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

[HairyMaclairy]

Pretty sure this is the 73rd time that mining has been banned in China

[1714834074]

1714834074

[1714834074]

1714834074

[1714834074]

1714834074

[fillippone]

BULL-market officialy started .... good old China-FUD, is this the good old days back again?     

This perfectly adds to the usual old scheme:
China buying gold in anticipation of Yuan devaluation, and banning Bitcoin because wants to prevent capital outflows.
2015 cycle is not repeating only in prices, apparently.

[VB1001]

https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1115274412239007744

The article is fine because you see and it explains all the bitcoin forks, the graph would be better with the dates.

Apart from this, as Pro BTC I can only see the malefic attacks to destroy BTCitcoin.

Good morning WO,s  

[d_eddie]

I can't agree enough. What kind of sickness is it for people like roach, stolfi, jbreher, etc to come here and spout their non-stop garbage

I wouldn't bundle jbreher with stolfi. And The Roach is just on another plane of existence.

[d_eddie]

They will probably just reuse LN channels and just settle them regularly. With enough transactions, maybe they would be settling those channels hourly...

Settled? You mean become actualized on the Bitcoin chain?

Yes, ...

Ohkaaay.... If the average channel is settled on chain hourly, then given current block size, you have limited the Lightning Network to about 20,000 channels. Not users, channels. IOW, I think you might want to work on your hypothetical scenario.

Your way of "sanitising" quotes, cutting here and there makes it loses all context.

I was talking about a future scenario where Bitcoin has been massively adopted just to show how it would be possible and how L2 would play a key role on it.

As I said, we would be talking about one settlement for each thousands of L2 tx's. Also, not all opened channels would be of global payment processors needing a more frequent settlement. Also we would be talking about hundreds of millions daily higher layer tx's. If someday Bitcoin would reach that level of massive adoption it will be gradually adapting to it. And yes, it will be having some blocksize increase along the way, as needed to accomodate the usage from higher layers.

We are not already there. So you can't use future usage numbers with current limitations. That makes no sense. I was just showing that it will be possible to scale MASSIVELY without an accordingly LINEAR blocksize increase... which seems to be the choice of other coins... and that's not SCALING.

Wish I had a merit for you.
+WOsMerit

[VB1001]

Wish I had a merit for you.
+WOsMerit

+2sM

With how easy it would be to work with a button:

I like it

And the activity to rise in rank.

[El duderino_]

Wish I had a merit for you.
+WOsMerit

No worries WO's do merit what has to be Merit
had gained a sendable so got your back there ....

[kenzawak]

It's time for the China memes again :

[VB1001]

Wish I had a merit for you.
+WOsMerit

No worries WO's do merit what has to be Merit
had gained a sendable so got your back there ....

You are always generous, send me 614sM. please.

Thx.

[d_eddie]

Thank you @mic and @VB! It does feel good to know that peeps have my back.  

Welcome back Torque and... uh... ROSEWATER! Is that real? This must be the most bullish thing I've seen in the last few weeks. Take care, Mayor. We want to see you sparkle like Laurent-Perrier at the Party. It's being moved up, I hear.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Off topic, but...

Word around the campfire has it that Rosewater appears to be suffering from protracted post acute benzodiazepine withdrawal. It's all quite heady and complicated. Lots of ins. Lots of outs. Akathisia, some hallucinations. GABA receptor down-regulation. This on top of tardive dysphoria and that wheat thing, to the best of my knowledge. At any rate, doctors orders. The line between iatrogenic physical dependence and full blown pill sick smack-houndery is a bit unclear. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.


Now where's my hat?

Good question. No welcome back from me until you wear your hat. You may or may not have been missed.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Blah blah blah larger block blah blah

You have bcash and bsv with larger blocks, go there you have options. What part of we don't want larger blocks is so hard to comprehend

Yeah, I get it. But some here seem utterly oblivious to the consequences thereof.

And you feel that you grasp full consequences of bcash and bsv and their unlimited blocks ...?

For the most part, yes. I certainly feel I have a greater than average grasp of such consequences -- upon both Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Core -- than does the average Bitcoiner -- in any of the Bitcoin camps. For evidence of such, I need only look at the near-universally asinine replies issued as 'rebuttals' to the points I make.

I haven't seen a single decent response to jbreher so far, so there's some merit to this claim.

Also, the market cap argument some people brought up doesn't follow. Popularity does not imply superiority by technical standards.

The market picks the winners. The market doesn't always care about "superior technology".

That's fair if the argument is made that way. But using the market's decision as an argument for which is "better" in a technical argument doesn't make sense.

I don't think there's anything wrong with just outright stating that you're into Bitcoin because the most prominent representatives of BCash are a bunch of ass wipes that can not be trusted. And that's clearly the reasoning that most people arguing with jbreher are following. After all they're clearly incapable of having a technical debate about the matter. I fall into that camp as well, but I'm not going to pretend that I can hold a candle to jbreher on this topic. Never bothered getting into the technicalities of BTC so can't argue on his level.

If they were the only information that I had regarding BTC vs BCash I would be siding with BCash myself. So maybe some people in this thread should take a step back and consider the implications of their petty tribalism with regard to new coiners.

The game isn't over yet, and if all that new people have to go by is a bunch of nonsense vs technical arguments we could very well see BCash overtaking.

