the blocksize limit to 2mb merely because if they do not, then the BU miner group is going to fork. That is hardly a justification.

The burden to show why it is needed is on anyone proposing, and then it gets discussed and if core agrees then code gets written and tested and then signaling and implemented.

Core is not any monolith or any small group. You gotta convince a mostly decentralized... if you cannot get the stuff through official channels, then bitcoin just stays the same.  Bitcoin is not broken, so staying the same is not the end of the world - even if some group ends up forking into some alt  that might initially have more hash power.  Once they fork, then it is much more likely that 95% segwit consensus would be achieved.  thereafter, bitcoin begins running with seg wit (whether it has smaller hashpower or not, bitcoin will be fine).

In other words, merely the threat of a fork seems way too insufficient in order to cave in to some proposed change that is not technically justifiable

My understanding is that Hal Finney suggested implementing the 1MB blocksize to prevent bloat in the short term. Satoshi agreed. Many daily transfers then would now be considered dust. 2MB is the next logical step since it does not seem that maintaining 1MB was ever the intention.

[rdnkjdi]

That is hardly a justification.

Look.  I'm not thinking in terms of "right" or "wrong".  Just that 40% of the hash power is threatening to upgrade to non core.  You can pop on your fedora & wax eloquent about moral high ground all day if you want.  I literally have no opinion on right/wrong as I'm just a casual buttcoin observer.  

But it is pretty curious that you're about to destroy your coin by allowing all the leverage to be taken from the most qualified developers (which is going to launch my leveraged popcorn futures into oblivion) by being too stubborn to compromise on a little (2mb) to get a lot (SEGWIT + not losing control of the longest blockchain to a bunch of amateurs).  People have been begging for higher thruput / lower fees for the last two years.  So I assume that doesn't live up to whatever justification means in your book.

[gembitz]

It's not about being biased or financially dependent on lightning network  - that's all bullshit.  The main point is that there is no facts or logic to back up making an increase in the blocksize limit at this time.

Because adding a 2mb blocksize in excange for SEGWIT would keep the chains & communities from splitting in two and destroying both sides.  Even if it's not necessary by luke-jr's opinion - if it is 2MB blocks or 2 chains which one is really worse for bitcoin?

This is the third time around.  BitcoinXT, Classic & now Unlimited.  I fully expect this one to die out due to Unlimited's lack of professionalism & experience.  Then continued gridlock on SEGWIT.  At some point the industry will decide it's tired of waiting for > 7tps

What you are saying is that core should agree to increase the blocksize limit to 2mb merely because if they do not, then the BU miner group is going to fork. That is hardly a justification.

The burden to show why it is needed is on anyone proposing, and then it gets discussed and if core agrees then code gets written and tested and then signaling and implemented.

Core is not any monolith or any small group. You gotta convince a mostly decentralized... if you cannot get the stuff through official channels, then bitcoin just stays the same.  Bitcoin is not broken, so staying the same is not the end of the world - even if some group ends up forking into some alt  that might initially have more hash power.  Once they fork, then it is much more likely that 95% segwit consensus would be achieved.  thereafter, bitcoin begins running with seg wit (whether it has smaller hashpower or not, bitcoin will be fine).

In other words, merely the threat of a fork seems way too insufficient in order to cave in to some proposed change that is not technically justifiable

My understanding is that Hal Finney suggested implementing the 1MB blocksize to prevent bloat in the short term. Satoshi agreed. Many daily transfers then would now be considered dust. 2MB is the next logical step since it does not seem that maintaining 1MB was ever the intention.

2mb and we skyrocket to $2000+ ~ :-D

[andyatcrux]

Interesting: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1838682

[Miz4r]

That is hardly a justification.

Look.  I'm not thinking in terms of "right" or "wrong".  Just that 40% of the hash power is threatening to upgrade to non core.  You can pop on your fedora & wax eloquent about moral high ground all day if you want.  I literally have no opinion on right/wrong as I'm just a casual buttcoin observer.  

