Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17550. (Read 26713499 times)

legendary
Activity: 2604
Merit: 3056
Welt Am Draht
Not much happening in terms of wall observing.

Get with the plan.

Once scaling is in place we can all argue about scaling each other. I envisage you being able to handle at least 290 TPS and I have the funds for the medical procedures to ensure it. Not to mention the cloning.
legendary
Activity: 3962
Merit: 11519
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!



Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.
What's your angle?

My angle meaning what?

I already stated what I thought, no?

In essence, I agree with any point that the current bitcoin system is established as a secure decentralized immutable way to store and transfer value.  If what bitcoin "is" is undermined by some kind of centralized system or manipulation or FUD that allows for such undermining of bitcoin "as it is", then that would be problematic.  

My angle remains that XT, Classic and now BU are either aimed or have effects that are attempting to undermine bitcoin "as is"... ... so we will see how all of that plays out, and whether bitcoin is going to be able to preserve its value in one form or another regarding a secure decentralized and immutable system that allows for the storage and transferring of value
Okay let's remove any possibility of ambiguity then.

Are you against increasing the transfer capacity of the bitcoin network, yes or no? Just yes or no.

Look at you.

Seeming to be inclined to enter into an interrogation power trip.

O.k.  For the sake of attempted cooperation, I will play along with you until you likely begin to deviate into bullshit.

My answer to the above question to the extent that it even matters what I am for or against is:  no  

Next question?   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes  hahahahahaha
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 503
Bear with me
Not much happening in terms of wall observing.
sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards
inb4 sensible compromise reached?
hero member
Activity: 1876
Merit: 612
Plant 1xTree for each Satoshi earned!

Regarding your second point on the proposed percentage correction.  Fair enough.  Seems like your math skills are of a superb caliber, relatively speaking.    Tongue Tongue



I might have forgot a "comma" or "dot" on that "1280MB" ... I edited it, (1,280MB) to be fair to the political correctness. Cheesy Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!



Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense. 

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.
What's your angle?

My angle meaning what?

I already stated what I thought, no?

In essence, I agree with any point that the current bitcoin system is established as a secure decentralized immutable way to store and transfer value.  If what bitcoin "is" is undermined by some kind of centralized system or manipulation or FUD that allows for such undermining of bitcoin "as it is", then that would be problematic.   

My angle remains that XT, Classic and now BU are either aimed or have effects that are attempting to undermine bitcoin "as is"... ... so we will see how all of that plays out, and whether bitcoin is going to be able to preserve its value in one form or another regarding a secure decentralized and immutable system that allows for the storage and transferring of value
Okay let's remove any possibility of ambiguity then.

Are you against increasing the transfer capacity of the bitcoin network, yes or no? Just yes or no.
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1098
Even if he manages to block segwit, those 2nd layer solutions are still going to happen.  LN and other 2nd layer solutions do not actually require segwit.

They're beeing build around Segwit, they work so much better combined.

Your quoting is messed up, but I will reply since I am the one you actually quoted here:

I agree entirely that with segwit 2nd layer solutions would be better.  The gist of my post was simply to point out that Mr. Wu does not really give a damn about BU or blocksize...  If you read his comments, his objective is simply to block segwit, period - and his reasoning is that segwit will enable second-layer transactions that he feels will potentially hurt his ability to maximize the transaction fees he collects.  His fight is in vain, though , because 2nd layer solutions will happen, segwit or no segwit.

sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
Bitcoin will reach 5k in 2020. Its confirmed. You dont need to know more. Dont worry about the price guys. The future is ours.
legendary
Activity: 3620
Merit: 4813
Even if he manages to block segwit, those 2nd layer solutions are still going to happen.  LN and other 2nd layer solutions do not actually require segwit.

They're beeing build around Segwit, they work so much better combined.

Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.

I expect a 2-3MB increase with Segwit with another 30-40% on the horizon with integrated Schnorr signatures.

Flexcap is a clever algorithm instead of fixed blocklimit constant.

Core's roadmap is the way to go imo.
legendary
Activity: 3962
Merit: 11519
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!



Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.


