|
bittenbob (OP)
|
 |
January 30, 2012, 01:30:23 AM
Last edit: January 30, 2012, 02:32:05 AM by bittenbob |
|
I can't help but think that some of the uncertainty surrounding the attempted implementation of BIP 16 and BIP 17 is causing the price to be suppressed. Quite frankly, I am surprised this has not been brought up in the speculation thread. It is quite possible we will see a blockchain split on this day. It should re-converge but this raises some doubts about if Bitcoin will remain what the community wants it to. Many people do not understand the implications so I feel that implementing it right now is not a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The forum strives to allow free discussion of any ideas. All policies are built around this principle. This doesn't mean you can post garbage, though: posts should actually contain ideas, and these ideas should be argued reasonably.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
slush
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
 |
January 30, 2012, 01:47:01 AM |
|
I can't help but think that some of the uncertainty surrounding the attempted implementation of BIP 16 and BIP 17 is causing the price to be suppressed.
Some people are spreading FUDs, but actually nothing bad is going to happen in any case. It is quite possible we will see a blockchain split on this day.
Not likely. And if so, nothing happen. Bitcoin network is designed to "repair" from blockchain splits by self. Also nobody wants to be on blockchain branch, there's pretty good incentive to go with the majority of the miners. Many people do not understand the implications so I feel that implementing it right now is not a good idea.
Common people don't need to understand it. Actually the discussion should be much more technical, but thanks to many misunderstandings it was turned into political mess. I hope people will calm down and will discuss more like human beings and will keep discussion more factual. I see only one risk which can affect bitcoin price. It's that bitcoin developers will be seen as a group of untrustworthy sociopaths which are unable to talk each to other. And it's not related to BIP16/17, it's more general issue. |
|
|
|
|
bittenbob (OP)
|
|
January 30, 2012, 02:12:36 AM |
|
I can't help but think that some of the uncertainty surrounding the attempted implementation of BIP 16 and BIP 17 is causing the price to be suppressed.
Some people are spreading FUDs, but actually nothing bad is going to happen in any case. It is quite possible we will see a blockchain split on this day.
Not likely. And if so, nothing happen. Bitcoin network is designed to "repair" from blockchain splits by self. Also nobody wants to be on blockchain branch, there's pretty good incentive to go with the majority of the miners. Many people do not understand the implications so I feel that implementing it right now is not a good idea.
Common people don't need to understand it. Actually the discussion should be much more technical, but thanks to many misunderstandings it was turned into political mess. I hope people will calm down and will discuss more like human beings and will keep discussion more factual. I see only one risk which can affect bitcoin price. It's that bitcoin developers will be seen as a group of untrustworthy sociopaths which are unable to talk each to other. And it's not related to BIP16/17, it's more general issue. So I am guessing you voted yes? I said it should re-converge but many people are worried about it. My thoughts are that many people will wait it out on the sidelines in cash until the dust settles. |
|
|
|
|
notawake
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 58
Merit: 0
|
|
January 30, 2012, 02:17:10 AM |
|
Personally, I suspect the price of Bitcoin is tied to the amount of media coverage related to Bitcoin because of the seemingly strong positive correlation between media coverage and Bitcoin price.
I don't see BIP 16/17 having a significant impact on Bitcoin prices unless implementation somehow has a negative impact on the network, which I don't predict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bittenbob (OP)
|
|
January 30, 2012, 02:19:37 AM |
|
Personally, I suspect the price of Bitcoin is tied to the amount of media coverage related to Bitcoin because of the seemingly strong positive correlation between media coverage and Bitcoin price.
I don't see BIP 16/17 having a significant impact on Bitcoin prices unless implementation somehow has a negative impact on the network, which I don't predict.
I am supporting Tycho on his stance but the network should survive regardless. It is the fear of a problem with implementation I think might be suppressing the price. |
|
|
|
|
slush
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
|
January 30, 2012, 02:22:52 AM |
|
So I am guessing you voted yes? I said it should re-converge but many people are worried about it. My thoughts are that many people will wait it out on the sidelines in cash until the dust settles.
http://blockchain.info/p2sh - yes, I'm voting for BIP16, because it was general consensus until the mess about BIP16/17 started. So far it looks like BIP16 voting don't reach >50% until 1.Feb, so we will see what will be next progress. I'm affraid that BIP wars distracted bitcoiners to pick ANY solution because they're affraid that something strange will happen, which will only slow down p2sh implementation. |
|
|
|
|
bittenbob (OP)
|
|
January 30, 2012, 02:25:11 AM |
|
So I am guessing you voted yes? I said it should re-converge but many people are worried about it. My thoughts are that many people will wait it out on the sidelines in cash until the dust settles.
http://blockchain.info/p2sh - yes, I'm voting for BIP16, because it was general consensus until the mess about BIP16/17 started. So far it looks like BIP16 voting don't reach >50% until 1.Feb, so we will see what will be next progress. I'm affraid that BIP wars distracted bitcoiners to pick ANY solution because they're affraid that something strange will happen, which will only slow down p2sh implementation. I meant yes on the poll. I am going to reset the poll with a better asked question. It should be if the fear about the potential impact of bip 16/17 is holding back prices and I think people may be confused. |
|
|
|
|
slush
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
|
January 30, 2012, 02:30:01 AM |
|
I meant yes on the poll.
Oh, sorry. I voted "no", I don't think this war affects price in any direction. It is mostly a storm in the cup of tea. Some p2sh solution *will* be implemented, now the question is *when*. Then proper implementation of p2sh in clients can affect price in positive direction. |
|
|
|
|
bittenbob (OP)
|
|
January 30, 2012, 02:32:44 AM |
|
Poll clarified and reset. Please place your votes again.
|
|
|
|
|
notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 30, 2012, 03:50:08 AM |
|
The lack of multisig is holding back prices. I can't recommend bitcoin to Windows users without serious security caveats. That is the only impact, but I'd rather have it done right than rushed. That said, from my limited understanding (programmer, but not intimate with bitcoin code), BIP 16 offers some advantages that I feel outweigh the issues with adding additional validation to a subset of scripts.
|
|
|
|
DiThi
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 156
Merit: 100
Firstbits: 1dithi
|
|
January 30, 2012, 04:59:50 AM |
|
Once we have multi-sig and GUI support for it*, we can finally market bitcoin as truly secure, and it will have a possitive impact on the price.
* The gui guides you to a multi-sig setup by default (pc+phone+paper backup).
|
1DiThiTXZpNmmoGF2dTfSku3EWGsWHCjwt
|
|
|
|
teflone
|
|
January 30, 2012, 05:11:08 AM |
|
Once we have multi-sig and GUI support for it*, we can finally market bitcoin as truly secure, and it will have a possitive impact on the price.
* The gui guides you to a multi-sig setup by default (pc+phone+paper backup).
Amen brother.. |
|
|
|
ripper234
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1003
Ron Gross
|
|
January 30, 2012, 09:21:31 AM |
|
I think BIP 16/17 has a double impact on the market. 1. It's part of the short-mid term hope for a price increase. Once it's implemented properly and exposed by various clients and APIs, it will help the marketability and usability greatly, thus increasing price. 2. The way it's handled projects a lot of FUD (mostly unjustified). People are afraid of chain splits, of the proposal being stuck, of developers fighting each other ... this causes a negative price pressure. Personally I'm bullish as usual. I trust in Gavin's leadership, and I actually think that while it's possible that the voting process/announcement could have been handled better (e.g. published a lot more before voting began) ... the actual vote process is a super strong indicator of how strong Bitcoin is. It's a $45,000,000 economy that's truly controlled by the community. I'm pleased Gavin can't just force BIP 16 without consulting people, and that he has to build a consensus of 55%-60% miners. This is true decentralizing. I'm for BIP16 btw, simply because I trust Gavin and other BIP 16 supporters (e.g. slush), and haven't heard a good argument against it. From a far, it seems like a religious argument on what's a "prettier design", and I loath religious arguments (Oh, I'm sure each side is sure that his arguments are correct, and his way is the truly better way). If BIP 16 is our best chance to push multi-sig forward in the near future, let's do that already, and let the devs follow on to other important issues like chain pruning ( what else is on the immediate roadmap?). My 2 bitcents. |
|
|
|
|
StewartJ
|
|
January 30, 2012, 09:32:28 AM |
|
Have been looking at Litecoin, an interesting bitcoin alternative. (just in case)
|
|
|
|
|
|
teflone
|
|
January 30, 2012, 06:20:40 PM |
|
Have been looking at Litecoin, an interesting bitcoin alternative. (just in case)
If most everyone cant find a reason to not mine at deepbit, and to not use Mtgox.. Litecoin will fail.. plain and simple.. Dont waste your time |
|
|
|
|
StewartJ
|
|
January 30, 2012, 08:21:58 PM |
|
Have been looking at Litecoin, an interesting bitcoin alternative. (just in case)
If most everyone cant find a reason to not mine at deepbit, and to not use Mtgox.. Litecoin will fail.. plain and simple.. Dont waste your time Yes, but how else can I own 100,000 shares of something...  |
|
|
|
|
|
Bro
|
|
January 30, 2012, 08:45:51 PM |
|
I have no idea what BIP16 is? Has it been tested before??
|
|
|
|
|
|
phatsphere
|
|
January 30, 2012, 09:02:49 PM |
|
I have no idea what BIP16 is? Has it been tested before??
tested for months now. and beware, there might be a bip18, too. i also hope the devs will unite again and push this rather sooner than delaying this again for 6 months. |
|
|
|
|
dree12
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
|
|
January 30, 2012, 09:55:32 PM |
|
I have no idea what BIP16 is? Has it been tested before??
tested for months now. and beware, there might be a bip18, too. i also hope the devs will unite again and push this rather sooner than delaying this again for 6 months. This is such FUD from the Bitcoin developers. "Tested for months now", oh really? What about public support for it, maybe that has gone on for "months now"? I hope the devs push that as late as possible, after the public has had a chance to vocalize about the damage this will do to the decentralization and union of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
DiThi
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 156
Merit: 100
Firstbits: 1dithi
|
|
January 30, 2012, 10:11:05 PM |
|
This is such FUD from the Bitcoin developers. "Tested for months now", oh really? What about public support for it, maybe that has gone on for "months now"? I hope the devs push that as late as possible, after the public has had a chance to vocalize about the damage this will do to the decentralization and union of Bitcoin.
How exactly could it damage the decentralization? I think it's slightly improving it, as there are more and more supporters of P2Pool... |
1DiThiTXZpNmmoGF2dTfSku3EWGsWHCjwt
|
|
|
|
Poll
