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

[cAPSLOCK]

All of this is way over my level of understanding, sorry.

I don't consider myself an OG, so micropenis insult does not pertain, but, still....an interesting choice of an argument.
Not complaining...just observing.

That said, to 99.9% users, this is highly academic aka not very relevant to their Wall observations.
I digress.

Let me know if you would rather me stop my series...  I would get it.  I do not think there is a LOT left...

As to penis size, I think I missed that particular insult.  But to be honest, the one dimensional insulting tone that is so highly prevalent is one of the reasons I dug in so hard.  I might have an old account here but I do not have all that much bitcoin compared to most people my vintage I would guess.  Nor to I judge or try to figure out what other people have.  I just am glad we are all here.

Finally, most of you here know me to some extent.  You know how I think... you have likely made a decision on whether or not I am worth paying attention to.  And I say that understanding that a certain percentage will fall on the "no" side of that one.  I am wordy, sometimes overly passionate and have occasionally (to my own shame) posted nonsense.

My reason for posting this is personal, and as a public service.  I want to lay this all out, and I also care about the folks in this thread enough that I want you to have decent fact based information from which to come to your own conclusions.

I will say THIS.  And this has nothing to do with you Biodom.  I am NOT here to be condescended to, insulted, and spoken to disrespectfully.  And to the extent I am I will shut down my side of the "conversation" immediately.  This has nothing to do with disagreement.  In  fact I crave disagreement.  I can tell somac and I have different positions on this, and thats absolutely fine.  He's not insulting me.

After I have my fill of posting on this topic I will likely fade back into the shadows.

(oh and the more I am told to shut up?  the more I am "tagged as misinformation" the more I am going to talk.  That's just built into MY particular flavor of neurodivergence. That's just how i tick.  Again not directed at you, Biodom, or really any of the regulars here...)

[Satofan44]

you to have decent fact based information from which to come to your own conclusions.

Complete bullshit. Most of your posts are misinformation and contain mostly lies. Correct information about the OP_RETURN situation can be found in other forum boards. It is most certainly not going to be posted by a retard in a independent thinker costume called cAPSLOCK. If he continues to keep this up then we can conclude he wants to join the transactions review board so that he can spend his day looking at CSAM together with luke-jr.   Perhaps this OP_RETURN situation shall provide an opportunity to identify pedophiles who have been hiding in their caves all this time.

[somac.]

..and say that I have been following what _cAPSLOCK have been saying, I have always had a concern with consensus, forks, disagreements, and also with time, new members will replace them, and we do not know what they will think, since the current ones are already in this misdemeanor...  Whether it is right or wrong on some points, I believe it is a valid concern. but it is also a subject that I prefer to just follow and leave to you experts.

Congratulations, with this approach you are already smarter than any filterboy no matter how many years they have been in Bitcoin.   Just always be careful what experts you choose to listen to, often bias plays a role.

In any case, definitely don't listen to the religious transaction-tsar wannabe luke-jr or the ethereum advisor who had a stroke mr. Szabo.

What I don't understand is that if you have a problem with a new version, for whatever reason, why not just stay on the old one and advocate for that. This has always been the way to revolt against developers but with Bitcoin for some reason people decide to follow the next Bitcoin Jesus instead. If Bitcoin is ever destroyed it will be for this reason, mark my words. And for fuck sake, spam will be taken care of by higher fees, like it always has been.

Honestly, my plan was to do this, and I ran 28 and 29 until quite recently on most of my implementations.  I run multiple nodes just for my own enjoyment in different places in the world and to support the network.

The entire reason that I'm running knots for now is as a visible protest. It's not that I didn't upgrade, which I think is a perfectly rational (and perhaps even more rational in some ways) choice.

But I wanted to send some signal saying that I didn't approve of the way this particular change went down and the most visible way to do that is this.

Knots code is almost entirely core in the first place. And the implementations are 100% in agreement on everything inside of consensus.  A small minority of people have been running knots for many, many years without any problems to the network.

