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

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

New from Masterluc:

I like this early February stuff, the graph is freaky:

https://vk.com/bitcoin_vanga?w=wall-130254204_9481

Also see latest post:

[1714051475]

1714051475

[1714051475]

1714051475

[1714051475]

1714051475

[1714051475]

1714051475

[Wekkel]

Bullish!

[El duderino_]

https://www.telegraaf.nl/video/2348937/bitcoin-met-waarde-van-100-000-euro-onvermijdelijk

100000$ btc or much more  unavoidable

[jbreher]

What code did you write?

Respect

Haha. You found a few play projects. Most of my code is not open source. And most of my FOSS stuff was written before git was conceived , let alone github.

The point of the initial comment is that JJG, in his/her technical ignorance, is in no position to judge the capability of various engineers. Let alone his/her making of blanket statements about a group of folk, without even being able to identify one or two of said group.

[jbreher]

So why don't you take your "response to the ratio of the time derivative of adoption to the time derivative of technology's capacity for transactions blah blah blah" and shove it up your arse.

Because it sounds like an unpleasant experience.

[jbreher]

  Perhaps I oversimplified my idea? The seastead dwellings would not be assembled in an O-zone;

No, I was being simple minded. infofront, at least, caught it.

The O-zone (numa numa) reference pertains to a romanian band which had an extremely popular hit single called "Dragostea din tei" which was referred to as the "Numa Numa" song in the US. It was the only other time i had seen the term O-zone; perhaps i'm alone in that respect.

Well, I'm still lost here, though it seems tangential to your point.

[Anon136]

You explain to me how 9 billion people are able to merely open a single Lightning Network channel in under three decades

Sure. Again that's just simple math (the thing that bcashers don't seem to be able to do). So opening a lightning channel is bigger than a regular transaction. Let's call it 0.0005mb. Now let's see how much space is required for 9 billion people to do that same thing 9billion*0.0005mb=4,500,000mb. Next lets figure out how many bitcoin blocks will be produced in three decades 10*24*30*12*10*3=2592000. Finally let's divide the total amount of space needed by the number of blocks to figure out how large each block would need to be 4,500,000mb/2,592,000=1.736mb.

(speaking of segwit) That would be 1.6MB and 2MB of total actual data if you hit the limits with real transactions, so it's more like a 1.8x increase for real transactions. -https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011869.html

So, hilariously enough, you just happened to pick the perfect example where what we would need is roughly what we have right now!

[jbreher]

You explain to me how 9 billion people are able to merely open a single Lightning Network channel in under three decades

Sure. Again that's just simple math (the thing that bcashers don't seem to be able to do). Though for an apples to apples comparison to what I said before we would need 3.5 billion people to open a single lightning channel. So opening a lightning channel is bigger than a regular transaction. Let's call it 0.0005mb. Now let's see how much space is required for 9 billion people to do that same thing 9billion*0.0005mb=4,500,000mb. Next lets figure out how many bitcoin blocks will be produced in three decades 10*24*30*12*10*3=2592000. Finally let's divide the total amount of space needed by the number of blocks to figure out how large each block would need to be 4,500,000mb/2,592,000=1.736mb.

(speaking of segwit) That would be 1.6MB and 2MB of total actual data if you hit the limits with real transactions, so it's more like a 1.8x increase for real transactions. -https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011869.html

So, hilariously enough, you just happened to pick the perfect example where what we would need is roughly exactly what we have right now!

Of course I did. That is exactly the point. Onboarding the world to LN will take on the order of three decades. And that is merely for each person to fund a single channel - once and only once.

Sure, by combining channel openings for multiple people into single transactions you can cut down this multi-generational time figure. You'll need to work out the UX issues first.

Obviously, lacking innovations not yet envisioned, larger blocks will be needed.

In the meantime, bigger blocks is the easy solution. In industrial-class engineering, the simple thing is done before the complicated thing. Period.  And as long as block size stays ahead of adoption, there are no untoward effects.

This is what the big blockers understand.

[AlcoHoDL]

You explain to me how 9 billion people are able to merely open a single Lightning Network channel in under three decades [...]

Currently there is no need for 9 billion people to open a single Lightning Network channel. When the need arises, the protocol will evolve and scale as necessary, and in ways smarter than a mere change of a constant in a piece of code.

There's no need for this:

[Torque]

OT : Greek fires "lit from 15 different places at once" ??
https://abcnews.go.com/International/arson-suspected-devastating-greece-fires-killed-79-people/story?id=56807876

... and then there's this... hmmm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slg8p0zWJa8

[Anon136]

Of course I did. That is exactly the point. Onboarding the world to LN will take on the order of three decades. And that is merely for each person to fund a single channel - once and only once.

Sure, by combining channel openings for multiple people into single transactions you can cut down this multi-generational time figure. You'll need to work out the UX issues first.

Obviously, lacking innovations not yet envisioned, larger blocks will be needed.

In the meantime, bigger blocks is the easy solution. In industrial-class engineering, the simple thing is done before the complicated thing. Period.  And as long as block size stays ahead of adoption, there are no untoward effects.

This is what the big blockers understand.

