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

[jbreher]

So anyone buying their other half or family members some BTC for Christmas?

I've given each of the progeny (3 kids, 2 inlaws, 2 grandkids) 1 BTC each of the last three xmases. I see no reason to divert. This year, they'll be wrapped in Ledger Nano Ss.

is that a tax write off? (serious question btw.. my tax knowledge is zero, tho that will be changing in near future, no doubt)

Well, I am married. And US-ian. Which means that up to $28K per individual carries some sort of tax preference. Not sure the details - that's a matter for my preparer.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Bah.

$20k USD/BTC for Christmas would have been nice  

That sea of red tho...

Looking a bit bearish today - Suspect its to do with the alt surge - that will all dump into BTC at some point...

Its probably just last minute shopping. It will be fine.

Happy Christmas to all blockers, small and large.  

All I want for Christmas is moon.

[itod]

2MB blocks, 8MB, 64MB, whatever you want MB is not the solution.

2mb would give Core time to implement LN and other sidechains.

It's already implemented. Not just a reference implementation, but production implementations by three (3) independent companies: ACINQ, Blockstream, and Lightning Labs. Tested on testnet that each implementation works with two others. They are now testing it on the mainnet. How impatient people can be? Should they put it in production without proper testing? Some of them are opensource, but support is not free. You realize they are rushing to put it to market, because whoever is first will get the bigger share of the profits from every institution who will be using it. But at the same time, they can not afford the screw up, so it's a balance between enough testing and hurrying to offer it to entities on the market. Be asured they will not take a single day longer then it is absolutely necessary.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You forkers are nuttier than a fruit cake. Block space is a resource. You can't just... um... double it.

[criptix]

Not sure why you people cry. Im super happy lol 

(I would be even more happy for sub 10k - but you cant have everything right?)

[alexeft]

2MB blocks, 8MB, 64MB, whatever you want MB is not the solution.

2mb would give Core time to implement LN and other sidechains.

It's already implemented. Not just a reference implementation, but production implementations by three (3) independent companies: ACINQ, Blockstream, and Lightning Labs. Tested on testnet that each implementation works with two others. They are now testing it on the mainnet. How impatient people can be? Should they put it in production without proper testing? Some of them are opensource, but support is not free. You realize they are rushing to put it to market, because whoever is first will get the bigger share of the profits from every institution who will be using it. But at the same time, they can not afford the screw up, so it's a balance between enough testing and hurrying to offer it to entities on the market. Be asured they will not take a single day longer then it is absolutely necessary.

I just hope they take their time and make it as bugless as possible! We all saw what happened with the bug that bitmain took advantage of.......

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

sauce^

[goggles]

dogecoin users unaffected?  

[Gab0]

Looking for some update of LN in r / lightning.network, I found this:





From the LN white paper:
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf






If the block limit of 1mb will inevitably be eliminated, why refuse an increase in the size of the blocks at critical times like the ones we have seen these days?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I don't think we should be hardfroking to accommodate L2 'solutions'. Am I wrong?

[goggles]

Maybe I don't understand the lightning network well, but wouldn't the channels used by the exchanges be the major benefit?

[alexeft]

If the block limit of 1mb will inevitably be eliminated, why refuse an increase in the size of the blocks at critical times like the ones we have seen these days?

How do you tell critical times from spam times?

Currently 50GB of data is added every year, ie in a year the blockchain will be at 200GB. Also, it's not static data but a database. Not really an easy load.
Whatsmore, a bigger blocksize will mean a faster growing blockchain. For example, BCH will have to face 400GB of additional data per year. Who will care to start a new node in a year from now?

[d_eddie]

If the block limit of 1mb will inevitably be eliminated, why refuse an increase in the size of the blocks at critical times like the ones we have seen these days?

Among other reasons: because, as our good Mayor implies in his reply, a hardfork is required to increase the block size. A hardfork is not unplanned for, but when it happens it should include a bundle of fixes, not just a quick bandaid.
Besides, the bandaid can't really solve the problem, even momentarily: if the spammers are willing to spam no matter what, they can as easily fill double-sized blocks with 1-satoshi transactions.

[Globb0]

I think the blockchain needs to have a sliding window. The network could pay a few nodes to be legacy nodes and hold the full history version or  chunks of archive (searchable).

The main chain could start 2 years ago with each accounts balance on that day and every transaction since then.

[d_eddie]

I think the blockchain needs to have a sliding window. The network could pay a few nodes to be legacy nodes and hold the full history version or  chunks of archive (searchable).

The main chain could start 2 years ago with each accounts balance on that day and every transaction since then.

Storage is not the only problem. Bouncing big blocks around also causes bandwidth and latency issues.

[alexeft]

sauce^

Nice in many many more ways than one!

[Arriemoller]

<nonsense>

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

Satoshi would not have wasted his time answering such a question if it was not in his original mind frame.

Great quote from that link too "If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry."

I mean that link alone says more than anything I could or would ever need to say... something needs to change to regain market confidence in my opinion.

LOL good one!

Or fucking Poloniex  

I think that's a woman.

[JayJuanGee]

I'm all for a block size increase to 2mb. I just think that 8mb, as proposed by BCash, is too much, and will create more problems in the future, such as centralized nodes.

I agree... start slow and move up.

Just do something.

Amazing how people can't see the obvious. 2MB blocks, 8MB, 64MB, whatever you want MB is not the solution. And 8MB blocks by BCash has low fees for simple reason absolutely nobody is using it.

That second part is not true.

I take Roger at his word that he is using Bcash, especially to provide demonstrations about how great Bcash is.  Jihan is using Bcash, along with forcing anyone purchasing miners from him to do so through Bcash, there are also people moving Bcash to sell it, and there are also probably a few retards that actually believe bcash is bitcoin 2.0 who are buying it....

hahahahaha.

O.k... I 'm quibbling.  I'm quibbling.

Tldr.. roger is not nobody... you better give some respect.   

You can put whatever cap you want sooner or latter fees are going to again get up as adoption spreads, and we are not even at the beginning of real adoption, meaning adoption at the Twitter or Facebook users number levels. Block size increase will only lead to many people not being able to run a node and solve nothing. The only solution is LN, true solution without any side effects. Unlimited number of transactions, 0 fees, period. There is no point of making Bitcoin more centralized when LN are just around a corner. Let's first try and see how it works before we hard-fork to bigger block-size forever.

Exactly.  1) why "fix" something that is not broken, 2) the stupid-ass suggested fix is likely to make matters worse, 3) bitcoin has a lot of uses cases already, and 4) developments such as lightning network are being worked on and tested and likely to be adopted and implemented more and more and more, and resolve a lot of the temporary issues that are supposedly causing BIG blocker nutjobs to get their panties in a twist...   

By the way, the BIG blocker nutjobs really don't give a ratt's ass about fixing bitcoin, they merely want to change its governance, make it more easy to change and some other bullshit nonsense that would pretty much destroy the various current value propositions of bitcoin.  Making bitcoin difficult to change is a feature and not a bug, because we don't want stupid ass astroturfs coming in and acting like they are changing bitcoin to make it better, when bitcoin is not broke.  Those misinformation spreading fucktards.   

[JayJuanGee]

That’s right.

Just introduce 10GB blocks and call it a night. Problem solved.

What the fuck?


Why we need a limit?  I think we should petition for a few changes to bitcoin in order to remove any kind of blocksize limit, and then we can call bitcoin, bitcoin unlimited... right?




Wait...... something sounds funny about what I am saying.....   hm?

[milkshock100]

We survive tonight without dipping below fridays lows and I think we are in the clear....