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

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[cAPSLOCK]

I think Bitcoin has become too strong and too important to die.

The coders will code. If they mess things up, it will self-correct, either by downgrading, code updates, or forking. Has happened before and will happen again.

If Bitcoin needs constant pampering and shielding from bad actors, then it has already failed by design. If the network is resilient and robust enough, it will survive. And if it can fail by a mere selfish coder who pushes an agenda, then it is not robust enough and is destined to fail sooner or later.

Almost 17 years have passed, and Bitcoin is stronger than ever. I have confidence that it will survive.

tl;dr: Bring it on!

Strongly agree.

Every now and then we get to do a boss fight.

[cAPSLOCK]

getting all worked up, emotional and even purposefully defamatory about matters.  We hardly even know the guys and they want to come and lecture us and call us dummies.. with our chief dummy being you (cAPSLOCK) this time...  

Chief dummy!  I like it. Gonna put that on my tagline thingy.

[vapourminer]

Almost 17 years have passed, and Bitcoin is stronger than ever. I have confidence that it will survive.

tl;dr: Bring it on!

Strongly agree.

Every now and then we get to do a boss fight.

so basically make sure your main stash is in a safe offline wallet that only you control and carry on as usual?

i will continue running core 29.1 for the foreseeable future and since i only use it for my own verification and convenience its not gonna a effect anyone else.

[cAPSLOCK]

Almost 17 years have passed, and Bitcoin is stronger than ever. I have confidence that it will survive.

tl;dr: Bring it on!

Strongly agree.

Every now and then we get to do a boss fight.

so basically make sure your main stash is in a safe offline wallet that only you control and carry on as usual?

i will continue running core 29.1 for the foreseeable future and since i only use it for my own verification and convenience its not gonna a effect anyone else.

Yeah, I think you nailed it. One of the things that life has been teaching me the last many years is trying not to worry too much about the stuff you can't control. 

I really was doing a disaster recovery drill last night. The sats in my little bag haven't moved for many years but I like to every now and then make sure I can still sign a transaction... just not broadcast it.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[AlcoHoDL]

I think Bitcoin has become too strong and too important to die.

The coders will code. If they mess things up, it will self-correct, either by downgrading, code updates, or forking. Has happened before and will happen again.

If Bitcoin needs constant pampering and shielding from bad actors, then it has already failed by design. If the network is resilient and robust enough, it will survive. And if it can fail by a mere selfish coder who pushes an agenda, then it is not robust enough and is destined to fail sooner or later.

Almost 17 years have passed, and Bitcoin is stronger than ever. I have confidence that it will survive.

tl;dr: Bring it on!

Strongly agree.

Every now and then we get to do a boss fight.

The very first time I heard about Bitcoin, I felt uneasy about the idea of a group of coders maintaining and updating/changing the code. How can we make sure the changes don't break things? With gold, for example, no one can ever interfere with it, and nothing can ever change its molecular structure -- the "rules" in this case are truly unchangeable in the fundamental, universal sense. With Bitcoin, there is the element of potential change (for better or for worse, so it's a blessing and a curse). In a centralized network structure, this would soon collapse due to greed, corruption, traitors, human error.

It is the decentralized nature of the Bitcoin network that gives it its resilience and robustness. The bigger it grows, the more it becomes like a living organism, or some kind of accelerated artificial evolution, where a change in the code is scrutinized by thousands of nodes and any unwanted behavior is penalized and mitigated as necessary to ensure robustness. When I realized this, I was at ease. The human factor was not so threatening anymore.

It's good to have exceptional coders in the team, and I think we do have some of the best ones, but it is not the coders themselves that ensure stability, robustness, resilience. It's the decentralized structure of the network. This is what is being tested for 17 years now, and it has met all challenges with flying colors (and a few air drops, as presents for its loyal followers). In a sense, the OP_RETURN issue is just another challenge, and the network will take care of it.

Badgers and cobras...

[wachtwoord]

Probably everyone here is well aware of this but the new 100000 byte limit of OP_RETURN seems silly with the entire pubscriptkey (of which it is a subpart) has a  10000 (ten times smaller) limit.

Of course this still implies an increase from 80 bytes to 10000 bytes (or 9995 bytes to be exact) but that's still a lot less than 100000.

That one will also be lifted later, don't worry about it. Just give it some more time. However, being a consensus limit it will be harder but it will happen eventually I assume. For the normies here that are clueless about Bitcoin, the line he is referring to is here. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/script.h#L40C1-L41C1

That would be horrible. Nearly as horrible as the blockdize increase (both the explicit one narrowly avoided in the blockdize wars and the implicit one that unfortunately was Trojan horsed in with the segwit implementation).

It is because of the users and their cultist behavior, many in this thread at at fault too. They blame developers for things that they do and things they don't do all the time. When limits are lifted, there is nobody to blame and nobody to sue. It is a natural consequence and progression. Of course some limits will take time to increase depending on engineering factors, we can't just remove all limits arbitrarily. I'm primarily talking about standardness limits, but some consensus ones may be increased with time too. Why wouldn't they?

To make things even nicer, there is nothing you can do to stop this. If you don't like it, you can join luke-jr's CSAM review committee on his new altcoin. Just don't act surprised if someone adds you to some watch list if you support such a thing.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Lol of course I support Luke in this. Anyone that understands bitcoin would and should. Luke saved the bacon in the blockchain wars too.
 
