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

[conspirosphere.tk]

Honestly, some of you guys talking about forks having immediate value or being immediate "competition" are just not getting it.

[erre]

I would argue that it was clear cut that bitcoin cash is the closest living fork to Satoshi's original intent. However it failed (or didn't even try) to win the brand and therefore lost the ecosystem along with it.  The core developers and community has decided Satoshi's vision is no longer appropriate for bitcoin. This kind of makes me sad maybe out of a sense of nostalgia remembering the original promise of bitcoin before the scaling shit fight took over. But then again something had to yield bitcoin was hitting some hard limits.

I'm sorry but.... if you can't see that having a 8MB block size immediately created 98% BCH mining centralization (thus killing Satoshi's original vision of a decentralized mining ecosystem), then you are beyond help. Lowering transaction fees will be solved in a different way.

I would argue that large mining pools are centralised on bitcoin just as in bitcoin cash.

Bitcoin gold is the answer XD

[Torque]

<image snip>

Haha, pretty funny.

Of course I'd start off with something a little more philosophically direct:

I said: "Bitcoin Core and SegWit with maintaining Satoshi original vision of decentralization, or without?"
He said: "Without. Reckless big blocks ftw."
Me: "Die, statist PayPal 2.0 corpcoiner!" And I pushed him over.  

[Gab0]

https://cointelegraph.com/news/segwit2x-hard-fork-could-have-devastating-consequences-for-bitcoin

I am still wondering whether the risk of hodling through the fork is worth the nerves

Still waiting for the "experts in technology" of this thread to refute this point:

Bitcoin’s network is going to work exactly as Satoshi programmed it. At present, miner support for the 2x hard fork is running around 83 percent. Bitcoin developer Jimmy Song made some rough calculations, based on 90 percent miner support for the fork. This is reasonable since statistical variance causes miner support to fluctuate.

Song reasoned that, if 90 percent of Bitcoin’s miners follow through with their current plan to mine SegWit2x, then:

“ Block 494784 splits to 1X and 2X. Initially, 1X has 100 minute blocks, 2X has 11 minute blocks on average. 1X and 2X have the exact same difficulty.”

Legacy Bitcoin (which Song calls “1X”) would have 100 minute blocks. This means a single transaction with a high enough fee to make it into the next block would require 10 hours to receive six confirmations. It would take nearly half a day to fully confirm a transaction on the 1X chain!

How is the ecosystem going to react to a nearly two hour block time? Given the great slowness of the network - an order of magnitude slower than pre-fork--how high will fees rise? If the block size remains the same (on the 1X chain) but there are only a tenth as many blocks, fees will have to rise to monstrous levels since there will be 10 times the competition for space in a block.

This will be no brief inconvenience, either. Song estimates that if the mining split remains as it is today, the 1X chain won’t experience a difficulty drop until Feb. 3, and block times won’t return completely to normal until March 10. Die-hard supporters of the legacy chain will be contending with nearly two hour block times and sky-high fees for about three months!

Here is the obvious lack of logic of some developers:

Bitcoin’s core devs, who unanimously support the 1X chain, have said that in the event of any attacks, they will simply change the proof-of-work algorithm. While this could work, it would require yet another hard fork.

It should be remembered that part of Core’s opposition to SegWit2x is because hard forks are dangerous, yet these same developers propose to foist a risky hard fork on an already unstable 1X network that’s under attack by a larger chain. This seems unwise in the extreme. Not only that, but changing 1X’s proof-of-work algorithm would tend to undermine its assertion that it’s the “true” heir to Satoshi’s original Bitcoin network.

PS: Hoping, as usual, that the trolls in this thread are dedicated to discredit the author instead of discussing their points.

_______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________

On the other hand, I'm surprised by the amount of non-funny stupidity that spreads around here some times. Comparing Bitcoin with Facebook (in a hardfork context), is like comparing bitcoin with tulips. Genius!

[Gab0]

A study reveals that those who share 'deep' quotes on Facebook/Internet are unintelligent, and they are also more likely to believe paranormal theories: http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf

[fabiorem]

First they (their customers) gonna get screwed badly by honey badger and then they gonna complain to have the FED-SEC and the rest of the so called regulators to impose
regulations = destroy price discovery on the exchanges. And we might very well end in the same deplorable position as GLD.

But GLD is held in custody, you dont have it stored in your house. Whereas for bitcoin, you can have the wallet and a copy of the blockchain in your hdd.

They will have to pump it first, though. No investor will enter in a future contract if the sell price is the same as the one currently on the exchanges. They will want it higher so that they make a profit out of it.

And CME and others will need to grow a reputation on it first, before screwing it up and blaming the "speculators from the exchanges" for it.

[gentlemand]

Still waiting for the "experts in technology" of this thread to refute this point:

Bitcoin’s network is going to work exactly as Satoshi programmed it. At present, miner support for the 2x hard fork is running around 83 percent. Bitcoin developer Jimmy Song made some rough calculations, based on 90 percent miner support for the fork. This is reasonable since statistical variance causes miner support to fluctuate.