But it is pretty curious that you're about to destroy your coin by allowing all the leverage to be taken from the most qualified developers (which is going to launch my leveraged popcorn futures into oblivion) by being too stubborn to compromise on a little (2mb) to get a lot (SEGWIT + not losing control of the longest blockchain to a bunch of amateurs).  People have been begging for higher thruput / lower fees for the last two years.  So I assume that doesn't live up to whatever justification means in your book.

And you think Core can just pull a safe non-contentious hard fork out of their ass and give us SegWit + 2MB (= 4MB limit) tomorrow? You believe this proposal will reach the quick consensus we need? I don't think so, there are many people including myself who believe it is way better to do a soft fork first to deploy SegWit and then plan a safe hard fork later and work towards consensus, which is not an easy task. SegWit gives us around 2 MB blocks with a soft fork, which is backwards compatible. That is awesome and imo way better than aiming for ~4MB directly with a hard fork. Now you may disagree but the fact is that this is not a non-contentious issue because many people prefer SegWit as soft fork first. And no consensus about this means a hard fork is out of the question. So even if Core proposed this 'compromise' it would have no chance to get activated.

[Heater]

Last day to vote:
SegWit, Unlimited, both, neither, etc

I smell a rat. I have been a member since 2013 and it says I'm too new to vote.

I guess I just have to say it here: big blocks ftw.

[andyatcrux]

Last day to vote:
SegWit, Unlimited, both, neither, etc

I smell a rat. I have been a member since 2013 and it says I'm too new to vote.

I guess I just have to say it here: big blocks ftw.

That is a meta limitation. Does not matter how old your account is. Activity is what matters, your account is still "newbie"

[rdnkjdi]

And you think Core can just pull a safe non-contentious hard fork out of their ass and give us SegWit + 2MB (= 4MB limit) tomorrow? You believe this proposal will reach the quick consensus we need? I don't think so, there are many people including myself who believe it is way better to do a soft fork first to deploy SegWit and then plan a safe hard fork later and work towards consensus, which is not an easy task. SegWit gives us around 2 MB blocks with a soft fork, which is backwards compatible. That is awesome and imo way better than aiming for ~4MB directly with a hard fork. Now you may disagree but the fact is that this is not a non-contentious issue because many people prefer SegWit as soft fork first. And no consensus about this means a hard fork is out of the question. So even if Core proposed this 'compromise' it would have no chance to get activated.

Ok then I must have mis characterized.  Essentially you don't think there's any type of serious threat of either BU forking, or not being able to implement SEGWIT on the current timeline?  I guess this explains the situation - if a lot of people think that this BTCU / demand for bigger blocks is just a misnomer then it explains why the core side is acting the way they are.  Should be interesting times.

I assumed 2MB + SEGWIT would be win all around and fairly non confrontational for all sides.  The side that just wanted 2MB gets a bigger block.  The side that wants SEGWIT gets it.  Everyone gets to keep core.  2MB no big deal since internet & hard drive speeds have increased by like 800% since inception.  Etc.  Guess I was wrong.

Thanks for your reply tho - things make a little more sense to me understanding that core & supporters think forking the blockchain is simply never going to happen and that SEGWIT will get implemented with or without the bigger block carrot.

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

Jihan Wu is worried SegWit activation will empower faster progress on Lightning which will eat into his mining fees. Until someone convinces him Lightning is not a danger SegWit is dead in the water. You can expect him to try to block SegWit activation on Litecoin also. This is what happens when too much mining power is concentrated under control of one cartel.

[rdnkjdi]

Jihan Wu is worried SegWit activation will empower faster progress on Lightning which will eat into his mining fees. Until someone convinces him Lightning is not a danger SegWit is dead in the water. You can expect him to try to block SegWit activation on Litecoin also. This is what happens when too much mining power is concentrated under control of one cartel.

