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

[Cconvert2G36]

Either Loaded  is back... or his reddit account was compromised...

[adamstgBit]

Either Loaded  is back... or his reddit account was compromised...

they support bigger blocks, huh. never would have guessed.

[billyjoeallen]

Nah.. I've been seeing 'Fullblockalypse' around for a while now...

It's my creation. I expect a satoshi any time you use it.

[adamstgBit]

Nah.. I've been seeing 'Fullblockalypse' around for a while now...

It's my creation. I expect a satoshi any time you use it.

chart buddy should calculate "Estimated time till the Fullblockalypse"

[CuntChocula]

http://s27.postimg.org/vhp4cuvw3/pussytrain.png

Sound your warning; send your message; huff
and puff and belch your smoke and kill and maim
and run off unpunished.

http://s14.postimg.org/xw5yzqw7l/pussyman.png

          ...CCMF!!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^Lambie the way you trolled CIYAM today was horrible. Just horrible!

You're a bad influence on me. You don't really think Classic is a good idea? Do you?

[TReano]

still no buy pressure...  

Could have another leg down ...

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Is SegWit really just an ugly hack to accommodate LN? Is this true? Because nobody knows if anybody will use LN yet...

No. It fixes transaction malleability. Stupid.

[Fatman3001]

I guess Hearn's ragequit doesn't look so bad now.

Seriously, given all that shit its remarkable that we are still at 380$...

You seem like a level headed guy, are Core out of their fucking minds?

i think its no more than a threat at the moment, but it shows the childish attitude that brought us here in the first place. gmax and luke seem to be very immature.

It's like they think this is somehow comparable to OpenOffice or some linux distro. You can't say stuff like that when you're maintaining a digital currency. I don't care if they're the best coders in the world, they are shit at economics and should have nothing to do with Bitcoin!

Gmax is convinced. I don't know if he still feels this way, but:

Without a sharp constraint on the maximum blocksize there is currently _no_ rational reason to believe that Bitcoin would be secure at all once the subsidy goes down.

Bitcoin is valuable because of scarcity. One of the important scarcities is the limited supply of coins, another is the limited supply of block-space

https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=140233.msg1492537#msg1492537

He was an idiot then and he is an idiot now. I can't understand why Gavin left Bitcoin in the hands of these idiots. Maybe he really is a USG shill.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I'm trying really hard to understand where it is he's coming from. Something about nodes...IDK.

[smooth]

Is SegWit really just an ugly hack to accommodate LN? Is this true? Because nobody knows if anybody will use LN yet...

No. It fixes transaction malleability. Stupid.

This.

It is questionable to put it on a "scalability" roadmap though, and try to push it through on an accelerated schedule despite malleability having been an unaddressed issue for years. That seems more political than anything else.

[AlexGR]

Splitting a currency unit into two does not dilute the currency any more than moving the decimal point does.

In order to dilute you would need to create new units and issue them to someone other than existing holders.

Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.

Regarding existing holders, if you have your own keys you are relatively ok (minus the obvious destruction of USD value), but the situation with coins in online exchanges and wallets will be "problematic" if say an exchange with 500k BTCs, say 'ok my clients, now you have 500k BTCCs because we adopted this fork' (and we are keeping 500k BTCs of the other fork for ourselves). It would be like stealing BTCs and exchanging them for Gavincoins.

People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.

[CuntChocula]

^Lambie the way you trolled CIYAM today was horrible. Just horrible!

You're a bad influence on me. You don't really think Classic is a good idea? Do you?

It's complicated, have mixed emotions. Bitcoin scales horribly -- a conceptual, genetic flaw.
So it's sort of like deciding what to do with a grotesquely deformed child: no attractive choices

[smooth]

The LN would want to disable bitcoin settlements for the same general reasons that the US government decided to end the convertibility of the US dollar to gold or silver.

Hey, it is possible. That is another way of saying Bitcoin fails, which I don't consider unlikely necessarily.

I do think there is a significant incentive on the part of payment recipients to mitigate counterparty settlement risk by accepting payment on collateralized channels. In finance (outside of low-value consumer, and sovereign debt), collateral is the rule not the exception. Naked credit is the exception.

