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

[jbreher]

WTF are you babbling about? I advocate larger blocks, as I do believe in it as a solution to deal with transaction congestion. Quite a splendid one, in fact.

You actually remind me of r0ach, when you can not defend your position or answer anything, you just go on a tangent and throw out statements which make no sense..

You still haven't mentioned what size blocks you think Bitcoin needs... reminds me of the little do'er carpet commercial, "tell them the price son!, the price!"

"Tell me the blocksize son! the blocksize!"

The _protocol_ needs no maximum on the block size. The miners, being the ones who are affected by the block size, can set it without your soviet. At whatever point makes sense from a market demand and supply perspective.

Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind.

You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit. For such is exactly equivalent to a centrally-planned production quota. And production quotas -- to the extent that they are enforceable -- are invariably economically inefficient, ensuring crappy outcomes for most participants.

In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible.

At 1MB in size, blocks are so trivially small that miners' only consideration was in maximizing tx fees in the blocks they are building. Leading to blocks not being persistently full until the number of txs desired by the community became in excess of the block size limit. Obviously, such an issue can be solved by increasing the block size limit.

Of course, at some size (specific size thereof unknowable to the central planners), block size will be problematic. But the market will solve this issue. At the point where block propagation increases due to size leads to a higher incidence of orphaning, that is where the equilibrium point for block size will be set. Again, assuming no centrally-planned max, and that sufficient txs are available to build such large blocks.

What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.

Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up.

[El duderino_]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

https://twitter.com/j3todaro/status/1115305169712046080?s=21

[El duderino_]

 People keep asking me why #Bitcoin is up. Over a year of OTC accumulation & big $100m buy order on exchanges. The short term price is driven by fear and greed. The long term story is everybody will need $BTC eventually and there wont be many to go around.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/xkBpUL1VDKU

https://twitter.com/simondixontwitt/status/1115142571372752896?s=21

Good a have a small bit of it .... keep accumulating and buying

[Ibian]

Would there be a practical problem with making every block however big (or small) is needed to fill all current transfers?

[jbreher]

The UN is going to compete with Elwar.  https://www.sciencealert.com/forget-fleeing-to-mars-the-un-backs-a-more-practical-plan-for-our-precarious-future

I dunno. Seem's Elwar's endeavor's USP is freedom from outside governmental interference. The ocean-faring aspect seems to me to be only a means to this end. I don't much expect anything coming from an NGO think-tank to operate in an independent manner.

Not to mention the article's stated 'within 1 mi of shore' aspect, which if I am not mistaken is safely within agreed national boundaries.

[JimboToronto]

The hell are you taking $30k down to Mexico for? I got robbed by a fucking cop last time I was there.

I wouldn't get caught with a nice stash of cash down there.

You've got to know where to go and how to travel. Don't show your wealth. Keep to well policed areas unless you are accompanied by trusted, well-connected locals, but don't give police any reason to interact with you. Dress down.

Keep to tourist areas whenever possible and project an image of being a typical tourist... i.e. a job slave who is running up debt on a credit card to seek a short-lived break from wage slavery. I use only cash in Canada but I use a credit card when traveling. It makes me look more like a tourist.

Of course away from tourist areas I use only cash. Everybody does. Nobody in my area has a bank account or credit card. There aren't even any banks in the area. That's one reason I love it there... no banks, no phones, no criminals, very few cops. Just sunshine, fresh air, good food, cheap booze and a certain little hot-blooded chilanga.

The reason I'm taking $30kUSD down is to finish paying for my zirconia teeth, pay off a personal loan, and make improvements to my house down there. I'm in the midst of major infrastructure upgrades... new 220v/120a wiring, water heater, upgraded security, etc.

I can only take $10kUSD down on the plane with me but I'll have a traveling companion to carry another $10k. The rest I'll put on my credit card and begrudgingly pay the cash advance and exchange fees. I don't have a bank account in either country. I'll spend the $20k cash almost immediately on the dentist and debt repayment and then live off my card.

I hate banks.

[jbreher]

... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.   

'Come back'? I've been here the whole time.

It may share a name but that thing, that is not Bitcoin.

BTC is not Bitcoin? Interesting assertion!

We have already established that I hold BTC as well as my preferred SV and BCH.

