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

[jbreher]

BCH is much more centralized,

Exactly in what manner do you assert that BCH is more centralized? (Presumably with respect to BTC?)

BCH is controlled by Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Calvin Ayre, and Craig Wright - its code, mining, nodes, marketing - everything.

Great. You've re-asserted that it is centralized, but you have said nothing about in what manner the alleged centralization is manifested.

As far as code, BCH has multiple non-mining, fully-validating wallet implementations. None of which have been shown to be controlled by Ver, Wu, Ayres, nor Wright. Well, nChain might have an implementation, and if they do, that would presumably be controlled by Wright, but I am unaware of such. If you disagree, please state which such implementation is controlled, which of these parties controls it, and what the nature of that control is.

Wu controls a lot of mining, this is true. Wu also controls a lot of BTC mining. Ver controls a mining pool, though my understanding is not much hash rate. Wright has stated that he was going to create a large mining entity. Anyone have any evidence to suggest he has yet to amass such?

More germane however, most pools have at some point mined BCH. Further, no miner is barred from participating in mining BCH. Indeed the set of miners able to mine BCH is identical to the set of miners that can mine BTC. In what manner is this centralized?

Marketing? Now you're just being silly. In a permissionless environment, nobody controls marketing. The funny thing is that, for all the marketing that Ver or Wu has contributed to BCH, anti-Cash shrills (note I did not say 'shills') have spread Ver and Wu's message far wider than Ver or Wu themselves. Kinda ironic, that. What marketing has Wright done? Ayres?

Regardless, the mining centralization is easy to prove.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/0*-7jVYKd5OKx91ad2.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/0*YRMZ23O4J9Y9jcBf.

So miners self-selecting to not mine BCH is proof of BCH mining centralization? I assert that is a useless definition of 'centralization'.

[sirazimuth]

Just FYI, quoting from the website of SatoshiLabs (creators of TREZOR). Looks like TREZOR owners may be able to claim their Bitcoin Gold airdrop as soon as tomorrow (Monday, 20 November)!

Will TREZOR Wallet support Bitcoin Gold?

UPDATE: Bitcoin Gold seems to have implemented replay protection. We will now begin developing support in the Wallet and a method to split the coins. Bitcoin Gold network is not live yet, only the testnet is running. The automated coin-splitting tool will, most likely, be adapted to support BTG too.

UPDATE (13 Nov): Bitcoin Gold finally released their source code allowing us to develop our infrastructure. The network is, however, not stable yet. More information will come as we progress.

UPDATE (16 Nov): We have successfully synchronized our Bitcoin Gold backend server and are now steps away from releasing full support. BTG will be included in the next firmware update, after the implementation is thoroughly tested by our team.

UPDATE (17 Nov): Release is planned for Monday, 20 Nov.

What with all these lucrative forks  of bitcoin, (lucrative at least for the average Joe Shmoe small time hodeler like me anyway...
Bitcoin Gold being the latest as I just now got credited on my Ledger with free coins valued at around $150+ a pop)
it just baffles me as too where  the phuk does this "free money" come from??
I'm not complaining mind you, xmas is coming... won't be tapping the credit card this year (or ever again ftm, thank phuk crypto for that!!)....

[JayJuanGee]

I've only deleted a handful of his posts.

This has taken a lot of self control over the months. I always cringe when he posts because virtually every post is a direct or indirect attack on bitcoin, or a promotion of BCH.
He does sometimes have legitimate points, but they don't need to be repeated ad nauseam. Also, the thread was never about altcoins. As I mentioned in an earlier post, he has a somewhat privileged position in this thread due to his length of time participating in it, and his relatively thoughtful posts.

During busy times, I often have a few messages asking me to review certain posts, so I take those suggestions into consideration as well.

I'll also be the first to admit that I may be a less than stellar moderator.    

I'll just consider it teething pains. I'm sure it is a difficult and thankless job.

However, I ask that you reconsider whether or not you are deleting only posts by me that are 'direct or indirect attack on bitcoin' or promotion of BCH. Let us look at this one and evaluate: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2402558.msg24766720#msg24766720

This post had responses to four different posts. Three of them were directly concerning BTC. The fourth was a reply to the Tesla Roadster thing.