Song reasoned that, if 90 percent of Bitcoin’s miners follow through with their current plan to mine SegWit2x, then:

“ Block 494784 splits to 1X and 2X. Initially, 1X has 100 minute blocks, 2X has 11 minute blocks on average. 1X and 2X have the exact same difficulty.”

Legacy Bitcoin (which Song calls “1X”) would have 100 minute blocks. This means a single transaction with a high enough fee to make it into the next block would require 10 hours to receive six confirmations. It would take nearly half a day to fully confirm a transaction on the 1X chain!

How is the ecosystem going to react to a nearly two hour block time? Given the great slowness of the network - an order of magnitude slower than pre-fork--how high will fees rise? If the block size remains the same (on the 1X chain) but there are only a tenth as many blocks, fees will have to rise to monstrous levels since there will be 10 times the competition for space in a block.

This will be no brief inconvenience, either. Song estimates that if the mining split remains as it is today, the 1X chain won’t experience a difficulty drop until Feb. 3, and block times won’t return completely to normal until March 10. Die-hard supporters of the legacy chain will be contending with nearly two hour block times and sky-high fees for about three months!

The thing that the fuckwitted autists who squeal about this never, ever, ever, ever seem to bother to mention is a small group of people known as...

wait for it....

users.

There are millions of them who wield staggering and overwhelming power. Miners can posture all they like. If they attempt to fuck the users then they triple entry buttfuck themselves with razorwire dildos.

Every single doomsday scenario has been played out ad nauseam. We've been told were going to be murdered by everything the tossers who FUD laid out in loving detail.

When it came to actual reality the risk of pissing off the users outweighed anything else and nothing happened.

[podyx]

When buying a trezor, how can you be sure it doesnt get reprogrammed or something on the way here?

[Gab0]

Still waiting for the "experts in technology" of this thread to refute this point:

Bitcoin’s network is going to work exactly as Satoshi programmed it. At present, miner support for the 2x hard fork is running around 83 percent. Bitcoin developer Jimmy Song made some rough calculations, based on 90 percent miner support for the fork. This is reasonable since statistical variance causes miner support to fluctuate.

Song reasoned that, if 90 percent of Bitcoin’s miners follow through with their current plan to mine SegWit2x, then:

“ Block 494784 splits to 1X and 2X. Initially, 1X has 100 minute blocks, 2X has 11 minute blocks on average. 1X and 2X have the exact same difficulty.”

Legacy Bitcoin (which Song calls “1X”) would have 100 minute blocks. This means a single transaction with a high enough fee to make it into the next block would require 10 hours to receive six confirmations. It would take nearly half a day to fully confirm a transaction on the 1X chain!

How is the ecosystem going to react to a nearly two hour block time? Given the great slowness of the network - an order of magnitude slower than pre-fork--how high will fees rise? If the block size remains the same (on the 1X chain) but there are only a tenth as many blocks, fees will have to rise to monstrous levels since there will be 10 times the competition for space in a block.

This will be no brief inconvenience, either. Song estimates that if the mining split remains as it is today, the 1X chain won’t experience a difficulty drop until Feb. 3, and block times won’t return completely to normal until March 10. Die-hard supporters of the legacy chain will be contending with nearly two hour block times and sky-high fees for about three months!

The thing that the fuckwitted autists who squeal about this never, ever, ever, ever seem to bother to mention is a small group of people known as...

wait for it....

users.

There are millions of them who wield staggering and overwhelming power. Miners can posture all they like. If they attempt to fuck the users then they triple entry buttfuck themselves with razorwire dildos.

Every single doomsday scenario has been played out ad nauseam. We've been told were going to be murdered by everything the tossers who FUD laid out in loving detail.

When it came to actual reality the risk of pissing off the users outweighed anything else and nothing happened.

Ok, I understand. And the technical reasons?

[jojo69]

When buying a trezor, how can you be sure it doesnt get reprogrammed or something on the way here?

you can't

30 ninjas with Uzis man, you're fucked

[gentlemand]

Ok, I understand. And the technical reasons?

What does tech have to do with anything?

[Gab0]

Ok, I understand. And the technical reasons?

What does tech have to do with anything?

... what's wrong with you? Was not explicit enough before?

Bitcoin’s network is going to work exactly as Satoshi programmed it. At present, miner support for the 2x hard fork is running around 83 percent. Bitcoin developer Jimmy Song made some rough calculations, based on 90 percent miner support for the fork. This is reasonable since statistical variance causes miner support to fluctuate.

Song reasoned that, if 90 percent of Bitcoin’s miners follow through with their current plan to mine SegWit2x, then:

“ Block 494784 splits to 1X and 2X. Initially, 1X has 100 minute blocks, 2X has 11 minute blocks on average. 1X and 2X have the exact same difficulty.”

Legacy Bitcoin (which Song calls “1X”) would have 100 minute blocks. This means a single transaction with a high enough fee to make it into the next block would require 10 hours to receive six confirmations. It would take nearly half a day to fully confirm a transaction on the 1X chain!

How is the ecosystem going to react to a nearly two hour block time? Given the great slowness of the network - an order of magnitude slower than pre-fork--how high will fees rise? If the block size remains the same (on the 1X chain) but there are only a tenth as many blocks, fees will have to rise to monstrous levels since there will be 10 times the competition for space in a block.

This will be no brief inconvenience, either. Song estimates that if the mining split remains as it is today, the 1X chain won’t experience a difficulty drop until Feb. 3, and block times won’t return completely to normal until March 10. Die-hard supporters of the legacy chain will be contending with nearly two hour block times and sky-high fees for about three months!

[gentlemand]

... what's wrong with you? Was not explicit enough before?

They will not do what is described because they will severely damage their ability to make money by pissing off the users. Hence my lengthy point.

Tech is irrelevant. Money is relevant.

There's a million other technically possible things they can do. They will not do it because they will lose money.

[Gab0]

... what's wrong with you? Was not explicit enough before?

They will not do what is described because they will severely damage their ability to make money by pissing off the users. Hence my lengthy point.

Tech is irrelevant.

Ok, thanks for answering. But I do not agree.
The x2 chain, in a darwinist/capitalist context, is more likely to survive than the x1 chain.

[gentlemand]

The x2 chain, in a darwinist/capitalist context, is more likely to survive than the x1 chain.

The highlighted aspect says to me - fear of being poor. That's why they won't disrupt how Bitcoin is operating and that informs all behaviour in this space.

[Spaceman_Spiff_Original]

Still waiting for the "experts in technology" of this thread to refute this point:

Bitcoin’s network is going to work exactly as Satoshi programmed it. At present, miner support for the 2x hard fork is running around 83 percent. Bitcoin developer Jimmy Song made some rough calculations, based on 90 percent miner support for the fork. This is reasonable since statistical variance causes miner support to fluctuate.

Song reasoned that, if 90 percent of Bitcoin’s miners follow through with their current plan to mine SegWit2x, then:

“ Block 494784 splits to 1X and 2X. Initially, 1X has 100 minute blocks, 2X has 11 minute blocks on average. 1X and 2X have the exact same difficulty.”

Legacy Bitcoin (which Song calls “1X”) would have 100 minute blocks. This means a single transaction with a high enough fee to make it into the next block would require 10 hours to receive six confirmations. It would take nearly half a day to fully confirm a transaction on the 1X chain!

How is the ecosystem going to react to a nearly two hour block time? Given the great slowness of the network - an order of magnitude slower than pre-fork--how high will fees rise? If the block size remains the same (on the 1X chain) but there are only a tenth as many blocks, fees will have to rise to monstrous levels since there will be 10 times the competition for space in a block.

This will be no brief inconvenience, either. Song estimates that if the mining split remains as it is today, the 1X chain won’t experience a difficulty drop until Feb. 3, and block times won’t return completely to normal until March 10. Die-hard supporters of the legacy chain will be contending with nearly two hour block times and sky-high fees for about three months!

The thing that the fuckwitted autists who squeal about this never, ever, ever, ever seem to bother to mention is a small group of people known as...

wait for it....

users.

There are millions of them who wield staggering and overwhelming power. Miners can posture all they like. If they attempt to fuck the users then they triple entry buttfuck themselves with razorwire dildos.

Every single doomsday scenario has been played out ad nauseam. We've been told were going to be murdered by everything the tossers who FUD laid out in loving detail.

When it came to actual reality the risk of pissing off the users outweighed anything else and nothing happened.

Ok, I understand. And the technical reasons?

You are basically talking about a transient bad user experience in a hypothetical situation (in which the miners refuse to mine 1X bitcoin while it retains the highest price).  This is not a technical issue.

[Gab0]

The x2 chain, in a darwinist/capitalist context, is more likely to survive than the x1 chain.

The highlighted aspect says to me - fear of being poor. That's why they won't disrupt how Bitcoin is operating and that informs all behaviour in this space.

or..., that is why they will provide the network with better features that make it more competitive in relation to its environment.
Every biologically immutable being is doomed to disappear with respect to those who do. Homo sapiens vs Homo erectus.

[gentlemand]

that is why they will provide the network with better features that make it more competitive in relation to its environment.

You achieve that with consensus and a smooth upgrade that carries everyone along with you. Not detonating a bomb which kills half the crowd you depend on to eat which is what 2X is.

[philip2000uk]

we get free coins after forks. they are aidrop for holding bitcoin. we can get 10% of value from the bitcoin price.

When it forks the value of the other will go down while the new one takes a bit away from it and then when you put it back into BTC then BTC will be back where it was before and the other coin goes down.  That's just my impression

But i don't see a difference because when the fork happens, say bitcoin drops 10% because people go into the other fork then you buy back that extra from the fork but it's like a seesaw because we all go into that one bringing the other price down and then we buy the other back and then it goes up so you don't win anything really.

[Ludwig Von]

The x2 chain, in a darwinist/capitalist context, is more likely to survive than the x1 chain.

The highlighted aspect says to me - fear of being poor. That's why they won't disrupt how Bitcoin is operating and that informs all behaviour in this space.

It appears to me that there might be some confusion between "Darwinist/capitalist" context and "Psychopatic destructive/suicidal greed" context.