Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19006. (Read 26608194 times)
March 22, 2016, 12:16:02 PM
Dat impotent gov troll nonstop bitching is so irrelevant.
March 22, 2016, 10:54:40 AM
Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia
Lol, https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4banq1/will_classic_block_segwit_activation/d17iqo8
Quote
[–]theymos -4 points 1 day ago
IMO it's unlikely that miners will refuse to take a scaling option that's sitting right in front of them.
But if 95% can't be achieved, it's possible to switch to a lower percentage.
[...]
It's also possible to do a softfork with less than 50% mining power
Who's your daddy?IMO it's unlikely that miners will refuse to take a scaling option that's sitting right in front of them.
But if 95% can't be achieved, it's possible to switch to a lower percentage.
[...]
It's also possible to do a softfork with less than 50% mining power
so what??? bitcoin price still rising
March 22, 2016, 10:30:46 AM
Good morning Bitcoinland. $415ish?
No wonder this thread has become the Fork Observer. There's no Bitcoin price movement to track or discuss.
Ho freaking hum.
No wonder this thread has become the Fork Observer. There's no Bitcoin price movement to track or discuss.
Ho freaking hum.
March 22, 2016, 08:47:12 AM
Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia
Lol, https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4banq1/will_classic_block_segwit_activation/d17iqo8
Quote
[–]theymos -4 points 1 day ago
IMO it's unlikely that miners will refuse to take a scaling option that's sitting right in front of them.
But if 95% can't be achieved, it's possible to switch to a lower percentage.
[...]
It's also possible to do a softfork with less than 50% mining power
Who's your daddy? IMO it's unlikely that miners will refuse to take a scaling option that's sitting right in front of them.
But if 95% can't be achieved, it's possible to switch to a lower percentage.
[...]
It's also possible to do a softfork with less than 50% mining power
March 22, 2016, 05:27:46 AM
Give me a sign!!!!!
OH? That's the sign?
Should I sell now in order to be ahead of the game?
Even with that charting of a breaking down in China, I am only slightly bearish for the next 3% break out... maybe 52.75% betting on down...
The mid $420s resistance has been proving a bit more formidable than I had expected, and possibly could be a few more weeks to get passed that point.
I do understand that when we are suffering from overall relative low volume, that leaves quite a bit of control to manipulators.. and it seems that bears tend to push their agenda a bit more in the low volume scenarios... and recently no one seems to getting too excited about possibilities of getting left behind.
Despite the worsening market indicators, price has been more resilient than I expected.
Two months ago, similar indicator crossings resulted in large drops. Now I am trying to figure out how much slower the current market is moving.
Don't fight it, Tzupy.
I recall earlier that you had recognized an overall uptrend, so even if we are having a large number of downward price pressures, there is only so much that the price can be pushed down when the overall trend remains up.
I am not fighting the market... Since it became obvious that the crash window was missed, I closed my short.
Am not going long yet, I seriously doubt the bulls can pump to 450+ (480 would be right) to keep the upward channel viable.
I currently believe the bulls will try to build the new higher high and will fail, and then the panic selling will begin.
Even if they will succeed, there will be a correction afterwards to get back in, at maybe 5-10% higher than current price, so I won't miss much.
March 22, 2016, 12:55:18 AM
I wonder why Segwit gets a consideration of lowering the threshold by 15%... Oh, well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's a mystery for the ages.
All softforks in the past have had a 75% activation and 95% enforcement policy , this is nothing new.
Really? I would love to see when and where those Core devs expressed the views you said they expressed in that bolded section there.
They repeatedly state them so its should be no mystery unless you completely ignore the dev mailing list , #bitcoin-core-dev , or the core slack channel. I'm not going to repost a book of comments but here is one example among many ...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012309.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012385.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012372.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012385.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012411.html
P.S... I don't follow theymos around like he is a celebrity , so cannot read your mind when you mention him out of nowhere. Next time It would be more productive to talk about the principles or positions instead of him as I could care less what he thinks.