I see your logic. It would be good logic in a world full of robots. Unfortunately our world is populated with human beings. It's like a political candidate that promises to solve everyone's problems, when he doesn't deliver no one is worse for it, they are just in the same place they were before, EXCEPT that some people stopped trying so hard to solve their own problems in expectation that the candidate would do it for them. Maybe your study of engineering has caused you to forget about flesh and blood people and what they are like.

If we had told the community that "everything is fine, there is no need to worry, we will just increase the block size every time" people would have stopped worrying about a problem that was still there, a problem that hadn't fundamentally been solved. The community having that sort of mindset could have been a recipe for disaster. We would have risked losing all of what precious decentralization we still have in the bitcoin network.

Instead a general consensus was reached that: no, we were going to innovate or die, not just brute force it like a bunch of neanderthals. This was a gamble, it could have been a mistake if no solution was developed. You can debate about whether it was a good idea to make this gamble or not, but that is in the past, the gamble was made and it is beginning to bear fruit. We are beginning to see good evidence that in hindsight it was actually a good gamble. We are seeing amazing second layer innovations right before our eyes. Innovations that almost certainly would not have come about if the community had taken the attitude of "just hit the problem over the head with that hammer again".

Now that we have pushed ourselves to develop real solutions I think it is a good time to go back and discuss a responsible conservative block size increase schedule.

Also, I think perhaps you might be stuck in an unhelpful mindset. You think that the gamble I spoke of earlier was a bad one to make. Let's concede for the sake of argument that it was. Perhaps if that was true than bcash would have been meritorious at the time. However, now that we have evidence showing that the gamble is paying off, is it wise to financially back bcash on the grounds that it made sense at the time? Perhaps it is time to reconsider your allegiance to a project that may have made sense at the time but in light of new evidence no longer does.

Sorry I know I didn't respond to everything you said here but I really don't believe in anonymint style posts. I think this one is already getting a bit long in the tooth.

[bitserve]

https://www.telegraaf.nl/video/2348937/bitcoin-met-waarde-van-100-000-euro-onvermijdelijk

100000$ btc or much more  unavoidable

Wow! In case you didn't notice, Wekkel have just sent you *50* Merits. That's bullish as fuck!

What do that news say?

P.S.: It looks like it is something like this:

'Bitcoin with value of 100,000 euros inevitable'
Yesterday, 4:30 PM in NEWS

The bitcoin will get a value of one tonne. That says Mike Hutting, owner of BTC Direct, in the weekly crypto update. Although there is also another, slightly less positive scenario possible for the Bitcoin.

[Torque]

Also, I think perhaps you might be stuck in an unhelpful mindset. You think that the gamble I spoke of earlier was a bad one to make. Let's concede for the sake of argument that it was. Perhaps if that was true than bcash would have been meritorious at the time. However, now that we have evidence showing that the gamble is paying off, is it wise to financially back bcash on the grounds that it made sense at the time? Perhaps it is time to reconsider your allegiance to a project that may have made sense at the time but in light of new evidence no longer does.

Bbut... but Anon, it's like when you want a car engine to 'scale' to higher horsepower and speed, the most straightforward way is to simply add more cylinders!  V32 engines for everyone so we can get places faster, amiright?  /s

[Wekkel]

https://www.telegraaf.nl/video/2348937/bitcoin-met-waarde-van-100-000-euro-onvermijdelijk

100000$ btc or much more  unavoidable

Wow! In case you didn't notice, Wekkel have just sent you *50* Merits. That's bullish as fuck!

What do that news say?

P.S.: It looks like it is something like this:

'Bitcoin with value of 100,000 euros inevitable'
Yesterday, 4:30 PM in NEWS

The bitcoin will get a value of one tonne. That says Mike Hutting, owner of BTC Direct, in the weekly crypto update. Although there is also another, slightly less positive scenario possible for the Bitcoin.

You're close to 500, thats why. And fellows stick together. But less Telegraaf for now, please 

[jbreher]

I see your logic.

At least there is that. Thank you.

Also, I think perhaps you might be stuck in an unhelpful mindset. You think that the gamble I spoke of earlier was a bad one to make. Let's concede for the sake of argument that it was. Perhaps if that was true than bcash would have been meritorious at the time. However, now that we have evidence showing that the gamble is paying off, is it wise to financially back bcash on the grounds that it made sense at the time? Perhaps it is time to reconsider your allegiance to a project that may have made sense at the time but in light of new evidence no longer does.

Reevaluation is constant and ongoing. I’m quite happy with my current position. I am hedged to survive an implosion of either BCH or BTC.

I might posit that it is (the collective) you who might be getting a bit ahead of yourself. Lightning Network currently consists of somewhere on the order of 2050 participants, with a total value merely sufficient to purchase a single pretty nice house in most markets - in the aggregate. This is nowhere near the scale necessary to support the promised conveyance of all the world’s financial transactions. Nay, this is merely the scale of an early prototype proof of concept.

And what about that permissionless, anonymous, trustless, decentralized routing issue?

