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

[HairyMaclairy]

Are you big blockers still hanging around in here?

Don’t you have something better to do, like shilling Naga to noobs?

[Ibian]

Even pre-teens and teens use paper currencies around the world on a daily basis, but hell they can't even purchase Bitcoin without being 18+ yrs old and having a drivers license and a bank account first. How about that fkn irony, Satoshi? Should we add an addendum in the white paper for that too?

There is localbitcoins for that. Just putting that out there.

[Gab0]

Oh! Stupid Satoshi, you were so wrong.

No me nades en la superficie... adéntrate, sumérgete en la profundidad del planteamiento que te quiero transmitir: El futuro está en la capa 2.

jajajaj Muy poético.
Gracias. Lo sé, sé que el futuro está en las segundas capas; de hecho me gustan. No es eso lo que discuto.

[Ibian]

Can your family say no after you are dead?

Dunno. Don't care. I'll be kinda dead. They can make Christmas decorations out of a bucket of my gonads for all I care.

So you... don't care how your family feels about it. Alright.

[HairyMaclairy]

Even pre-teens and teens use paper currencies around the world on a daily basis, but hell they can't even purchase Bitcoin without being 18+ yrs old and having a drivers license and a bank account first. How about that fkn irony, Satoshi? Should we add an addendum in the white paper for that too?

There is localbitcoins for that. Just putting that out there.

There are teenagers in places other than the USA where those rules don’t apply.

[Ibian]

I do not consider increasing blocks a good solution. It does not scale while the negative consequences for decentralisation are unclear. Since Bitcoin’s only true value lies in ‘decentralisation’, I support not hastily moving away from this core concept just to solve a current - perceived as immediate - issue. There is too much at stake.

Big data centers will always do better than hobby miners no matter what the code looks like. This whole fear of mining centralization is not only unfounded as it has been happening from day one, and will continue to do so, it is stupid.

So let's all just use PayPal and be done with Bitcoin. It already performs much better as a currency system, yeah?

I'll go on record to say that if Bitcoin's transactions are restricted to on-chain only, then regardless of block size, PayPal will ALWAYS be faster, cheaper, and more efficient. But inflate that block size to your heart's desire.

How about you address the argument for once.

And how about you address the fact that bigger blocks and on-chain transactions alone will never allow Bitcoin to compete with PayPal, Visa, MC, or any other digital currency based system. Not even in the short term.

That is not relevant in the least. It will make it better than it is now.

We need improvements. Before we hit $100+ fees would be nice.

[d_eddie]

Am I understanding it correctly that LN only works with segwit?

Why would it work only with segwit? I see no technical reason, but segwit adoption would certainly help LN to make opening/closing LN channels cheaper.

LN as it is now depends on transaction malleability being fixed. That's why it was designed with segwit as a prerequisite. So yes, Ibian, you are correct as far as the real current Lightning Network goes.

[keyboard warrior]

Can your family say no after you are dead?

Dunno. Don't care. I'll be kinda dead. They can make Christmas decorations out of a bucket of my gonads for all I care.

So you... don't care how your family feels about it. Alright.

I doubt anyone will want his organs. They want young peoples organs for transplants. Old peoples are worn out and won't last as long, and I doubt gentlemand is a spotty school kid.

[Ibian]

Am I understanding it correctly that LN only works with segwit?

Why would it work only with segwit? I see no technical reason, but segwit adoption would certainly help LN to make opening/closing LN channels cheaper.

LN as it is now depends on transaction malleability being fixed. That's why it was designed with segwit as a prerequisite. So yes, Ibian, you are correct as far as the real current Lightning Network goes.

Well. Shit.

[fluidjax]

LN is coming...

https://twitter.com/CryptoChronicus/status/949520174641684480

[gentlemand]

I doubt anyone will want his organs. They want young peoples organs for transplants. Old peoples are worn out and won't last as long, and I doubt gentlemand is a spotty school kid.

Shocking. I am a sprightly 40something with plenty of lead left in my pencil. Apart from my lungs, heart, corneas, skin, bowels and a few other things many people would be ecstatic to have my body parts floating around inside them.