Well until it gets to 10.000$ or more US dollars at the current value (20 March 2017: almost 9 ounces of gold)... until then there is no reason even to go to 1,280MB or maybe it will go to 1,536MB. Those would be acceptable sustainable values for the little guys to not lose market value and in the same time to encourage more nodes.  Smiley



I am sorry to say that what you are suggesting as some kind of means forward STRF, makes little sense.

If there is no real justification nor reason (based on fact and/or logic) to increase the blockchain size at all, then it does not make any sense that the blockchain limit should be increased either 28% or 50% as you are suggesting to be some kind of compromise to something that remains NOT at all justified in the first place.




I was suggesting it to be used as an inflation/deflation tool. But... there is a good thing about 1MB limit of today! And that actually being: if it will be kept, the little guys will have more to win from it. But I suspect if it will blow up and all the paper fiat will be useless and silver/gold too hard to access, then more people will invest in running a node just to keep "voting system" în place for them to profit and maintain their wealth. Anyway... we are talking about "pixie dust", we will live and we will see what will happen in time... with patience! Cheesy Cheesy


*edit:  And its not 28% ... its 1024KB + 256KB = 1280MB .... = 25% ... Smiley

Regarding revisions and improvements to bitcoin, from my understanding there continues to be code proposals and updates that reasonably consider various kinds of code updates, some updates and proposals are more substantial than others... but bitcoin certainly is not dead in the continued dynamics space, even if there are some parts of the code that incumbent decision makers are reluctant to change absent justification that the potential benefits are going to exceed the potential costs.

Regarding your second point on the proposed percentage correction.  Fair enough.  Seems like your math skills are of a superb caliber, relatively speaking.    Tongue Tongue
sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards
Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!



Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.


Well until it gets to 10.000$ or more US dollars at the current value (20 March 2017: almost 9 ounces of gold)... until then there is no reason even to go to 1,280MB or maybe it will go to 1,536MB. Those would be acceptable sustainable values for the little guys to not lose market value and in the same time to encourage more nodes.  Smiley



I am sorry to say that what you are suggesting as some kind of means forward STRF, makes little sense.

If there is no real justification nor reason (based on fact and/or logic) to increase the blockchain size at all, then it does not make any sense that the blockchain limit should be increased either 28% or 50% as you are suggesting to be some kind of compromise to something that remains NOT at all justified in the first place.




I was suggesting it to be used as an inflation/deflation tool. But... there is a good thing about 1MB limit of today! And that actually being: if it will be kept, the little guys will have more to win from it. But I suspect if it will blow up and all the paper fiat will be useless and silver/gold too hard to access, then more people will invest in running a node just to keep "voting system" în place for them to profit and maintain their wealth. Anyway... we are talking about "pixie dust", we will live and we will see what will happen in time... with patience! Cheesy Cheesy


*edit:  And its not 28% ... its 1024KB + 256KB = 1280MB .... = 25% ... Smiley

they measure MB as exactly 1million bytes
hero member
Activity: 1876
Merit: 612
Plant 1xTree for each Satoshi earned!
Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!



Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.


Well until it gets to 10.000$ or more US dollars at the current value (20 March 2017: almost 9 ounces of gold)... until then there is no reason even to go to 1,280MB or maybe it will go to 1,536MB. Those would be acceptable sustainable values for the little guys to not lose market value and in the same time to encourage more nodes.  Smiley



I am sorry to say that what you are suggesting as some kind of means forward STRF, makes little sense.

If there is no real justification nor reason (based on fact and/or logic) to increase the blockchain size at all, then it does not make any sense that the blockchain limit should be increased either 28% or 50% as you are suggesting to be some kind of compromise to something that remains NOT at all justified in the first place.




I was suggesting it to be used as an inflation/deflation tool. But... there is a good thing about 1MB limit of today! And that actually being: if it will be kept, the little guys will have more to win from it. But I suspect if it will blow up and all the paper fiat will be useless and silver/gold too hard to access, then more people will invest in running a node just to keep "voting system" în place for them to profit and maintain their wealth. Anyway... we are talking about "pixie dust", we will live and we will see what will happen in time... with patience! Cheesy Cheesy


*edit:  And its not 28% ... its 1024KB + 256KB = 1,280MB .... = 25% ... Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3962
Merit: 11519
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!



Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.


