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

[AlexGR]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

That "just" is pretty important.

Bitcoin is going to ~4mb per block (indirect max capacity since the data are stored in a 1+3 manner) once Segwit activates, plus LN on top of that. It's not like 8 vs 1. It's 8 vs 4(+LN).

Ethereum was made after BTC. It has fast blocks (issued in seconds). Their devs know about scaling issues, etc etc, yet their network is literally stuck when an ICO happens. Exchanges are shutting down ETH transactions (!) due to load. What's their proposed solution? Bigger blocks? No, they have accumulated too much bloat and it didn't even solve anything, so LN-type extensions it is ("Plasma") to help with computational and storage scaling.

...
Incredibly high amount of transactions can be committed on this Plasma chain with
minimal data hitting the root blockchain. Any participant can transfer funds to anyone,
including transfers to participants not in the existing set of participants. These transfers
can pay into and withdraw (with some time delay and proofs) funds in the root blockchain’s
native coin(s)/token(s).
...

http://plasma.io/plasma.pdf

[Elwar]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Then it has to be bch, thats the aim of it.as Satoshis knew it would be..no 3rd party,no 2nd layer, lower fees, higher txps and more.

No my chain is better...no mine is...no mine!

Whatevs.


Most of my bitcoin spending is done via third parties already. I am ok with that.

I spend bitcoins on Amazon through Purse, I pay my rent through a Korean wire transfer service. I have bought gift cards to pay for meals in the US and buy food in Germany. It all gets recorded on the blockchain at some point. And it allows me to hold bitcoins as my main currency.

Why do you pay rent instead of own being in this game so long? why do you do all of this dorky payments instead of using a debit or credit card? why would you prefer your payments get recorded on a public blockchain vs a private bank or credit card leger that only you can see? Why would you care if you hold bitcoins as your main currency?
curious questions for mr elwar

I rent because 4 years ago I set a goal to make enough money to retire in 5 years. That meant that every decision in my life revolved around making the most money I possibly could in that short amount of time. In order to help in doing this I made it a point to make my living arrangement as flexible as possible, I sold everything I own other than what can fit in a carry on and backpack. This allows me to take a higher paying job at the drop of a hat. I have even told my employers that if I have to go live in some hot, dark jungle with bombs falling all around me I would take the job as long as the pay was higher. In my line of business being mobile is a huge plus. I literally left Germany for a job in Afghanistan with 5 days to prepare.
I got rid of my credit cards years ago. Even if you plan on paying them off every month, life bites you in the ass sometimes and you use them as a crutch if you don't think you have enough money for the bill that month. Which usually ends in the card owning you. No debit card has made things difficult at times because things would be easier to just go to an ATM but I would be charged ATM fees plus currency conversion fees. I have been able to use bitcoins for such things in all but one instance on the Cambodian border.

I don't really care about my transactions being recorded publicly. I mainly pay rent and shop on Amazon if you want to see .14 bitcoins being sent from my address or .04 bitcoins being sent. In my line of work I can never do anything illegal and I never do (that I know of...everyone breaks some law). If I wanted to hide my purchase (buying a sex doll or whichever) I would just send money directly from an exchange or whichever. I do think privacy is important and believe it can be done if you want to, and LN will make that even more possible. With my line of work, the government knows everything there is to know about me.

I hold bitcoins as my main currency because it is the most convenient currency for me to hold and the value of my currency does not have the built in feature of losing value over time. I am not sure which currency I would hold if it wasn't bitcoin. Dollars? Euro? Won? I buy Won sometimes for spending money, I meet some guy in Seoul and he gives me a great rate, better than I could get from converting dollars to Won. I don't have a bank here in Korea. Bitcoin is much easier than trying to deal with all of that. I remember calculating the daily increase of value my bitcoins had in 2013, it was 1% per day. I converted each paycheck to bitcoins at a cost of 1%. That meant that if I got paid, then waited one week before purchasing something with that money, I made 6% return. Why would I only want to get 6% return on a small part of my pay when I could get that return on all of my pay? By looking at it as bitcoin being my main currency I don't play the game of keeping some dollars for spending then keep a certain percentage of bitcoins and go back and forth or whichever. Just do full on bitcoin and don't worry about playing that game. You can live on bitcoins, there's no reason not to.

[Elwar]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

Would make sense as Wu would not want to expose his AsicBoost usage once SegWit gets activated. Much easier to just create a whole separate chain where he can continue to use it to mine blocks at an advantage.