One of the issues I see when individuals talk to developers they disagree with is that the developers are often so interested in answering the question accurately or talking about what is and not possible that they aren't so focused on considering being misinterpreted or taken out of context. Thus it may be helpful to clarify in what special cases or circumstances would it be acceptable for either a soft-serve HF or lowering the activation threshold is acceptable before assuming it is merely being used to force a fork through. Perhaps there is a context where a single miner with 5 % of hashing power is refusing to accept a SF/HF and they don't represent a pool of users... that situation is far different than many classic supporters mining 5% hashing blocks .
March 22, 2016, 12:40:16 AM
I'm as curious about theymos' response to those circumstances as I am about your response to this comment. Would you say I have an obsession with your opinion? You're just one person not representative of the bitcoin ecosystem, yet here I am. Talking to you through the internet.
The odd thing is you mentioned him when he wasn't in the conversation and wasn't related to the topic in any meaningful way. Why does his opinion matter so much to you that you would single him out in such an offtopic matter ?
Hmm, well... funny thing about reddit, people share links there too. One comment led me directly into Theymos' response about the 95% BIP9 standard being possibly lowered. Made me wonder. "what standard is he using? Seems it's only because it comes from Bitcoin Core development team. I wonder what he'd say if it goes through with less than 75.001% hash power. How will the community respond? What would those who back that decision say then?". I abbreviated that whole thought into just mentioning the person that brought up that possibility.
Sorry, I thought it was something I cleared up when I said "I observe how some proponents of it justify the change with a consensus below that benchmark (theymos being one of them [the most known one])". But seems like you needed me to give you the step-by-step playthrough.
I do not see the activation threshold being lowered below the original 75activates/95enforced for a soft fork.... If anything Segwit activation threshold will likely be increased to 95% due to it being deployed with BIP 9 (Version Bits) . If it gets delayed due to Classic miners rejecting a capacity increase so be it.
Believe it or not, Many core developers do indeed believe they need a large consensus of 75/95 for softforks and 95-99% for HFs as they are in the service of the community and have an ethical responsibility to protect the ecosystem... This isn't a stalling tactic like some classic supporters seem to conspire about.
Believe it or not, Many core developers do indeed believe they need a large consensus of 75/95 for softforks and 95-99% for HFs as they are in the service of the community and have an ethical responsibility to protect the ecosystem... This isn't a stalling tactic like some classic supporters seem to conspire about.
Really? I would love to see when and where those Core devs expressed the views you said they expressed in that bolded section there.
I wonder why Segwit gets a consideration of lowering the threshold by 15%... Oh, well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's a mystery for the ages.
March 22, 2016, 12:11:23 AM
^^ meet the new shit show same as the old shit show ... 
March 22, 2016, 12:00:00 AM
Up in the sky! The price!
March 21, 2016, 11:48:32 PM
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the price keeps creeping upwards, albeit on low volume.
Oops. I didn't mean to change the subject.
Oops. I didn't mean to change the subject.
Discussing the price of bitcoin? Controversial!
March 21, 2016, 11:47:53 PM
The rest of your post is, per usual, more drawn-out bland bullshit peppered with buzzwords. Which you hope against hope other idiots would mistake for erudition.
Which, of course, they do not.
Ad hominem is below par, but... it's funny because it's true =D Which, of course, they do not.
March 21, 2016, 11:19:37 PM
Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia
There seems to be some fuzzy logic going on here.
Looks like you are attempting to employ your own diversion from the topic by pointing fingers. I fully explained what I meant in my post, and if you want some further explanation of some "jargon", then let me know. < snip >
"Fuzzy logic," the jargon you're misusing, means "non-Boolean logic." It does not mean shitty/sloppy logic.
The rest of your post is, per usual, more drawn-out bland bullshit peppered with buzzwords. Which you hope against hope other idiots would mistake for erudition.