Well until it gets to 10.000$ or more US dollars at the current value (20 March 2017: almost 9 ounces of gold)... until then there is no reason even to go to 1,280MB or maybe it will go to 1,536MB. Those would be acceptable sustainable values for the little guys to not lose market value and in the same time to encourage more nodes.  Smiley



I am sorry to say that what you are suggesting as some kind of means forward STRF, makes little sense.

If there is no real justification nor reason (based on fact and/or logic) to increase the blockchain size at all, then it does not make any sense that the blockchain limit should be increased either 28% or 50% as you are suggesting to be some kind of compromise to something that remains NOT at all justified in the first place.

legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 4597

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60gem4/jihan_wus_latest_weibo_post_looks_like_an_offer/

Jihan willing to talk is a GREAT sign! I really believe once he folds the scaling debate will start coming to a conclusion. The fact that he admits that he finds 2nd layer solutions a threat is telling, but he will realize that he cannot force the rest of the community to hold back on achievements to benefit the miners. A prosperous $2K+ bitcoin is much better for him than half a bitcoin with less users

a workable compromise being reached would be a monumental achievement.
and price would need to reflect that.

givin up control of blocksize, and in turn getting SF-Segwit, would be the best thing that ever happened to bitcoin.

As I read his comments, he doesn't care at all about blocksize - he just wants to block segwit specifically, because he wants to block 2nd-layer solutions that might  theoretically reduce his ability to maximize transaction fees.

Even if he manages to block segwit, those 2nd layer solutions are still going to happen.  LN and other 2nd layer solutions do not actually require segwit.

exactly.
a "buggy whip" producer who is trying to stave off an automobile.
well, the likes of him succeeded in England (at first), but not anywhere else.
the "water" will flow around him.
hero member
Activity: 1876
Merit: 612
Plant 1xTree for each Satoshi earned!
Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!



Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense. 

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.


Well until it gets to 10.000$ or more US dollars at the current value (20 March 2017: almost 9 ounces of gold)... until then there is no reason even to go to 1,280MB or maybe it will go to 1,536MB. Those would be acceptable sustainable values for the little guys to not lose market value and in the same time to encourage more nodes.  Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3962
Merit: 11519
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!



Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense. 

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.
What's your angle?

My angle meaning what?

I already stated what I thought, no?

In essence, I agree with any point that the current bitcoin system is established as a secure decentralized immutable way to store and transfer value.  If what bitcoin "is" is undermined by some kind of centralized system or manipulation or FUD that allows for such undermining of bitcoin "as it is", then that would be problematic.   

My angle remains that XT, Classic and now BU are either aimed or have effects that are attempting to undermine bitcoin "as is"... ... so we will see how all of that plays out, and whether bitcoin is going to be able to preserve its value in one form or another regarding a secure decentralized and immutable system that allows for the storage and transferring of value
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!



Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense. 

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.
What's your angle?
legendary
Activity: 3962
Merit: 11519
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!



Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense. 

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1098

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60gem4/jihan_wus_latest_weibo_post_looks_like_an_offer/

Jihan willing to talk is a GREAT sign! I really believe once he folds the scaling debate will start coming to a conclusion. The fact that he admits that he finds 2nd layer solutions a threat is telling, but he will realize that he cannot force the rest of the community to hold back on achievements to benefit the miners. A prosperous $2K+ bitcoin is much better for him than half a bitcoin with less users

a workable compromise being reached would be a monumental achievement.
and price would need to reflect that.

givin up control of blocksize, and in turn getting SF-Segwit, would be the best thing that ever happened to bitcoin.

As I read his comments, he doesn't care at all about blocksize - he just wants to block segwit specifically, because he wants to block 2nd-layer solutions that might  theoretically reduce his ability to maximize transaction fees.

Even if he manages to block segwit, those 2nd layer solutions are still going to happen.  LN and other 2nd layer solutions do not actually require segwit.
legendary
Activity: 2604
Merit: 3056
Welt Am Draht
https://blog.gdax.com/gdax-adds-margin-trading-27fea7ad53ea#.ppq28g1m6

Margin trading added on GDAX. The only small issue is this -

"You are an individual who has amounts invested on a discretionary basis, the aggregate of which is in excess of $5,000,000 and you enter into margin trading in order to manage the risk associated with an asset owned or liability incurred, or reasonably likely to be owned or incurred, by the individual."

Shall we all chip in together?
Jump to: