Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 15147. (Read 26712856 times)

legendary
Activity: 2520
Merit: 3038

This explanation is not too convincing. If there was risk of funds disappearing, Wavecrest wouldn't have been appointed in the first place, I suppose. I would really like to know which specific rules were disattended.


Wavecrest has its official HQ in Gibraltar.... so most probably it's a KYC/AML thing, which makes much more sense when you also add cryptocurrencies to the equation. Also take into account the EU regulation regarding prepaid/debit/gift cards of over 100€.
I had a couple of those cards, and the KYC procedure was quite thorough in both cases. I'm afraid it's more of an AML thing, like Wavecrest refusing to provide the data to the "powers that be" without international court orders or similar compelling reasons. Unlike VISA, that chickens out at the mere lifting of an international eyebrow.
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 1610
Self made HODLER ✓

This explanation is not too convincing. If there was risk of funds disappearing, Wavecrest wouldn't have been appointed in the first place, I suppose. I would really like to know which specific rules were disattended.


Wavecrest has its official HQ in Gibraltar.... so most probably it's a KYC/AML thing, which makes much more sense when you also add cryptocurrencies to the equation. Also take into account the EU regulation regarding prepaid/debit/gift cards of over 100€.

EU is fighting hard against old time tax-heavens. Andorra was forced to stop its banking secret effective 1 JAN 2018.
legendary
Activity: 2520
Merit: 3038
This piece of news hasn't been discussed much here yet, so what do you think of the Wavecrest debit card shutdown? The official word from VISA is that Wavecrest didn't comply with VISA regulations - but there's no hint at which specific regulations were disattended.


To me, it smells like a few governments put some pressure on VISA to end that service. VISA have been swift to oblige, as they always are as soon as a big actor uses power voice mode. But I might just be a rookie conspiracy theorist...

No need for a conspiracy theory - it's the same as banks blocking transfers to bitcoin exchanges - or closing accounts associated with Bitcoin - or limiting or double checking transfers to exchanges etc. It's just normal risk management. Accounts get hacked every day and once the money is drained off into cryptoland the bank has no way to recover it.
This explanation is not too convincing. With the risk of funds disappearing, Wavecrest wouldn't have been appointed in the first place, I suppose. I would really like to know which specific rules were disattended.

There are loads of other crypto/fiat debit cards that visa is still supporting. It's Wavecrest that visa is cracking down on, not crypto/fiat debit cards in general. It probably won't affect bitcoin's price anyway because most of the new buyers in the crypto ecosystem won't even know what a crypto/fiat debit card is yet.
Really? It would be nice, but I haven't been able to find "loads" of alternatives.  Can you name a few, please?
legendary
Activity: 2520
Merit: 3038
I do not consider increasing blocks a good solution. It does not scale while the negative consequences for decentralisation are unclear. Since Bitcoin’s only true value lies in ‘decentralisation’, I support not hastily moving away from this core concept just to solve a current - perceived as immediate - issue. There is too much at stake.

Maybe you are right, bigger blocks do not scale. But increasing the current size is a requirement for climbing. Check the LN white paper and note the block size needed so that each person can open and close a channel once a year using segwit.
There are already 2 different solutions ready for implementation (they might be already in the test stage, for all I know) to bundle multiple channel opening transactions into a single blockchain event - similar to what CoinJoin does. The fee would get split among the openers. The more you're willing to wait for a larger pool of channel openers, the less you pay. The same mechanism can be used to fund channels with exhausted capacity. This seems an excellent way to go for the time being. I'm confident more sophisticated stuff will come along.

Now what we should really do is force the big actors to embrace segwit, so LN can flourish. Like, some heavy user lobbying on Coinbase. Of course, more variety and competition in the exchange market can't hurt.
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 1610
Self made HODLER ✓
I do not consider increasing blocks a good solution. It does not scale while the negative consequences for decentralisation are unclear. Since Bitcoin’s only true value lies in ‘decentralisation’, I support not hastily moving away from this core concept just to solve a current - perceived as immediate - issue. There is too much at stake.

Maybe you are right, bigger blocks do not scale. But increasing the current size is a requirement for climbing. Check the LN white paper and note the block size needed so that each person can open and close a channel once a year using segwit.

Yes, blocksize will eventually need to be increased. I hope it will be done right after LN is running smoothly and widely adopted.

But... just a small/moderate blocksize increase... I cringe when I hear about those "lab" tests carried out by Bcashers with up to 1GB blocks!!!

First deploy the exponential scaling solution (LN). Then adjust the blocksize (linear scaling) as needed for having a non-congested backbone.

I can admit that, if this was an enterprise, the blocksize increase would have come first as a temporary fix whilst the real scaling solution (LN) was being finishing development/tests/deployment/adoption etc... But it is not... decentralization has its pros and cons.
legendary
Activity: 2590
Merit: 4839
Addicted to HoDLing!
BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE!
Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Just replace Safety with Throughput.

Be patient, people! The scaling problem will be solved, and it will be solved in the right way, and for the long term. Nobody wants a temporary "patch" that requires a hard fork and compromises decentralization. When there are valid reasons to increase the block size, it will be done.
full member
Activity: 283
Merit: 127
I do not consider increasing blocks a good solution. It does not scale while the negative consequences for decentralisation are unclear. Since Bitcoin’s only true value lies in ‘decentralisation’, I support not hastily moving away from this core concept just to solve a current - perceived as immediate - issue. There is too much at stake.

Maybe you are right, bigger blocks do not scale. But increasing the current size is a requirement for climbing. Check the LN white paper and note the block size needed so that each person can open and close a channel once a year using segwit.
legendary
Activity: 2520
Merit: 3038
He is trying to rename Bitcoin. Just keep ignoring him.
Could it be he's trying to get even for the cute Bcash nickname?  Tongue



No way, Jose....   I mean eddie.

You are giving jbreher.. way too much benefit of the doubt and trying to attribute some kind of justification for his passive-aggressive trolling attack on bitcoin propaganda.  He is way more intentional than you seem to think.
No kind justification, Juan. I was teasing.

Names are important in an immature market filled with newbies. By calling Bitcoin as he does, he implies there are two bitcoins. One is cash (good), the other is ... some technical thing whatever about losing wits or something (bad).

In this forum, most readers know what's what and the risk of confusion is minimal, shills and trolls aside.. However, I think it's better to stick to safe, clear names that don't contain "bitcoin" - such as Bcash - for forkcoins, reserving the name Bitcoin for the real thing.

This has the added benefit of causing a few moments of comedy now and then, especially during interviews.
legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE!
Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you.

legendary
Activity: 3122
Merit: 1538
yes
I do not consider increasing blocks a good solution. It does not scale while the negative consequences for decentralisation are unclear. Since Bitcoin’s only true value lies in ‘decentralisation’, I support not hastily moving away from this core concept just to solve a current - perceived as immediate - issue. There is too much at stake.
legendary
Activity: 2604
Merit: 3056
Welt Am Draht
Segwit is not being adopted. And LN will be largely a niche gimmick. We need something that works across the board, something that, unlike segwit, is NOT OPTIONAL.

Make non Segwit opt out and there's most of it cleared up. Same as organ donation. They flipped that from opt in to opt out recently in the UK. I expect many more people will be sliced up and glued into other people in future and rightfully so.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE!
Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you.

If it was easy, we would not be where we are right now. Decentralisation comes with trade offs.
It is easy. The upgrade should have been bigger blocks instead of or along with segwit. Only reason it didn't and hasn't happened is bullshit tribal politics, not any actual practical reason.

Maybe... But then the adoption of Segwit and, more importantly, LN would have been delayed indefinitely. No pain, no gain Wink

It just serves for a bigger purpose.
Segwit is not being adopted. And LN will be largely a niche gimmick. We need something that works across the board, something that, unlike segwit, is NOT OPTIONAL.
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 1610
Self made HODLER ✓
BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE!
Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you.

If it was easy, we would not be where we are right now. Decentralisation comes with trade offs.
It is easy. The upgrade should have been bigger blocks instead of or along with segwit. Only reason it didn't and hasn't happened is bullshit tribal politics, not any actual practical reason.

Maybe... But then the adoption of Segwit and, more importantly, LN would have been delayed indefinitely. No pain, no gain Wink

It just serves for a bigger purpose.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE!
Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you.

If it was easy, we would not be where we are right now. Decentralisation comes with trade offs.
It is easy. The upgrade should have been bigger blocks instead of or along with segwit. Only reason it didn't and hasn't happened is bullshit tribal politics, not any actual practical reason.
full member
Activity: 266
Merit: 222
Deb Rah Von Doom
I want to hear more affectionate names for Bitcoin Core like 'seg shit cripple corn'
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1035
Not your Keys, Not your Bitcoins
We're going for 20k today or tomorrow. Brace yourselves guys. Get your bags ready and your margin calls in place.  Wink
The biggest mistake in crypto is to feel sorry when bitcoin moons.
member
Activity: 187
Merit: 25
Since Satoshi is still presumably alive, I wonder why he doesn't swing by every now and then to update us on what his vision is himself.

Maybe he thinks that, at this point, his vision doesn't matter anymore and Bitcoin has to evolve to whatever it does. Maybe that is the point... or maybe it isn't... who fucking knows.

Even if he did come back I doubt that his opinion would or even could sway where Bitcoin goes from here.
It has evolved into an entity of its own that no single person has the power to alter. It will come down to the masses that either adopt it and it flourishes or don’t and it dies.
legendary
Activity: 3122
Merit: 1538
yes
BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE!
Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you.

If it was easy, we would not be where we are right now. Decentralisation comes with trade offs.
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 1610
Self made HODLER ✓
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 1610
Self made HODLER ✓
Since Satoshi is still presumably alive, I wonder why he doesn't swing by every now and then to update us on what his vision is himself.

Maybe he thinks that, at this point, his vision doesn't matter anymore and Bitcoin has to evolve to whatever it does. Maybe that is the point... or maybe it isn't... who fucking knows.
Jump to: