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

[mainpmf]

I want to short that!!!!
I want to click on this damn sell button so much!

I mean come on, nothing can grow and grow so steadily it HAS to go down at some point xD
Problem is that BTC doesn't want to listen to my logic, it does whatever it feels doing :p

[gentlemand]

Thinking the same.... here are s a few significant players I don't see

Bitstamp
Bitfinex
Blockstream
BTC-e
BTCJam
Cloudhashing/PeerNova
Coinfloor
Huobi
Kraken
LocalBitCoins
OKCoin
Poloniex

No BTCJam? O, the humanity.

But yes, there are some glaring omissions. Perhaps the signees are hoping that enough votes from their end will encourage the others give the nod too. It would've been impossible to get that many people in one place at one time.

And Barry Silbert said he invited several Core types but no one took him up on the offer.

[becoin]

And Barry Silbert said he invited several Core types but no one took him up on the offer.

People and companies willing to join big blocktard group are not so much!

[gentlemand]

People and companies willing to join big blocktard group are not so much!

He also offered them coffee and bagels. I'd give up my ideals for that.

[CoinCube]

Sounds like bitcoin core developers have some reservations about this.

What are bitcoin core's concerns here? Is is a concern that once blocksize is increased once further centralizing block size increases will occur?
Or do they think that widespread consensus for SegWit + 2Mb is not achievable?

I have not really been following this debate with any depth so I am trying to get up to speed.

[gentlemand]

Sounds like bitcoin core developers have some reservations about this.

What are bitcoin core's concerns here? Is is a concern that once blocksize is increased once further centralizing block size increases will occur?
Or do they think that widespread consensus to SegWit + 2Mb is not achievable?

Dunno. If the silly sausages had been there then they would've been able to voice those reservations and help draft a better agreement. A bonkers idea I know.

[CoinCube]

Dunno. If the silly sausages had been there then they would've been able to voice those reservations and help draft a better agreement. A bonkers idea I know.

Its more of a proposal without bitcoin core and the major exchanges. It's a nice starting point but without near universal support it is just a setup for a split into Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Whatever. We would be better off with the status quo and high fees than a contentious split.

Consensus is consensus and is very hard by definition. I agree that it is concerning that major players appear to be unwilling sit down in person for discussions.

[ARTISTCOLONY]

https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

This is fresh off the press. That's a lengthy list of signees but some conspicuous names are missing.

Signed by few miners and many web wallets. LN will make web wallet business model obsolete.

Almost all important bitcoin companies are missing.

Which ones are missing?  Can you list them in order that we can better understand who are and who are NOT ?

Sometimes, missing does not mean that they are opposed, it could mean that they are either neutral or don't want to publicly state their position, if they have one.

Thinking the same.... here are s a few significant players I don't see

Bitstamp
Bitfinex
Blockstream
BTC-e
BTCJam
Cloudhashing/PeerNova
Coinfloor
Huobi
Kraken
LocalBitCoins
OKCoin
Poloniex

polo lmfaoooo they MUST go with the program<<<<<

[ARTISTCOLONY]

Dunno. If the silly sausages had been there then they would've been able to voice those reservations and help draft a better agreement. A bonkers idea I know.

Its more of a proposal without bitcoin core and the major exchanges. It's a nice starting point but without near universal support it is just a setup for a split into Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Whatever. We would be better off with the status quo and high fees than a contentious split.

Consensus is consensus and is very hard by definition. I agree that it is concerning that major players appear to be unwilling sit down in person for discussions.

no way there is going to be a split ~ prolly just 100s of more copy/paste btc shitcoins

[JayJuanGee]

And Barry Silbert said he invited several Core types but no one took him up on the offer.

People and companies willing to join big blocktard group are not so much!

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated.  So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold? 

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

[ARTISTCOLONY]

And Barry Silbert said he invited several Core types but no one took him up on the offer.

People and companies willing to join big blocktard group are not so much!

32mb limit bring it back satoshi * haa

[CoinCube]

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated.  So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?  

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

I view it as slightly bullish.
Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

From my admittedly layman and non-technical perspective the 95% threshold makes sense. However 83% of the hashing power is getting much closer to 95% then we have been in the past. Perhaps now further discussions and compromises need to be made to get the last 12% and bitcoin core on board. The major exchanges would probably all follow at that point. That would be extremely bullish.

[gentlemand]

Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

Luke Jr is working on this - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014399.html

Let us hope that everyone moulds it into the least shit option on the table.

[JayJuanGee]

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated.  So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?  

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

I view it as slightly bullish.
Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

From my admittedly layman and non-technical perspective the 95% threshold makes sense. However 83% of the hashing power is getting much closer to 95% then we have been in the past. Perhaps now further discussions and compromises need to be made to get the last 12% and bitcoin core on board. The major exchanges would probably all follow at that point. That would be extremely bullish.