As to following a personality, that's not really in my DNA. In fact, Luke kind of spooks me. I think he's a bit wacko, honestly.  I also think all of his extreme positions on almost everything are very deeply reasoned. I remember him dipping frozen pizza cellophane in hydrogen peroxide, and that mask that he wore during COVID that looked like something out of the end of the Andromeda strain.

But I don't throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to Luke. I've seen him take a lot of ridicule on Twitter, for example, and I even understand it. I still think it's wrong, though.  He actually deserves credit for seeing a lot of problems well before anyone else saw them over the years.

But I also think he's fighting this battle exactly the wrong way and focusing on something like CSAM and choosing to rest on some logical technicality that he feels like he can say that pictures have never been able to be stored on the blockchain until version 30. Lol.

I actually think it will be fairly soon that we see a fork of core that takes a much more gentle approach to removing some of the recently added things.  And I think we'll see a migration of developers to that fork.  I could be wrong about this, and I'm not totally sure, but I think it's very possible.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if Samson Mao helped start something like this up since he has the means to do so and the connections.

Personally, I would be quite satisfied if there was a fork that was exactly the same software, but just retained a 160-bit opreturn limit, and retained the customization abilityfor the node runners.

Understand I'm not directly having a go at you cAPSLOCK, my rant is general. IMO signaling through running knots just creates division in the community and encourages increased egos of various personalities. Developers are not figure heads, all knowing, sane, right, good or anything else. They are just another cog in the system, and this needs to be enforced from time to time. If they do stupid shit, just don't go along with it by not upgrading, and tell them why.

Choosing knots at this point of time is the same as choosing leaders (and there should be none), at least that's how most look at it and therefore that's how it is interpreted. In this current dispute, I guarantee you that if everybody just stayed on 29, and no one upgraded to 30 (and were loud about why), the core devs would work it out after a year or 2. They would then either release another version that people agree with, or some would leave as contributors. The remaining, and perhaps new devs, would then release another version with appropriate changes. Mission accomplished. Fight for what we have, don't just leave for somewhere else.

This is exactly what happened to the Audacity team when they tried implementing telemetry. Backlash works, there is no need to encourage self chosen prophets (whether that is intention or not). This works in meatspace too, Cracker Barrel being a recent example.

For anyone who is not fully decided on v30, don't switch to knots, just stay on 29 and be as loud as you possibly can to the devs, while convincing other operators of why they should stay on 29. This will send a message to the devs that they are tools of the system, not leaders or prophets. The devs who don't like that can then piss off. Bitcoin works fine now and if need be we can stay on 29 for the next 100 years.

EDIT: I should add that if v30 is truly the right way to go then the devs need to work harder at convincing people. If it's not the right way then 29 we stay.

[Satofan44]

The devs who don't like that can then piss off. Bitcoin works fine now and if need be we can stay on 29 for the next 100 years.

Sounds good, except this is not true. In any case, the limits will not be reverted under any condition. You can forget about it. No amount of screaming or misinformation will change that.

EDIT: I should add that if v30 is truly the right way to go then the devs need to work harder at convincing people. If it's not the right way then 29 we stay.

This is what is going to happen. Instead of making things worse like cAPSLOCK or staying on the sidelines, have you considered helping? Most people want others to solve these things for them, not realizing that most people are already spending all of their time on Bitcoin or that they are volunteers.

[somac.]

The devs who don't like that can then piss off. Bitcoin works fine now and if need be we can stay on 29 for the next 100 years.

Sounds good, except this is not true. In any case, the limits will not be reverted under any condition. You can forget about it. No amount of screaming or misinformation will change that.

Fact is we can stay on 29, and Bitcoin will keep running fine. I'm not picking a side here, I don't know enough about the technicals. But I do strongly believe in fighting for what we have rather then destroying it by empowering certain individuals. Of course the devs may be right but I want to be convinced though, convince me (not asking anyone here to though).

[Satofan44]

The devs who don't like that can then piss off. Bitcoin works fine now and if need be we can stay on 29 for the next 100 years.

Sounds good, except this is not true. In any case, the limits will not be reverted under any condition. You can forget about it. No amount of screaming or misinformation will change that.

