Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17599. (Read 26712497 times)

^the only issue here is that lightning network scheme is gambling on the blocksize staying the same! These guys have infiltrated the core development team and are digging in to battle the idea of raising it because it will undermine their efforts for the push to offchain transactions...~i say raise the limit to 2mb already! :-D

Nah i was in fiat already. I bought myself back in  . Looks like the momentum is broken and that we will move up again.

It will go down so sell now or you will regret it tomorrow.

No problem  

So what do you guys think? another move down right now?
Or is it time to go up from here?
Its hard to choose right now.
I already made 0.1 BTC profit today but i dont want to lose it when btc start climbing up again.

Somebody help me out??

Experts say that we will see a big move down tomorrow but i dont see this down move continue  

^2mb or 2.3MB(via segwit) is what these chumps are beefing about...i mean really? :-D lulz

^raise price to $2000 and blocksize to 2mb... ~now pay me! ha

Alright. This one works now. Thanks.
Will be watching it feverishly now.

Why not do this? This should appease everyone am I right, at least does the time being.  And from now until when/if we need bigger blocks than 2MB the community should have a good handle on if they are needed or not.

This seems like the most logical objective compromise to me.

That's way above the old bitstamp and bitfinex ATHs. If Bitcoin stays range bound betwen $1210 and $1260 for another month it's a good thing. If it keeps increasing in value too fast it's going to eventually get a hard correction. Slowly increasing in value is better.

Hey gang. I heard someone mention something about blocksize and Bitcoin.

Does anyone here have an opinion on this?

I stopped reading there. And then I started laughing.... Buahahahahaahaaa!! A 0day exploit that allows a hacker to knock all BU nodes offline.... trivial he says......hahahahahahaaa!!!

We aren't talking about "big boy" protocols, we are talking about Bitcoin. By it's nature, the client dictates the protocol. If we actually switch to BU, that is the implementation which will determine the protocol, as clients with different rules will be isolated from the network (once that rule comes into question when a block is crafted accordingly), due to the very mechanics of Bitcoin.


I think trivial is marginalizing it, but whatever. I've been running a full node for 6 years now and I can't recall an instance where it shut down and the underlying OS wasn't to blame. And again, the bug is less of a concern to me than how the entire event surrounding it was handled, but you don't seem to want to discuss that since you keep ignoring it.


Recent events say otherwise. I'm not sure why you would make this claim.


I never made that claim.


I've seen plenty of efforts to develop formal specifications in the Bitcoin ecosphere. I've also seen plenty of efforts to intentionally avoid or sidestep attempts at formal specifications. It's an open source project, so people are obviously going to do as they please.


That sounds great, except that's not how Bitcoin works if the "interoperating implementations" have different rule sets, once those rules come into question, those clients will isolate themselves. Example: If a block bigger than 1MB is mined by a miner using BU, the Core nodes and BU nodes will no longer be on the same network. I know you know this, but you are using flowery language to suggests otherwise for some reason.


Well at least you admit that BU is a marginal implementation. It's also a bad design. But hey, that's just like... my opinion, man.

You know, it's obvious we aren't going to agree, and I really think that's a shame. I think this constant infighting is exactly what people opposed to Bitcoin want to see (and the alt-coiners love it as well). Of course, there has been plenty of drama throughout Bitcoin's short existence and I'm confident that this will eventually just be another speed bump in the road.

Bottom at $1210 because of maximum FUD? Not bad. Even BTC-e is above Finex.

Dude News.8btc is more alternative facts then Breitbart and RT together...

Are you sure about that?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1829137.new#new

Ethereum linked to MLM ponzi scheme.
This might just cause the price to plummet on their sudden pump in price along side of a rise in Dash.

BTC price has to get managed downwards so those pumping the altcoins can get out of their altcoins and back into BTC , maximise their killing.

As a professional protocol developer (yes, really), I advance the notion that 'big boy' protocols are not defined by a single code implementation. Significant protocols have definitions that exist outside the various tangible implementations of their specifications. Indeed, many significant standards agencies will not recognize a protocol as ready for the big time until such time as there are multiple interoperating implementations from multiple sources.

These rather trivial bugs exhibited recently by BU merely serve to illuminate the problems that may arise when a single implementation is the only implementation of a given protocol. A failure in one implementation is a failure in the entire system. To assume there are not bugs of similar scope in Core is a blindered approach.

Yes, as there has been a resistance within the community to develop a formal specification, we are reliant upon duking it out in the marketplace. Some day, I hope we can move past these baby steps to where we have multiple interoperating implementations from many teams.

In the meantime, a marginal implementation of the better design is far more valuable than any near-bulletproof implementation of a bad design. I continue to advocate BU.

As you are so vocal about BU, let me ask you one question:

Would you accept if segwit would be in effect in the following six months and forget about all that BU nonsense at least for some time being? If not, what about segwit + 2M blocks? Or is this all about that you guys insist in that all present and future transactions have to be ALL done in main Bitcoin blockchain?

Is Bitcoin dead yet?

https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoinobituaries/

1120 € ... I don't think so.

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Seems we've lost a little ground overnight... currently $1224USD (Bitcoinaverage).

We're back to where we were 3 days ago, or the day before the ETF announcement.

No sweat. After 5 consecutive green daily candles, a little red doesn't hurt.


Indeed. This is why I don't worry.

The trolls, FUDsters and alt shills are so obvious they're almost comical.

Meanwhile, I made the decision long ago to trust that "silent, intelligent army" to mind the code.

That's the beauty of a decentralized open-source platform. Even though my own coding skills are very limited, I figure I can trust a worldwide community of dedicated capable coders to keep things in check.