Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 18639. (Read 26706975 times)

tera, got any TA for us?

The tinfoil hat is out of style

Well if it's a tinfoil party...

Now we must ask why Blockstream, largest investor= insurance giant AXA... CEO of which is chairman of the bilderberg group (no joke)... is complicit in driving Bitcoin's potential userbase to ETH:

With the speed at which Microsoft adopted Ethereum after 1 year, while completely ignoring Bitcoin for 7 years, I wouldn't be surprised if Vitalik Buterin was in bed with Microsoft, who is in bed with the CIA/NSA, and he's ready to hand over control to Hilary Clinton when the time comes. It basically could be a grab of Bitcoin users and market share to migrate over to a system in their control.

The bid depth has grown 115% in the past few weeks while the price grew 50% and I think it's at a record level for that exchange.

ha, ethereum is the Federal Reserve debt notes system re-incarnated ... increase forever funny money controlled by the 'all-knowing and wise' central committee and Chairman Buterin with the final word.

Vitalik is basically Janet Yellen, without the wig.

It's like they are killing themselves by taking away all the work from themselves. I didn't know such thing was possible

Insane how?

Holy bfx walls this is insane. The bid depth has doubled in the past month and there is a gox-style wall formation guarding 650. Meanwhile the ask has stopped its aggressive refilling and was down to 3K at one point during the rally.

ETH's got loads of keeners at the moment mining with GPU's or whatever, but once POS hits the whole ballgame changes. I wouldn't want to be around for the switch.

2017, apparently.


You raise some good points above. I see ETH as a hedge to BTC's fear/capture around the issue of native growth, not as a turn key replacement.

As for Bitcoin Unlimited and mining support? Miners entered an agreement, with what was thought to be representatives from "blockstream" and "core".  To not run "incompatible" software for the "foreseeable" future. As luke-jr now thinks a HF is 5 years away... and no problem for 1 to 2 years... I see some conflict brewing.

But there has got to be a lot of issues caused by the 15 second block times. It just sounds so unstable for me. Also doesn't that cause a lot of bloat?
Didn't lighting network promise instant off chain confirmations? Wouldn't that make eths 15 sec block timer even more stupid?


But how cost efficient is ethereums contract platform compared to its competitors? Wouldn't it be better for a business to run its contracts on the cheapest platform to keep costs to a minimum?


Because people don't start warehouses full of GPU's for a business.
I know mining is more accessible to home miners with GPU mining. But that doesn't change the fact that people are going to try to scale their operations. Does it matter if people have warehouses full of bitcoin asics or Graphics cards (bob who has one gpu hashing at ether can vote, but his vote still isn't as important as wing-wang-wongs warehouse)


I bet it isn't going to stay at 1mb forever.
The thing is no one knows what the magic number is.

Also why isn't there any support behind Bitcoin unlimted? It seems like a solid proposal, yet no miner is willing to get behind it. What's wrong with it?

Vitalik scamming live on camera

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vitalik-scamming-live-on-camera-1496403

When's ETH make the switch to POS? There should be a moment of popcorn.

Edit: this was powerfully unhelpful.

There's a scheme called "uncle" blocks where orphaned blocks get compensated for their effort.


Obviously less than one 10 min BTC confirmation, but it's nice to have a continuum vs waiting 30 min for an unlucky Bitcoin block.


I'm not sure, but if they want to, they'll pay the gas costs.


I think he'll probably stay pretty heavily involved, but like satoshi, the system doesn't stop if he does. I think that there would be a massive sell-off if he left, but that just means he is valued highly, and an asset to the future of the project.


Which would be pretty damn bad. Something that isn't so easy with a couple hundred thousand GPU's scattered across the world.


Obviously there are technological and practical limits but I'm pretty sure that 1MB isn't the magic number. I like the concept of Bitcoin Unlimited, a decentralized method of arriving at a schelling point for maxblocksize. It doesn't just mean "Accepts Unlimited Block Size" if that's what you think/have been told.

