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

[Killerpotleaf]

Roger is teaching economics 101 out of his ass. If you're interested:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/61oycs/substitute_goods/

no one is buying altcoins!

ahahaha what a dumbass.

The "free market" as a whole will never accept 'all' the cryptocurrencies out there that have splintered into several hardly distinguishable variants, or even the top 3-5. No fkn way, too much confusion, too much integration, too much hassle. Not worth it for industry merchants to do that and support integrating them all.

If they are even going to do it at all, the world markets and merchants will only consolidate on the ONE cryptocurrency with the most end user popularity, the most industry backing, the largest ecosystem, the strongest brand^TM recognition.

Everything else will just be noise, and probably not even a close second.

We've been through this same competitive shit before.

It was called the enterprise search engine wars. Google won.
It was called the smartphone marketcap wars. Android won.
It was called the commercial desktop OS wars. Microsoft won.
It was called the enterprise backend server wars. Fedora/RHEL linux won.
It was called the privatized corporate Intranet wars. The free Internet won.

wait altavista didnt win?


It was called the crypto currency wars. ______ won

[Torque]

It was called the crypto currency wars. ______ won

Well accord to Roger, it's now not Bitcoin.

I'm not sure what he's smoking, but I wouldn't bet on that.

[r0ach]

http://www.dailystormer.com/ratlike-jew-children-gather-to-sing-im-not-white-im-jewish/

[MoinCoin]

bitcoin  the currency and bitcoin the Network, are one and the same and can't be separated, at least i dont see how that can be done.

Not entirely of course, but the relationship can be weakened

An incomplete thought:
Why not add emergent consensus on blocksize through soft forked extension blocks and 1MB+segwit on the main blocks?

oh i see what your saying....
well... that sounds like sapeggit.
i want to say, SF are evil.

Lol sapeggitt ;oD
Yeah the beauty is that you only have to softfork once if you prefer hardforks and than can hardfork the extension blocks chain all you want without having the danger to double the BTC amount.

While segwit may be a compromise beetween small blockers and normal blockers, it completely disregards big blockers and as we can see through segwit readyness signaling also provides little incentive (or even negative) to miners.

Another compromise could be main block 1 MB, extension block Core with segwit and max 2.7 MB blockweight and extensionblock with EC blocksize.
So when you'd run core, you'd have the same spam attack surface as with segwit now.
Of course this would mean more work for devs, which want EC, but the potential reward is higher.

The beauty for BU would be that afterwards you could hard-fork on that extension blocks all you want, without having the risk to split the base BTC currency.

I feel like core devs would love(not hate?) this idea.
But idk a SF which requires miner consensus , and requires nodes to update to make sense of the new "extension block" seems kinda pointless, HF seems cleaner, and the coins in the extension block probably won't be fungible with real BTC ?? idk.
Edit: even with all that said... i think you might be onto somthing, but idk!

I don't think core devs would love this. They would have to compromise too...
Devs are pretty smart - it would be no problem to implement this, the question is do they want to and if this is an acceptable compromise.
Unless devs for one extension block don't fuck everything up, they should always be fungible with real BTC through the main block.

The overall fungibility might even improve because downgrading the bitcoins back into main blocks could (would likely?) be implemented with free mixing.

In essence you could upgrade your bitcoins from the main block utxo to an extension block utxo.
Downgrading of course is also possible, although technically slightly more difficult.

Of course to send btc from a therotical EC extension block to a theoretical segwit extension block this could take some time, but this should be alot faster than if we split into two chains and you would'nt even be able to do this, no, you'd have to go through an exchange.
And than you'd of course have services like we have today with shapeshift, which would reduce the number of needed downgrade/upgrade to other extension block chain alot.

As a normal user your wallet could do that for you automatically.
The complexity could be wrapped through different adresses for the different extension blocks.

Its a bit like Lightning BTCs. When you have locked up your BTC in a channel you cannot use them otherwise. But the other party may not accept Lightning so you may find yourself in a dilemma.

So we would be better here from a user experience too compared to a split - and most settled transactions would be intra extension block.

You could design the basic idea of extension blocks in a numerous ways.
The most advanced document I found so far is this, though the document may slightly differ from my idea
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-January/013490.html



It is not ideal, but it I like it far better than status quo, contentious HF or UASF, which are the most popular ideas atm.

Thinking further ahead, I don't think we will end up with endless different extension blocks.
Each extension block has to provide clear advantages over what we already have.
Segwit and EC blocksize should both have enough interested people.

For the digital gold people, who only want to HODL this would be completely opt-in.
You could still use plain bitcoin 0.12 and receive bitcoins, completely ignoring the extension blocks.
Nobody would force you to use segwit or submit to EC.

It is not a perfect solution, but the best I currently can see. I think it is feasable, morally acceptable, makes HFs easier within the extsion blocks, preserves node decentrailization, allows miners to let onchain compete with offchain and most importantly does not split the currency bitcoin.

It does not need the permission from every development team. BU could go ahead, team up with Classic and do this without Core, if they would get support from the miners.

On the negative side i would create a little technical debt in the beginning, because you'd have to support extension blocks.
But later you would be saved from additional technical debt and could even pay off some.
E.g. if EC extension blockers deem segwit technical debt they do not need to support segwit.

Of course - an uncontentious HF would be cleaner, but due to politics from all sides will not happen in the next years.
For me this is so much more appealing than a chain split.

P.S. my personal favorite is SBTC with RSK ;oD

RSK probably requires low BTC TX fees to work?
its very interesting.
I got into OMNI a while back, as a way to double down on bitcoin's success.

Funny thing is - because they use a completely seperate blockchain (which is merge mined with bitcoin) i suspect the oposite.
The higher the fees on the main chain - the more incentive for users to go to the sidechain, where we can easily have 100 tps onchain.
RSK will have a two way peg -> 1 Smart Bitcoin (SBTC) equals 1 Bitcoin
But atleast initially RSK has a very different (trust-) model than plain BTC and will need completly new software.

[Killerpotleaf]

As a normal user your wallet could do that for you automatically.
The complexity could be wrapped through different adresses for example.

thats my main problem with LN or this extension block thing.
i feel you haven't covered all the bases and the user experience will be severely affected.
oh its simple, you just timelock your BTC into the Xblock and then you sign a raw TX, make sure you flip the bits because of big-endian bit ordering of course, and then you can withdraw from mtgox!
SOON^TM this will be all automatic.

good way to have everyone DASH the F out of here.

and the debate is truly silly when you realize 1MB is NOT AN OPTION, even with LN we'll NEED bigger blocks
just do it already.

[MoinCoin]

As a normal user your wallet could do that for you automatically.
The complexity could be wrapped through different adresses for example.

thats my main problem with LN or this extension block thing.
i feel you haven't covered all the bases and the user experience will be severely affected.
oh its simple, you just timelock your BTC into the Xblock and then you sign a raw TX, make sure you flip the bits because of big-endian bit ordering of course, and then you can withdraw from mtgox!
SOON^TM this will be all automatic.

good way to have everyone DASH the F out of here.

and the debate is truly silly when you realize 1MB is NOT AN OPTION, even with LN we'll NEED bigger blocks
just do it already.

Nah you are jumping one step ahead. This is only a raw idea.
If you'd have support from miners and would SF the logic into main blocks, you don't have to lock the bitcoins.

So how would this work without locking bitcoins:
One simple solution would be to hold them in a special address on the main utxo and the user adresses on the extension utxo.

All miners still mine the main blocks.
EC miners additionally mine ec blocks. Segwit miners also mine segwit blocks.
A lot of miners will mine both, because they want to have the fees.

This would require 51% of the miners of an extension block have to be  honest, because only they know the rules.
So having 51% of all miners would be advisable.

When we compare this to a chain split scenario this is not worse, because there we also need 51% of the complete hashing power, to be safe against reorgs.