Fact is we can stay on 29, and Bitcoin will keep running fine. I'm not picking a side here, I don't know enough about the technicals.

How is this a fact? Any day a critical flaw could be discovered that makes v29 unsafe. We just don't know. I mean you could say that it looks to be safe for the foreseeable future sure, but more than that? You can't say it will be safe and working for the next 100 years. Don't you remember this case? https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/good-bad-and-ugly-details-one-bitcoins-nastiest-bugs-yet

For well over a year, versions of Bitcoin Core — Bitcoin’s leading software implementation — contained a severe software bug.

Whatever happens, we most certainly can not stay with v29 or with any version for a very long period of time. Nobody can say for how long though.

But I do strongly believe in fighting for what we have rather then destroying it by empowering certain individuals.

Definitely. We've seen what happened with Gavin Anderson, Roger Ver, Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik and many others. They all turned out to be extremely damaging to Bitcoin in one way or another. Some worse than others but the point is the same.

[somac.]

The devs who don't like that can then piss off. Bitcoin works fine now and if need be we can stay on 29 for the next 100 years.

Sounds good, except this is not true. In any case, the limits will not be reverted under any condition. You can forget about it. No amount of screaming or misinformation will change that.

Fact is we can stay on 29, and Bitcoin will keep running fine. I'm not picking a side here, I don't know enough about the technicals.

How is this a fact? Any day a critical flaw could be discovered that makes v29 unsafe. We just don't know. I mean you could say that it looks to be safe for the foreseeable future sure, but more than that? You can't say it will be safe and working for the next 100 years. Don't you remember this case? https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/good-bad-and-ugly-details-one-bitcoins-nastiest-bugs-yet

But I do strongly believe in fighting for what we have rather then destroying it by empowering certain individuals.

Definitely. We've seen what happened with Gavin Anderson, Roger Ver, Mike Hearn and many others.

In the now though there are no known bugs, so at the moment, for arguments sake, 29 is fine.

Absolutely, with the personality thing. Seems we never learn.

[Satofan44]

In the now though there are no known bugs, so at the moment, for arguments sake, 29 is fine.

This variant of the statement I can absolutely agree with.

Absolutely, with the personality thing. Seems we never learn.

Sometimes I wonder why it is hard for many people to learn a basic lesson like this. The irony here is that the core essence of Bitcoin is about removing trust yet many people keep wanting to put back trust in many different forms. Whether it is through personalities, through filters or committees that determine which transactions should be allowed and which should not be allowed. It is all the same. Many don't even realize this contradiction.

Of course the devs may be right but I want to be convinced though, convince me (not asking anyone here to though).

If you really want this, at the very least start becoming an active reader or better yet a contributor here. We could always use more real people and fewer signature campaign spammers.

Correct information about the OP_RETURN situation can be found in other forum boards.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[cAPSLOCK]

..and say that I have been following what _cAPSLOCK have been saying, I have always had a concern with consensus, forks, disagreements, and also with time, new members will replace them, and we do not know what they will think, since the current ones are already in this misdemeanor...  Whether it is right or wrong on some points, I believe it is a valid concern. but it is also a subject that I prefer to just follow and leave to you experts.

Congratulations, with this approach you are already smarter than any filterboy no matter how many years they have been in Bitcoin.   Just always be careful what experts you choose to listen to, often bias plays a role.

In any case, definitely don't listen to the religious transaction-tsar wannabe luke-jr or the ethereum advisor who had a stroke mr. Szabo.

What I don't understand is that if you have a problem with a new version, for whatever reason, why not just stay on the old one and advocate for that. This has always been the way to revolt against developers but with Bitcoin for some reason people decide to follow the next Bitcoin Jesus instead. If Bitcoin is ever destroyed it will be for this reason, mark my words. And for fuck sake, spam will be taken care of by higher fees, like it always has been.

Honestly, my plan was to do this, and I ran 28 and 29 until quite recently on most of my implementations.  I run multiple nodes just for my own enjoyment in different places in the world and to support the network.

