Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 15829. (Read 26611021 times)

Great. You've re-asserted that it is centralized, but you have said nothing about in what manner the alleged centralization is manifested.

As far as code, BCH has multiple non-mining, fully-validating wallet implementations. None of which have been shown to be controlled by Ver, Wu, Ayres, nor Wright. Well, nChain might have an implementation, and if they do, that would presumably be controlled by Wright, but I am unaware of such. If you disagree, please state which such implementation is controlled, which of these parties controls it, and what the nature of that control is.

Wu controls a lot of mining, this is true. Wu also controls a lot of BTC mining. Ver controls a mining pool, though my understanding is not much hash rate. Wright has stated that he was going to create a large mining entity. Anyone have any evidence to suggest he has yet to amass such?

More germane however, most pools have at some point mined BCH. Further, no miner is barred from participating in mining BCH. Indeed the set of miners able to mine BCH is identical to the set of miners that can mine BTC. In what manner is this centralized?

Marketing? Now you're just being silly. In a permissionless environment, nobody controls marketing. The funny thing is that, for all the marketing that Ver or Wu has contributed to BCH, anti-Cash shrills (note I did not say 'shills') have spread Ver and Wu's message far wider than Ver or Wu themselves. Kinda ironic, that. What marketing has Wright done? Ayres?


So miners self-selecting to not mine BCH is proof of BCH mining centralization? I assert that is a useless definition of 'centralization'.

Yep, sorry edited too late - I meant to say that I think the article is wrong in that I think the probability has to be at least 25% for this to make sense

yep that is the one thing that will bring satoshi out of the shadows lol ha

Claiming you haven't said what you've said (bolded), "or whether they just deem scalability to be a low priority" (yeah, they are retarded, deem scalability a low priority) is a classic game you play here. You simply spread FUD.

To answer the second part in general: There is no need for the core devs to do academic measurements of transaction capacity if you increase block size 100x or 1000x to 1GB, that is not gonna happen because it would turn over the control of the Bitcoin network to the entities which hate Bitcoin. You guys can measure future hypothetical bottlenecks whole day long if you like it, the answer to these problems isn't progressive increase of the block size, the answer is in all other stuff that they are working on.

That whole thing has got to be a joke.

Even without the CME or ETFs, I'd wager that north of $10-12K/btc is easily doable by end of next year. And with a Bitcoin ETF or two/three online sometime next year, they'd be able to short squeeze the whole market to the moon within milliseconds.

Just FYI, quoting from the website of SatoshiLabs (creators of TREZOR). Looks like TREZOR owners may be able to claim their Bitcoin Gold airdrop as soon as tomorrow (Monday, 20 November)!

Yup... but as I said it is not the bulliest of predictions either

Oh. and on second thought... if they are paying (now) $2500 for the option to buy BTC for $10.000 in one year... then that means they are expecting the price to be above $12500 (not just $10.000) or they would be losing money.

At the same time, there some other party that expects the opposite... or want to somehow hedge their BTC.... or most probably it is all just a marketing stunt

Thanks, but that would be Mrs. Bear's vehicle. She drag races a Corvette, and daily drives a 45th Anniversary Edition Camaro. I drive a beat-up 98 Chevy Express, and my other vehicle is an ex-Penske 16' box truck. With a bumper sticker that says 'My other car is another minivan'.

You smoking bad crack.  The DDA is averaging nearly 10 minute Blocks.  Where’s the accelerated blocks?  

Agreed. At least "when one can put as much transactions within the block limit". However, the excuse given repeatedly for not simply increasing the maxblocksize is 'consumer hardware can't handle it, leading to nodes being incapable of being nodes any longer'. This experiment shows this assertion to be false, as fixing the broken concurrency model within the node SW allows a fivefold increase in transaction capacity. Which is well and above the ~1.7x that segwit brings -- in the boundary case that all transactions are segwit.


This multithreading improvement does not discriminate between 'spam' and other transactions. It provides an improvement in throughput for all transactions.


I did not state that core has nobody that understands concurrency. To quote: "Whether core has nobody that understands concurrency, or whether they just deem scalability to be a low priority, is a matter of conjecture." Are there other possibilities I am missing to explain this?

Do you deny the following? If so, which parts?:

But the truth is that the core developers have not:
- measured and published such transaction capacity tests
- determined where the lowest bottleneck in system transaction capacity lies
- coded up a fix to remove the lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity
- measured and published results with the fix for this lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity

- All this in a time when system transaction capacity is the hottest issue - and has been for about two years.


No. I am not spreading FUD about core devs. I am stating some truths about an area of optimization that core devs have not pursued. An optimization that initial experiments show outperforms segwit, as measured by the single metric of transaction throughput capability, by a wide margin. In order to counter the actual FUD that 'all capable devs are on in the core camp'.

I certainly made no claim that the Bitcoin Cash devs are superior. I just pointed out one instance where the Bitcoin Cash devs have discovered and prototyped an approach to scalability that seems to me to be far superior to what core devs have so far delivered.


No. That was not Bitcoin Cash developers.


Please tell me specifically what you find in what I posted to be "nonsense about core devs".


Also, please tell me what you find to be a lie. If you find discussion of potential improvements to be detrimental to the progress of bitcoin, it would seem that you would properly be labeled either as reactionary or luddite.

From what I understand it means that they are 'reserving' their bitcoins for 10k in Dec 2018. This means they expect the price to be higher than that...A good thing!
[edit]I think the article is wrong, should be said 'there is at least a 25% chance'

Yup, it's a bit bearish for my (current) taste. But I think they mean a 75% chance of a price equal or below to $10.000. That's not necesarily a crypto winter.

Not sure if serious...

They give a 25% chance to 10K+  in 13.5 months, and a 75% chance of a long crypto winter (or BTC irrelevance?).

IMO there's a better chance for 20k+ in that timeframe than sub-10k.  But what do I know, I'm just a permabull.

  

Bitcoin Gold is now available on your Ledger

more free money.. thanx Ledger team !

https://www.coindesk.com/first-long-term-ledgerx-bitcoin-option-pegs-price-10000-one-year/

So what does this entail?

I'm thick, me.

I think we would have two scenarios:
1- Big whales (ETFs and whatever) are in - nothing happens. Price goes down, but overall, they will care about bitcoin strategically so little will change. Shitcoins will slump as most of the exchanges with them have tether.
2- Big whales are not in yet: bitcoin crashes badly, I would say on the 2000-3000$ range. Finally people will start implementing peer to peer exchanges, altcoins die badly and are scattered all over the place, bitcoin will come back even stronger

Now, think about the two options and if you were a government, given the growth of bitcoin, would you let scenario 2 happen so that you lose the only real centralized point of control they have? I don't think so.
But maybe if you think about it, maybe #2 is not so bad for BTC

Watch for it!

Take over bitcoin through the exchanges?

Invest in start up exchanges and corner bitcoin trading?

Fractional reserve lending on all your exchanges?

Crash exchanges and market?

Offer to the masses a safer option for crypto with SDR (Special Drawing Right)? International Monetary Fund newly created crypto version of their SDR


Now that's a conspiracy theory?

Probably by making an evaluation of whether they want to stay with the segwit chain or exchange into the cash chain. If this indeed comes to pass, it is not going to happen overnight. People will have the chance to mentally (and fiscally) prepare. It is not as if their current holdings would stop working. After all, segwit will still be segwit. No exchanges, vendors, payment processors, retailers or other entities that accept segwit will suddenly stop taking segwit. I think the apocalypse you imagine is just that - imaginary.

And you really think most bitcoiners know nothing of this controversy? Really? Even ignorant wall street pundits have been talking about it - for months.

OTOH, I can picture two things that would be apocalyptic: either some totally unrelated coin usurps bitcoin's rightful place at the top of the heap; or, the miners eventually take advantage of segwit's inherent ever-increasing incentive to roll back segwit and claim the anyonecanspends as their own.


What does it matter? We have a plethora of wallets to choose from today. There is no sign that future wallet development has halted. I imagine at some point multi-currency wallets will become widespread, though this would just be gravy. And indeed, many serious bitcoiners (even plenty of pikers) have multiple wallets already. What problem do you envision the wallet ecosystem causing in a flippening environment?


I think that would be dependent upon how fast such a postulated flippening might occur. If gradual, probably very little effect. If overnight, it may be traumatic. Either way, not nearly as severe as if some other crypto usurps bitcoin's rightful dominance, or if segwit fails.

Probably more germane is what stunting ongoing future adoption can do to the future of cryptocurrency as a whole. This is a persistent yet mostly unseen and unmeasurable drain on our path to monetarily freeing the world.


'Only one chance'. How magnanimous of you.

So what happens if some crazy dev doubles that to 64MB?  Will Satoshi be upset?  ;P

BCH is controlled by Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Calvin Ayre, and Craig Wright - its code, mining, nodes, marketing - everything.

Regardless, the mining centralization is easy to prove.