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

[Torque]

Segwit is working. LN is working. Transaction confirmation times are low, and fees are the lowest they've been in a long time. On LN they are non-existent. And the whole solution is supporting decentralization in the best way possible.

And yet people STILL want to bitch and find something wrong with the solution. And still bring up the block size shit like it even matters right now.

I'm so tired of the bullshit and I will call out anyone who brings that tired argument up again.

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

[Rosewater Foundation]

PS. I only merited fake r0ach when he outed himself to fake Tera

Ever seen a roach get squeezed?

It was the whiteness of r0ach the silver whale and the color of his bullion above all things that appalled me.

[jbreher]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

[jbreher]

I'm not convinced that segwit was the better choice.

I'm pert-near certain it wasn't.

In general, doing something in a simple way is better than doing it in a complicated way.

Abso-frickin-lutely.

But it is what we have now.

PorqueNoLosDos.png

[Ibian]

Segwit is working. LN is working. Transaction confirmation times are low, and fees are the lowest they've been in a long time. On LN they are non-existent. And the whole solution is supporting decentralization in the best way possible.

And yet people STILL want to bitch and find something wrong with the solution. And still bring up the block size shit like it even matters right now.

I'm so tired of the bullshit and I will call out anyone who brings that tired argument up again.

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

You are being a tribalist again. That's not necessary if we actually did make the right choice.

[edgar]

If anyone ever wants to know why I sound cynical then this is why. God it's going to be so fun to quote all those arrogant posts if new lows come.

fun to revel in the misery of others???

sounds kinda sociopathic, 'bro'

L'Chaim, eh...?

[jbreher]

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

[realr0ach]

If anyone ever wants to know why I sound cynical then this is why. God it's going to be so fun to quote all those arrogant posts if new lows come.

fun to revel in the misery of others???

sounds kinda sociopathic, 'bro'

L'Chaim, eh...?

Not if you look at it from the perspective of shitcoin shills trying to force a centralized, non-fungible, permissioned ledger, cashless society slave system onto humanity when physical silver and gold are already a superior system in the first place.  But TERA IS A NOOB and doesn't understand things like this.

[Rosewater Foundation]

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

Cheap knock-off flippening drama. No wonder you're making your presence known.
Humbug.

[Anon136]

Why is btrash doing so well ?

Probably because of the upcoming fork.
...

Proponents are looking forward to a 32 MB block size increase and op-code additions that could bring ethereum-like characteristics to the BCH network.

Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ.

The cancer that is BCash cannot die soon enough, along with Roger Ver.

Bigger blocks is a good thing. The problem is that they are being deceptive cunts. If we had chosen big blocks and they had chosen segwit, we would still think the same thing about them, and for the same reason. And be applauding ourselves for making the correct choice.

It's the people, not the tech.

Bigger blocks are a bandaid. I was all for 2x when we needed the capacity. It is not a scaling solution. Its for people who spend 10 minutes researching crypto and think they're geniuses.

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

Here is my 2 satoshi for what it's worth:

Block size, if handled correctly, will end up having nothing to do with scaling and everything to do with regulating compensation for miners. If miners are not being given enough incentive to provide sufficient security to the blockchain than blocks are too big, if the opposite is the case than blocks are too small. Scaling will have to come from second layer solutions. Some transactions will always need to be on chain, the value that people place on putting transactions on chain needs to be enough to compensate the miners, and in the absence of the ability to regulate demand, the only alternative is to regulate the supply of on chain space inorder to increase its price to the level necessary to accomplish this.

[Elwar]

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

I actually started to pull out my private keys to start dumping BCH but realized I'm traveling and I don't have the full set of keys available. Oh well, will wait for the next pump.

[Rosewater Foundation]

[jbreher]

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

Cheap knock-off flippening drama. No wonder you're making your presence known.
Humbug.

No. Once again, I did not insert BCH into discourse. I was merely replying to Torque's objectively flawed assertion.

[jbreher]

Here is my 2 satoshi for what it's worth:

Block size, if handled correctly, will end up having nothing to do with scaling and everything to do with regulating compensation for miners. If miners are not being given enough incentive to provide sufficient security to the blockchain than blocks are too big, if the opposite is the case than blocks are too small. Scaling will have to come from second layer solutions. Some transactions will always need to be on chain, the value that people place on putting transactions on chain needs to be enough to compensate the miners, and in the absence of the ability to regulate demand, the only alternative is to regulate the supply of on chain space inorder to increase its price to the level necessary to accomplish this.

Yet we have known since Adam Smith that the hidden hand of the marketplace will ensure that the optimal solution is arrived at by letting prices find their own equilibrium. This has been more formalized in more recent times in that the price and quantity of a good will be set at the point where the demand/price curve and the supply/price curve intersect. Further still, dead losses are incurred any time production quotas are enforced. Given this, why do you assert the utility of a production quota on transaction throughput? Why not trust miners to set the tx throughput supply to maximize profit under the demand and supply curves?

[Rosewater Foundation]

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

Cheap knock-off flippening drama. No wonder you're making your presence known.
Humbug.

No. Once again, I did not insert BCH into discourse. I was merely replying to Torque's objectively flawed assertion.

Daytraders gotta daytrade. You're all over this place when your pet project is pumping.

[Peter R]

Bigger blocks are a bandaid....

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

Maybe as a soft fork.  

I suspect BTC won't be able to increase the block size limit directly (i.e., as a HF) without another blockchain split.

[jbreher]

Daytraders gotta daytrade. You're all over this place when your pet project is pumping.

Butthurt segwit maximalists misdirect their ire when Bitcoin Cash is enjoying a period of appreciation. Very loudly and very emphatically. Lashing out -- however inappropriately and however impotently -- against what they perceive as the foil of their pain. I merely reply.

I'm actually always all over this place. However, the most persistent and egregious untruths that would go unchallenged without my retort are false assertions about Bitcoin Cash.

I think of it as a service.

Cheers!

[Anon136]

Yet we have known since Adam Smith that the hidden hand of the marketplace will ensure that the optimal solution is arrived at by letting prices find their own equilibrium. This has been more formalized in more recent times in that the price and quantity of a good will be set at the point where the demand/price curve and the supply/price curve intersect. Further still, dead losses are incurred any time production quotas are enforced. Given this, why do you assert the utility of a production quota on transaction throughput?

The internal market dynamics of a crypto currency protocol is a completely synthetic environment. It's like the internal legers of a corporation. You need management to make decisions in a corporation, "the invisible hand" can not run your corporation for you and for the exact same reasons it can not manage the internal dynamics of a crypto currency. It can punish protocols that chose poorer strategies and reward those that choose better strategies, but it can not chose your strategies for you. In that sense it regulates the internal dynamics of crypto currency protocols but only in that sense.

Why not trust miners to set the tx throughput supply to maximize profit under the demand and supply curves?

Because miners do not have the same set of incentives that users have and the bitcoin exists to serve users not miners, miners too exist to serve users. Admittedly that's just my opinion, but I think most people here can agree with it.

[Paashaas]

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Strange, i only see that argument coming from BCasher's, didn't expect less from Bcash shit noobs like you

[jbreher]

Because miners producers do not have the same set of incentives that users consumers have and the bitcoin product exists to serve users consumers not miners producers, miners producers too exist to serve users consumers.

So...
Cryptocurrencies -- specifically the market for tx inclusion -- are the one and only special case where the laws of economics do not apply?

(As an aside, I'm quite sure that, when the producers shut off their alarm clock at oh-dark-thirty, and wearily drag themselves out of bed to face another long grim day of producing, that doing it for the benefit of the exalted consumers ain't first and foremost on their minds)