Which, of course, they do not.
And if the meaningless, insipid tripe you type up ain't enough, you pad it out with shitloads of blank lines. You annoying fuck.
Well, look on the bright-side negative nancy.
At least you are getting paid for all of your troubles, sir smartie pants, aka lambie.
March 21, 2016, 11:14:20 PM
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the price keeps creeping upwards, albeit on low volume.
Oops. I didn't mean to change the subject.
Oops. I didn't mean to change the subject.
March 21, 2016, 11:13:43 PM
Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia
There seems to be some fuzzy logic going on here.
Looks like you are attempting to employ your own diversion from the topic by pointing fingers. I fully explained what I meant in my post, and if you want some further explanation of some "jargon", then let me know. < snip >
"Fuzzy logic," the jargon you're misusing, means "non-Boolean logic." It does not mean shitty/sloppy logic.
The rest of your post is, per usual, more drawn-out bland bullshit peppered with buzzwords. Which you hope against hope other idiots would mistake for erudition.
Which, of course, they do not.
And if the meaningless, insipid tripe you type up ain't enough, you pad it out with shitloads of blank lines. You annoying fuck.
March 21, 2016, 10:59:05 PM
I'm as curious about theymos' response to those circumstances as I am about your response to this comment. Would you say I have an obsession with your opinion? You're just one person not representative of the bitcoin ecosystem, yet here I am. Talking to you through the internet.
The odd thing is you mentioned him when he wasn't in the conversation and wasn't related to the topic in any meaningful way. Why does his opinion matter so much to you that you would single him out in such an offtopic matter ?
I do not see the activation threshold being lowered below the original 75activates/95enforced for a soft fork.... If anything Segwit activation threshold will likely be increased to 95% due to it being deployed with BIP 9 (Version Bits) . If it gets delayed due to Classic miners rejecting a capacity increase so be it.
Believe it or not, Many core developers do indeed believe they need a large consensus of 75/95 for softforks and 95-99% for HFs as they are in the service of the community and have an ethical responsibility to protect the ecosystem... This isn't a stalling tactic like some classic supporters seem to conspire about.
You are correct, that if some classic supporters get together to obstruct the achieving of consensus, then bitcoin merely stays in its current status.
There could be 5 or 10% holding back, for the mere sake of it, but that could cause it's own problems and even a certain amount of pressure from the remaining 90% .. hopefully, it does not come to that, but that bridge is possible and would need to be considered and maybe crossed if and when it gets to that point.
March 21, 2016, 10:45:12 PM
If tomorrow's daily candle ends positive, that'll be 4 daily green candles in a row.
Haven't seen that since December's march from $354 to $421.
are we rich yet??
Haven't seen that since December's march from $354 to $421.
are we rich yet??
March 21, 2016, 10:33:37 PM
I'm as curious about theymos' response to those circumstances as I am about your response to this comment. Would you say I have an obsession with your opinion? You're just one person not representative of the bitcoin ecosystem, yet here I am. Talking to you through the internet.
The odd thing is you mentioned him when he wasn't in the conversation and wasn't related to the topic in any meaningful way. Why does his opinion matter so much to you that you would single him out in such an offtopic matter ?
I do not see the activation threshold being lowered below the original 75activates/95enforced for a soft fork.... If anything Segwit activation threshold will likely be increased to 95% due to it being deployed with BIP 9 (Version Bits) . If it gets delayed due to Classic miners rejecting a capacity increase so be it.
Believe it or not, Many core developers do indeed believe they need a large consensus of 75/95 for softforks and 95-99% for HFs as they are in the service of the community and have an ethical responsibility to protect the ecosystem... This isn't a stalling tactic like some classic supporters seem to conspire about.
March 21, 2016, 10:18:11 PM
Who cares about theymos. He is just one person and doesn't represent the bitcoin ecosystem . It appears you have an unhealthy obsession with his opinion.
