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

[d5000]

I disagree with your conclusions, but I do appreciate the calm, objective and concise layout of your points.

I'd be interested what are your main objections to the OP_RETURN change, or which of the arguments you would highlight. If you want let's discuss them. Or if you think one of my conclusions in particular is blatantly false I'm also ready to re-think them (but not without argumenting in favour of them)

[philipma1957]

I  have a question if core 30  with the new 100k size limit does have a huge terrible flaw how easy would it be to retreat backwards to core 29.

Ie what were the safe guards for system crash and burn for core 30.

How simple to roll back to core 29?

If we do an accidental fork for Instance which is correct one? And last time we did an accidental fork coins were not worth much.

Now they are.

If I recall some pools lost the bad fork coins and were told oh well switch to the good fork fast.

When blocks are now worth over 300 k bigger pools will get pissed if they were shunted to the wrong fork for a few dozen blocks of coins.

[aesma]

The Sunday Saylor buy announcements are causing a pretty regular end of weekend pump. We’ll probably be back to $112K tomorrow but I hope knot (see what I did there). Maybe something to consider if you are spending BTC on fiat denominated items.

Any reason why the buys are on Sunday ?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Hueristic]

I  have a question if core 30  with the new 100k size limit does have a huge terrible flaw how easy would it be to retreat backwards to core 29.

Ie what were the safe guards for system crash and burn for core 30.

How simple to roll back to core 29?

If we do an accidental fork for Instance which is correct one? And last time we did an accidental fork coins were not worth much.

Now they are.

If I recall some pools lost the bad fork coins and were told oh well switch to the good fork fast.

When blocks are now worth over 300 k bigger pools will get pissed if they were shunted to the wrong fork for a few dozen blocks of coins.

This is where the term "Pay" attention came from.

If they are not willing to spend the currency of time why should anyone else cover their loss?

[philipma1957]

I  have a question if core 30  with the new 100k size limit does have a huge terrible flaw how easy would it be to retreat backwards to core 29.

Ie what were the safe guards for system crash and burn for core 30.

How simple to roll back to core 29?

If we do an accidental fork for Instance which is correct one? And last time we did an accidental fork coins were not worth much.

Now they are.

If I recall some pools lost the bad fork coins and were told oh well switch to the good fork fast.

When blocks are now worth over 300 k bigger pools will get pissed if they were shunted to the wrong fork for a few dozen blocks of coins.

This is where the term "Pay" attention came from.

If they are not willing to spend the currency of time why should anyone else cover their loss?

and how fast would it take to realize the network did an accidental fork?

at least a few blocks is certain to be needed since each fork would need a block to exist.

You bring up a good point though how fast could it be found and what would you need to do to know which is the good fork,

It happened years ago 2013 maybe if I recall

possibly 2012 not sure.  It lasted a few hours time. maybe 20 or 30 blocks on each part of the fork before it was sorted out.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[d5000]

I  have a question if core 30  with the new 100k size limit does have a huge terrible flaw how easy would it be to retreat backwards to core 29.

It would be not difficult at all, as the OP_RETURN limit is a default setting. Not a consensus change.

Thus I don't understand how you think it would accidentally fork the chain? There is zero possibility for this. Because nothing changes with respect to the protocol and the blocks that are accepted.

Of course if Core 30 had a bug just like bitcoind 0.8 had in 2013, then it could fork the chain, but that was due to a (small) consensus change. AFAIK Core 30 has no consensus changes at all (see https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/30.0/).

[cAPSLOCK]

I  have a question if core 30  with the new 100k size limit does have a huge terrible flaw how easy would it be to retreat backwards to core 29.

Ie what were the safe guards for system crash and burn for core 30.

How simple to roll back to core 29?

If we do an accidental fork for Instance which is correct one? And last time we did an accidental fork coins were not worth much.

Now they are.

If I recall some pools lost the bad fork coins and were told oh well switch to the good fork fast.

When blocks are now worth over 300 k bigger pools will get pissed if they were shunted to the wrong fork for a few dozen blocks of coins.