Certainly, the first of the four replies had quoted and sourced info which could be construed as positive to BCH and negative to BTC. However, it was correcting false information promulgated by the person to whom I was replying regarding mining profitability. I posted current state (factual information) and the source URL so he could check it himself next time.

The next was providing helpful info answering a question regarding the BTC mempool, free of any value judgement.

Third was the Tesla thing.

Fourth was merely defending against an accusation of 'FUD', when the supposed fud was merely the discussion regarding the limit of number of users BCH + Lightning can support, assuming each user would open and close their channel daily (the 2 tx/user/day was the hypothetical introduced by the party to whom I was responding earlier). While this could be _viewed_ as negative, it is really just the way it is, and therefore value-neutral.

Jbreher:

You should take these matters up privately with Infofront or admins or whoever else to the extent that you think that you have a some kind of case rather than attempting to get them resolved publicly (and anyhow, the owner of the thread has the right and discretion to delete your posts for whatever reason or no reason at all - and you should recognize that... this is not a democracy.. it is an owner moderated thread) . 

Actually it seems to be against the forum rules to make these kinds of challenges publicly, so you seem to be treading on thin ice in term of you efforts to publicly raise your concerns (whether actual or not).

[Torque]

Do you deny the following? If so, which parts?:

But the truth is that the core developers have not:
- measured and published such transaction capacity tests
- determined where the lowest bottleneck in system transaction capacity lies
- coded up a fix to remove the lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity
- measured and published results with the fix for this lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity

So which of these things have the BCH/2x genius devs solved without sacrificing decentralization by just upping the block size? You know, the same incompetent group that fumbled the 2X launch by missing a trivial off-by-one error so no blocks could be mined to trigger the fork? The same ones that try to hot fix shit in production with no code peer review or testing? The same ones that created the BCH EDA abomination?

You try to paint the Bitcoin core developers as somehow incompetent and not meticulous and careful, when the truly incompetent and reckless dev hacks live in your own house.

Gaslight much?

- All this in a time when system transaction capacity is the hottest issue - and has been for about two years.

Another lie. It is not an issue at all. Ver/Wu/Wright are trying to make it an issue by spamming the network and creating artificial congestion.

[jbreher]

From what I understand it means that they are 'reserving' their bitcoins for 10k in Dec 2018. This means they expect the price to be higher than that...A good thing!

Well, the two institutional houses that bought the LEAPS are expecting bitcoin to be worth at least the $10K strike price, plus the $2K+ (forgot the exact figure) premium by the contract date of end of 2018. I think they'll make money. Probably lots. It is a leveraged bull bet.

[becoin]

As far as code, BCH has multiple non-mining, fully-validating wallet implementations.

Nobody cares what paid forum shills are saying about VerWucoin. Only interesting thing is how much Bitcoin it can be sold for.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I just made a whole slew of txns with 3 cents fees and none of them have confirmed yet. SegshellCoin, y u so fail?

[jbreher]

your statements about core team where "nobody understands concurrency"

I did not state that core has nobody that understands concurrency. To quote: "Whether core has nobody that understands concurrency, or whether they just deem scalability to be a low priority, is a matter of conjecture." Are there other possibilities I am missing to explain this?

Do you deny the following? If so, which parts?:

But the truth is that the core developers have not:
- measured and published such transaction capacity tests
- determined where the lowest bottleneck in system transaction capacity lies
- coded up a fix to remove the lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity
- measured and published results with the fix for this lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity

- All this in a time when system transaction capacity is the hottest issue - and has been for about two years.

Claiming you haven't said what you've said (bolded), "or whether they just deem scalability to be a low priority"

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between: conjecture of possibility; and, statement of fact. Non-English speaker?

To answer the second part in general: There is no need for the core devs to do academic measurements

Of course, they don't "have to". Bitcoin is a permissionless system. Core don't owe nuttin' to no-ones. However, should core's motives be in improving the capability of Bitcoin to the extent possible, they should be expected to leave no stone unturned, no?

Again, especially due to the fact that the loudest reason for not simply increasing the maxblocksize is the "nodes can't handle it".

The observant reader will note that nothing in itod's last retort did anything at all to "answer the second part in general".

[bitserve]

I just made a whole slew of txns with 3 cents fees and none of them have confirmed yet. SegshellCoin, y u so fail?

That's because in addition to the 3 cents fee you need to make sure you use unconfirmed inputs. Recursively, for maximum effect.

[JimboToronto]

I just made a whole slew of txns with 3 cents fees and none of them have confirmed yet. SegshellCoin, y u so fail?

So you're the one spamming the network with low-fee transactions and swamping the mempool. Shame on you.  



 

[jbreher]

Do you deny the following? If so, which parts?:

But the truth is that the core developers have not:
- measured and published such transaction capacity tests
- determined where the lowest bottleneck in system transaction capacity lies
- coded up a fix to remove the lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity
- measured and published results with the fix for this lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity

So which of these things have the BCH/2x genius devs solved without sacrificing decentralization by just upping the block size?

Maybe you've not reasoned forward from the base observation. Follow me here. If we improve the ability of the HW to process transactions by a factor of 5 by fixing broken SW, we can increase the maxblocksize (well, actually increase the sustained transaction throughput) by 5x without making additional demands on the HW. If we make no additional demand on the HW, then HW costs are a non-factor as far as number of fully-validating non-mining 'nodes' are concerned. Accordingly, HW cost is no longer a valid reason to limit maxblocksize below 5x as far as centralization is concerned.

Further, even if we do not increase maxblocksize, we can drastically reduce centralization pressure due to HW cost, by simply making this SW improvement.

You know, the same incompetent group that fumbled the 2X launch by missing a trivial off-by-one error so no blocks could be mined to trigger the fork?

No - that was S2X, not Bitcoin Core. Why are you conflating disparate teams?

The same ones that created the BCH EDA abomination?

While it is true that Bitcoin Core gave us the now-replaced EDA, the EDA did exactly what it was supposed to. It got Bitcoin Cash through a period of potential infant chain death mortality.

Now it is no longer needed, the EDA has been replaced -- by the same Bitcoin Cash devs -- by the new DAA. And Bitcoin Cash is now kicking out blocks at a stable near-10m rate. Just as it 'should'.

You try to paint the Bitcoin core developers as somehow incompetent and not meticulous and careful, when the truly incompetent and reckless dev hacks live in your own house.

No. I have not pointed core devs as incompetent. (Perhaps myopic on an approach to solve what is seen by many as Bitcoin's most pressing issue.) Rather, I am trying to dispel the widely-touted, but rarely-explained assertion that 'the only capable devs in the crypto space exist in the Bitcoin Core camp'.

[pfrtlpfmpf]

So, whats left, other than to make it "chargeback-able", its the solution or the problem ?
Sorry, can´t get my head around it.
Damn, i know the answer. It´s hard, but true.

[BitcoinBunny]

Good to see all the major Cryptos are in the green except for BCH. 

[gembitz]

So, whats left, other than to make it "chargeback-able", its the solution or the problem ?
Sorry, can´t get my head around it.

Lightning Network :\ meh

[fabiorem]

Good to see all the major Cryptos are in the green except for BCH. 

LMFAO. 

[gembitz]

Good to see all the major Cryptos are in the green except for BCH.  

do i amuse you     ~and what's all this about putting bitcoin atms in the casinos...?! :-D

[jojo69]

Meantime I figured out what kills Avalon boards. Overheating is causing solder bridges. I so rule.....

in the BGA matrix?

[sirazimuth]

Echo chambers are useful in a recording studio.

You really want the studio as anechoic as possible, and handle all that stuff with FX chains in post.

Mostly.

Come to think of it now, you are absolutely correct. Having recorded in a studio I should know better. I stand corrected,thanx .

[JimboToronto]

Echo chambers are useful in a recording studio.

You really want the studio as anechoic as possible, and handle all that stuff with FX chains in post.

Mostly.

Come to think of it now, you are absolutely correct. Having recorded in a studio I should know better. I stand corrected,thanx .

How times have changed. Back in the 1950s they'd use a stairwell. Sounded better than any tape loop, reverb spring, or digital delay.

[sirazimuth]

Echo chambers are useful in a recording studio.

You really want the studio as anechoic as possible, and handle all that stuff with FX chains in post.

Mostly.

Come to think of it now, you are absolutely correct. Having recorded in a studio I should know better. I stand corrected,thanx .

How times have changed. Back in the 1950s they'd use a stairwell. Sounded better than any tape loop, reverb spring, or digital delay.

Funny you should mention that Jimbo.
My favorite place to strum acoustic guitar was in the stairwell of my college dorm. Sounded so excellent!