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

[CoinCube]

I continue to wonder why there are so many folks who continue to assert that 2mb is needed and a kind of must and a kind of emergency, without even verifying how segwit plays out.  Causes me to tentatively conclude that there is likely some hidden agenda in regards to such a desire to implement something that really seems to be unnecessary - and whether the implementation of unnecessary is for governance reasons or just some kind of big business reasons seems to escape me.

Most of us are simple bitcoin holders and just want the issue to be resolved.

Most of us do not want the Chinese miners to take over the bitcoin code and trust Core to manage upgrades far more then we trust other groups that do not prioritize decentralization.

For those of us who have educated ourselves on the issue it is clear that a 2MB hardfork is not needed as some kind of emergency solution but it is equally clear that it is needed to maintain overall good will in the community especially the mining community.

Since everyone seems to agree that a blocksize increase will eventually be required as bitcoin grows and most people including core developers feel that the dangers of a single one time increase are manageable I am of the strong opinion that a 2MB hardfork rolled out and deployed by Core using their usual slow and complete vetting process would be far less damaging than telling the miners to go take a hike after SegWit is activated.

[1714820335]

1714820335

[1714820335]

1714820335

[1714820335]

1714820335

[1714820335]

1714820335

[1714820335]

1714820335

[1714820335]

1714820335

[bitserve]

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about?  I see the segwit2x support and it appears like it has a good chance of going to the next step.  It seems to be a very bullish development.  I am invested in bitcoin, so I like bullish developments because I become more wealthy as the price goes up, as long as my coins don't get hacked and as long as I don't sell too many of them.  

Arguing with you is so much resource intensive it's not worth it (more so when I have to do it in a foreign language). Let's just take this last paragraph in which I think we both do agree and enjoy the run up.

And, again, buy a damn hardware wallet

P.S.: And, maybe I wasn't very eloquent with my poor english, but all that CoinCube has said in his last posts is exactly my opinion, which him has expressed with much more clear and concise words.

[Elwar]

[JayJuanGee]

I continue to wonder why there are so many folks who continue to assert that 2mb is needed and a kind of must and a kind of emergency, without even verifying how segwit plays out.  Causes me to tentatively conclude that there is likely some hidden agenda in regards to such a desire to implement something that really seems to be unnecessary - and whether the implementation of unnecessary is for governance reasons or just some kind of big business reasons seems to escape me.

Most of us are simple bitcoin holders and just want the issue to be resolved.

I was starting to agree with some of your points, but now that you are supposedly talking on behalf of a group, you are losing credibility.

Why don't you speak for yourself rather than assuming what "we" wants?

Most of us do not want the Chinese miners to take over the bitcoin code and trust Core to manage upgrades far more then we trust other groups that do not prioritize decentralization.

more nonsense. .. core is not centralized, so you can remove that from your framework, please.

For those of us who have educated ourselves on the issue it is clear that a 2MB hardfork is not needed as some kind of emergency solution but it is equally clear that it is needed to maintain overall good will in the community especially the mining community.

O.k.  so you pretty much concede it is not needed, except maybe it may be needed in the future.

If you were really edumacated about the topic, then you would accept that going forward with caution, such as implementing seg wit first would be the most plausible and reasonable solution.. rather than arguing for something that is not needed and is merely speculative about future proofing bitcoin.. even though seg wit may well take care of all near to medium term issues related to scaling, for example..

Have you ever thought that 2mb may bring more problems than it supposedly resolves?

Since everyone seems to agree that a blocksize increase will eventually be required as bitcoin grows and most people including core developers feel that the dangers of a single one time increase are manageable I am of the strong opinion that a 2MB hardfork rolled out and deployed by Core using their usual slow and complete vetting process would be far less damaging than telling the miners to go take a hike after SegWit is activated.

Maybe I kind of agree with you about this.  Core are not unreasonable people, as you seem to want to assert.  If 2mb or some other blocksize limit increase is needed, then it can be made in the future.. why rush into something that is neither needed nor proven to help more than it hurts?

[JayJuanGee]

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about?  I see the segwit2x support and it appears like it has a good chance of going to the next step.  It seems to be a very bullish development.  I am invested in bitcoin, so I like bullish developments because I become more wealthy as the price goes up, as long as my coins don't get hacked and as long as I don't sell too many of them.  

Arguing with you is so much resource intensive it's not worth it (more so when I have to do it in a foreign language). Let's just take this last paragraph in which I think we both do agree and enjoy the run up.

And, again, buy a damn hardware wallet

P.S.: And, maybe I wasn't very eloquent with my poor english, but all that CoinCube has said in his last posts is exactly my opinion, which him has expressed with much more clear and concise words.

your english seems pretty good to me, just some of your ideas suck... hahahahhahahaha   

To the moon!!!!!

[Elwar]

Looking at the few blocks not supporting SegWit2x shows that it is mainly small pools that didn't indicate anything and slush pool which indicates support for SegWit.

https://coin.dance/blocks

[AlexGR]

Also, Bitcoin is not broken, that's right... And I don't know enough about blockchains as I do about networks and most networks that exceed 80-90% capacity are bound to severe issues. We would need to reduce that congestion to 50% to be safe. Segwit will largely help in the long term, a blocksize increase can aleviate some of the issues right now.

Let's say you run the network of a company and it has 10gbps - and you are at 10-30% use. This line costs you 10 grand per month.

I flood your line (externally) by attacking it (DDOS) to 100% use all the time. Will you upgrade to 100 gbps and take your bill to 5-7x just because someone is DDOSing you? And if I do that again and again, not even 1 tbps will save you - but if you follow the upgrade logic due to DDOS, your company will be bankrupt.

Blockchain use is similar. Even if blocks were 10x tomorrow morning, they would be full by very low fee txs. Even if they were 100x in size, someone running a script can fill them up - and the fees will be pretty low, as there will be no fee pressure. Still individual nodes go bankrupt as they can't sustain storage and bandwidth costs scaling to 10-100x.

[AlexGR]

Looking at the few blocks not supporting SegWit2x shows that it is mainly small pools that didn't indicate anything and slush pool which indicates support for SegWit.

https://coin.dance/blocks

I was going over the bitcoin mailing list, until I read gmaxwell's post:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014633.html

...
Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them
at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and
do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the
same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the
story would be the same there in the near term).
...

...

...

I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the
previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.

There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by
the technical community.  And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
predicated on discarding those properties.

If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something
they can always do,  and nothing about that will force anyone to go
along with it.

As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.

Sounds like a total shit-storm...

Fuck all those fuckers who want to fork the shit out of bitcoin.

Core devs support for Segwit 2x (check on the right): https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that having a single chain is more important than breaking up bitcoin in (at least 2) forks, possibly 4 or 5 - some with different PoWs, or different properties.

When the situation gets too messy with all the crap (uasf, segwit, segwit2x, classic/xt/bu bullshit), perhaps we should start with a clean slate to deal with scaling. If there's no consensus from the technical community, the miners and the economic entities, perhaps it's for a good reason...

[Dakustaking76]

Price dipped

Who want to Get in buy now!!!!

[Last of the V8s]

I was going over the bitcoin mailing list, until I read gmaxwell's post:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014633.html
 

Fuck all those fuckers who want to fork the shit out of bitcoin.

Core devs support for Segwit 2x (check on the right): https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that having a single chain is more important than breaking up bitcoin in (at least 2) forks, possibly 4 or 5 - some with different PoWs, or different properties.

When the situation gets too messy with all the crap (uasf, segwit, segwit2x, classic/xt/bu bullshit), perhaps we should start with a clean slate to deal with scaling. If there's no consensus from the technical community, the miners and the economic entities, perhaps it's for a good reason...

That's just maxwell showing he doesn't understand what's going on and being a drama llama.

Read on, and the others gently explain things to him, until https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014638.html

... where he makes the very valid point that someone is wrong on the internet, and then comes up with a proposal and a question that - you guessed it - are already being worked on.

[eXpl0sive]

Nobody should be ruling this decisions other than the full nodes.

The whole idea of Bitcoin was to put power in the hands of "individuals". Back in that time, the miners & nodes were all individuals. Now since the mining has become centralised in the hands of few giant pools, it shouldn't give them power to do whatever the fuck they want. If the power is taken from the individuals, the whole ideology is gone for toss.

Let the nodes rule the world.

[r0ach]

Core devs support for Segwit 2x (check on the right): https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

I'm not sure how anyone could be bullish right now after clicking that because the situation resembles segwit2x being some type of rogue china fork while there's also a big head and shoulders pattern at the same time.  As for the head and shoulders pattern, markets don't actually exist and the price will just go in whichever direction there is someone to squeeze whether it's a long or short.  So if someone goes in heavy shorting, it will go up.  If someone bets the farm on a long, it will crash.

[Pajulapoiss]

Nobody should be ruling this decisions other than the full nodes.

The whole idea of Bitcoin was to put power in the hands of "individuals". Back in that time, the miners & nodes were all individuals. Now since the mining has become centralised in the hands of few giant pools, it shouldn't give them power to do whatever the fuck they want. If the power is taken from the individuals, the whole ideology is gone for toss.

Let the nodes rule the world.

Yes, that is exactly how I see bitcoin aswell. But as always, with money there's corruption.

But I see that new opportunities & platforms are popping up, which in a big scheme of things, does give the power pack to the people, because one can just choose to move  their ssets, while not exiting crypto world. = more freedom, more privacy. Whether Bitcoin stands strong, or gets taken over by corruptants and loses it's beauty.

So it will be a great innovation either way. ,

[elebit]

If you think going from 90% to less than 40% market dominance is not an emergency...

Why do people bother posting these things?

It's not like Bitcoin is hurt by people buying other coins as well. The people buying shitcoins might be hurt by it but Bitcoin will not. After all, it started on 100% "dominance" so the only way is down. Why make up some controversy here?

The also the fact that "market dominance" is completely made up. It is based on "market cap" which is a real word but completely irrelevant to Bitcoin. People don't speak about the market cap of the US dollar or even of gold. Because it would be irrelevant.

Then there's also the fact that the majority of altcoins aren't even traded at any remotely reputable exchange. People sell a token for a dollar, then make another million tokens which nobody wants to buy and somehow that counts as a million dollar "market cap". Which somehow would unseat Bitcoin "dominance factor". It's ridicolous on the face of it and it's really tiresome when people pretend to take it seriously in some misguided attempt to pumpt altcoins.

[asu]

Bitcoin price rising as of now it's been a good one signnnnnn hehehehehe.  Am happy to see bitcoin price rising

[becoin]

Nothing suggested by Jihan and Co should be accepted! Period.

[yefi]

Why do people bother posting these things?

It's not like Bitcoin is hurt by people buying other coins as well. The people buying shitcoins might be hurt by it but Bitcoin will not. After all, it started on 100% "dominance" so the only way is down. Why make up some controversy here?

The also the fact that "market dominance" is completely made up. It is based on "market cap" which is a real word but completely irrelevant to Bitcoin. People don't speak about the market cap of the US dollar or even of gold. Because it would be irrelevant.

Then there's also the fact that the majority of altcoins aren't even traded at any remotely reputable exchange. People sell a token for a dollar, then make another million tokens which nobody wants to buy and somehow that counts as a million dollar "market cap". Which somehow would unseat Bitcoin "dominance factor". It's ridicolous on the face of it and it's really tiresome when people pretend to take it seriously in some misguided attempt to pumpt altcoins.

Some seem remarkably dismissive of the shift - does this reflect its unimportance, or their defence mechanism against a situation they were sure would not occur? I observe every imaginable way to paint the obvious as what it isn't.

[600watt]

Why do people bother posting these things?

It's not like Bitcoin is hurt by people buying other coins as well. The people buying shitcoins might be hurt by it but Bitcoin will not. After all, it started on 100% "dominance" so the only way is down. Why make up some controversy here?

The also the fact that "market dominance" is completely made up. It is based on "market cap" which is a real word but completely irrelevant to Bitcoin. People don't speak about the market cap of the US dollar or even of gold. Because it would be irrelevant.

Then there's also the fact that the majority of altcoins aren't even traded at any remotely reputable exchange. People sell a token for a dollar, then make another million tokens which nobody wants to buy and somehow that counts as a million dollar "market cap". Which somehow would unseat Bitcoin "dominance factor". It's ridicolous on the face of it and it's really tiresome when people pretend to take it seriously in some misguided attempt to pumpt altcoins.

Some seem remarkably dismissive of the shift - does this reflect its unimportance, or their defence mechanism against a situation they were sure would not occur? I observe every imaginable way to paint the obvious as what it isn't.

let´s look at other factors of dominance, not market cap (which is so easily manipulated, that it does not proof anything).

let´s look at how many goods are bought with bitcoin compared to all other altcoins.

let´s look at how many merchants accept bitcoin compared to all other altcoins.

let´s look what crypto is used for cross border payments.

let´s look how many bitcoin-start-ups are existing compared to all other altcoins.

i bet in every single comparison, bitcoin dominance is still in the 80-90% area. 

[gentlemand]

let´s look at other factors of dominance, not market cap (which is so easily manipulated, that it does not proof anything).

let´s look at how many goods are bought with bitcoin compared to all other altcoins.

let´s look at how many merchants accept bitcoin compared to all other altcoins.

let´s look what crypto is used for cross border payments.

let´s look how many bitcoin-start-ups are existing compared to all other altcoins.

i bet in every single comparison, bitcoin dominance is still in the 80-90% area.  

I think what people aren't really paying attention to is that there are plenty of alts that aim to have nothing to do with any of those services. That being the case they can easily surpass BTC in all metrics.

The main thing that seems to worry people is that alts will take the money that they want to go on BTC instead. Maybe that money isn't interested in it in the slightest. Most of it's chasing more dollars. More dollars were delivered via alts recently.

[Meuh6879]