“The probability of a successful payment operation with no more than a few dollars is 70 percent, while the success rate for a payment of less than $200 is 1 percent.” (disclosure: quote is a month old - maybe things have improved since then?)

Fact of the matter, a working LN — as per the shared vision — relies upon fundamental invention in networking theory that isn’t even currently on the horizon. Further, I see no evidence that anybody is investigating things in any direction that might lead us to such a unicorn.

Meanwhile, we have the Core faithful expounding as GWB on the deck of some aircraft carrier, crowing ‘Mission Accomplished’.

We Just Ain’t There Yet.

Sure, some of these issues — leadingly aggregate volume and transactional capacity — will work themselves out with time, toil, and treasure. But the routing may never be solved.

So, no. Shoulda done the simple block size increase first.

Oh well, at least I have beeee cash. What's in your wallet?

[jbreher]

Bbut... but Anon, it's like when you want a car engine to 'scale' to higher horsepower and speed, the most straightforward way is to simply add more cylinders!  V32 engines for everyone so we can get places faster, amiright?  /s

Stupid analogy is stupid.

If you want a transportation analogy, a closer analog would be passenger demand for a certain train route exceeding capacity solved by adding more passenger cars to the train.

Still a stupid analogy, but an order of magnitude closer to the situation at hand.

[jbreher]

Currently there is no need for 9 billion people to open a single Lightning Network channel. When the need arises, the protocol will evolve and scale as necessary, and in ways smarter than a mere change of a constant in a piece of code.

Don't confuse 'smarter' with 'cleverer'. The users care about the user experience, not the grandiosity of the underlying complexity.

[Elwar]

Even if bcash is better, look at IPv4 and IPv6. IPv6 is objectively the better standard. It has enough IP addresses that you could have one for every electronic device in your home.

IPv6 has been around since the late 90s. And yet we still use IPv4. Why? Everything has been built on IPv4. It's established. Getting everyone on the Internet to migrate to IPv6 just never happened. Could it? Should it? Maybe. But it didn't.

With limited IP addresses the Internet stopped working right? No. They just adapted and used various layers to represent the various devices you use every day. You may have one router in your home which then assigns a local IP to your computers and phones. Most people have dynamic IP addresses so that when someone's no longer using an IP address it doesn't just sit there, it can be used by someone else. The Internet adapted. The end of the world did not happen as the IPv6 advocates proclaimed would happen once we ran out of IP addresses.

So work with the current Bitcoin protocol and do what you can to make that work because that's what we've got.

IPv6 is used for some LANs and other things within businesses. Maybe bcash can go that route. Who knows.

I can tell you why IPV6 was not adopted out of the box and that is because there there baked in vulnerabilities that M$ and 3 letter agencies tried to push to us and we spent a lot of time and effort vetting that and stripping it out. As far as it's current iteration, I have no clue.

Yes, there was something in the encryption (I'm still not certain that the encryption was broken or it worked so well that the NSA didn't want people to use it). I recall in the late 90s getting a memo sent out to all government agencies warning us not to use IPv6, stating that the NSA found some vulnerabilities. Perhaps they found that they can't spy on each transmission.

But the key being the analogy of more IP addresses. A 1 or 2 minute explanation promoting IPv6 and bcash can easily convince many people that it is superior.

"We're running out of IP addresses/transactions per second. When we run out, IPv4/Bitcoin won't work anymore. This new protocol will fix that problem. Adopt it if you want to keep using the Internet/Bitcoin."

The fact that the supposed solution is broken does not make the sales pitch.

[STT]

'Bitcoin with value of 100,000 euros inevitable'
Yesterday, 4:30 PM in NEWS

The bitcoin will get a value of one tonne. That says Mike Hutting, owner of BTC Direct, in the weekly crypto update. Although there is also another, slightly less positive scenario possible for the Bitcoin.

People say things like this for gold or silver or any commodity (lithium? whatever) but the main problem is the price moves like that because of its measurement in Euros or dollars often.   Gold will goto $10,000 per troy ounce but I've no idea how much it will buy at that point it may even be less then now though imo Im bullish on a variety of alternatives to political currency.

   ECB has run out of bonds to buy for their Quantitative easing program, thats a horrifying extreme they have reached in monetary policy where they control entire markets as the sole determiner of value and price.   Its nothing close to capitalism then and we cant really rely on accurate pricing via Euro or Dollar long term.    It'd better to go on living costs, like the BigMac index if you ever heard of that one for the pricing globally of a standard burger and how that varies and every country has its variation with USA seeing the cheapest cost I think.   Over time I imagine the world changes to some other bias though USA does have growth, where as parts of Europe and Japan have negative demographics, falling working population and China has this problem also after halting their family sizes to 1 child for almost 40 years which certainly strains natural growth.



Bitcoin pricing remains bullish, within a channel upwards.   Target is roughly 8400 but as every low and pullback is higher priced then the last its not seemingly negative at all right now

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

Here is a good, brief overview of IPv6 vs IPv4.

Summary: As currently implemented IPv6 networks might actually be less secure than IPv4. This is not because of the design IPv6 but because of inadequate support in firewalls and because network administrators and security specialist have more knowledge dealing with IPv4 than with IPv6.