I'm as curious about theymos' response to those circumstances as I am about your response to this comment. Would you say I have an obsession with your opinion? You're just one person not representative of the bitcoin ecosystem, yet here I am. Talking to you through the internet. As of right now, any unilateral change to bitcoin on behalf of the Bitcoin Core development team has no consensus, according to the 95% guideline he provided. I'm telling you I'm curious about his response to a growing Classic blocks and nodes not being of the Core variety, specifically, when time comes for changes on behalf of the Bitcon Core dev team.
I don't remember the source, but I remember reading from the dev team that there were bugs being removed from Segwit, recently. Must be part of the reason why its not out yet. I don't know who's been using it since when. It's not on the bitcoin network, it hasn't run the real world testing. My opinion is a bit of "Yeah, I'm gonna step away from this" until I see how well/poorly it performs.
Here's how that sequence goes: Implementation without 95% consensus, I observe how some proponents of it justify the change with a consensus below that benchmark (theymos being one of them [the most known one]), I observe how it goes and form a revised opinion based on how it's doing. Seems like a reasonable course of action that you're making a big fuss about. Well, to me, anyways.
March 21, 2016, 10:09:02 PM
Its gone through a ton of testing and will be secure when it rolls out in April.
It's not coming out in April. It's gonna be June/July release.
Actually now that I think about it some more It will likely be introduced as a SF in May and than take till June to get 95% of support from miners to activate since its being released with version bits thus you are correct in a sense.
March 21, 2016, 10:04:06 PM
I, for one, don't trust the more buggy and complicated solution.
Segwit is actually quite elegant solution that solves many problems and the reason why classic supporters like Gavin support it.
It's already hard enough to explain to my friends what a blockchain is. Now I'm going to have to explain Segwit. Great.
Why would segwit even come up in conversation to non-technical friends? Technical people appreciate it for its ingenuity and elegance in solving many problems within bitcoin. Perhaps you dislike segwit because you don't quite understand it? If not can you name a very specific technical reason why you dislike it?
Did I read wrongly that Segwit had bugs that needed work on from the dev team? Because that's one con on it's column, while a simple block size increase is a much more speedy (and currently, less buggy) way to provide room for growth in both transactions and volume. Sure, Segwit can be looked at as an elegant way of providing more room, but it looks like building several jetpacks in order to get around building a bridge. Sure, jetpacks are cool and all... but maybe we set a working bridge while the jetpacks are being developed and demonstrated to be safe?
Right now, I oppose Segwit while it hasn't been implemented and shown to work properly. Hey, maybe the jetpack project gets done before the bridge. Cool. I, frankly, oppose it right now, mostly to see what Theymos will do with less than 95% consensus (hopefully, by the time it's rolled out, 75% consensus). Is he going to pull one of those [insert whatever we're calling 75% mining power backed change today]? I don't know. I'm interested to see how the dominant dev team act when they are not as dominant as they were 2 months ago, when bitcoin classic had cero nodes and 0% of hash power behind it. Enough to push back Segwit a bit.
JayJuanGee says that it's (seemingly) the consensus that it's not an emergency. We can afford to do this little test, right?
I show my opinion in the network by running a certain node. I think it'll be part of 51% of nodes and hash power (measured by the latest 1000 blocks) by... July? We'll see
I have quite a bit of confidence that there are all kinds of tests being done before seg wit goes live... and bitcoin keeps plugging along like a honey badger.
It doesn't really matter too much about what I say because there are a lot of technical people and developers that are engaging on a more practical level regarding coding and testing etc.
I personally have not seen any actual data showing an emergency because what I see seems to show multiple spamming and attacks on bitcoin without any major problems. The biggest appearance of an emergency is a bunch of screamers saying over and over that there is an emergency, but the data and the actual facts do not support such observations regarding an "emergency" status.
Jump to: