Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17186.

becoin

legendary

Activity: 3431

Merit: 1233

Quote from: ARTISTCOLONY on May 23, 2017, 05:19:55 PM

Quote from: CoinCube on May 23, 2017, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 23, 2017, 04:47:30 PM

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated. So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

I view it as slightly bullish.
Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

From my admittedly layman and non-technical perspective the 95% threshold makes sense. However 83% of the hashing power is getting much closer to 95% then we have been in the past. Perhaps now further discussions and compromises need to be made to get the last 12% and bitcoin core on board. The major exchanges would probably all follow at that point. That would be extremely bullish.

2mb upgrade is obvious...segwit still confusing to some! ===> stay tuned Cool

//$2500 approaching<<<

Not at all. Block size limit should be lowered not increased.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: ARTISTCOLONY on May 23, 2017, 05:19:55 PM

Quote from: CoinCube on May 23, 2017, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 23, 2017, 04:47:30 PM

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated. So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

I view it as slightly bullish.
Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

From my admittedly layman and non-technical perspective the 95% threshold makes sense. However 83% of the hashing power is getting much closer to 95% then we have been in the past. Perhaps now further discussions and compromises need to be made to get the last 12% and bitcoin core on board. The major exchanges would probably all follow at that point. That would be extremely bullish.

2mb upgrade is obvious...segwit still confusing to some! ===> stay tuned Cool

//$2500 approaching<<<

Don't be a fucking goofball. You are saying the opposite of the truth.

The most obvious upgrade is seg wit.

2mb remains controversial, hardforks are not acceptable and changes in governance is not acceptable, unless perhaps if they were done through a softfork that is approaching a large scale of consensus and likely to result in consensus without force..

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: gentlemand on May 23, 2017, 05:06:38 PM

Quote from: CoinCube on May 23, 2017, 05:03:56 PM

Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

Luke Jr is working on this - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014399.html

Let us hope that everyone moulds it into the least shit option on the table.

Between Hilliard and Luke Jr, there are several alternative plans out there. They will need to simply #UASF in the end.

They know it will end in tears, but that is where their course has taken them.

(Typical Luke - "I left the author blank because i dont want ~~to get fucked over~~ be seen to champion this" )

ARTISTCOLONY

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: CoinCube on May 23, 2017, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 23, 2017, 04:47:30 PM

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated. So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

I view it as slightly bullish.
Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

From my admittedly layman and non-technical perspective the 95% threshold makes sense. However 83% of the hashing power is getting much closer to 95% then we have been in the past. Perhaps now further discussions and compromises need to be made to get the last 12% and bitcoin core on board. The major exchanges would probably all follow at that point. That would be extremely bullish.

2mb upgrade is obvious...segwit still confusing to some! ===> stay tuned Cool

//$2500 approaching<<<

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: CoinCube on May 23, 2017, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 23, 2017, 04:47:30 PM

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated. So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

I view it as slightly bullish.
Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

From my admittedly layman and non-technical perspective the 95% threshold makes sense. However 83% of the hashing power is getting much closer to 95% then we have been in the past. Perhaps now further discussions and compromises need to be made to get the last 12% and bitcoin core on board. The major exchanges would probably all follow at that point. That would be extremely bullish.

Yeah.. it is a bit bullish because there seems to be some compromising going on there.. however, it appears to still be dead set on a hardfork and changes in governance.. that is kind of a punchline, and attempting to make it sound as if everyone is onboard, when they are missing the technical folks who really understand bitcoin.. hahahahaha..

IN other words, a bunch of goofballs agreeing to something that is not going to fly...

By the way, I don't see any meaningful change to segwit signalling - still signalling in the mid 30%... If this "agreement" were so serious, shouldn't we see an immediate boost in segwit signalling in order to support the sentiment that 83.28% are onboard with seg wit.. Instead, they seem to be attempting to mislead folks into supporting an unnecessary hardfork .. which is NOT going to fly.. .