Sidenote:
I think a reorg on the main chain would only induce the same reorg to the extended blocks, because they are completely synchronized, if the logic of utxo selection for the downgrades is deterministic (think replay attacks) - this is where extension blocks differ from sidechains, where reorgs on the main chain are a huge problem.

[Killerpotleaf]

Finally a Green weekly candle.

If the FUD is getting to you, step away from the computer and come back when satoshi has issued the alert to upgrade

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

 

[MoinCoin]

and the debate is truly silly when you realize 1MB is NOT AN OPTION, even with LN we'll NEED bigger blocks

Lol yes - Feels a bit like everybody knows, but nobody cares enough or all are just to afraid.
One obvious solution is to not have the debate, but to solve the problem it in a way which does not need permission from everybody, preferably not altcoins  

Edit:

As a normal user your wallet could do that for you automatically.
The complexity could be wrapped through different adresses for example.

thats my main problem with LN or this extension block thing.
i feel you haven't covered all the bases and the user experience will be severely affected.
oh its simple, you just timelock your BTC into the Xblock and then you sign a raw TX, make sure you flip the bits because of big-endian bit ordering of course, and then you can withdraw from mtgox!
SOON^TM this will be all automatic.

Please compare this to a split chain scenario. Essentially your bitcoins are then locked forever in the other chain ;o)
Of course you can sell them, but with extension blocks you could do this too.

Locking would only be needed, when there are not enough miners mining the specific extension blocks, to be safer against reorgs / double spends / replay attacks on the main chain -> See my post above. This is where the simple idea ends and the engineering starts

[Killerpotleaf]

and the debate is truly silly when you realize 1MB is NOT AN OPTION, even with LN we'll NEED bigger blocks

Lol yes - Feels a bit like everybody knows, but nobody cares enough or all are just to afraid.
One obvious solution is to not have the debate, but to solve the problem it in a way which does not need permission from everybody, preferably not altcoins  

Edit:

As a normal user your wallet could do that for you automatically.
The complexity could be wrapped through different adresses for example.

thats my main problem with LN or this extension block thing.
i feel you haven't covered all the bases and the user experience will be severely affected.
oh its simple, you just timelock your BTC into the Xblock and then you sign a raw TX, make sure you flip the bits because of big-endian bit ordering of course, and then you can withdraw from mtgox!
SOON^TM this will be all automatic.

Please compare this to a split chain scenario. Essentially your bitcoins are then locked forever in the other chain ;o)
Of course you can sell them, but with extension blocks you could do this too.

Locking would only be needed, when there are not enough miners mining the specific extension blocks, to be safer against reorgs / double spends / replay attacks on the main chain -> See my post above. This is where the simple idea ends and the engineering starts

talk is cheap.
you simply cannot prove this would work without doing it.

all i know is we have no choice but to bump the limit eventually.
this is the ONLY risk i am willing to take.

[jbreher]

I agree with you, but the BU fanatics wont. They are stubborn and they think BU or a fork is the best for bitcoin.

Well of course we do. Though, if this new Classic thing picks up steam, it'll be just as good. This is assuming Classic endeavors to operate upon the actual Bitcoin chain, with no new PoW or somesuch.

For in a world with core, Classic, XT (still some support there), BU and BitcoinEC, only core is the one that will crumble when larger blocks get built. I would assume that in the case of such, core would likely change to accept larger blocks as well.

We'd all be one happy family again, working on a chain with larger blocks. No need to fight this huge dispiriting battle until the 8MB limit is nearing. At which point, we will have proved that larger blocks work, and BU's emergent consensus was indeed The Right Idea. Better yet, with the broader community's eyes on the code. Win/win/win.

[JayJuanGee]

I agree with you, but the BU fanatics wont. They are stubborn and they think BU or a fork is the best for bitcoin.

Well of course we do. Though, if this new Classic thing picks up steam, it'll be just as good. This is assuming Classic endeavors to operate upon the actual Bitcoin chain, with no new PoW or somesuch.

For in a world with core, Classic, XT (still some support there), BU and BitcoinEC, only core is the one that will crumble when larger blocks get built. I would assume that in the case of such, core would likely change to accept larger blocks as well.