There is not likely to be any bug per se.  It has game theoretical effects as well as some positive possible effects (less use of segwit space and fake UTXO... though not likely).  But it is the second and third order effects of an enlarged attack surface that I think are concerning.

As to rolling back... well this is an interesting question.

It will have no real effect.  Policy decides what you will accept in YOUR mempool.  But consensus affects what we allow on the blockchain. v30 nodes and librerelay nodes will pass off these transactions and if the miners/pools accept them they go in the block, and then every node (hopefully!) will have that in their chain... since it is all consensus legal.

So in the end the more people who either stick with a version w/o the change (eventually core might backport this into 29 etc), or adjust the datacarrier size to a smaller #, or run Knots the less of this we will see make it into blocks.  But as long as they is a minority of nodes accepting it, it WILL still get in.

There are talks of soft forks.  I do not have a strong opinion on that yet.

At this time, any hard fork is unlikely.

The general understanding on what this really does is... eh... spotty.  And since there are unknown unknowns you should believe no one who says they know it all already.

We will have to see.

I may go on with my thoughts and posts on this, though not today.

[cAPSLOCK]

and how fast would it take to realize the network did an accidental fork?

at least a few blocks is certain to be needed since each fork would need a block to exist.

You bring up a good point though how fast could it be found and what would you need to do to know which is the good fork,

It happened years ago 2013 maybe if I recall

possibly 2012 not sure.  It lasted a few hours time. maybe 20 or 30 blocks on each part of the fork before it was sorted out.

An accidental fork is nearly 0% likely.
Any sort of HARD fork is also VERY unlikely.

A planned SOFT fork IS possible.  There are people floating strategies for why this could be positive for their position on the matter.

[cAPSLOCK]

I'm having a feeling that that may not be the case for very much longer.

Ahh capsie, you never change, once a liar, always a liar.

I will likely regret this... but I am curious.  What lie have I told? 

And what will I never change from?

Also, Do we know each other?  I am afraid I am at a disadvantage since you would be using a sock puppet in that case.

[cAPSLOCK]

I am in the middle of my planned disaster recovery drills and upgrades to my security for the few sats I hold... 

But before I go back to saying things like "Why the hell are these wrong xpubs showing up with I try to export to Sparrow!!!" with all the sweating that entails no matter how many times I do it...


For those that have eyes to see...

You do see what is happening here in our thread?  Right?

And I am sorry.  I did not expect I would bring a phalanx of trolls and shills over.  It truly was not my intention.

But seriously... a little critical thinking and logic.  Hueristic definitely had his hackles up first, lol.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[OgNasty]

44% = >$130K  (up 2%)
*25% = $90K-$130K  (up 3%)
31% = <$90K   (down 5%)

*inferred

47% = >$130K  (up 3%)
*32% = $90K-$130K  (up 7%)
21% = <$90K   (down 10%)

*inferred

Polymarket getting even more bullish…

54% = >$130K  (up 7%)
*26% = $90K-$130K  (down 6%)
20% = <$90K   (down 1%)

*inferred

[xhomerx10]

edit:credit:did I forgetit?: BLACKPINK - ‘뛰어(JUMP)’ M/V

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[fillippone]

I  have a question if core 30  with the new 100k size limit does have a huge terrible flaw how easy would it be to retreat backwards to core 29.

It would be not difficult at all, as the OP_RETURN limit is a default setting. Not a consensus change.

Thus I don't understand how you think it would accidentally fork the chain? There is zero possibility for this. Because nothing changes with respect to the protocol and the blocks that are accepted.

Of course if Core 30 had a bug just like bitcoind 0.8 had in 2013, then it could fork the chain, but that was due to a (small) consensus change. AFAIK Core 30 has no consensus changes at all (see https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/30.0/).

If you guys are passionate about this, here is a pearl for you:



Fun to watch, and listen.

[OgNasty]

$116K!

Is this the CME gap we leave behind ($112K)?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com