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

[HairyMaclairy]

We need to be careful guys.

Arguing against 300kb blocks is playing right into the big blockers hands. 

The real argument is about maintaining stability of the protocol unless there is a really good reason to change it.  And there arent good reasons on either the big or little side. 

[Bitcoinaire]

It would be nice to see some follow through with this last price jump.

[xhomerx10]

It's .3x... hahahahahaha

 Hey, he's a milliner's apprentice so you should cut him some slack. 

[bones261]

It would be nice to see some follow through with this last price jump.

It appears that the follow through is going in the wrong direction at the moment.  

[Ibian]

Thinking about starting a youtube channel. As I mentioned the other day, the mouse utopia mirrors current world events too much to simply write it off as coincidence. There is so much crazy shit happening every day that could be interpreted in that light, I'd never run out of material.

[Toxic2040]

Game over man..support level broken..back to the bear channel we go.

Way to much profit to be made everywhere and anywhere else besides bitcoin atm. Sorry folks..you have to keep suffering. Apparently there are still weak hands that need to be shaken out.

1h



D

[JayJuanGee]

The BIG blockers were neither coming from a good place,

Same place as you, mon frere.

The weight of the evidence does not support such a conclusion.  I was not trying to change bitcoin.  I was merely going with the flow... BIG blockers were not only trying to change bitcoin, but they were trying to change the whole process about how bitcoin changes were made in order to make changes easier to make in bitcoin.  Sure there may be a few of them that did not have those malicious intentions, but there was an overwhelming propagandizing that still goes on to this day.. both suggesting that bitcoin's governance is broken (using technical arguments as a pretense) and that changes to bitcoin's governance need to be achieved (though such arguments are becoming a bit weaker since they lost pretty decently and decisively last time around).

nor did they have justification

All the justification needed. How soon you forget: Censorless. Permissionless.

You are making shit up.  They did not have justifications, and they attempted to force the matter rather than attempting to get consensus and agreement within the bitcoin community.. so instead of working through bitcoin's then BIP processes, they went rogue.. and engaged in various forkenings in order to attempt to blackmail and coerce rather than attempting to improve through cooperation and presenting evidence and arguments.

nor genuine motives

Absolute twaddle.

Yes... we disagree.  There may have been some genuine exceptions, but a lot of the arguments were disingenuous, just like many of the arguments that you presented in this thread.  Of course, you cannot be the spokesperson for the whole of the BIG blockers and all of the nuances, but you did tend to take as many opportunities as you could to attempt to argue their various cases of whining phoney baloney.

for their dumb-ass talking points.

Which, of course, is why they needed to be purged from public discourse by the high priests of the Bitcoin information venues.

That is a distracting argument.. .get the fuck out of here with your lame attempt at censorship proclamations.  The BIG blockers had plenty of venues to argue their cases, including in this forum, and they had plenty of venues to try to persuade folks to move to their BIG block forked, technically inferior pump and dump nonsense.  They have not been successful even with their BIG mouth whiny marketing attempts, and they have not really given up yet (including your desire to keep this topic alive), even though it is becoming more and more convincing, even for dumber money to see that they are just a snake oil scam... I am not going to discount their ability to pump again.. or their willingness to give up in their lame attempts to pump their shit and to continue to deceive sometimes innocent folks in putting money into that crap.

[JayJuanGee]

It grows 50gb/year.
In 5 years, you'll have to download 500gb data to start your own node. And if you already say "fuck no i am not doing it", now imagine how would it look like in 10 years.

 In 5 years, technology and infrastructure should hopefully have further matured to the point where you start up Bitcoin for the first time, go and take a nice deuce, come back to your system a few minutes later, and should be mostly good-to-go.

 Downloading 500gb for a node 5 years from now should be such an absolute non-issue, it's embarrassing that people are seriously considering taking a backwards step right now, and failing to see the larger picture.

 And you wonder why I'm legit taking crazy pills  

Imagine how I must feel reading this response. Funny world, Bob.

Funny, funny world.

Think of this Bob, JJG, Jbreher and I all agreeing on something. For something to be so silly that we all agree with ease is massive.

300kb blocks are crazy.

I like lightning as much as the other but why handicap Bitcoin for no reason and put all that risk on a truly untested technology.

I think that there is more nuance in our various positions.. .so stating that we all agree with your rendition might be a bit too much to ask.   

[Last of the V8s]

https://twitter.com/jratcliff/status/1095108667764953088
The chance of a soft-fork to a lower bitcoin blocksize has effectively a zero chance of reaching consensus. However, the chance that the FUD about it blowing up and generating a bunch of negative press is near a 100%. Can we please just stop this and focus on what is important!

rather good thread emerging

[JayJuanGee]

You still have to download and verify the blockchain first before you prune it.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Well, I don't know the current situation, but some years ago, gmax stated that core no longer verifies back to the genesis block, relying instead upon a centralized checkpoint as 'good enough'. Still downloaded, just not verified. Weird.

I'm sure that there is more to the gmax description of the bitcoin blocks verification situation than your summary is suggesting, jbreher.

You still have to download and verify the blockchain first before you prune it.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Well, I don't know the current situation, but some years ago, gmax stated that core no longer verifies back to the genesis block, relying instead upon a centralized checkpoint as 'good enough'. Still downloaded, just not verified. Weird.

FUD unless properly sourced.

What the guy above me (Hairy) said.

     

[ivomm]

Game over man..support level broken..back to the bear channel we go.

Or not. I wouldn't call it even a half or 1/4 bart haircut yet   The 3600$ support of Bitfinex is a pain in the ass for the n00bs on bearstamp   The 3700$ resistance is weakened now.

[JayJuanGee]

It's .3x... hahahahahaha

 Hey, he's a milliner's apprentice so you should cut him some slack. 

He sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!


Woops,  I was intending to be nice to V8...

[Dig Bicks]

[Last of the V8s]

https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-part-2-over-the-wall-and-into-the-fire-5e8efc5c1509
should maybe try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZncAvDqB2Q https://librepatron.com/
doubting http://pizarroisp.net/ would take her but idk

[JayJuanGee]

https://twitter.com/jratcliff/status/1095108667764953088
The chance of a soft-fork to a lower bitcoin blocksize has effectively a zero chance of reaching consensus. However, the chance that the FUD about it blowing up and generating a bunch of negative press is near a 100%. Can we please just stop this and focus on what is important!

rather good thread emerging

Is there evidence that such attempts to build consensus around the topic of reducing the blocksize is contentious?  At this point there is a proposal and maybe some lobbying around the idea.   If it is not likely to happen, then who cares, it is just a discussion point, currently, right?

[bitserve]

https://twitter.com/jratcliff/status/1095108667764953088
The chance of a soft-fork to a lower bitcoin blocksize has effectively a zero chance of reaching consensus. However, the chance that the FUD about it blowing up and generating a bunch of negative press is near a 100%. Can we please just stop this and focus on what is important!

rather good thread emerging

Is there evidence that such attempts to build consensus around the topic of reducing the blocksize is contentious?  At this point there is a proposal and maybe some lobbying around the idea.   If it is not likely to happen, then who cares, it is just a discussion point, currently, right?

Can we just consider it some kind on demented trolling and just move on?

Sideways, Sideways......

[Last of the V8s]

You still have to download and verify the blockchain first before you prune it.
Correct me if I am wrong.

Well, I don't know the current situation, but some years ago, gmax stated that core no longer verifies back to the genesis block, relying instead upon a centralized checkpoint as 'good enough'. Still downloaded, just not verified. Weird.

I'm sure that there is more to the gmax description of the bitcoin blocks verification situation than your summary is suggesting, jbreher.

You still have to download and verify the blockchain first before you prune it.
Correct me if I am wrong.

Well, I don't know the current situation, but some years ago, gmax stated that core no longer verifies back to the genesis block, relying instead upon a centralized checkpoint as 'good enough'. Still downloaded, just not verified. Weird.

FUD unless properly sourced.

What the guy above me (Hairy) said.
     

I third the request for sauce

thought they'd done away with checkpoints.

[Last of the V8s]

jojo did you mean this (from ages ago lol) ? about Shamir https://btcarmory.com/fragmented-backup-vuln/
found in this great https://medium.com/@lopp/satoshi-roundtable-v-recap-151dab7548bb

[JayJuanGee]

https://twitter.com/jratcliff/status/1095108667764953088
The chance of a soft-fork to a lower bitcoin blocksize has effectively a zero chance of reaching consensus. However, the chance that the FUD about it blowing up and generating a bunch of negative press is near a 100%. Can we please just stop this and focus on what is important!

rather good thread emerging

Is there evidence that such attempts to build consensus around the topic of reducing the blocksize is contentious?  At this point there is a proposal and maybe some lobbying around the idea.   If it is not likely to happen, then who cares, it is just a discussion point, currently, right?

Can we just consider it some kind on demented trolling and just move on?

Sideways, Sideways......

Do you really think about the topic as a kind of trolling?  It is not even hostile to the idea of bitcoin. 

I am having some troubles understand why members here, including a lot of Bitcoin maximalists, are getting worked-up over such a proposal that is genuinely NOT a bad idea. 

I still think that the idea of smaller blocks has a pretty low chance of gaining any kind of meaningful traction towards consensus, but there are good ideas and values contained in the concept of striving and looking into ways to make BTC's block propagation more efficient and more capable by the poor and more capable by folks with shitty internet or shitty data connections but are still able to download block information with few resources.  Makes it more future resilient too.

On the other hand, I can see how some BIG blockers might be hostile to the idea because it takes their stupid ass idea of BIG blocks in the other direction.. to show that the opposite of what they were whining about was actually the more empowering (fuck the man) direction that likely makes bitcoin even more powerful through its ingenious ways to become even more efficient (or at least to strive in that direction).

[Last of the V8s]

ok in this thread https://twitter.com/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1094731496638873600

we learn that lukejr is proposing it as a trial https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1094760242611671040

https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1095015165953740814
To summarise:
 - New rules apply only to blocks between 2019 Aug 1 and 2019 Dec 31.
 - Weight is calculated with non-segwit signatures counting at 1 WU/byte (ie, the same as the "witness discount").
 - Blocks must have a weight less than 600kWU (equivalent to ~300kB).

and lots of other reassuring stuff and reasons and opinions back and forth