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

[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.

[1715333158]

1715333158

[1715333158]

1715333158

[1715333158]

1715333158

[1715333158]

1715333158

[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!

[Torque]

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'.

Dispel how? With what evidence to explain your assertion? Show me the evidence. What amazing things have these developers 'outside of the Bitcoin Core camp' accomplished exactly.

[gembitz]

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.

mt gox ico inkomingggg :-D weeeee

http://www.newsweek.com/bitcoin-mark-karpeles-mt-gox-exchange-cryptocurrency-709242

[AZwarel]

these guys will never understand that the core devs are willing to increase the blocksize when the time is right and it's tested properly

And even when the Bitcoin block size limit does get raised when the time is right, they'll just say it's not enough and BCash has it where it needs to be. Or come up with other arguments and excuses why Bitcoin still sucks.  

Now, i just laugh at their arguments. Bitcoin is at an ATH, had an increase of ~8x since January.

The market has spoken; they are obviously do not believe in free market principles. Reality defies them daily, yet they are in a constant malignant fear cycle of "doom is coming".

Look at them.

Bigblock BCH is alive, they could just have traded their BTC to BCH, and use that network out of principle they so eager to say is the right one. But, they do not. They still want to change BTC, even though they now have their alternative, "fitting" their declared goals.

That shows me with a 100% certainty, that they are not acting on principle, and just out for control over other's to act freely, power over structure, like every socialist minded person is ("i know i am weak and will lose in a free competition scenario, so, in order to survive i must debase the successful ones, and change the play rules).

[gembitz]

these guys will never understand that the core devs are willing to increase the blocksize when the time is right and it's tested properly

And even when the Bitcoin block size limit does get raised when the time is right, they'll just say it's not enough and BCash has it where it needs to be. Or come up with other arguments and excuses why Bitcoin still sucks.  

~lets NEVER ever raise the blocklimit!!...> ...above 32mb(original bitcoin)   haa

[HairyMaclairy]

There is a chain split but it has been reorged.  

https://www.btcforkmonitor.info

Not sure what is meant by the reorg.

Edit:  now the split warning is gone but says Core is behind other nodes.  Is that just a reference to Bcash?  Curious.