[jbreher]

Bitcoin is whatever the largest amount of network power says it is.

At least this position is supportable by reasoning - from one of several possible logical sets of axioms.

Your side lost, yogi.

'Lost' implies finality. Yet this game is open-ended.

[jbreher]

Roger does it through pretending Bcash is Bitcoin, Jihan floated the price with the force use of it for hardware, Craig lies about being Satoshi and having those follow his "vision". It's all bullshit of these scumbags trying to force a profit and have some sort of power and fame.

You know what amuses me no end? People in the Bitcoin Cash space talk about the technical and economic attributes of Bitcoin Cash (and that of Bitcoin Core), while people in the Bitcoin Core space almost invariably speak about Bitcoin Cash in terms of Craig, Roger, and Jihan.

No people in the Bcash space parrot the same points over and over and claim the devs of core are some evil group sabotaging Satoshi's vision.

Sometimes the old dictum is apropos (sometimes): 'Never attribute that to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity'.

Of course, if one _was_ evil, and wanted to bring down a new form of people's currency, one way to do so would be to limit its usability to an ever-shrinking number of use cases.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.   

'Come back'? I've been here the whole time.

It may share a name but that thing, that is not Bitcoin.

BTC is not Bitcoin? Interesting assertion!

We have already established that I hold BTC as well as my preferred SV and BCH.

Hey jbreher, I guess you’ll never have to worry about BCH or SV blocks being full seeing as though hardly anybody uses them.

[kenzawak]

I wonder how long it's gonna take for the SEC to take a closer look at those IEOs :

https://twitter.com/crypt0moon/status/1115259397356257282

Apparently the IEO craze reach the point where VCs/presalers are initiating sales to dump on retail investors, without even the approval of the project (Algorand in this case).

https://twitter.com/lawmaster/status/1115313069318725634

This is unbelievable. @BgogoExchange is running an IEO without the project's permission. But that's not the best part - Algorand (the project in question) won't launch for the next couple of months and there is no ERC20 token. So Bgogo is literally preselling an IOU. Dump 2.0

[sirsplashalot]

... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.   

'Come back'? I've been here the whole time.

It may share a name but that thing, that is not Bitcoin.

BTC is not Bitcoin? Interesting assertion!

We have already established that I hold BTC as well as my preferred SV and BCH.

Hey jbreher, I guess you’ll never have to worry about BCH or SV blocks being full seeing as though hardly anybody uses them.

Whether or not they are being put to use, BitcoinSV min3d a 128mb blocksize the other day. What will happen to the miners when the lightning network is in full force?

[El duderino_]

PPPPPPfffffffffffffffff



Wtf up with this Bcash? 

[jbreher]

Electrum Faces Another Fake Wallet Attack, Users Reported to Lose Millions of Dollars

https://cointelegraph.com/news/electrum-faces-another-fake-wallet-attack-users-reported-to-lose-millions-of-dollars

From the article:

Accordingly, Electrum’s website says that the software versions older than 3.3 can no longer connect to public servers and must be upgraded, which is a measure to prevent user exposure to phishing messages.

Seems counterproductive. Whddayabet that this is implemented by the server rebuffing connection requests from early versions? Makes it all the more likely that the client will connect to a fake (nefarious) server.

[nutildah]

... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.  

'Come back'? I've been here the whole time.

My bullshit detector is going off the charts. You're the guy who used to refer to bitcoin as "segwit coin" remember? I do.

Depending upon the sequencing of things, Bitcoin Cash may be no more altcoin than is SegWit coin (which is somewhat playfully starting to be referred to as Bitcoin-Jr)

My only intent is to counter misinformation. Those that are open to thought will save themselves.

Which is why I am intent on countering yours. Breher, you're welcome to have your own viewpoint, just don't act like its the only one that's valid. That shit is stupid, and infuriating. And I don't blame V8s for leaving you his rating. You've been proven to be incorrect in your assertions time and time again, which is by all accounts the same as providing misinformation.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

PPPPPPfffffffffffffffff



Wtf up with this Bcash? 

I know!

You’d think there wasn’t a nice place here already to chat about shitcoin’s -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0

[El duderino_]

^
indeed especially when it are the long always the same talks 

they never change, big blocks are not the solution, Bcash is just another ALT

get over it BUY-BTC and  HODL.