I agree that the topic has become a kind of irrelevant side-tangent, and probably my only point is that such way of expressing yourself brings a false and unnecessary appeal to authority.  There are probably better ways to substantively make assertions, but I agree with you that it seems to be leading everyone including myself into irrelevant weeds.


It seems more relevant in threads that are created for such, but I suppose it comes up in this thread so much because there tends to be a bit of a larger audience and potential to spark some discussion.

I mean even you asserted in op that your intention was to attempt to keep this thread topically related to walls and price and those kinds of matters.. but whatever, we all recognize that this thread goes all over the place as well as the relevant wall and price watching discussions, which also can be part of it's excitement and proliferation.


I think you are exaggerating a bit when you assert "forever."

I don't know the exact history because I am sure it was discussed quite a bit longer than I realized it, but the topic really seemed to get a lot more attention after Gavin began pushing XT in about August or so.  During that time we got a spike up to $502 in early November.. and then it began to get a lot more vocalization in December and then February with Hearnia rage quit.. and then there seemed to also bring some removal of credibility to all of this with the connection of the Wright Satoshi claim and Gavin, which brought some discrediting to Gavin and the issues he was pushing.  So I think that the extensive discussions were only recent.




I think that it is more discrediting of Gavin and the community is kind of coming around to seeing that XT/Classic and some of the related proposals were really sabotage attempts rather than technically necessary. 

I doubt that seg wit and lightning network or thunder or any of these variations are going to resolve these kinds of issues, but we may come to realize that bitcoin is not broken, which seems to had been part of the assumptions of XT and classic and their attempts to change bitcoin governance.


Maybe, we don't really know that.  I mean maybe you are smarter than me, but it seems like we gotta see how things play out with seg wit.  In essence, I think that there is quite a bit of consensus that some day the blockchain limit will need to increase, so no one is really precluding that from being considered, but I seem to have more issues with the presumption that there is something broken in bitcoin and there is some kind of emergency needs to make changes for the sake of change...   That kind of thing does not seem to be good for bitcoin to be able to easily change it... And, anyhow, a lot of the agreed to changes such as seg wit seem to be bringing a lot of increased capacity too... so shouldn't we be looking forward and positive rather than focusing on the negative that is not even an actual issue at the moment?

Wow, BIP’s not in the roadmap of Gregory’s email to the mailing list… And they haven’t found support among Gregory, his employees, and his IRC buddies, imagine that.

If you recall, there was a meeting in Hong Kong to stop miners from running and activating Classic? Blockstream sent several team members there to give the illusion of authority? Remember?

Now, the rug has been pulled from under the miners at that meeting by luke-jr (a blockstream contractor):



After being made to look like fools… what do you suppose the miners are thinking right now?



Wake the hell up, friends.

you're being to anal  about his use of "we". but wtv

the topic has died down a bit, but trust me it will surface again
this topic has been talk about at gr8 length since ... well ... forever!
the release and soon to be adoption of segwit's trollishous "effective block size incress" has allow the community to sorta mark the scaling debate as "Resolved" but its really not and it never will be, and the block size limit MUST change,  its not optional, sooner or later as bitcoin grows and grows even with LN blocksize limit will need to be bumped up.

What's the orphan rate on 15 second confirmation times?
Can you trust 15 second confirmations?
Do people need contracts to be on the ledger?
How efficient are the "decentralized" contracts compared to "centralized" contracts offered by rootstock/conterparty?
Can Vitalik leave as the CEO of ethereum or is he stuck with it until he kills it?


The fact that there aren't that many warehouses that mine bitcoin, tells us that the word of someone trying to destroy bitcoin would be out in hours. Also this would be only possible if the chinese government actually had any knowledge on how to do harm to bitcoin with all of that hashing power. I bet the most that they can do is shut the miners down.


You can't scale bitcoin by just increasing the blocksize. Wasn't bitcoin unlimited something similar to what you're proposing?