Yeah.. it is a bit bullish because there seems to be some compromising going on there.. however, it appears to still be dead set on a hardfork and changes in governance.. that is kind of a punchline, and attempting to make it sound as if everyone is onboard, when they are missing the technical folks who really understand bitcoin.. hahahahaha..

IN other words, a bunch of goofballs agreeing to something that is not going to fly...

By the way, I don't see any meaningful change to segwit signalling - still signalling in the mid 30%... If this "agreement" were so serious, shouldn't we see an immediate boost in segwit signalling in order to support the sentiment that 83.28% are onboard with seg wit.. Instead, they seem to be attempting to mislead folks into supporting an unnecessary hardfork .. which is NOT going to fly.. .


So, yeah, they can fork off, and then seg wit will get adopted in the remaining 16.72% chain.. hahahaha.. and that minor chain will become the real bitcoin.. hahahahaha

[ARTISTCOLONY]

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated.  So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?  

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

I view it as slightly bullish.
Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

From my admittedly layman and non-technical perspective the 95% threshold makes sense. However 83% of the hashing power is getting much closer to 95% then we have been in the past. Perhaps now further discussions and compromises need to be made to get the last 12% and bitcoin core on board. The major exchanges would probably all follow at that point. That would be extremely bullish.

2mb upgrade is obvious...segwit still confusing to some! ===> stay tuned  //$2500 approaching<<<

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

Luke Jr is working on this - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014399.html

Let us hope that everyone moulds it into the least shit option on the table.

Between Hilliard and Luke Jr, there are several alternative plans out there. They will need to simply #UASF in the end.

They know it will end in tears, but that is where their course has taken them.

(Typical Luke - "I left the author blank because i dont want to get fucked over be seen to champion this" )

[JayJuanGee]

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated.  So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?  

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

I view it as slightly bullish.
Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

From my admittedly layman and non-technical perspective the 95% threshold makes sense. However 83% of the hashing power is getting much closer to 95% then we have been in the past. Perhaps now further discussions and compromises need to be made to get the last 12% and bitcoin core on board. The major exchanges would probably all follow at that point. That would be extremely bullish.

2mb upgrade is obvious...segwit still confusing to some! ===> stay tuned  //$2500 approaching<<<

Don't be a fucking goofball.  You are saying the opposite of the truth.

The most obvious upgrade is seg wit.

2mb remains controversial, hardforks are not acceptable and changes in governance is not acceptable, unless perhaps if they were done through a softfork that is approaching a large scale of consensus and likely to result in consensus without force..

[becoin]

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated.  So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?  

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

I view it as slightly bullish.
Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

From my admittedly layman and non-technical perspective the 95% threshold makes sense. However 83% of the hashing power is getting much closer to 95% then we have been in the past. Perhaps now further discussions and compromises need to be made to get the last 12% and bitcoin core on board. The major exchanges would probably all follow at that point. That would be extremely bullish.

2mb upgrade is obvious...segwit still confusing to some! ===> stay tuned  //$2500 approaching<<<

Not at all. Block size limit should be lowered not increased.

[ARTISTCOLONY]

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated.  So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?  

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

I view it as slightly bullish.
Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

From my admittedly layman and non-technical perspective the 95% threshold makes sense. However 83% of the hashing power is getting much closer to 95% then we have been in the past. Perhaps now further discussions and compromises need to be made to get the last 12% and bitcoin core on board. The major exchanges would probably all follow at that point. That would be extremely bullish.

2mb upgrade is obvious...segwit still confusing to some! ===> stay tuned  //$2500 approaching<<<

Not at all. Block size limit should be lowered not increased.

for your shitcoin botnets ya ===>that way we can mint coins on a vacuum cleaner rotff happy ATH BTC kaboooom++





===> also ETC : BTC to skyrocket<<<

[JayJuanGee]

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated.  So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?  

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

I view it as slightly bullish.
Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

From my admittedly layman and non-technical perspective the 95% threshold makes sense. However 83% of the hashing power is getting much closer to 95% then we have been in the past. Perhaps now further discussions and compromises need to be made to get the last 12% and bitcoin core on board. The major exchanges would probably all follow at that point. That would be extremely bullish.

2mb upgrade is obvious...segwit still confusing to some! ===> stay tuned  //$2500 approaching<<<

Not at all. Block size limit should be lowered not increased.

Actually, even though technically you are probably correct that bitcoin would be better with blocksize limit that is lower than 1mb - there is a certain advantage in just keeping the status quo - even if a lower blocksize limit would technically be the better design.