Well see how it works out. It is a certainty that LN will be deployed. It is not a certainty that it will work well or that people will use it.

[adamstgBit]

I guess Hearn's ragequit doesn't look so bad now.

Seriously, given all that shit its remarkable that we are still at 380$...

You seem like a level headed guy, are Core out of their fucking minds?

i think its no more than a threat at the moment, but it shows the childish attitude that brought us here in the first place. gmax and luke seem to be very immature.

It's like they think this is somehow comparable to OpenOffice or some linux distro. You can't say stuff like that when you're maintaining a digital currency. I don't care if they're the best coders in the world, they are shit at economics and should have nothing to do with Bitcoin!

Gmax is convinced. I don't know if he still feels this way, but:

Without a sharp constraint on the maximum blocksize there is currently _no_ rational reason to believe that Bitcoin would be secure at all once the subsidy goes down.

Bitcoin is valuable because of scarcity. One of the important scarcities is the limited supply of coins, another is the limited supply of block-space

https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=140233.msg1492537#msg1492537

He was an idiot then and he is an idiot now. I can't understand why Gavin left Bitcoin in the hands of these idiots. Maybe he really is an USG shill.

With a sharp constraint on the maximum blocksize there is currently _no_ rational reason to believe that Bitcoin would be secure at all once the subsidy goes down.

Bitcoin is valuable because poeple believe it has value, if there is a limited supply of block-space then there it can only be valuable to a limited number of people.

[TReano]

I really wonder when this damn blocksize shit is going to be solved. It's becoming retarded.

[smooth]

Splitting a currency unit into two does not dilute the currency any more than moving the decimal point does.

In order to dilute you would need to create new units and issue them to someone other than existing holders.

Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.

No difference than moving the decimal still. Miners will mine in proportion to the market value of each new coin which means the share of supply held by each existing holder and each miner who spends a given amount of resources on mining will remain the same.

Or to put it another way. If 75% of the total Bitcoins are now mined and held by existing holders, then 75% of the total of GregBitcoins and GavinBitcoins will also already be mined and held by existing holders. So again there is no dilution of any existing holder.

Regarding existing holders, if you have your own keys you are relatively ok (minus the obvious destruction of USD value), but the situation with coins in online exchanges and wallets will be "problematic" if say an exchange with 500k BTCs, say 'ok my clients, now you have 500k BTCCs because we adopted this fork' (and we are keeping 500k BTCs of the other fork for ourselves). It would be like stealing BTCs and exchanging them for Gavincoins.

People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.

Yes, there are infrastructure issues and issues of fairness with respect to third party custody. Although likely irrelevant now, Cryptsy had something in their Terms of Service that explicitly gave them ownership. That's nuts.

Very real issues, but not the same as dilution.

[CuntChocula]

The LN would want to disable bitcoin settlements for the same general reasons that the US government decided to end the convertibility of the US dollar to gold or silver.

Hey, it is possible. That is another way of saying Bitcoin fails, which I don't consider unlikely necessarily.

I do think there is a significant incentive on the part of payment recipients to mitigate counterparty settlement risk by accepting payment on collateralized channels. In finance (outside of low-value consumer, and sovereign debt), collateral is the rule not the exception. Naked credit is the exception.

Well see how it works out. It is a certainty that LN will be deployed. It is not a certainty that it will work well or that people will use it.

So transacting in unbacked filthy fiat, is that "collateralized channels"?  Or "Naked credit"? These things are pretty confusing...

[ImI]

I really wonder when this damn blocksize shit is going to be solved. It's becoming retarded.

we are not even close to seeing the end of this imo. the fork will come and core, better said gmax/luke, will fight fiercely with the remining 25% hashpower or whatever hash they have. expect more "bitcoin is dead" press releases etc but this time from core-members...

[Fatman3001]

With a sharp constraint on the maximum blocksize there is currently _no_ rational reason to believe that Bitcoin would be secure at all once the subsidy goes down.

Bitcoin is valuable because poeple believe it has value, if there is a limited supply of block-space then there it can only be valuable to a limited number of people.

You see?!?!?!!?! Even the local drunk gets it!!!