[AlcoHoDL]

BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE!

Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Just replace Safety with Throughput.

Be patient, people! The scaling problem will be solved, and it will be solved in the right way, and for the long term. Nobody wants a temporary "patch" that requires a hard fork and compromises decentralization. When there are valid reasons to increase the block size, it will be done.

Except that's not even an analogy, that's just replacing one word with another in an unrelated sentence.

Also define "valid reason". We dislike sophism around here.

It's not a sophism. The key word here is "liberty". Are you willing to compromise Bitcoin's decentralization by HARD-FORKING it to a bigger block size, so that you can buy your coffee at Starbucks and keep a permanent record of it in the blockchain? Bitcoin's enemies will still exist, and will still spam the network. Then what? Increase the block size even more, to accumulate more garbage? Another hard fork? Where does it end?

What's needed is a solution that is inherently scalable by design, such as the Lightning Network (or better ones that will surely come). It just doesn't make sense to do a hard fork that merely alleviates the problem temporarily while compromising decentralization, when a much more elegant solution does exist, has already been tested and is almost ready to implement. After LN is implemented, there may be a need for a moderate increase in block size. That's the "valid reason" you are asking. A reason that comes from scientific method, not from a thoughtless "bigger is better" mentality.

The blockchain simply cannot hold every little insignificant transaction that is ever made. It is a waste of resources and totally inefficient. Back in the days when transaction volume was low/moderate, this could be tolerated. Not anymore. Have you kept every little note you've ever made in every little piece of paper since you were born? Do you keep all the shopping lists you make every time you go to the supermarket in a log book for future reference? Should every blackboard on every classroom be made to permanently preserve everything that's written on it?

There has to be a garbage collection mechanism in Bitcoin. We've reached a point where the garbage has become too much for the network to keep storing. The solution is NOT to make more room for even more garbage, but to find a way to destroy them and keep them out of the network. That's what LN does. Thousands of "coffee-sized" transactions aggregated to a single transaction that only takes a small fraction of a block instead of flooding the network. No loss of significance of information, because such information is not significant. No hard fork needed! Want to do an important transaction on-chain? You can, just like today. And you will pay much less fees than today, because LN will free the network from all those millions of petty cash transactions that would otherwise flood it.

Sorry for the long post. It just infuriates me when people fail to see the moon and keep staring at the finger pointing to it...

[J. Cooper]

Can your family say no after you are dead?

Dunno. Don't care. I'll be kinda dead. They can make Christmas decorations out of a bucket of my gonads for all I care.

So you... don't care how your family feels about it. Alright.

I doubt anyone will want his organs. They want young peoples organs for transplants. Old peoples are worn out and won't last as long, and I doubt gentlemand is a spotty school kid.

Well if you are unfortunate enough to be in a life threatening situation to actually be in the need of donor organs, you may not even have a choice. Atleast where I come from there are hundreds of people on waiting lists.

LN is coming...

https://twitter.com/CryptoChronicus/status/949520174641684480

Oh it is coming. And when it comes we will light up the world.

[Ibian]

BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE!

Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Just replace Safety with Throughput.

Be patient, people! The scaling problem will be solved, and it will be solved in the right way, and for the long term. Nobody wants a temporary "patch" that requires a hard fork and compromises decentralization. When there are valid reasons to increase the block size, it will be done.

Except that's not even an analogy, that's just replacing one word with another in an unrelated sentence.

Also define "valid reason". We dislike sophism around here.

It's not a sophism. The key word here is "liberty". Are you willing to compromise Bitcoin's decentralization by HARD-FORKING it to a bigger block size, so that you can buy your coffee at Starbucks and keep a permanent record of it in the blockchain? Bitcoin's enemies will still exist, and will still spam the network. Then what? Increase the block size even more, to accumulate more garbage? Another hard fork? Where does it end?

What's needed is a solution that is inherently scalable by design, such as the Lightning Network (or better ones that will surely come). It just doesn't make sense to do a hard fork that merely alleviates the problem temporarily while compromising decentralization, when a much more elegant solution does exist, has already been tested and is almost ready to implement. After LN is implemented, there may be a need for a moderate increase in block size. That's the "valid reason" you are asking. A reason that comes from scientific method, not from a thoughtless "bigger is better" mentality.