So for whatever reasons, people who care about BTC may want to consider whether or not they want to taint its image with retarded personal attacks and complete absence of rationality.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Popularity does not imply superiority by technical standards.

1.  Agreed.  Popularity does not imply superior technology.  

2.  Conversely, superior technology does not imply popularity.  Superior technology loses all the time, especially when going up against a competitor with entrenched network effects. Inferior protocols win. All. The. Time.

3.  If you are trying to build a global competitor to fiat, popularity and network effects are incredibly important.  

It is unquestionable that Bitcoin has stronger network effects than Bcash, by orders of magnitude.  

Further Bcash technology (BCH and SV) is inferior, because its security model is weak.  Its security model is weak for a number of reasons, all of which come back to a lack of effective decentralization. Without an effective security model, it is not an attractive store of value.  If you are not an effective store of value, you cannot gain network effects.  

If you have inferior network effect and inferior technology, then you have a snowballs chance. In the unlikely event that 8MB blocks became essential for survival, community consensus would rapidly coalesce around 8MB blocks, there would be a hard fork and BCH and SV would remain stranded assets. But the reality is that 8MB are completely unnecessary and would make BTC weaker, not stronger. Accordingly no such consensus exists.


 I am far more worried about a disruptive innnovation which does away with the need for a blockchain (such as Grin) than I am worried about a Bitcoin carbon copy with a couple of parameter tweaks.  

Good post. But keep in mind that networks can grow and die rapidly. Especially in volatile phases.

Billions of people are going to get into blockchain in the coming years.

And dumb moonbois will by default be more attracted to slimy personalities that talk big, while the more rational people will shy away from tribal arguments. If most Bitcoiners started arguing in the manner as some people in this thread do we could very quickly see BCash overtaking, not because of people moving over but because of new people making their decisions.


Does Grin not have a blockchain? I thought the only thing that made it unique was it's inflation model. (Edit: Nvm just saw Biodom's post.)

[kurious]

Damn not only didn't catch up on this thread but I fell behind another 5 pages.

Having shit to do in life gets in the way.

and getting distracted by threads like this

http://www.forwardlook.net/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=31027&posts=116&start=1

and vids of rust removal doesn't help!

This shit is cool.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Electrolysis+rust+removal&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMpsaq6cHhAhXR1VkKHd00DeAQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=920

I just lost an age wading through that '59 Sport Fury restoration. The amount of work, skill and dedication... Jeez.

[d_eddie]

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.

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.

I see where you're at, but I have a problem with the "bankers" (miners) being able to set technical parameters without the users' (user nodes) consent. What I expect miners/bankers to do in such a situation is to build taller entry barriers. Such as enlarging the block size even without immediate financial reward - that is, even if their profit doesn't change or even dips marginally. This would discourage new users from running full nodes.

I know your opinion that "fully validating user nodes", or whatever you call the non-mining nodes, add no value to the network. I beg to differ. They can and will ignore malformed blocks. They verify. And "verify don't trust" is probably the strongest of bitcoin's values. When that verification goes away, we - the bitcoiners, including yourself by your own definition - are going to have to fall back to trusting the "bankers".

That's why I am unable to understand the philosophy/motivations behind your stance. You are definitely not stupid, either, so I guess that's why many regulars here can't attribute your posts to stupidity and instead bet on malice.

TL;DR When larger blocks are really needed by the users, we will get them.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

https://twitter.com/ReformedBroker/status/1114968054931316736

  

Germany is so full of cucks that they're legitimately scared of stocks and building wealth.

Source: https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/opinion/be-careful-why-germans-stubbornly-insist-on-making-bad-investment-decisions/23583688.html?ticket=ST-2183996-ne4JKyc4gH9QlbZDjIAn-ap1

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Pretty sure this is the 73rd time that mining has been banned in China

In other news, Bitcoin is deadagain

[El duderino_]

Wish I had a merit for you.
+WOsMerit

No worries WO's do merit what has to be Merit
had gained a sendable so got your back there ....

You are always generous, send me 614sM. please.

Thx.

That would require me to gain 1228 merit to generate those 614 and send not a single one to any other member ... looks like a difficult task you give me

[kenzawak]

Pretty sure this is the 73rd time that mining has been banned in China

In other news, Bitcoin is deadagain

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

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.

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.

I see where you're at, but I have a problem with the "bankers" (miners) being able to set technical parameters without the users' (user nodes) consent. What I expect miners/bankers to do in such a situation is to build taller entry barriers. Such as enlarging the block size even without immediate financial reward - that is, even if their profit doesn't change or even dips marginally. This would discourage new users from running full nodes.

I know your opinion that "fully validating user nodes", or whatever you call the non-mining nodes, add no value to the network. I beg to differ. They can and will ignore malformed blocks. They verify. And "verify don't trust" is probably the strongest of bitcoin's values. When that verification goes away, we - the bitcoiners, including yourself by your own definition - are going to have to fall back to trusting the "bankers".

That's why I am unable to understand the philosophy/motivations behind your stance. You are definitely not stupid, either, so I guess that's why many regulars here can't attribute your posts to stupidity and instead bet on malice.

TL;DR When larger blocks are really needed by the users, we will get them.

The last point you've made was the nail in the coffin regarding my decision to side with Bitcoin. There's too much money involved to allow Bitcoin to die due to technical issues.