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

[d_eddie]

It's not clear to me, is what just happened even possible on main net?

6000 blocks mined in a day? Sure. But at what probability?

Very unlikely it could happen on mainnet. Way too many transactions there to get stuck. At least from what I understood, it's been explained as a matter of not enough transactions to fill a large block. BUT to me it shows a poorly planned test.

They cry attack now, and there's talk of a secret testnet. Good luck with that.

Interesting discussion on github (the only public space where such discussion isn't secret) here: https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65

BTW this could be/lead into the possible "slight but significant correction" I forecast for the next 2-3 weeks a couple pages back.

[1611324383]

1611324383

[1611324383]

1611324383

[marcus_of_augustus]

It's not clear to me, is what just happened even possible on main net?

No, because there's no way anybody would risk real money with SegWit2X clown code.

The '6000 blocks mined in day' talking point distraction is obfuscating the real problem that the code then got stuck when the (accelerated) HF happened ... you know like the piece of the code that whole client is in existence because ... it's raison d'etre is broken.

They should be thanking whoever accelerated the '6000 blocks in one day' for showing them their fundamental brokenness bugs (how fucked they are) ... instead we get BS talking points about ASICs on testnet, wah-wah, who knew?

[infofront]

It's not clear to me, is what just happened even possible on main net?

They should be thanking whoever accelerated the '6000 blocks in one day' for showing them their fundamental brokenness bugs (how fucked they are) ... instead we get BS talking points about ASICs on testnet, wah-wah, who knew?

This.

And gmaxwell hit it out of the park:

Re "attacks" -- btc1 nodes haven't mined a block for a day. That isn't an attack, that's just a failure.

Crying attack isn't helpful-- it's often not true and at the end of the day the software must survive in an adversarial environment where attacks exist. (Though AFAICT this issue can result in pure btc1 attacker free environments stalling, and BU containing environments forking-- no attackers required).

The issue isn't a new one, this was raised as a concern and use of the 'hardfork bit' (most significant bit which must not be set on existing nodes) rather than a large block requirement was recommended.

    0.840 MB/block.

Which is less than 1 and segwit isn't even enabled yet. Moreover, btc1 by default will not make a block >1MB even if there are transactions in the mempool for it. You guys are just making your code all the more frighting by vigorously denying the issues.

Perhaps instead of making excuses you should resolve the fork? Maybe then write some tests?

And then he gets called a troll.

[infofront]

I tried to delete a post for the first time ever. I accidentally deleted the post that followed the one I meant to delete.
So, if I deleted your post, there's a 50% chance I'm sorry. 

#noobmod

[Bitcoinaire]

As we get closer, we'll see some wild swings due to this uncertainty. In the end, I'm counting on everything going smoothly.

[bitserve]

It's not clear to me, is what just happened even possible on main net?

No, because there's no way anybody would risk real money with SegWit2X clown code.

The '6000 blocks mined in day' talking point distraction is obfuscating the real problem that the code then got stuck when the (accelerated) HF happened ... you know like the piece of the code that whole client is in existence because ... it's raison d'etre is broken.

They should be thanking whoever accelerated the '6000 blocks in one day' for showing them their fundamental brokenness bugs (how fucked they are) ... instead we get BS talking points about ASICs on testnet, wah-wah, who knew?

It wouldn't be that hard to know WHO did the accelerated mining. The past couple of days the segwit signaling dropped significantly... Maybe Bitfury directed some of its hashing power to testnet?

Anyways.... isn't what has just hapened in testnet the exact intended behaviour for mainnet? I mean, bigblockers win and smallblockers get frozen IF they don't have enough hashpower.

[eiskalt]

It's not clear to me, is what just happened even possible on main net?

No, because there's no way anybody would risk real money with SegWit2X clown code.

The '6000 blocks mined in day' talking point distraction is obfuscating the real problem that the code then got stuck when the (accelerated) HF happened ... you know like the piece of the code that whole client is in existence because ... it's raison d'etre is broken.

They should be thanking whoever accelerated the '6000 blocks in one day' for showing them their fundamental brokenness bugs (how fucked they are) ... instead we get BS talking points about ASICs on testnet, wah-wah, who knew?

It wouldn't be that hard to know WHO did the accelerated mining. The past couple of days the segwit signaling dropped significantly... Maybe Bitfury directed some of its hashing power to testnet?

Anyways.... isn't what has just hapened in testnet the exact intended behaviour for mainnet? I mean, bigblockers win and smallblockers get frozen IF they don't have enough hashpower.

As I understand it, the "bigblockers' Segwit2X" just managed to get frozen on a block, that is even smaller than 1MB. And now they can neither mine a block that is bigger nor smaller than 1MB.

So bad luck for them...

[marcus_of_augustus]

It wouldn't be that hard to know WHO did the accelerated mining. The past couple of days the segwit signaling dropped significantly... Maybe Bitfury directed some of its hashing power to testnet?

Anyways.... isn't what has just hapened in testnet the exact intended behaviour for mainnet? I mean, bigblockers win and smallblockers get frozen IF they don't have enough hashpower.

You should probably just quit before you get deep enough into it to know what you are talking about ...

[JayJuanGee]

I tried to delete a post for the first time ever. I accidentally deleted the post that followed the one I meant to delete.
So, if I deleted your post, there's a 50% chance I'm sorry.  

#noobmod

OMG!!!!!!!!


We need a testnet WO thread for the Mod, so there is no fucking up the pure and unfettered nature of the real deal WO.  

[infofront]

I tried to delete a post for the first time ever. I accidentally deleted the post that followed the one I meant to delete.
So, if I deleted your post, there's a 50% chance I'm sorry.  

#noobmod

OMG!!!!!!!!


We need a testnet WO thread for the Mod, so there is no fucking up the pure and unfettered nature of the real deal WO.  

Haha, just call me the jgarzik of WO.

[jbreher]

Haha, just call me the jgarzik of WO.

Considering that Jeff Garzik is pretty much the single-handed designer of the SATA subsystem of every contemporary Linux distro, that's pretty lofty company.

[xhomerx10]

I tried to delete a post for the first time ever. I accidentally deleted the post that followed the one I meant to delete.
So, if I deleted your post, there's a 50% chance I'm sorry. 

#noobmod

 

Mutiny!! 

[JayJuanGee]

I tried to delete a post for the first time ever. I accidentally deleted the post that followed the one I meant to delete.
So, if I deleted your post, there's a 50% chance I'm sorry.  

#noobmod

OMG!!!!!!!!


We need a testnet WO thread for the Mod, so there is no fucking up the pure and unfettered nature of the real deal WO.  

Haha, just call me the jgarzik of WO.

Maybe you should deny responsibility, blame Adam and Theymos and Lauda and Blitz (currently known as Nekrobios)...

refuse to learn from your mistakes, say that you have insight into the development of various work-arounds that are better than previous tested principles and then say that you are going to employ your new and improved mod system on the rest of us, whether we appreciate it or not, it's for our own good.     We'll thank you later.   

[bones261]

Code:

127.0.0.1 bitcoinwisdom.com
127.0.0.1 poloniex.com

I just can't look anymore. How depressing. 

[JayJuanGee]

Code:

127.0.0.1 bitcoinwisdom.com
127.0.0.1 poloniex.com

I just can't look anymore. How depressing. 

It seems way too early to get depressed...   

Sure, it is possible that the bottom has been reached, but the more likely scenario is that there is going to be a bit more of this downward contagiousness.

[Elwar]

What was being tested? Segwit or Segwit2x?

[JayJuanGee]

What was being tested? Segwit or Segwit2x?

segwit2x has been in testing for a few days, apparently.

Recall segwit had already been tested last summer, and then became available in late 2016 (after it had already been tested for several months). 

This segwit2x seems to be a kind of rush job and with very little peer review, and seemingly unwillingness to work with core to improve it. .. at least preliminarily there seems to be some battling about how it is written

[Ted E. Bare]

Errors are the reasons for testing in the first place. Good they sort it out before actual implementation.

[Master mind]

Errors are the reasons for testing in the first place. Good they sort it out before actual implementation.

Satoshi testing ?

[Ted E. Bare]

Market cap down from 115 to 80 billion.

Buy the bottom.