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

[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

[Last of the V8s]

bakkt got pushed again till later in the year?

So it's a bit of a moonshot bet and it's been organized in a manner that is very different than the way ICE typically does businesses. Bakkt has its own offices, its own management team and et cetera. And then we've entered into agreements with it to provide services, as I've described over that Bakkt -- over that ICE overlay.

So we'll see how it goes. They're well along in building out an infrastructure that I think you'll see launch later this year. And I'll let Bakkt talk more about how it wants to go about an what the business and use cases are its revenue model, et cetera, as it unfolds.

everyone mentioned the 'moonshot' bit yesterday, but not the 'later this year'? idk

[rebal15]

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

This week BTC could test 4k$.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Amaury Sechet announced he is the original Satoshi Nakamoto with a hash on a twitter post but then deleted it.
https://www.ccn.com/amaury-sechet-bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto-faketoshi
A bitcoin crash developer? Seriously why would he create a cryptocurrency on overturning what bitcoin fundamentals were built on?

Too much coke.

[madnessteat]

Can I.

Awesome! 

[HairyMaclairy]

The moment Vinny Lingham backs it, you know it is a scam

[infofront]

The moment Vinny Lingham backs it, you know it is a scam

It seems there are some big blockers supporting smaller blocks in the hopes of destroying bitcoin.

[infofront]

... and LukeJr is calling for 300kb blocks ...

He is right. We've Lightning now and 300kb blocks is something more than logical!

Funny definition of 'logical'. With 300kB blocks, it would take on the order of a half of a millennium in order to onboard the world to LN.

How long do you expect each channel to lock funds via HTLC?

So, more importantly, how was PR?

[Ibian]

Why would anyone want smaller blocks? Have we forgotten the dark times of $100 fees already?