Time for bitcoin to go back to GPU's 

[Miz4r]

And you think Core can just pull a safe non-contentious hard fork out of their ass and give us SegWit + 2MB (= 4MB limit) tomorrow? You believe this proposal will reach the quick consensus we need? I don't think so, there are many people including myself who believe it is way better to do a soft fork first to deploy SegWit and then plan a safe hard fork later and work towards consensus, which is not an easy task. SegWit gives us around 2 MB blocks with a soft fork, which is backwards compatible. That is awesome and imo way better than aiming for ~4MB directly with a hard fork. Now you may disagree but the fact is that this is not a non-contentious issue because many people prefer SegWit as soft fork first. And no consensus about this means a hard fork is out of the question. So even if Core proposed this 'compromise' it would have no chance to get activated.

Ok then I must have mis characterized.  Essentially you don't think there's any type of serious threat of either BU forking, or not being able to implement SEGWIT on the current timeline?  I guess this explains the situation - if a lot of people think that this BTCU / demand for bigger blocks is just a misnomer then it explains why the core side is acting the way they are.  Should be interesting times.

I assumed 2MB + SEGWIT would be win all around and fairly non confrontational for all sides.  The side that just wanted 2MB gets a bigger block.  The side that wants SEGWIT gets it.  Everyone gets to keep core.  2MB no big deal since internet & hard drive speeds have increased by like 800% since inception.  Etc.  Guess I was wrong.

Thanks for your reply tho - things make a little more sense to me understanding that core & supporters think forking the blockchain is simply never going to happen and that SEGWIT will get implemented with or without the bigger block carrot.

SegWit gives us bigger blocks already. If people just want 2MB blocks then there should be no reason to not support SegWit since it gives us pretty much exactly that.

[rdnkjdi]

SegWit gives us bigger blocks already. If people just want 2MB blocks then there should be no reason to not support SegWit since it gives us pretty much exactly that.

This is just as accurate as saying "2MB blocks are mostly exactly like SEGWIT but simpler - so everyone should support that."

That is to say, entirely inaccurate. 

[Paashaas]

We will have a 2-3MB increase with Segwit with another 30-40% with integrated Schnorr signatures, that will be enough for some time untill side-chains. LN and other projects are all beeing build around Segwit because it's easyer and saver.

BU supporters are like;

[Miz4r]

Ok then I must have mis characterized.  Essentially you don't think there's any type of serious threat of either BU forking, or not being able to implement SEGWIT on the current timeline?  I guess this explains the situation - if a lot of people think that this BTCU / demand for bigger blocks is just a misnomer then it explains why the core side is acting the way they are.  Should be interesting times.

I have no control over whether BU will fork or not, if they really want to push a contentious hard fork through against our wishes we will be prepared for that and make sure the Core chain survives the split. Just like Core I am 100% against contentious hard forks and for immutability, the Bitcoin protocol can never bend to any kind of political pressure to change its consensus rules against the wishes of a minority who is against that change. Otherwise this will set a very dangerous precedent for the future. We can't bend to threats of forks or anything else. The more people try to forcefully push Bitcoin to do what they want the harder it will push back and say no. In order to change Bitcoin threats and political campaigns are certainly not the way, you'll need to find agreement with the entire community (consensus) and then Bitcoin will open its door for you and allow a certain change to make it through.

[Miz4r]

SegWit gives us bigger blocks already. If people just want 2MB blocks then there should be no reason to not support SegWit since it gives us pretty much exactly that.

This is just as accurate as saying "2MB blocks are mostly exactly like SEGWIT but simpler - so everyone should support that."

That is to say, entirely inaccurate.

SegWit gives us much more than just 2 MB blocks, and with a soft fork to boot. Obviously way better than just a hard fork to 2 MB and that's that.

[yefi]

not really...most trades are bad, so if you trade a lot, you are bound to lose money.
in a bull market you might survive and even have some gains, but bear will finish the job, most likely.
how wall street calls daytraders gains: a loan.

Not so, as not all trades or traders are equal. If you are inexperienced and lack the aptitude, expect to suffer losses, but do not discount those who are masterful at their craft.

[JayJuanGee]

It's not about being biased or financially dependent on lightning network  - that's all bullshit.  The main point is that there is no facts or logic to back up making an increase in the blocksize limit at this time.

Because adding a 2mb blocksize in excange for SEGWIT would keep the chains & communities from splitting in two and destroying both sides.  Even if it's not necessary by luke-jr's opinion - if it is 2MB blocks or 2 chains which one is really worse for bitcoin?

This is the third time around.  BitcoinXT, Classic & now Unlimited.  I fully expect this one to die out due to Unlimited's lack of professionalism & experience.  Then continued gridlock on SEGWIT.  At some point the industry will decide it's tired of waiting for > 7tps

What you are saying is that core should agree to increase the blocksize limit to 2mb merely because if they do not, then the BU miner group is going to fork. That is hardly a justification.

The burden to show why it is needed is on anyone proposing, and then it gets discussed and if core agrees then code gets written and tested and then signaling and implemented.

Core is not any monolith or any small group. You gotta convince a mostly decentralized... if you cannot get the stuff through official channels, then bitcoin just stays the same.  Bitcoin is not broken, so staying the same is not the end of the world - even if some group ends up forking into some alt  that might initially have more hash power.  Once they fork, then it is much more likely that 95% segwit consensus would be achieved.  thereafter, bitcoin begins running with seg wit (whether it has smaller hashpower or not, bitcoin will be fine).

In other words, merely the threat of a fork seems way too insufficient in order to cave in to some proposed change that is not technically justifiable

My understanding is that Hal Finney suggested implementing the 1MB blocksize to prevent bloat in the short term. Satoshi agreed. Many daily transfers then would now be considered dust. 2MB is the next logical step since it does not seem that maintaining 1MB was ever the intention.

You are merely asserting that 2mb is necessary because it sounds like the next logical step, but it does not mean that 2mb is necessary or justifiable at this time.  There are official channels to submit proposals, and I am sure that core has entertained such 2mb proposals, and don't see a reason to implement 2mb.

Core has a pretty solid way of maintaining the status quo and maintaining that any changes to core software is largely uncontested - because if you need to achieve 95% consensus then there is going to be wide consensus.. if BU and its software cannot achieve that internally, then their solution has been to propose changing the governance and achieving some smaller level of consensus (such as 75%), and if they are able to get that level of miners to follow, then they will achieve it; however, it seems that the rest of the bitcoin community might not go along with such a low consensus level - especially if they continue to have buggy software and less than a solid plan. 

So BU has the problem of the technical non-necessity of their proposal, but they also have the problem that they are attempting to change bitcoin governance with their discussion of a 75% consensus level (if they are able to achieve that with their vision forward).

[JayJuanGee]

That is hardly a justification.

Look.  I'm not thinking in terms of "right" or "wrong".  Just that 40% of the hash power is threatening to upgrade to non core.  You can pop on your fedora & wax eloquent about moral high ground all day if you want.  I literally have no opinion on right/wrong as I'm just a casual buttcoin observer.  

But it is pretty curious that you're about to destroy your coin by allowing all the leverage to be taken from the most qualified developers (which is going to launch my leveraged popcorn futures into oblivion) by being too stubborn to compromise on a little (2mb) to get a lot (SEGWIT + not losing control of the longest blockchain to a bunch of amateurs).  People have been begging for higher thruput / lower fees for the last two years.  So I assume that doesn't live up to whatever justification means in your book.

Sounds like you are buying into spin and whining of a bunch of loud mouths rather than actual justification to show that 2mb is actually needed to solve any kind of real problem, whether that is transaction times or fees.  And, also, there continues to be considerations about whether increasing blocksize limits to 2mb might cause more problems than it solves, and that is another reason that the 2mb is not justified (even though it sounds nice in theory)

[yefi]

Imo it won't gain much more traction as it had.
BU's code if full of bugs and the devs seem to be far from being competent!
But to scare the market it was a really useful toy I have to admit.Some people really shit their pants and sold huge parts of their stack and now act extremely desperate to get in again.

SWIM sold a sizable portion around $1100, and SWIM doesn't feel desperate to get in again. Without an ETF, we have less impetus for up, and with the scaling fiasco, more impetus for down. If the trend of the past year and a half is broken, you can expect some real panic selling.