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

[ImI]

Do you even understand Bitcoin? If you want proof-by-proxy then either go to Barrycoin or Jihancoin.

Oh, i understand Bitcoin very well. Bitcoin relies on a consensus-mechanism called "Proof of Work" and as such it's the miners that effectively decide what happens. You don't like it? OK, but what other consensus-mechanism do you propose? "Proof of Node"? "Proof of Reddit Account"?

You see you are right that Bitcoin means NO backdoor decisions, yes. But then you should also understand that in the Bitcoin ecosystem it's PoW that decides and nothing else.

And who decides if the PoW is valid?

Learn Bitcoin mate. How do miners at the moment decide which block is valid and which isn't? It's the same principle that sorts out doublespends or any other malicious block. Majority of PoW decides what Bitcoin-block is correct and which isn't.

[1714893083]

1714893083

[Lauda]

Oh, i understand Bitcoin very well. Bitcoin relies on a consensus-mechanism called "Proof of Work" and as such it's the miners that effectively decide what happens. You don't like it? OK, but what other consensus-mechanism do you propose? "Proof of Node"? "Proof of Reddit Account"?

You see you are right that Bitcoin means NO backdoor decisions, yes. But then you should also understand that in the Bitcoin ecosystem it's PoW that decides and nothing else.

No. Your understanding of Bitcoin is completely flawed and you need to stop shilling (I do not imply that you are paid; just posting supportive nonsense) for Ver/Bitmain/BU. They are the sole reason for which we are in the state that we find ourselves today. "Miners do not decide what happens". That is not a consensus-mechanism. Any kind of change that is done by a miner, and not backed up by widespread consensus creates an altcoin. Regardless of the hashrate. If Bitmain wants to test the users and developers, then it s possible to go full nuclear and change the algorithm completely. You need to stop worshiping people who have contributed almost nothing to the development of Bitcoin (code wise).

And who decides if the PoW is valid?

These fools have fatal understanding of Bitcoin, e.g. with things like "the longest chain is Bitcoin" without even understanding what they mean. The longest chain with the most amount of work, following the existing consensus rules is Bitcoin¹. If Bitmain forks away themselves, they are creating an altcoin. The same goes for any kind of proof-of-proxy "backdoor agreements".

Just bought a BTC. Let's hope I caught the bottom

I do hope we've hit the bottom.
1 - This isn't the full definition of it, but mostly directed at the false understanding that "the longest chain" == Bitcoin regardless of the ruleset.
@monbux: If you need education/consulting, hit me up. I usually don't offer it for free, but I'll make an exception for a member such as yourself.

[kromtar]

I holded when the drop to 200 usd, I am holding now and I will be holding every drop, I will never risk a single satoshi gambling in centralized exchangers.
Like some people say here I will sell some satoshis to crying weak hands when 1 btc = 200k 

[Torque]

Gee, a day after the Fed raises rates, Kroger's stock plummets at the open.

https://www.google.com/search?q=kroger+stock&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

What a shock.

[spooderman]

Do you even understand Bitcoin? If you want proof-by-proxy then either go to Barrycoin or Jihancoin.

Oh, i understand Bitcoin very well. Bitcoin relies on a consensus-mechanism called "Proof of Work" and as such it's the miners that effectively decide what happens. You don't like it? OK, but what other consensus-mechanism do you propose? "Proof of Node"? "Proof of Reddit Account"?

You see you are right that Bitcoin means NO backdoor decisions, yes. But then you should also understand that in the Bitcoin ecosystem it's PoW that decides and nothing else.

And who decides if the PoW is valid?

Learn Bitcoin mate. How do miners at the moment decide which block is valid and which isn't? It's the same principle that sorts out doublespends or any other malicious block. Majority of PoW decides what Bitcoin-block is correct and which isn't.

sigh. just listen to Lauda. I suspect you're not a shill but just a bit too egoistical to back down when you've been outsmarted. We need people like you, but it'd handy if you weren't relatively clueless about how this all works.

[simmo77]

We need a bear market to purge this market of altcoin malinvestments and regain Bitcoin dominance by scaling with Segwit and Lightning.

Agree 100% - a purge is needed, overdue even. The strong will survive.

[Ibian]

Luke? Luke states to this very day that 0.5Mb is enough. LOL

He has his reasons.

Yeah, he wants to hurt the entire bitcoin ecosystem because he is a narcissistic prick. That's not a fucking good reason. That or he is just an uninformed retard, doesn't really make a difference.

[empowering]

Once bitcoin drops below $2,000 again, it probably won't ever get back up above it ever again.

Noted for prosperity

[spooderman]

Luke? Luke states to this very day that 0.5Mb is enough. LOL

He has his reasons.

Yeah, he wants to hurt the entire bitcoin ecosystem because he is a narcissistic prick. That's not a fucking good reason. That or he is just an uninformed retard, doesn't really make a difference.

If one person can harm the entire community then there is centralisation in that area. That is the case with mining, and the manufacturing of mining equipment. You don't have to run Luke's code to use bitcoin, but you can't help having transactions included in blocks mined by Bitmain.

I suspect it is you who is the uninformed retard

[Ibian]

Luke? Luke states to this very day that 0.5Mb is enough. LOL

He has his reasons.

Yeah, he wants to hurt the entire bitcoin ecosystem because he is a narcissistic prick. That's not a fucking good reason. That or he is just an uninformed retard, doesn't really make a difference.

If one person can harm the entire community then there is centralisation in that area. That is the case with mining, and the manufacturing of mining equipment. You don't have to run Luke's code to use bitcoin, but you can't help having transactions included in blocks mined by Bitmain.

I suspect it is you who is the uninformed retard

So you agree that 0.5 mb blocks are enough? That's your position?