So, yeah, they can fork off, and then seg wit will get adopted in the remaining 16.72% chain.. hahahaha.. and that minor chain will become the real bitcoin.. hahahahaha

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: CoinCube on May 23, 2017, 05:03:56 PM

Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

Luke Jr is working on this - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014399.html

Let us hope that everyone moulds it into the least shit option on the table.

CoinCube

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1055

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 23, 2017, 04:47:30 PM

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated. So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

I view it as slightly bullish.
Parties seem to be slowly converging closer towards possible consensus.

From my admittedly layman and non-technical perspective the 95% threshold makes sense. However 83% of the hashing power is getting much closer to 95% then we have been in the past. Perhaps now further discussions and compromises need to be made to get the last 12% and bitcoin core on board. The major exchanges would probably all follow at that point. That would be extremely bullish.

ARTISTCOLONY

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: becoin on May 23, 2017, 03:41:13 PM

Quote from: gentlemand on May 23, 2017, 03:30:16 PM

And Barry Silbert said he invited several Core types but no one took him up on the offer.

People and companies willing to join big blocktard group are not so much!

32mb limit bring it back satoshi * haa Cool

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: becoin on May 23, 2017, 03:41:13 PM

Quote from: gentlemand on May 23, 2017, 03:30:16 PM

And Barry Silbert said he invited several Core types but no one took him up on the offer.

People and companies willing to join big blocktard group are not so much!

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated. So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

ARTISTCOLONY

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: CoinCube on May 23, 2017, 04:34:19 PM

Quote from: gentlemand on May 23, 2017, 04:24:09 PM

Dunno. If the silly sausages had been there then they would've been able to voice those reservations and help draft a better agreement. A bonkers idea I know.

Its more of a proposal without bitcoin core and the major exchanges. It's a nice starting point but without near universal support it is just a setup for a split into Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Whatever. We would be better off with the status quo and high fees than a contentious split.

Consensus is consensus and is very hard by definition. I agree that it is concerning that major players appear to be unwilling sit down in person for discussions.

no way there is going to be a split ~ prolly just 100s of more copy/paste btc shitcoins Cool

ARTISTCOLONY

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: fluidjax on May 23, 2017, 03:18:01 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 23, 2017, 03:04:26 PM

Quote from: becoin on May 23, 2017, 01:31:41 PM

Quote from: gentlemand on May 23, 2017, 01:16:05 PM

https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

This is fresh off the press. That's a lengthy list of signees but some conspicuous names are missing.

Signed by few miners and many web wallets. LN will make web wallet business model obsolete.

Almost all important bitcoin companies are missing.

Which ones are missing? Can you list them in order that we can better understand who are and who are NOT ?

Sometimes, missing does not mean that they are opposed, it could mean that they are either neutral or don't want to publicly state their position, if they have one.

Thinking the same.... here are s a few significant players I don't see

Bitstamp
Bitfinex
Blockstream
BTC-e
BTCJam
Cloudhashing/PeerNova
Coinfloor
Huobi
Kraken
LocalBitCoins
OKCoin
Poloniex

polo lmfaoooo Cool

they MUST go with the program<<<<<

CoinCube

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1055

Quote from: gentlemand on May 23, 2017, 04:24:09 PM

Dunno. If the silly sausages had been there then they would've been able to voice those reservations and help draft a better agreement. A bonkers idea I know.

Its more of a proposal without bitcoin core and the major exchanges. It's a nice starting point but without near universal support it is just a setup for a split into Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Whatever. We would be better off with the status quo and high fees than a contentious split.

Consensus is consensus and is very hard by definition. I agree that it is concerning that major players appear to be unwilling sit down in person for discussions.

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: CoinCube on May 23, 2017, 04:19:50 PM

Sounds like bitcoin core developers have some reservations about this.

What are bitcoin core's concerns here? Is is a concern that once blocksize is increased once further centralizing block size increases will occur?
Or do they think that widespread consensus to SegWit + 2Mb is not achievable?

Dunno. If the silly sausages had been there then they would've been able to voice those reservations and help draft a better agreement. A bonkers idea I know.

CoinCube

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1055

Quote from: gentlemand on May 23, 2017, 03:47:48 PM

Sounds like bitcoin core developers have some reservations about this.

What are bitcoin core's concerns here? Is is a concern that once blocksize is increased once further centralizing block size increases will occur?
Or do they think that widespread consensus for SegWit + 2Mb is not achievable?

I have not really been following this debate with any depth so I am trying to get up to speed.

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: becoin on May 23, 2017, 03:41:13 PM

People and companies willing to join big blocktard group are not so much!

He also offered them coffee and bagels. I'd give up my ideals for that.

becoin

legendary

Activity: 3431

Merit: 1233

Quote from: gentlemand on May 23, 2017, 03:30:16 PM

And Barry Silbert said he invited several Core types but no one took him up on the offer.

People and companies willing to join big blocktard group are not so much!

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: fluidjax on May 23, 2017, 03:18:01 PM

Thinking the same.... here are s a few significant players I don't see

Bitstamp
Bitfinex
Blockstream
BTC-e
BTCJam
Cloudhashing/PeerNova
Coinfloor
Huobi
Kraken
LocalBitCoins
OKCoin
Poloniex

No BTCJam? O, the humanity.

But yes, there are some glaring omissions. Perhaps the signees are hoping that enough votes from their end will encourage the others give the nod too. It would've been impossible to get that many people in one place at one time.

And Barry Silbert said he invited several Core types but no one took him up on the offer.

mainpmf

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

I want to short that!!!!
I want to click on this damn sell button so much!

I mean come on, nothing can grow and grow so steadily it HAS to go down at some point xD
Problem is that BTC doesn't want to listen to my logic, it does whatever it feels doing :p

kellogsblocks

member

Activity: 77

Merit: 10

Quote from: fluidjax on May 23, 2017, 03:18:01 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 23, 2017, 03:04:26 PM

Quote from: becoin on May 23, 2017, 01:31:41 PM

Quote from: gentlemand on May 23, 2017, 01:16:05 PM

https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

This is fresh off the press. That's a lengthy list of signees but some conspicuous names are missing.

Signed by few miners and many web wallets. LN will make web wallet business model obsolete.

Almost all important bitcoin companies are missing.

Which ones are missing? Can you list them in order that we can better understand who are and who are NOT ?

Sometimes, missing does not mean that they are opposed, it could mean that they are either neutral or don't want to publicly state their position, if they have one.

Thinking the same.... here are s a few significant players I don't see

Bitstamp
Bitfinex
Blockstream
BTC-e
BTCJam
Cloudhashing/PeerNova
Coinfloor
Huobi
Kraken
LocalBitCoins
OKCoin
Poloniex

They will release an agreement that they will go with Bitcoin Core's BIP148 and BIP149 soon. Drama should be done then. ;-)

fluidjax

hero member

Activity: 750

Merit: 601

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 23, 2017, 03:04:26 PM

Quote from: becoin on May 23, 2017, 01:31:41 PM

Quote from: gentlemand on May 23, 2017, 01:16:05 PM

https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

This is fresh off the press. That's a lengthy list of signees but some conspicuous names are missing.

Signed by few miners and many web wallets. LN will make web wallet business model obsolete.

Almost all important bitcoin companies are missing.

Which ones are missing? Can you list them in order that we can better understand who are and who are NOT ?

Sometimes, missing does not mean that they are opposed, it could mean that they are either neutral or don't want to publicly state their position, if they have one.

Thinking the same.... here are s a few significant players I don't see

Bitstamp
Bitfinex
Blockstream
BTC-e
BTCJam
Cloudhashing/PeerNova
Coinfloor
Huobi
Kraken
LocalBitCoins
OKCoin
Poloniex

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17186. (Read 26609089 times)