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

[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.

[andyatcrux]

JayJuanGee, while 2MB may not be technically necessary, Segwit with increase would be a reasonable compromise in my opinion. That is all. Ultimately there may be no BU or Segwit and we may go on with Core as it is. In that event, the fear and uncertainty may fade as it did with the previous emergent proposals and I agree that Bitcoin would be just fine.

[r0ach]

Time for bitcoin to go back to GPU's 

Bitcoin is pointless without general purpose mining hardware available.  People just ignored that fact because they were already invested and didn't want to rock the boat to disturb their investment:

Energy costs on the globe aren't uniform, so the energy arb game was going to centralize bitcoin already, then adding ASICs on top of that kind of doubled up on that oversight to make it worse.  Decentralization might have been acceptable with only the energy arb game at play, but not when combined with the removal of general purpose mining hardware.

[spooderman]

nice to know JJG hasn't bought into the BU horseshit.

i've spent countless hours arguing with roger's sock puppets on reddit. it's like trying to teach a cow quantum mechanics.

worrying how much control has fallen into the hands of such few people - what with roger owning bitcoin.com and jihan controlling so much hashrate.

people just need to remember one thing, and one thing only:

it's all about decentralisation

without that bitcoin is utterly useless.

[rdnkjdi]

You are merely asserting that 2mb is necessary

I'm asserting that thruput needs to be more than 7tps.  A lot more.  With low fees for it to keep growing.  If I'd allowed my network get to choke points for years while knowing it would likely take 6 - 12 months to upgrade without pushing a viable solution while hard drive space & bandwidth price ratio had gone down 10x.  And then started pushing a controversial solution that would jack with the entire ecosystem of fees for security until just months ago - I'd be fired.  Especially if there was an alternate employee who was offering a network with 8x the thruput / lower fees if thruput not needed while trying to force my controversial change as the only alternative.

Bitcoin Unlimited is the third employee offering a solution.  They are currently sitting at almost 40 of the 100 directors voting yes.

Core has a pretty solid way of maintaining the status quo

Absolutely - we agree.

blah blah blah - nothing of substance

Bitcoin Unlimited ... buggy software

We agree.

spin and whining of a bunch of loud mouths

Absolutely hilarious.  People have been clamoring for more & cheaper thruput for three iterations over two years.  And your analysis of all of them AND the 40% & counting of the hashpower holding up your 20 bil project is "a bunch of loud mouthers".

75% consensus level

51% is needed before you have enough leverage to start convincing people.  It's by design.  Social 99.5% consensus is preferred but not needed.

SEGWIT fixes everything

It opens up side channels.  A few years ago I was super stoked about this.  But I did some math on the fees, transaction levels needed to market cap ratio to maintain a high enough hashrate for the network to make it financially difficult to short / fork / profit.

As fees are taken offchain, rewards go away the miner security to market cap ratio will plummet.  I don't *think* it's sustainable - need to go back and do more numbers on average transaction amounts, what will likely be taken offchain, etc. 

But keep up the smug attitudes towards the miners. 

we may go on with Core as it is

I think this is the most likely.  But XT, Classic, Unlimited - it's only a matter of time before there is a fourth shot. 

Most likely miners who hire their own dev team.  Solve the block problem without SEGWIT, disallow side channels, make the masses calling for lots of capacity / cheap on chain transactions happy & wrestle control of the code away from the trolling developers who've pissed them off.

[bitserve]

In the past 24 hours it seems that some percentage of signaling mined blocks have changed from BU to Segwit. (4% over the total, 12% change from BU to Segwit).

https://coin.dance/blocks

BU: 36.1%
Segwit: 31.9%
8MB: 5.6%

Maybe its just an oscillation... but worth pointing it. (ANTPOOL, representing almost half of BU signaling, is still doing it, though).

[r0ach]

it's all about decentralisation

without that bitcoin is utterly useless.

Well, on the bright side, if anyone wants to convert their digital rat poison currency to money, both JMBullion and Provident metals accept bitcoin as a payment method for gold and silver now (although the GSR highly favors silver atm):

https://www.jmbullion.com/

https://www.providentmetals.com/

[d5000]

In the past 24 hours it seems that some percentage of signaling mined blocks have changed from BU to Segwit. (4% over the total, 12% change from BU to Segwit).

I have also noted that. If this tendency consolidates, we may have finally the fork danger cleared, or at least, delayed. (I for myself would like to see BU in the wild, but as an altcoin, maybe based on a BTC balance snapshot like Clams).

Regarding price evolution, I think there is clearly a triangle closing in the next hours or at most tomorrow (Saturday). If nothing fundamental happens, I think then we'll see where we are heading for now.

[Cassius]

In the past 24 hours it seems that some percentage of signaling mined blocks have changed from BU to Segwit. (4% over the total, 12% change from BU to Segwit).

https://coin.dance/blocks

BU: 36.1%
Segwit: 31.9%
8MB: 5.6%

Maybe its just an oscillation... but worth pointing it. (ANTPOOL, representing almost half of BU signaling, is still doing it, though).

Which means that right now, Antpool could swing the balance by tipping the total to within a whisker of 51%. Would be a pretty powerful signal.
Wonder if there will be some kind of backhander or closed-doors negotiation and then suddenly, he'll change sides.

[Totscha]

I have just come up with an absolutely crazy idea. I should probably be shot in the face! So here it is:

SegWit and LN would push a lot of the transactions offchain. So people running LN nodes would collect some fees. Ideally these would be much cheaper than today's on-chain trans fees, but there could be a lot more of them.

What exactly is preventing miners/pools from running LN nodes and earn some tasty fees? Lactose intolerance? Their inability to compile C++11 code? The fact that they have no more space for an extra virtual server for the LN node in their multi football field sized mining farm?

Please enlighten me!

[becoin]

I have just come up with an absolutely crazy idea. I should probably be shot in the face! So here it is:

SegWit and LN would push a lot of the transactions offchain. So people running LN nodes would collect some fees. Ideally these would be much cheaper than today's on-chain trans fees, but there could be a lot more of them.

What exactly is preventing miners/pools from running LN nodes and earn some tasty fees? Lactose intolerance? Their inability to compile C++11 code? The fact that they have no more space for an extra virtual server for the LN node in their multi football field sized mining farm?

Please enlighten me!

Setting up LN node doesn't require ASICs produced by Bitmain.

[Searing]

I have just come up with an absolutely crazy idea. I should probably be shot in the face! So here it is:

SegWit and LN would push a lot of the transactions offchain. So people running LN nodes would collect some fees. Ideally these would be much cheaper than today's on-chain trans fees, but there could be a lot more of them.

What exactly is preventing miners/pools from running LN nodes and earn some tasty fees? Lactose intolerance? Their inability to compile C++11 code? The fact that they have no more space for an extra virtual server for the LN node in their multi football field sized mining farm?

Please enlighten me!

Setting up LN node doesn't require ASICs produced by Bitmain.

Thus I gather why miners don't like seg witness nor lightning?

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Looking bearish

[york780]

Looking bearish

Yes. Big dump expected because we tested the support below 1000$ 3 time now. We would likely go furhter south it seems.

[BDO_44]

100% there will be dump, below 900$

[Spaceman_Spiff]

100% there will be dump, below 900$

Mmm, if everybody starts agreeing with me, I might have to reconsider