His other crazy takes outside of bitcoin don't affect he's always right when it comes to bitcoin.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Satofan44]

Lol of course I support Luke in this. Anyone that understands bitcoin would and should. Luke saved the bacon in the blockchain wars too.
 
His other crazy takes outside of bitcoin don't affect he's always right when it comes to bitcoin.

You haven't learned the basic lesson of Bitcoin then. Again you are worshiping people and creating another "Jesus".  I guess you are interested in participating in the CSAM review committee too? 

[Charcol]

https://www.theblock.co/post/376184/bitcoin-proposal-to-curb-spam-with-a-temporary-soft-fork-sparks-debate-among-developers

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Satofan44]

https://www.theblock.co/post/376184/bitcoin-proposal-to-curb-spam-with-a-temporary-soft-fork-sparks-debate-among-developers

It is dumb, it does not work and it even potentially confiscates some outputs. There is no real debate that is just an addition to make a better deadline, it will be rejected because of this. Any proposal that confiscates or blocks user funds will get rejected.

If you want to discuss that, this is the place: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5539943.msg65973710#msg65973710

[goldkingcoiner]

Discuss the Knots v Core situation as heated as you like, this issue needs to be loud and heard by everyone as it can mean a vastly different fate for Bitcoin as we know it.
Especially concerning the question of the importance of neutrality.

But there is no need to insult WO members.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[cAPSLOCK]

So, as the Chief Dummy of our little gang, I would like to spend a moment defending myself. Please forgive me and pass by if you don't want to listen to me whine.

As you can see from the quote below, way back at the very beginning of May, I came to a conclusion after having read about the mess that is heating up even still.

My position has become more nuanced and I feel I understand much better what is actually happening and what the ramifications of it are. What I said exactly was I feel like the situation is lose/lose, and probably not a big deal at all.

I still believe that. I am more sure that my gut was right back then and that Bitcoin survives this easily.  And by the way, what I meant by lose lose was that we might just end up in the exact sort of situation we're in right now.  Having to choose between two sides that both have their fair share of bad ideas.  I see the LARGEST problem as social from top to bottom. Not technical, really.

I do not have a super strong position in either direction of this thing. 

My main reason for continuing to run knots on my nodes is to signal that I disapprove of the way the contentious change was handled by the guardians of the reference implementation.

When I started my information dumping here about what I've learned about the argument, people showed up out of the woodwork to really, not make any cogent argument, but just character assassination... calling me names and being derisive and condescending. That has been a hallmark of this argument, which happens, we've seen it before.

But, first of all, that kind of thing is not good information, nor is it an argument. And secondly, it's annoying as hell.

If I continue information dumping, I would like to say as I have from the beginning that this isn't about me or my position and I'm not trying to convince people to take one side or the other. I just think it's good if we can spare the time... to understand the problems we face.

After some contemplation, reading, and a little shitposting I have come to the conclusion that the op_return saga is lose/lose and mostly meaningless.  Probably.

[xhomerx10]

Discuss the Knots v Core situation as heated as you like, this issue needs to be loud and heard by everyone as it can mean a vastly different fate for Bitcoin as we know it.
Especially concerning the question of the importance of neutrality.

But there is no need to insult WO members.

 ...except for JJG and only on a Thursday.  This is a long-standing, hard-coded, WO rule.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[philipma1957]

So, as the Chief Dummy of our little gang, I would like to spend a moment defending myself. Please forgive me and pass by if you don't want to listen to me whine.

As you can see from the quote below, way back at the very beginning of May, I came to a conclusion after having read about the mess that is heating up even still.

My position has become more nuanced and I feel I understand much better what is actually happening and what the ramifications of it are. What I said exactly was I feel like the situation is lose/lose, and probably not a big deal at all.

I still believe that. I am more sure that my gut was right back then and that Bitcoin survives this easily.  And by the way, what I meant by lose lose was that we might just end up in the exact sort of situation we're in right now.  Having to choose between two sides that both have their fair share of bad ideas.  I see the LARGEST problem as social from top to bottom. Not technical, really.

I do not have a super strong position in either direction of this thing.  

My main reason for continuing to run knots on my nodes is to signal that I disapprove of the way the contentious change was handled by the guardians of the reference implementation.

When I started my information dumping here about what I've learned about the argument, people showed up out of the woodwork to really, not make any cogent argument, but just character assassination... calling me names and being derisive and condescending. That has been a hallmark of this argument, which happens, we've seen it before.

But, first of all, that kind of thing is not good information, nor is it an argument. And secondly, it's annoying as hell.

If I continue information dumping, I would like to say as I have from the beginning that this isn't about me or my position and I'm not trying to convince people to take one side or the other. I just think it's good if we can spare the time... to understand the problems we face.

After some contemplation, reading, and a little shitposting I have come to the conclusion that the op_return saga is lose/lose and mostly meaningless.  Probably.

Did you feel that the core developers acted like an oil cartel and shoved the change down all of the worlds btc owners using the move to show they are the bitch that can slap BTC?

Cause it's what they did.  But reality is they have done changes before and will do them again and users even if they own 100k coins may not have a lot of influence over the developers.

Basically I am always a glass half full guy and not a glass half empty.

I also prefer caution over recklessness and the developers could have introduced it differently.

oh BTW (not a pro filter guy at all).

I look forward to the results of the core 30 upgrade.

to those of you with a ton of coins be careful with them. and good luck to all of us we need it.






Hey to those looking to shoot them selves in the head (after reading this) I have a nice 100 year old shot gun you can borrow.  those who know this  know.