The blockchain simply cannot hold every little insignificant transaction that is ever made. It is a waste of resources and totally inefficient. Back in the days when transaction volume was low/moderate, this could be tolerated. Not anymore. Have you kept every little note you've ever made in every little piece of paper since you were born? Do you keep all the shopping lists you make every time you go to the supermarket in a log book for future reference? Should every blackboard on every classroom be made to permanently preserve everything that's written on it?

There has to be a garbage collection mechanism in Bitcoin. We've reached a point where the garbage has become too much for the network to keep storing. The solution is NOT to make more room for even more garbage, but to find a way to destroy them and keep them out of the network. That's what LN does. Thousands of "coffee-sized" transactions aggregated to a single transaction that only takes a small fraction of a block instead of flooding the network. No loss of significance of information, because such information is not significant. No hard fork needed! Want to do an important transaction on-chain? You can, just like today. And you will pay much less fees than today, because LN will free the network from all those millions of petty cash transactions that would otherwise flood it.

Sorry for the long post. It just infuriates me when people fail to see the moon and keep staring at the finger pointing to it...

I have yet to see anyone explain how increasing the blocksize increases centralization. It seems to be some idea that just took hold and that everyone believes in, because they believe in it.

And it doesn't end. There will always be a need for improvements because there will always be competitors ready to take over if we stagnate. stagnation is death.

Lightning requires segwit. Which is to say, it will be as worthless as segwit is.

[Dabs]

... so you can get a share of them by contributing your idle CPU time.
[...]

Oh! Stupid Satoshi, you were so wrong.

When GPUs came out by 2011, ... Yes.

[mymenace]

BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE!

Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Just replace Safety with Throughput.

Be patient, people! The scaling problem will be solved, and it will be solved in the right way, and for the long term. Nobody wants a temporary "patch" that requires a hard fork and compromises decentralization. When there are valid reasons to increase the block size, it will be done.

Except that's not even an analogy, that's just replacing one word with another in an unrelated sentence.

Also define "valid reason". We dislike sophism around here.

It's not a sophism. The key word here is "liberty". Are you willing to compromise Bitcoin's decentralization by HARD-FORKING it to a bigger block size, so that you can buy your coffee at Starbucks and keep a permanent record of it in the blockchain? Bitcoin's enemies will still exist, and will still spam the network. Then what? Increase the block size even more, to accumulate more garbage? Another hard fork? Where does it end?

What's needed is a solution that is inherently scalable by design, such as the Lightning Network (or better ones that will surely come). It just doesn't make sense to do a hard fork that merely alleviates the problem temporarily while compromising decentralization, when a much more elegant solution does exist, has already been tested and is almost ready to implement. After LN is implemented, there may be a need for a moderate increase in block size. That's the "valid reason" you are asking. A reason that comes from scientific method, not from a thoughtless "bigger is better" mentality.

The blockchain simply cannot hold every little insignificant transaction that is ever made. It is a waste of resources and totally inefficient. Back in the days when transaction volume was low/moderate, this could be tolerated. Not anymore. Have you kept every little note you've ever made in every little piece of paper since you were born? Do you keep all the shopping lists you make every time you go to the supermarket in a log book for future reference? Should every blackboard on every classroom be made to permanently preserve everything that's written on it?

There has to be a garbage collection mechanism in Bitcoin. We've reached a point where the garbage has become too much for the network to keep storing. The solution is NOT to make more room for even more garbage, but to find a way to destroy them and keep them out of the network. That's what LN does. Thousands of "coffee-sized" transactions aggregated to a single transaction that only takes a small fraction of a block instead of flooding the network. No loss of significance of information, because such information is not significant. No hard fork needed! Want to do an important transaction on-chain? You can, just like today. And you will pay much less fees than today, because LN will free the network from all those millions of petty cash transactions that would otherwise flood it.