We'd all be one happy family again, working on a chain with larger blocks. No need to fight this huge dispiriting battle until the 8MB limit is nearing. At which point, we will have proved that larger blocks work, and BU's emergent consensus was indeed The Right Idea. Better yet, with the broader community's eyes on the code. Win/win/win.

I don't know if it is a win/win/win

Yet, there could be some advantages in having hardforks that would then allow for ideological implementations to be carried out and then for miners, developers, consumers to follow whichever fork they believe to best suit their preference(s).   

On the other hand, I doubt that the original intent was to make forks easy to accomplish - and also there was some kinds of assumptions that competing currencies were not necessarily going to be as much of a phenomenon as one currency that kinds of becomes the one and all go to currency... yet maybe this concept of a one and all go to currency was sounding good in theory but does not play out as well in practice?

I still have a tendency to believe that in the longer term, the best of the currencies is going to win out, even though in the shorter term there may be a plethora of competing possibilities.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

In the meantime it's clear that btc is a total success. First there is no central authority. Second The blocks are full. It means more txs and more people using it .

right now rather than fight to gain adoption, there are too many txs .

this is cool, and it's not like if there wasn't ez solutions.

furthermore it's cool to see that the idea to increase txs/s is gaining traction, one way or another there will be more txs made with btc.

Do you think that the recent political manifestations and repressions in russia are having an impact on the price? Moreover none speaks about the juggernaut in the room, Ms. Yellen and here rate increase. She is still the queen of the hill, uncontested.

[savetherainforest]

No worries, they want you to sell cheap. It is coming back up already.

https://www.facebook.com/Wititudes/videos/1527953093904576/

We really need gifs with sound... asap...    (someone invent the next level of forum technology faster!)   

[becoin]

Do you think that the recent political manifestations and repressions in russia are having an impact on the price?

I think you don't have idea what're you talking about.

[simmo77]

Hey, look Mods! People talking about altcoins here in this thread for pages and pages!

But of course if *I* have something mentioned about an altcoin in one of my posts, it gets deletely instantly!

Selective much?

 

It's because racism.

I'm as white as the driven snow, and the same shit happens to me.

[willope]

BU hashrate 47,2% the last 24 hours.
SELL, PANIC,
Bitcoin is DEAD

No, seriously, I am a bit worried. My life saving is all in, it's quite stressing.

[Cassius]

BU hashrate 47,2% the last 24 hours.
SELL, PANIC,
Bitcoin is DEAD

No, seriously, I am a bit worried. My life saving is all in, it's quite stressing.

Well this is certainly getting Interesting.
The market doesn't massively seem to care yet though. Still pushing $1k.

[york780]

BU hashrate 47,2% the last 24 hours.
SELL, PANIC,
Bitcoin is DEAD

No, seriously, I am a bit worried. My life saving is all in, it's quite stressing.

Well this is certainly getting Interesting.
The market doesn't massively seem to care yet though. Still pushing $1k.

Fork is getting closer and closer. Only 47.2% to go.

[Lauda]

BU hashrate 47,2% the last 24 hours.
SELL, PANIC,
Bitcoin is DEAD

No, seriously, I am a bit worried. My life saving is all in, it's quite stressing.

Stop panicking and using 24 hour based numbers as stats. This is called Variance. Just a little over a day ago, BU was sub 30% and Segwit was leading. Calm down and ignore the fork, which apparently nobody wants (see at the price on Bitfinex e.g.).

Well this is certainly getting Interesting.
The market doesn't massively seem to care yet though. Still pushing $1k.

The market is currently starting to regain trust that a fork will not happen. There have been several statements that companies don't want Bitcoin to fork in two. For example:


https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/846266755391512577

They can't reach 75% without F2Pool and the others supporting Segwit anyways.
Current trend: Minor bullish.
After BTU is completely dead: Massive bull-train.

[Odalv]

Last chance to buy bitcoin uder $1,000 ? :-)