[Lauda]

Luke? Luke states to this very day that 0.5Mb is enough. LOL

He has his reasons.

Yeah, he wants to hurt the entire bitcoin ecosystem because he is a narcissistic prick. That's not a fucking good reason. That or he is just an uninformed retard, doesn't really make a difference.

I fully disagree. Luke-jr is a honest small blocker and has been consistent with his view for a long time. Anyhow: 1) He has had very decent contributions to the code. 2) He has written that HF proposal that increases the block size eventually.

So you agree that 0.5 mb blocks are enough? That's your position?

No reasonable amount, which would not fully centralized Bitcoin, is enough. Increasing the block size != improving scalability. Segwit -> Schnorr + signature aggregation are a very nice step. For those that do not know, and I'm sure ImI is part of those, the latter requires 1 signature for inputs from the same address. This means that TXs pulling out a lot of inputs from the same one would be very small in size in comparison to today. The bonus side effect of this improvement is not only capacity, but also the incentive to consolidate UTXO. Block size increases make sense, to a certain degree. However, kicking the can that way does nothing but set precedence for "weak/lazy scaling" and centralization. Let's have actual improvements, like those mentions and Weak blocks, before we do this?
Bottom reached?

[lemmyK]

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09258   

Quantum-secured blockchain

[Ibian]

Luke? Luke states to this very day that 0.5Mb is enough. LOL

He has his reasons.

Yeah, he wants to hurt the entire bitcoin ecosystem because he is a narcissistic prick. That's not a fucking good reason. That or he is just an uninformed retard, doesn't really make a difference.

I fully disagree. Luke-jr is a honest small blocker and has been consistent with his view for a long time. Anyhow: 1) He has had very decent contributions to the code. 2) He had written that HF proposal that increases the block size eventually.

Waiting for his very good reason to halve the transaction volume.

Increasing the block size != improving scalability.

Of course it is. More people means more value, and right now we are at about the limit of what the network can support. It's too basic to even talk about here, or at least it should be.

[Lauda]

Waiting for his very good reason to halve the transaction volume.

He is not advocating 0.5 MB anymore. You're confused. He's supporting BIP148, i.e. Segwit which is essentially a size up to 4 MB.

Increasing the block size != improving scalability.

Of course it is. More people means more value, and right now we are at about the limit of what the network can support. It's too basic to even talk about here, or at least it should be.

No. I take it you have not studied any area of computer science? Increasing raw throughput does not mean improving scalability. This is me, talking to you, whilst ignoring the 2 MB DoS risk due to quadratic hashing time (I'll let you guess which proposal also aims to fix this but is being blocked by a cartel ).

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09258    

In Bitcoin, the only vulnerable algorithm (at this time) would be ECDSA. The plan is to move to Schnorr anyways and Segwit makes this move easier.
Back to price talk?

[Ibian]

Increasing raw throughput does not mean improving scalability.

It does with bitcoin. Twice the size in the same 10 minute blocks=twice the throughput. Basic fucking first grade stuff.

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Just got back from acquiring a bit more coin. Wish I could have afforded more. Didn't quite catch the absolute bottom but came close.

It's rebounded over $100 since... currently $2285USD (Bitcoinaverage).

Do you think this correction is done yet? It's still not as deep as the one from May 25-27. It would have to go below $2k do match that.

[Lauda]

Increasing raw throughput does not mean improving scalability.

It does with bitcoin. Twice the size in the same 10 minute blocks=twice the throughput. Basic fucking first grade stuff.

No. You are uneducated about these concepts, i.e. you don't even know that scalability actually means. If you are not willing to listen and learn, then I will no longer be wasting my time on you.

Do you think this correction is done yet? It's still not as deep as the one from May 25-27. It would have to go below $2k do match that.

It is not just a correction. I take it you have missed the Bitmain announcement/threat? I do not want it to go any lower, at least not yet.

[ARTISTCOLONY]

Luke? Luke states to this very day that 0.5Mb is enough. LOL

He has his reasons.

Yeah, he wants to hurt the entire bitcoin ecosystem because he is a narcissistic prick. That's not a fucking good reason. That or he is just an uninformed retard, doesn't really make a difference.

I fully disagree. Luke-jr is a honest small blocker and has been consistent with his view for a long time. Anyhow: 1) He has had very decent contributions to the code. 2) He has written that HF proposal that increases the block size eventually.

So you agree that 0.5 mb blocks are enough? That's your position?

No reasonable amount, which would not fully centralized Bitcoin, is enough. Increasing the block size != improving scalability. Segwit -> Schnorr + signature aggregation are a very nice step. For those that do not know, and I'm sure ImI is part of those, the latter requires 1 signature for inputs from the same address. This means that TXs pulling out a lot of inputs from the same one would be very small in size in comparison to today. The bonus side effect of this improvement is not only capacity, but also the incentive to consolidate UTXO. Block size increases make sense, to a certain degree. However, kicking the can that way does nothing but set precedence for "weak/lazy scaling" and centralization. Let's have actual improvements, like those mentions and Weak blocks, before we do this?
Bottom reached?

luke-jr is cool bcause he will actually take time to help you and talk to you like a human being!!

[spooderman]

Twice the size in the same 10 minute blocks=twice the throughput. Basic fucking first grade stuff.

omg so you're saying 2X=X*2? fucking core lying to me all these years

Basic

Yes, indeed you are sir.

[ParabellumLite]

Once bitcoin drops below $2,000 again, it probably won't ever get back up above it ever again.

Didn't know you were still here Proudhon! I concur with respect to  the odds you outlined: it isn't likely at this point, not given the competition out there. The tech is getting ancient.