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

[RewFrew]

We're learning ... the difference between price and value is.

Mid-lesson. The hard way.

Can you both elaborate please.

I Wanna learn too.

[bitserve]

This Shitcoin Cash experiment teaches that Bitcoin should have a difficulty adjustment enhacement. It might prove usefull in the future.

[d_eddie]

The controlled max supply claim to fame is now obliterated. There are more than 21,000,000 tokens.

The whole premise of Bitcoin is being undermined and people are A-Okay with it, fools that they are.

The premise is max 21M tokens per chain (per coin). This is a new chain, or a new coin if you like. No violation. Value doesn't spread out magically from one chain to the next. When half of BTC holders will have exchanged their BTC for BCH, then it will be a 50/50 split. Until then, you need fresh money to add value to the new chain. I think this is quite intuitive from a macroscopic, detached point of view.

[podyx]

I need a BCC wallet so I can send them to exchange first atleast

Sweep all your BTC into another wallet you control, then download coinomi wallet for Android to send all your BCC to exchange of your choice (hitbtc or bittrex are good options)

Does coinomi wallet works with BCC?

[Ibian]

I need a BCC wallet so I can send them to exchange first atleast

Sweep all your BTC into another wallet you control, then download coinomi wallet for Android to send all your BCC to exchange of your choice (hitbtc or bittrex are good options)

Does coinomi wallet works with BCC?

https://coinomi.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/29000013381-btc-bch-fork-how-to-collect-your-free-bch-coins

[d_eddie]

This Shitcoin Cash experiment teaches that Bitcoin should have a difficulty adjustment enhacement. It might prove usefull in the future.

It might be dangerous, too. It would make it quicker, then easier to orchestrate a 51% attack by swinging the difficulty wildly, progressively retiring miners from BTC and then coming back on full force at attack time. This could be prepared and deployed when the hashrate is dropping for other reasons (some other problem on the BTC network).

[podyx]

Alright great

[bitserve]

Large blocks = Gold
Segregated Witness = Fiat

Asia wants gold.
USA wants to print money.

changing bitcoins block size via politicalbattle destroys its gold like property.

So you're admitting segwit destroys bitcoins gold-like properties.

When 100% of hashpower and most actors and participants have agreed that Bitcoin have to have Segwit, then that's Bitcoin and if it doesn't have Segwit, it isn't Bitcoin. If, tomorrow, almost everybody agrees to have bigger blocks, then that will be Bitcoin and smaller blocks won't.

How is that so hard to understand?

That's a good explanation. But what happens if 51% of hashpower want bigger blocks but Core Developers refuse?

51% would be an attack. In fact that how it is defined: "The 51% attack". Consensus is somewhere around 95%. No consensus? No change.

It is undeniable that we have had the utmost consensus on the segwit issue, so: It is Bitcoin.

Miners have power, Core does too, Exchanges too, other major players and users/participants too... If almost everybody except core agree on something then you can be sure Core will be unable to avoid it.

[Ibian]

Large blocks = Gold
Segregated Witness = Fiat

Asia wants gold.
USA wants to print money.

changing bitcoins block size via politicalbattle destroys its gold like property.

So you're admitting segwit destroys bitcoins gold-like properties.

When 100% of hashpower and most actors and participants have agreed that Bitcoin have to have Segwit, then that's Bitcoin and if it doesn't have Segwit, it isn't Bitcoin. If, tomorrow, almost everybody agrees to have bigger blocks, then that will be Bitcoin and smaller blocks won't.

How is that so hard to understand?

That's a good explanation. But what happens if 51% of hashpower want bigger blocks but Core Developers refuse?

Then they are obviously not very core to the whole bitcoin ecosystem.

[mestar]

When half of BTC holders will have exchanged their BTC for BCH, then it will be a 50/50 split. Until then, you need fresh money to add value to the new chain. I think this is quite intuitive from a macroscopic, detached point of view.

Sounds like you are saying that there is currently something other than the 50/50 split.

Can you elaborate more on "half of BTC holders will have exchanged their BTC for BCH"?   

[d_eddie]

That's a good explanation. But what happens if 51% of hashpower want bigger blocks but Core Developers refuse?

The way I see it - oversimplified without a doubt:

The miners are employees. You pay them mining rewards and transaction fees to run the system the way you want it to be run. ("Please, tidy up the kitchen, will you? Ah, good, here's money for your good service. Thanks.")

The day they start having different objectives and incentives, what happens is

"Please, tidy up the kitchen, will you?" (Abide by my rules and I'll take your blocks for good.)

"No, I'm going to do the bedroom. The kitches is a remnant from an era when people used to cook for themselves. Now it's catering all over. Bedroom." (I make the rules, I'm the miner.)

"I won't pay you for the bedroom." (I won't accept your blocks as valid.)

"Do bedroom. Do bedroom." (Fork.)

[d_eddie]

When half of BTC holders will have exchanged their BTC for BCH, then it will be a 50/50 split. Until then, you need fresh money to add value to the new chain. I think this is quite intuitive from a macroscopic, detached point of view.

Sounds like you are saying that there is currently something other than the 50/50 split.

Can you elaborate more on "half of BTC holders will have exchanged their BTC for BCH"?   

When I say 50/50, I mean value wise. So I actually meant "half of the BTCs have been traded for BCH".
At the moment, the number of extant BTC=BCH.
But the value? They can say 500$/BCH all they want, but as long as I won't (or can't!) get 500$ for each of my BCH, it's just talk. Words are wind.

[mestar]

"Please, tidy up the kitchen, will you?" (Abide by my rules and I'll take your blocks for good.)

"No, I'm going to do the bedroom. The kitches is a remnant from an era when people used to cook for themselves. Now it's catering all over. Bedroom." (I make the rules, I'm the miner.)

Sounds like you are saying that users (other than the miners) have any say in what blocks get accepted, and what blocks get rejected.

[bitserve]

This Shitcoin Cash experiment teaches that Bitcoin should have a difficulty adjustment enhacement. It might prove usefull in the future.

It might be dangerous, too. It would make it quicker, then easier to orchestrate a 51% attack by swinging the difficulty wildly, progressively retiring miners from BTC and then coming back on full force at attack time. This could be prepared and deployed when the hashrate is dropping for other reasons (some other problem on the BTC network).

Both things could be dangerous but, at the very least, it requires some consideration. The adjustment algorithm could take into account some long timeouts, sorta a failsafe that should never ever activate in ideal conditions but just in case of total failure in producing new blocks for a long time.

[Meuh6879]

Bitcoin is the 69st State (Money Stock M2).  

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2215rank.html

[williamuk]

If 100% of hashpower want bigger blocks, do you think the devs will fold for economic reasons like how the miners folded for segwit?

They'd have to eliminate all blockstream influence in any shape or form, distance themselves from the most virulent members of their group and then admit bitcoin was never theirs to begin with.

Tall order

[d_eddie]

"Please, tidy up the kitchen, will you?" (Abide by my rules and I'll take your blocks for good.)

"No, I'm going to do the bedroom. The kitches is a remnant from an era when people used to cook for themselves. Now it's catering all over. Bedroom." (I make the rules, I'm the miner.)

Sounds like you are saying that users (other than the miners) have any say in what blocks get accepted, and what blocks get rejected.

Nodes do. Financially heavy nodes, more so.

[bitserve]

Large blocks = Gold
Segregated Witness = Fiat

Asia wants gold.
USA wants to print money.

changing bitcoins block size via politicalbattle destroys its gold like property.

So you're admitting segwit destroys bitcoins gold-like properties.

When 100% of hashpower and most actors and participants have agreed that Bitcoin have to have Segwit, then that's Bitcoin and if it doesn't have Segwit, it isn't Bitcoin. If, tomorrow, almost everybody agrees to have bigger blocks, then that will be Bitcoin and smaller blocks won't.

How is that so hard to understand?

That's a good explanation. But what happens if 51% of hashpower want bigger blocks but Core Developers refuse?

51% would be an attack. In fact that how it is defined: "The 51% attack". Consensus is somewhere around 95%. No consensus? No change.

It is undeniable that we have had the utmost consensus on the segwit issue, so: It is Bitcoin.

Miners have power, Core does too, Exchanges too, other major players and users/participants too... If almost everybody except core agree on something then you can be sure Core will be unable to avoid it.

If 100% of hashpower want bigger blocks, do you think the devs will fold for economic reasons like how the miners folded for segwit?

Yes.

But it is a bit more complex than that... You don't even need 100% of miners while you need some more actors besides miners too. That's why I mention CONSENSUS, not only pure hashpower. Segwit2x have been a CLEAR example on how future improvements can and should be made in Bitcoin.... be it Segwit, bigger blocks, or whatever.

[mestar]

When I say 50/50, I mean value wise. So I actually meant "half of the BTCs have been traded for BCH".
At the moment, the number of extant BTC=BCH.

So, you are not aware that in any BTC/BCH trade, the number of both BTC and BCH stays exactly the same?

So, there is no such a thing as "half of the BTCs are traded for BCH". 

[d_eddie]

This Shitcoin Cash experiment teaches that Bitcoin should have a difficulty adjustment enhacement. It might prove usefull in the future.

It might be dangerous, too. It would make it quicker, then easier to orchestrate a 51% attack by swinging the difficulty wildly, progressively retiring miners from BTC and then coming back on full force at attack time. This could be prepared and deployed when the hashrate is dropping for other reasons (some other problem on the BTC network).

Both things could be dangerous but, at the very least, it requires some consideration. The adjustment algorithm could take into account some long timeouts, sorta a failsafe that should never ever activate in ideal conditions but just in case of total failure in producing new blocks for a long time.

I see where you come from and I basically agree. I think it's the same underlying motivation I feel for a variable, liquid PoW schedule that can rule out monolithic mining farms, cartels or trusts.