The entire reason that I'm running knots for now is as a visible protest. It's not that I didn't upgrade, which I think is a perfectly rational (and perhaps even more rational in some ways) choice.

But I wanted to send some signal saying that I didn't approve of the way this particular change went down and the most visible way to do that is this.

Knots code is almost entirely core in the first place. And the implementations are 100% in agreement on everything inside of consensus.  A small minority of people have been running knots for many, many years without any problems to the network.

As to following a personality, that's not really in my DNA. In fact, Luke kind of spooks me. I think he's a bit wacko, honestly.  I also think all of his extreme positions on almost everything are very deeply reasoned. I remember him dipping frozen pizza cellophane in hydrogen peroxide, and that mask that he wore during COVID that looked like something out of the end of the Andromeda strain.

But I don't throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to Luke. I've seen him take a lot of ridicule on Twitter, for example, and I even understand it. I still think it's wrong, though.  He actually deserves credit for seeing a lot of problems well before anyone else saw them over the years.

But I also think he's fighting this battle exactly the wrong way and focusing on something like CSAM and choosing to rest on some logical technicality that he feels like he can say that pictures have never been able to be stored on the blockchain until version 30. Lol.

I actually think it will be fairly soon that we see a fork of core that takes a much more gentle approach to removing some of the recently added things.  And I think we'll see a migration of developers to that fork.  I could be wrong about this, and I'm not totally sure, but I think it's very possible.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if Samson Mao helped start something like this up since he has the means to do so and the connections.

Personally, I would be quite satisfied if there was a fork that was exactly the same software, but just retained a 160-bit opreturn limit, and retained the customization abilityfor the node runners.

Understand I'm not directly having a go at you cAPSLOCK, my rant is general. IMO signaling through running knots just creates division in the community and encourages increased egos of various personalities. Developers are not figure heads, all knowing, sane, right, good or anything else. They are just another cog in the system, and this needs to be enforced from time to time. If they do stupid shit, just don't go along with it by not upgrading, and tell them why.

Choosing knots at this point of time is the same as choosing leaders (and there should be none), at least that's how most look at it and therefore that's how it is interpreted. In this current dispute, I guarantee you that if everybody just stayed on 29, and no one upgraded to 30 (and were loud about why), the core devs would work it out after a year or 2. They would then either release another version that people agree with, or some would leave as contributors. The remaining, and perhaps new devs, would then release another version with appropriate changes. Mission accomplished. Fight for what we have, don't just leave for somewhere else.

This is exactly what happened to the Audacity team when they tried implementing telemetry. Backlash works, there is no need to encourage self chosen prophets (whether that is intention or not). This works in meatspace too, Cracker Barrel being a recent example.

For anyone who is not fully decided on v30, don't switch to knots, just stay on 29 and be as loud as you possibly can to the devs, while convincing other operators of why they should stay on 29. This will send a message to the devs that they are tools of the system, not leaders or prophets. The devs who don't like that can then piss off. Bitcoin works fine now and if need be we can stay on 29 for the next 100 years.

EDIT: I should add that if v30 is truly the right way to go then the devs need to work harder at convincing people. If it's not the right way then 29 we stay.

I align with pretty much all you are saying.  My choice to run knots amounts to attempting to be a louder voice.

Funny you mention audacity.  I have been a music/audio professional for all my life.  Here I sit...



I am not aware of the drama there... probably better I avoid it, honestly, lol.  I use Reaper (multitrack) and Acoustica (mastering).

[Riginac111]

Sometimes i toke myself to calm environment to reason how some people got information that makes them to speculate of Bitcoin price wrongly, And if someone rely on some information about Bitcoin price through social media, the person might slump and die, I think most of the social media influencers is given so many wrong analysis of Bitcoin why?

I want us to take a look of this speculation I came across in X today, to check if this man is making a point or is telling fallacy.



https://x.com/CaliCrypto/status/1981869168665530688?t=qXNZNkwoKYvxKCVz0aC0gA&s=19

[Biodom]

Sometimes i toke myself to calm environment to reason how some people got information that makes them to speculate of Bitcoin price wrongly, And if someone rely on some information about Bitcoin price through social media, the person might slump and die, I think most of the social media influencers is given so many wrong analysis of Bitcoin why?