Sorry for the long post. It just infuriates me when people fail to see the moon and keep staring at the finger pointing to it...

I have yet to see anyone explain how increasing the blocksize increases centralization. It seems to be some idea that just took hold and that everyone believes in, because they believe in it.

And it doesn't end. There will always be a need for improvements because there will always be competitors ready to take over if we stagnate. stagnation is death.

Lightning requires segwit. Which is to say, it will be as worthless as segwit is.

When a small group can change the narrative and code, it can then happen anytime - centralize to gain control

1) Find a talking point that is critical to the object in question
2) Promote Fear
3) Provide alternative
4) Go ahead with alternative
5) All the while more fear

blocksize debate has been going on for 7 years




same tool is used to legalize

spying on you
monitor money transactions
mandatory vaccines
etc etc etc

nearly everything you do there is a law because of fear

classic socialism


it is not the better alternative that is the narrative

the fear is the narrative (busted)

[Ibian]

BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE!

Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Just replace Safety with Throughput.

Be patient, people! The scaling problem will be solved, and it will be solved in the right way, and for the long term. Nobody wants a temporary "patch" that requires a hard fork and compromises decentralization. When there are valid reasons to increase the block size, it will be done.

Except that's not even an analogy, that's just replacing one word with another in an unrelated sentence.

Also define "valid reason". We dislike sophism around here.

It's not a sophism. The key word here is "liberty". Are you willing to compromise Bitcoin's decentralization by HARD-FORKING it to a bigger block size, so that you can buy your coffee at Starbucks and keep a permanent record of it in the blockchain? Bitcoin's enemies will still exist, and will still spam the network. Then what? Increase the block size even more, to accumulate more garbage? Another hard fork? Where does it end?

What's needed is a solution that is inherently scalable by design, such as the Lightning Network (or better ones that will surely come). It just doesn't make sense to do a hard fork that merely alleviates the problem temporarily while compromising decentralization, when a much more elegant solution does exist, has already been tested and is almost ready to implement. After LN is implemented, there may be a need for a moderate increase in block size. That's the "valid reason" you are asking. A reason that comes from scientific method, not from a thoughtless "bigger is better" mentality.

The blockchain simply cannot hold every little insignificant transaction that is ever made. It is a waste of resources and totally inefficient. Back in the days when transaction volume was low/moderate, this could be tolerated. Not anymore. Have you kept every little note you've ever made in every little piece of paper since you were born? Do you keep all the shopping lists you make every time you go to the supermarket in a log book for future reference? Should every blackboard on every classroom be made to permanently preserve everything that's written on it?

There has to be a garbage collection mechanism in Bitcoin. We've reached a point where the garbage has become too much for the network to keep storing. The solution is NOT to make more room for even more garbage, but to find a way to destroy them and keep them out of the network. That's what LN does. Thousands of "coffee-sized" transactions aggregated to a single transaction that only takes a small fraction of a block instead of flooding the network. No loss of significance of information, because such information is not significant. No hard fork needed! Want to do an important transaction on-chain? You can, just like today. And you will pay much less fees than today, because LN will free the network from all those millions of petty cash transactions that would otherwise flood it.

Sorry for the long post. It just infuriates me when people fail to see the moon and keep staring at the finger pointing to it...

I have yet to see anyone explain how increasing the blocksize increases centralization. It seems to be some idea that just took hold and that everyone believes in, because they believe in it.

And it doesn't end. There will always be a need for improvements because there will always be competitors ready to take over if we stagnate. stagnation is death.

Lightning requires segwit. Which is to say, it will be as worthless as segwit is.

When a small group can change the narrative and code, it can then happen anytime - centralize to gain control

1) Find a talking point that is critical to the object in question
2) Promote Fear
3) Provide alternative
4) Go ahead with alternative
5) All the while more fear

blocksize debate has been going on for 7 years

What are you trying to address here?