[AlexGR]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

[bitserve]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

Would make sense as Wu would not want to expose his AsicBoost usage once SegWit gets activated. Much easier to just create a whole separate chain where he can continue to use it to mine blocks at an advantage.

I think it forked BEFORE lock-in. Anyway, until there are actual Segwit tx's after ACTIVATION the blockchain was compatible. They just took a snapshot of Bitcoin blockchain at 1 Aug and started building blocks on it with their custom rules.

Bitcoin didn't fork. THEY created a completely separate fork, which is not the same.

Bitcoin Cash it is in fact compatible with AsicBoost.

[notme]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

Would make sense as Wu would not want to expose his AsicBoost usage once SegWit gets activated. Much easier to just create a whole separate chain where he can continue to use it to mine blocks at an advantage.

BCH hard fork happened after bip 91 locked in, but before segwit lock in.  Bip 91 forced segwit lock-in because enforcing nodes started rejecting blocks that did not signal segwit.  Bip 91 locking in and the desire to avoid segwit provided much if the impetus for going ahead with the hard fork rather than continuing to fight for consensus.  Segwit was only signaling at 40% until bip 91 locked in.  Bip 91 gained support following the segwit2x agreement.  However, unsurprisingly there is now contention about the 2x part.

[DaRude]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCC_hina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN 

[Dakustaking76]

Do you guys have problems with kraken?

[notme]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

Would make sense as Wu would not want to expose his AsicBoost usage once SegWit gets activated. Much easier to just create a whole separate chain where he can continue to use it to mine blocks at an advantage.

I think it forked BEFORE lock-in. Anyway, until there are actual Segwit tx's after ACTIVATION the blockchain was compatible. They just took a snapshot of Bitcoin blockchain at 1 Aug and started building blocks on it with their custom rules.

Bitcoin didn't fork. THEY created a completely separate fork, which is not the same.

Bitcoin Cash it is in fact compatible with AsicBoost.

Their custom rules are mostly just larger blocks and mechanisms to ensure transactions for each chain are only valid on one chain to avoid replay attacks.  The full details are here:
https://github.com/Bitcoin-UAHF/spec/blob/master/uahf-technical-spec.md

[bitserve]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCC_hina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN 

Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so....

[bitserve]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

Would make sense as Wu would not want to expose his AsicBoost usage once SegWit gets activated. Much easier to just create a whole separate chain where he can continue to use it to mine blocks at an advantage.

I think it forked BEFORE lock-in. Anyway, until there are actual Segwit tx's after ACTIVATION the blockchain was compatible. They just took a snapshot of Bitcoin blockchain at 1 Aug and started building blocks on it with their custom rules.

Bitcoin didn't fork. THEY created a completely separate fork, which is not the same.

Bitcoin Cash it is in fact compatible with AsicBoost.

Their custom rules are mostly just larger blocks and mechanisms to ensure transactions for each chain are only valid on one chain to avoid replay attacks.  The full details are here:
https://github.com/Bitcoin-UAHF/spec/blob/master/uahf-technical-spec.md

And a different difficulty adjustment algo... and god knows what else there in the code..... including bugs.

[bitserve]

Do you guys have problems with kraken?

Yes.

[DaRude]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCC_hina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN 

Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so....

Think long term global scale. This is just an attempt at a power grab 8MB blocks will be full too. Miners only make money on on-chain txs.

[DaRude]

Looks like wave 2 is incoming, BCC_hina is going full retard while BTC staying above $4k. This weekend should be interesting, gotta grab some popcorn

[bitserve]

Looks like wave 2 is incoming, BCC_hina is going full retard while BTC staying above $4k. This weekend should be interesting, gotta grab some popcorn

I am very pissed by all this action in the middle of the fucking summer. Wonder who was the genious that decided this was a good time to open the pandora box instead of doing it in the boring winter.

[bitserve]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCC_hina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN 

Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so....

Think long term global scale. This is just an attempt at a power grab 8MB blocks will be full too. Miners only make money on on-chain txs.

It's way easier to spam blocks when they are already filled by 80-90% legit tx's. They will have a hard time doing the same with 8MB blocks, plus the main argument of BCH is that they will keep upgrading block size way before they are filled. So, basically, less total fees earned no matter what.

It has always been a falacy that it is the miners interest to have bigger blocks. It isn't. But everybody is lieing anyways.

[Ibian]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCC_hina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN 

Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so....

Think long term global scale. This is just an attempt at a power grab 8MB blocks will be full too. Miners only make money on on-chain txs.

It's way easier to spam blocks when they are already filled by 80-90% legit tx's. They will have a hard time doing the same with 8MB blocks, plus the main argument of BCH is that they will keep upgrading block size way before they are filled. So, basically, less total fees earned no matter what.

It has always been a falacy that it is the miners interest to have bigger blocks. It isn't. But everybody is lieing anyways.

It is, however, in the interest of bitcoin as a whole. Bigger blocks means more people can use it means higher price, and of course wider ability to actually pay with bitcoins in shops and such. And who knows, maybe the extra volume will make it profitable for miners too.

[AlexGR]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCC_hina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN  

All these forks are attacks on bitcoin. That's the only point there is.

Bitcoin's design was intended to be 1 cpu / 1 vote in order to keep the network decentralized. This aspect of the design started to fail, initially with pooled mining and then with ASIC-hardware that was built and kept private for companies to mine. In other words, it's not like a cpu or gpu where anyone can go buy it and start mining. Currently few companies create specialized hardware and by extension these few companies exercise centralized control over bitcoin mining. There is a market failure in terms of ASIC hardware getting sold.

Bitcoin devs, bitcoin users and bitcoin investors (who understand a thing or two) decided to look the other way, as to not be "contentious" about the whole situation, nor piss on the investments that all those miners have done. The rationale was "as long as the miners play nice, we'll pretend that Bitcoin's proof-of-work isn't centralized". No-one tried to find or implement a solution to this centralization issue. I'm not talking about a simple POW change to sha512 that will again bring the same issue in a few months time, but something more fundamental.

And as we were all pretending everything is fine, a few compromised (?) devs like Garzik (you can see what he was writing here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6ufv5x/a_reminder_of_some_of_jeff_garziks_greatest/ and what he currently does with Segwit2x), Gavin, etc, started pissing on the ecosystem along with some of the miners.

The next plan is to take over the chain with a 51%, and redefine what Bitcoin is - putting it under their direct control for any future protocol changes, or even the software we run. They will claim that they are following the vision of Satoshi, when Satoshi was pretty clear on how well planned and unanimous changes must be, not to mention his opinions on competing implementations.

Segwit2x is not BCH. It's not "free coins" in a parallel chain. Things are gonna get ugly if they decide to proceed. And let's be honest here. When Bitcoin is going so good, with valuation of near 4.5k USD, and people want to attack the main chain in a contentious way (=shitstorm), I can't really see them as having good intentions. Perhaps they stand to profit more from the destruction of value by positioning their "options" accordingly. After all if you can control the "good news" and "bad news" of a market, then you can benefit financially. And this is what they've been doing with all the forking scenarios, fud, or real since the price was at 200$. They create the news and the sentiment. They have become a market force that indirectly dictates prices. "Oh they are forking it, sell"... "Oh they cancelled the fork, onwards to 10k!!!", etc etc. This is bullshit on so many levels it's not even funny. No wonder Segwit2x was decided in a closed-meeting with financial companies.

[notme]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCC_hina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN 

Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so....

Think long term global scale. This is just an attempt at a power grab 8MB blocks will be full too. Miners only make money on on-chain txs.

It's way easier to spam blocks when they are already filled by 80-90% legit tx's. They will have a hard time doing the same with 8MB blocks, plus the main argument of BCH is that they will keep upgrading block size way before they are filled. So, basically, less total fees earned no matter what.

It has always been a falacy that it is the miners interest to have bigger blocks. It isn't. But everybody is lieing anyways.

It is, however, in the interest of bitcoin as a whole. Bigger blocks means more people can use it means higher price, and of course wider ability to actually pay with bitcoins in shops and such. And who knows, maybe the extra volume will make it profitable for miners too.

People don't understand supply and demand curves. They think that reducing supply (i.e. raising price) is the only way to increase profitability.  Increasing demand by lowering price is how big companies do it.

[bitserve]

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCC_hina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN 

Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so....

Think long term global scale. This is just an attempt at a power grab 8MB blocks will be full too. Miners only make money on on-chain txs.

It's way easier to spam blocks when they are already filled by 80-90% legit tx's. They will have a hard time doing the same with 8MB blocks, plus the main argument of BCH is that they will keep upgrading block size way before they are filled. So, basically, less total fees earned no matter what.

It has always been a falacy that it is the miners interest to have bigger blocks. It isn't. But everybody is lieing anyways.

It is, however, in the interest of bitcoin as a whole. Bigger blocks means more people can use it means higher price, and of course wider ability to actually pay with bitcoins in shops and such. And who knows, maybe the extra volume will make it profitable for miners too.

I am not against a small block size increase.... but for the usage as payment network with mass adoption, linear block size increases won't do it, you will need LN for that.