Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 18944. (Read 26609776 times)

chinese cartel in action. preventing a price above 2793-2795 to avoid new miners coming into the game. seems they have tons of bitcoins available.

https://snag.gy/4tpVj5

Thank you, I wasn't aware of this. But to make it work, a consensus between the majority of miners and the developers would have to be reached.
Or a cartel of miners that has the required hashing power could hire their own developer team and replace the current team, like a miner's coup?
I'm interested about this possibility since it should provide a massive shorting opportunity.

No worries, if biggest miners leave others will come. Lots of alt coins minners will move for sure.

Anyway, 425 $ really stable.

Not only useless , their ASIC's would have negative utility. Miners are very much beholden to exchanges, users, and merchants. It isn't difficult to slowly introduce a change in the algo and add some temporary checkpoints to prevent their misbehavior.

Nobody forces you or anyone to use Core, so yes, you can do something if you don't agree with developers doing what they want. Users are the center of the Bitcoin ecosystem, without users the biggest network of miners is useless.

Block reward cannot even be introduced by a mining super majority with a HF or Soft served HF(What Stolfi is alluding to) . Bitcoin requires the longest valid proof of work chain and the second miners increase the block reward or change any fundamentals of why we love Bitcoin we can quickly discard them and switch algo's. It would represent an act of futility and reckless suicide on their part to even think of attempting such a feat. Stolfi is merely a buttcoiner trolling and spreading fear and doubt where he can.

So , yes, technically anything can be introduced with a soft served HF, but that doesn't mean many users will consider it valid . There would be a mass exodus from the miners if the 21million limit was every changed.

I have avoided watching or reading news about it, and did not watch the vote.  One bit of news or two is enough to spoil my day.  Would you watch a gang rape that you have no way of stopping?


Raising the 21 million BTC limit with a soft fork

It's good to see you around, Prof Stolfi! I thought you lost interest in Bitcoin and were attending other issues, like this:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processo_de_impeachment_de_Dilma_Rousseff
Anyway, it would be nice to know more about the possibility of increasing the block reward by a soft-fork, backed only by a miner majority.

SegWit was presented by Blockstream's Pieter Wuille to the world at the end of the second Bitcoin Stalling conference in Hong Kong.  The video of his talk should be on YouTube. Apparently it was a surprise to most people there, except Blockstream folks of course.  Indeed I would say that Blockstream planned the conferences to be just a stage for the SegWit announcement.  

According to Pieter himself, he thought of SegWit some time ago, but put it aside because he believed that it would require a hard fork.  But then Luke Dash Jr. found a way to make SegWit into a soft-fork type of change, by using a script hack and redefining one of the NOP opcodes. That made it possible to deploy it in Blockstream's favorite "stealth mode".  (That is, the change is effective as soon as a miner majority adopts it, whether full nodes, users, and businesses like it or not.)

AFAIK, the only significant improvement that SegWit brings is to fix various malleability problems in one go.  Even that benefit could be obtained much more cleanly by other means, without changing the block and transaction format; but this cleaner solution would require a hard fork, and also the discarding of Pieter and Luke's ingenious hack -- so obviously it could not happen.

I haven't heard of the "fraud proofs" in a while.  In the initial description, they seemed to be more "hints" than "proofs"; and it was never clear how they would be used, and for what.

One interesting "benefit" of SegWit was to make people aware that soft forks are actually more dangerous than hard forks.  With SegWit's "extension record" trick, a soft fork can achieve many of the taboo changes that were thought to require a hard fork; such as increasing the block reward (and therefore the 21 million issuance cap) or confiscating coins. As soft forks, those changes would require only the agreement of a mining majority, without the consent of the rest of the community.  However, for that same reason, there is nothing that the community or the developers can do to prevent non-consensual soft forks.

:O is chart buddy/hero gone now?

Bump. 

"4, 3, 2, 1
Earth below us
Drifting falling
Floating weightless
Calling calling home

Uber-bear here, checking in for the moonshot.

A monogamous relationship as the main goal of one's life is the epitome of being a simpleton, idiocracy type person.  People like Einstein (who was actually a plagiarist, but let's not get into that), couldn't be bothered with meaningless, simpleton things like fashion, so he just bought a bunch of identical clothes and wore them every day.  Meanwhile, everyone else is being constantly bombarded with sex symbols as the main directive of one's life by the media and women themselves trying to get you to waste all your time chasing them.  It's a huge distraction from doing anything with your life.  So, while women can be a source of enjoyment, they have a categorical resemblance to bad habits such as gambling or alcoholism.

Is your aloneness a punishment or a choice?

I love how the Gavinistas and Buttcoiners on r/btc demand to know every detail of Dr. Back's meeting with Slush in Prague (did they drink Urquell or Staropramen?) but are studiously incurious about WTF just happened (and/or failed to happen) in Beijing.

Of course Stannis probably doesn't want to talk about how the Battle of Winterfell went either...   

Ever noticed there is little to no negative stigma about men being raped?  It's because it's socially acceptable for women to try and pursue the "alpha male" at all costs, meaning men with power and money, sleeping their way to the top.  A prostitute mentality.  Attempting to trade sex for increase in social and financial status.  This is why men laugh at rape jokes and women subconciously consider rape theft of services, like stealing a lawnmower from a hardware store.  One sex uses sex as a business and the other doesn't.  Most women do in fact have a prostitute mentality, but of course it's politically incorrect to say that.

Women constantly repeat the phrase, "men just don't understand women".  No, that's not the problem at all.  Women are simple, primitive creatures, not very hard to understand at all by anyone who can understand cryptocurrency and game theory.  The problem is, if you do understand them, it's kind of frightening, since you'll then see them as vampires that want absolutely nothing to do with any man that doesn't offer them an entirely asymmetric relationship.  Meaning expectations for benefits of said relationship to be lopsided in their favor, and if that ceases to be the case, license to pursue new prey.

Careful now. You'll be quoting Bible verses with Luke-Jr soon.

The kind of usage we have today doesn't fill a 1MB block segwit or not.

i guess as soon segwit is activated and LN nodes occur we will see stress tests to attack the mainnet. then we know what for a amout of txs (on-chain and off-chain) is possible with 1MB+SegWit+LN.

imagine if we will come to a consensus to reduce the blocksize to 0.5 MB in 2017/2018 because of fees are to low.