[El duderino_]

Breaking 24777$ prediction game      FINAL LIST       

27/12/2017 bikerleszno
29/12/2018 cAPSLOCK 
30/12/2017 digithusiast
31/12/2017 Raja_MBZ
01/01/2018 elg
02/01/2018 wachtwoord
03/01/2018 JimboToronto
04/01/2018 d_eddie
05/01/2018 BTCMILLIONAIRE
06/01/2018 HanvanBitcoin
07/01/2018 ghandi
08/01/2018 savetherainforrest
09/01/2018 explorer
10/01/2018 bicoinpsycho
11/01/2018 Bitcoinaire
12/01/2018 speedwheel
13/01/2018 undeadbitcoiner
14/01/2018 northypole
15/01/2018 ivomm
16/01/2018 maca068
17/01/2018 bitcoinvest
18/01/2018 last of the v8s
19/01/2018 mfort312
20/01/2018 1982dre
21/01/2018 flamast2
22/01/2018 RealMachasm
23/01/2018 willope
24/01/2018 kartala
25/01/2018 orpington
26/01/2018 rolling
27/01/2018 LFC_bitcoin
28/01/2018 jojo69
29/01/2018 CristiTCM
30/01/2018 rayX12
31/01/2018 realsteelboy
01/02/2018 twocorn
02/02/2018 mancroofer
03/02/2018 True Myth
04/02/2018 poolminor
05/02/2018 itod
06/02/2018 scheptan
07/02/2018 vapourminer
08/02/2018 alexeft
09/02/2018 siera
10/02/2018 AlcoHoDL
11/02/2018 Dunkelheit667
12/02/2018 yonton
13/02/2018 Wekkel
14/02/2018 Thekool1s
15/02/2018 starmman
16/02/2018 Globb0
17/02/2018 leveldkrypto
18/02/2018 olesh
19/02/2018 BitCoinBurger
20/02/2018 Paashaas
21/02/2018 flynn
22/02/2018 icygreen
23/02/2018 erisdiscordia
24/02/2018 phil_s
25/02/2018 sirazimuth
26/02/2018 Arriemoller
27/02/2018 yonton
28/02/2018 Muttley
01/03/2018 bones261
02/03/2018 heater
03/03/2018 soullyG
04/03/2018 InvoKing
05/03/2018 Notme
06/03/2018 sa_94
07/03/2018 NUFCrichard
08/03/2018 Imbatman
09/03/2018 Roombot
10/03/2018 STT
11/03/2018 badream
13/03/2018 erre
14/03/2018 julian071
15/03/2018 podyx
17/03/2018 fragout
18/03/2018 fabiorem
21/03/2018 dakustaking76
23/03/2018 nikauforest
31/03/2018 vroom
01/04/2018 somac.
02/04/2018 kurious
04/04/2018 fluidjax
05/04/2018 bitcoinbunny
08/04/2018 tyler1890
10/04/2018 ludwigvon
11/04/2018 hairymaclairy
16/04/2018 practicaldreamer
18/04/2018 free-bit.co.in
27/04/2018 drbrockoin
01/05/2018 sprinkles
02/06/2018 oblox
07/07/2018 IntroVert
03/08/2018 toxic2040
28/08/2018 bitserve
15/10/2018 Yefi
05/11/2018 mikenz
31/12/2018 melman2002
01/01/2019 Spaceman_Spiff_Original
12/02/2019 FractalUniverse
21/04/2019 gentlemand
20/02/2020 romneymoney
18/12/2021 luckygenough56

UPDATE     AND GOOD LUCK

[mike4001]

Meanwhile in Bitcoin-price-land

17k broken again.

850 BTC left for 18k @Bitstamp
1150 BTC left for 19k
1850 BTC left for 20k

(though this shifts obviously once the price rises)



EDIT: 100 BTC sellwall at 17,1k just eaten in 30 seconds.

[Rosewater Foundation]

I doubt anyone will want his organs. They want young peoples organs for transplants. Old peoples are worn out and won't last as long, and I doubt gentlemand is a spotty school kid.

Shocking. I am a sprightly 40something with plenty of lead left in my pencil. Apart from my lungs, heart, corneas, skin, bowels and a few other things many people would be ecstatic to have my body parts floating around inside them.

That may be so, but your pelvis will always belong to us.

PS. Can I call dibs on that corduroy pillow?