[Toxic2040]

WTF are you babbling about? I advocate larger blocks, as I do believe in it as a solution to deal with transaction congestion. Quite a splendid one, in fact.

You actually remind me of r0ach, when you can not defend your position or answer anything, you just go on a tangent and throw out statements which make no sense..

You still haven't mentioned what size blocks you think Bitcoin needs... reminds me of the little do'er carpet commercial, "tell them the price son!, the price!"

"Tell me the blocksize son! the blocksize!"

The _protocol_ needs no maximum on the block size. The miners, being the ones who are affected by the block size, can set it without your soviet. At whatever point makes sense from a market demand and supply perspective.

Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind.

You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit. For such is exactly equivalent to a centrally-planned production quota. And production quotas -- to the extent that they are enforceable -- are invariably economically inefficient, ensuring crappy outcomes for most participants.

In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible.

At 1MB in size, blocks are so trivially small that miners' only consideration was in maximizing tx fees in the blocks they are building. Leading to blocks not being persistently full until the number of txs desired by the community became in excess of the block size limit. Obviously, such an issue can be solved by increasing the block size limit.

Of course, at some size (specific size thereof unknowable to the central planners), block size will be problematic. But the market will solve this issue. At the point where block propagation increases due to size leads to a higher incidence of orphaning, that is where the equilibrium point for block size will be set. Again, assuming no centrally-planned max, and that sufficient txs are available to build such large blocks.

What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.

Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up.

Most of your argument seems to be solutions in search of a problem. Why is that? You know your beating a dead horse just for the screen time right? Your feeble attempts at sorcery have no power here bear. Away with you.

---------

little hot-blooded chilanga.


I hate banks.

sangre caliente

+1 WOsMerit

[jbreher]

WTF are you babbling about? I advocate larger blocks, as I do believe in it as a solution to deal with transaction congestion. Quite a splendid one, in fact.

You actually remind me of r0ach, when you can not defend your position or answer anything, you just go on a tangent and throw out statements which make no sense..

You still haven't mentioned what size blocks you think Bitcoin needs... reminds me of the little do'er carpet commercial, "tell them the price son!, the price!"

"Tell me the blocksize son! the blocksize!"

The _protocol_ needs no maximum on the block size. The miners, being the ones who are affected by the block size, can set it without your soviet. At whatever point makes sense from a market demand and supply perspective.

Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind.

You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit. For such is exactly equivalent to a centrally-planned production quota. And production quotas -- to the extent that they are enforceable -- are invariably economically inefficient, ensuring crappy outcomes for most participants.

In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible.

At 1MB in size, blocks are so trivially small that miners' only consideration was in maximizing tx fees in the blocks they are building. Leading to blocks not being persistently full until the number of txs desired by the community became in excess of the block size limit. Obviously, such an issue can be solved by increasing the block size limit.

Of course, at some size (specific size thereof unknowable to the central planners), block size will be problematic. But the market will solve this issue. At the point where block propagation increases due to size leads to a higher incidence of orphaning, that is where the equilibrium point for block size will be set. Again, assuming no centrally-planned max, and that sufficient txs are available to build such large blocks.

What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.

Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up.

and what would you do when groups spam the blocks to make them large and reduce the number of nodes?

What would you have me do? For the eleventy-bajillion-and-oneth time, a large number of so-called 'nodes' provide no value to the network as a whole. Of course, I'll probably continue to run a full-validating, non-mining wallet client or three for myself, as I like to be able to create txs that need no intermediaries.

What will you do when groups spam your small blocks, leading to the txs you desire unable to get included in the chain in under weeks, and even then at a cost of $thousands?

[jbreher]

Would there be a practical problem with making every block however big (or small) is needed to fill all current transfers?

Yes. As pointed out above, at some block size, the cost adjusted risk of block orphaning becomes equal to the amount of incremental revenue rendered by the tx fee associated with the next tx to be included. But this 'problem' is in itself the regulation inherent in the system that limits realized block size. No more txs than that will be included by the miner, because at that point, their incremental revenue is larger than their incremental cost.

This is the system satoshi initially bequeathed us. Inherently self-regulating.