I want us to take a look of this speculation I came across in X today, to check if this man is making a point or is telling fallacy.



https://x.com/CaliCrypto/status/1981869168665530688?t=qXNZNkwoKYvxKCVz0aC0gA&s=19

Bitcoin price drives IBIT price, not the other way around, lol.
$100bil passive asset cannot drive the 2.2 tril underlying.
LOL.

EDIT: that said, who knows what random event may or may not happen in the future.

[Riginac111]

Sometimes i toke myself to calm environment to reason how some people got information that makes them to speculate of Bitcoin price wrongly, And if someone rely on some information about Bitcoin price through social media, the person might slump and die, I think most of the social media influencers is given so many wrong analysis of Bitcoin why?

I want us to take a look of this speculation I came across in X today, to check if this man is making a point or is telling fallacy.



https://x.com/CaliCrypto/status/1981869168665530688?t=qXNZNkwoKYvxKCVz0aC0gA&s=19

Bitcoin price drives IBIT price, not the other way around, lol.
$100bil passive asset cannot drive the 2.2 tril underlying.
LOL.

EDIT: that said, who knows what random event may or may not happen in the future.

That means it's not sure  of what he just said, in other way rounds that means what he just said is under probabilities. That's the meaning of may or may not.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[somac.]

Funny you mention audacity.  I have been a music/audio professional for all my life.  Here I sit...



I am not aware of the drama there... probably better I avoid it, honestly, lol.  I use Reaper (multitrack) and Acoustica (mastering).

Nice setup.

I can't remember the version number now or exact details, it was a few years ago, but they rolled back so yeah don't bother.

[somac.]

If you really want this, at the very least start becoming an active reader or better yet a contributor here. We could always use more real people and fewer signature campaign spammers.

At the moment I just don't have the time, but I'll add my 2 cents where I can.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[gmaxwell]

Personally, I would be quite satisfied if there was a fork that was exactly the same software, but just retained a 160-bit opreturn limit, and retained the customization abilityfor the node runners.

uh that 'fork' is called Bitcoin Core! --  you can set the limit to whatever you want.  You always could at every point in time.

What was changed was the default value -- to reflect the reality of what major miners *already* changed it to, in order to avoid collateral harms.

There was a proposal that didn't make it configurable since that was the simplest thing to do, but once it was clear that some people wanted to change it it, that proposal was rejected in favor of an alternative that was configurable.

Perhaps you need to sit back and reflect and ask yourself why you feel like you are entitled to make demands about what other people choose to do with their own computers and time?

If you think dictating other peoples choices is important to you then maybe Bitcoin is just not for you.  It's not for everyone, apparently.

[Hueristic]

Personally, I would be quite satisfied if there was a fork that was exactly the same software, but just retained a 160-bit opreturn limit, and retained the customization abilityfor the node runners.

uh that 'fork' is called Bitcoin Core! --  you can set the limit to whatever you want.  You always could at every point in time.

What was changed was the default value -- to reflect the reality of what major miners *already* changed it to, in order to avoid collateral harms.

There was a proposal that didn't make it configurable since that was the simplest thing to do, but once it was clear that some people wanted to change it it, that proposal was rejected in favor of an alternative that was configurable.

Perhaps you need to sit back and reflect and ask yourself why you feel like you are entitled to make demands about what other people choose to do with their own computers and time?

If you think dictating other peoples choices is important to you then maybe Bitcoin is just not for you.  It's not for everyone, apparently.

Oh, lets not be a hypocrite here, there was always the option to change it so why did you feel the need to FORCE the change on unsuspecting people that don't change defaults and were perfectly happy with the way it was?

And did you tell them this setting would allow increased spam to be stored on their systems?

I'm no lawyer but this could even be liable.

I have no horse in this race but I see the shady tactics you guys are using because I am not a shill nor a child.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com